Talk:Comparison of IRC clients/Archive 2

4419:

conclude that you not only have no experience in developing network software or protocol design, but further that you have never read anything by anyone who has, nor even devoted any thought to the question of how network protocols come into being in the first place. Incidentally, if you read chapter 8 (Current implementations) of RFC1459, you will find that the specification was published when the original ircd was at version 2.8 (and there were no other IRC servers at that time); trivially then the development of a server and client had been ongoing for some time before the specification was formalised sufficiently for other clients to be written to it, and thus the first client had a massive influence. You may also notice that that chapter does not make any mention of the first client; since early IRC clients were typically much simpler than servers (it being technically possible to use telnet as an IRC client if one knows the protocol well enough), very few sources discuss them. On a tangentially related note, do IETF RFCs count as WP:RSes?

2382:"The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Knowledge (XXG) is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Knowledge (XXG) can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own." 2972:

the software is extremely popular, or how it has influenced the market, is the sort of topic we can't rely on primary sources for, but that's the sort of question we don't ask in a comparative list like this. In regard to minority views, that policy was designed to reduce the impact of flat earthers or conspiracy theorists - it doesn't relate to the popularity of software, which also can't be calculated by coverage in reliable sources. I don't have a problem with the idea of having inclusion standards based on considerations of due weight, but applying those sorts of policies to a list about software won't really help things. -

4140:... It certainly seems important for readers to know about... At the very least we need to cover it here in the comparison with other IRC clients... Secondary sources about IRC from 1988 searchable with Google? Not so much. Primary sources which detail the functionality of the software program? Quite difficult to locate but I found them. Perhaps the issue is notability does not nor was it ever intended to apply to an article's content, only to the subject of the article itself, which in this case is the subject of "IRC clients". As before, Enric, I don't think you or I have anything further to discuss. -- 1233:. Let me be clear: there's article-level notability (GNG) and sentence-level notability (RS); I've only been advocating sentence-level notability (I've never claimed that GNG applies within this article, and I can't understand why you claim I did. Carefully reread what I wrote). Solution: if some Random Tech Journal mentions Orion in a survey of clients, mentions one or two features, and comments on whether it's "comfortable" as claimed by the author, that would clear my ever-so-low entry hurdle. This comparison article can then certainly list the 2869:

the majority of the cleanup and maintenance on this article. Had I not been involved with editing here, the editor who was keen on disrupting anything I edited as part of a larger harassment pattern (who is now indef blocked) along with a couple of his "friends" would have never even started this debate here in the first place. (There are also a few more questions directly related to the past harassment pattern which are beginning to form, but unless it becomes a problem again I don't see the need to bring those up at a larger venue.) --

4714:. His arguments are, quite simply, correct; the other arguments made in this sprawling discussion are largely disingenous and/or sophistic. If we are going to consistently apply policy, then we ought really to list every client in existence. However, as noted, that is impractical since there are a large number (which cannot practically be estimated, and attempts to do so elsewhere on this page are flawed) of "toy project" IRC clients with no users besides the author (sometimes even no users 31: 4912:. Other than that, we can't use them for much as binaries cannot be read as plain text by a human. Source code on the other hand is plain text, and while not entirely in English, it is no different from using a source written in Russian, Polish, or any other non-English language. Verifying the source will obviously require someone to be somewhat familiar with that language (at least the structure and main components) which is why per 400:

Knowledge (XXG) (although most likely back again editing under a new account). The two accounts which were "helping" him (including repeatedly mass-nominating this and many other articles which I had contributed to for deletion, mass-MFDing draft articles in my userspace, etc) were finally sanctioned after yet another lengthy ANI discussion and ArbCom amendment, after which both accounts were apparently "abandoned".

4740:(eg. if a client sends, receives and displays CTCP ACTIONs correctly, and claims in its documentation that it 'has CTCP support', we would accept its claim unless we had evidence to the contrary). If it is not practical to test a client (eg. it is a binary-only client for a very obscure machine, like a Setun-70 or something - though actually that would be ternary-only, hehe - for which emulation is not available) 1375:) does not apply to the inclusion of Orion here either. Orion is a freely available open-source software program (verifiable). The developer does not make money from making the program freely available, and it actually costs him time (development, documentation, support, etc) and money (hosting) just to give it away to the larger online community. On the flip side of the coin, if this was instead a little-known 832:? If you don't care enough to maintain it for improvement in your userspace (dooming its invested work forever), you can't claim to care enough to bring it up here as an example of an "attack" on you or this article. Anyways, I'm now mindful of your experience at the hands of other editors, so I'll try to be less abrasive. But dude, knock off the victim/attack paranoia - it's just not happening here. 2072:

of sources in some cases) was to verify the existing content of the article and to correct or remove anything inaccurate or which could not be verified. This improvement work stopped when the events I linked to above began. At that point in the revision history of this article however, the material presented in the article was verifiable and had been fact checked by a number of editors.

2957:

except in articles devoted to those clients." Without significant discussion by reliable sources I see no reasons for inclusion, e.g being mentioned once by irc-junkie for example doesn't sound like significant grounds. Perhaps the unpopular clients and clients with reliable third party sources should be separated from the others so that they can stand or fall on their own weight?

5507:

So we should attempt to put such references in where they are missing (practically everywhere I suppose) and if that leaves us with totally original research, come back to discuss if we can rid of it in an appropriate manner. (Yes I'm a friend of taking it slow... I hope we can get this article in small steps towards a clean state rather than just removing half of it in one day)

407:'s scope, so if I don't get to this one soon enough, eventually another editor will likely begin working on it. Comparison articles can be quite difficult to work on because of the complex markup and the sheer volume of information which has to be verified. I would estimate that cleaning the mess up here will likely take at least 20-30 hours of work, based on past experience. -- 5029:?) about itself, but that can't work because the source code isn't an author, it's the object-under-discussion itself; as a result, there's no reliable source at all. The only way to verify that the source code meets its claims is to run the program, which is further original research and/or compile the source: even further OR. At Knowledge (XXG), we have agreed 5395:. You also cite AGF; I cannot parse your meaning here, as sources can't act in bad faith. You are trying to push a rule which clearly does not work, and refusing to accept that it does not work. You are actually making it very hard for others to AGF, but I will try. Your positions are not supported by policy, nor logic, so put down the stick. Please. 2053:. An "educated person" who can read and comprehend the language the source code is written in does not need to have any sort of "specialist knowledge". The ability to read a programming language is no different from the ability to read another foreign language. In fact, in most cases, the program's own documentation, which you also refer to as 465:: a review, or a two-sentence mention. Examples: Wired or Wired blog, Linux Journal, New York Times or NYT blog, or "industry" blogs which have been republished in or cited in notable publications. If the software author(s) is/are notable (established previously in sources like (1), example: JWZ), then the software has inherited notability. 5435:: it's old, it is sure to have been discussed by author and users, and therefore is quite likely to be supported in as yet undiscovered reliable source (independent or primary). I'm willing to allow six months to find any such source; I've been looking, too. However, I cannot extend the same presumption of existence of sources to 3072:

actions by an individual who took to following my contribution history to find articles I previously edited in order to disrupt them and create strife among whoever they could draw in. Even though they are now no longer able to fan the flames on this talk page, the problems they created months and months prior continue. --

3691:. Verifiability, for WP, requires 3rd party independent reliable source(s). Items here might not have enough notability for a standalone article, but still have enough verifiability for inclusion here. Primary source(s) are acceptable for details, as long as some of those details are supported in 3rd party source(s). -- 3769:

software that actually made a difference" or "Very popular software", or if the RS says that the program had significant influence, then the people on the talk page might reach a consensus that it's enough relevance. But in principle it wouldn't be enough, due to all those books with indiscriminate lists of software. --

1574:, "A primary source may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The "specialist knowledge" clause would tend to prevent using program 1940:. I can't say the same thing for a number of other clients I've previously removed from the tables here which appeared to be drive-by additions. Many of these I couldn't find anything about them, be it primary sources, secondary sources, or really anything else. I'm not sure what you are referring to as a 1361:, but you won't find much in the way of "reliable" independent sources which give it too much coverage. You may find a number of people discussing the latest features in online forums or on their blogs, but those are far less "reliable" than the program's own site and documentation. As I said earlier: 5506:

Let me add a separate comment not on inclusion criteria but on original research. I think having information with no sources is bad, but IMHO for purely technical information (that is, no studies on impact or userbase or awesomeness) the client's original documentation is fine and should be accepted.

5297:

It's important to the improvement of all articles that unsourced material be removed, and that editors not pretend that unreliable sources, or nonsources, are reliable. I put no words in your mouth - I do reasonably expect that you agree that a silent source is not a reliable source, and that objects

4907:

As for binaries, binaries are not source code and in general we can't cite them. I've not previously brought up binaries and your mention of them here appears to be done solely a means of discrediting me and drawing focus away from the main discussion. About the only thing we could possibly cite with

4730:

but for the notability test. Note also that it is possible for a WP:RS per Lexein's proposal not to constitute evidence of independent users, but typically only if there really are no independent users, in which case it's unlikely that such a RS would exist in the first place. As for the discussion

3870:

Simple facts such as a software's features, options, version, operating system requirements, etc do not require a 3rd party source. While 3rd party sources are generally preferable, 3rd party sources (especially books) lag far behind when discussing computer software because it is always evolving and

3249:

RS about the client, translating to "at least 2, better if it has 3". To avoid listing clients that only have one review in one publication, because wikipedia is not a directory listing of software programs. Borderline cases with one or two reviews can be discussed case-by-case, looking at the claims

3000:

IRWolfie-, To answer your earlier question first, detailed software reviews from a site that has a well established peer review system or the author of the review is a well established expert (such as what you see with the review of ii from IRC-Junkie) are considered to be reliable secondary sources,

2900:

Primary sources can be used in Knowledge (XXG), if written as "Person says thing about themselves" or (stretching the meaning of primary source to the breaking point) "Software documentation lists this feature", with the source in an inline citation. Because this is not a wiki about software, and it

2868:

I'm really beginning to question why we are even having this discussion here since we have not really had any sort of problems with spammers and drive-by promotional additions. This article used to be very "quiet" and fairly easy to maintain. There were a handful of editors (including myself) who did

2823:

The problem is that notability != importance. I'd rather go with the idea that if there is coverage of a client in reliable secondary sources, whether or not it would meet the GNG, and if the details which are needed for the the comparison can be reliably sourced, then it is worth including. The more

2585:

was never intended to exclude something like ii from an article such as this. There is no requirement that a subject have a standalone article (per the notability guideline) before it can also be discussed within another article. If this was the case, Knowledge (XXG) would be much, much smaller... As

2291:

section of the notability guideline exists. If you misuse the notability guideline to remove and limit article content in an article such as this, it effectively turns a comparison article into nothing more than a navigational list or directory of other Knowledge (XXG) content, in which case, what is

1974:

easier to keep an article updated. A non-contentious fact such as a native Microsoft Windows program not being supported by Mac OS generally does not need a citation. Having table cells which indicate this simply allow for sortable tables and makes the material more accessible to readers. The reverse

4801:

harms Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility, because it elevates unsourced observations by editors to the level of reliably sourced material. "Knowledge (XXG) says" becomes worthless if the sources aren't independent, published, reliable, and verifiable. Knowledge (XXG)'s responsibility is not to the notion

4748:

to deduce from, say, the existence of a non-stub function "handle_ctcp", that CTCP is at least partially supported. Conflict disclosure: as noted below I am an author of an IRC client, which may be a conflict of interest; on the other hand, it does indicate that I am knowledgeable on the subject in

4418:

this sounds? By definition, the very first client and server for any (client-server architecture) network protocol have an extremely strong influence on later clients and servers, because without the first, typically experimental, implementations the protocol would simply not exist. I am forced to

2971:

This isn't a deletion discussion, and this isn't about fringe views. Primary sources are useful for factual, uncontentious data: whether or not some software is written in C or Java, of if it runs under Windows or Linux, is exactly the sort of thing we can rely on primary sources for. Whether or not

2956:

As I have previously mentioned undue weight is grounds for removal, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.". When applying it to this comparison table it would be "Clients that are used by a tiny minority should not be represented

2551:

was included here previously and was one of those which was part of the mass-blanking of this article. I combined what an editor tried to add with the version I had in an offline copy and merged that back into the current version of the article after fact checking it (I found and corrected one minor

2022:

have demonstrated time and time again that they wish to be able to readily find more information in these comparison articles about software programs such as Orion by making comments to this effect on these talk pages and by trying to add such information to the article tables themselves. There also

1920:

discourse and discussion as to the hows and whys "Comparison of" articles generally include the types of material they include and are structured the way they are. I understand not everyone (myself included) is going to be familiar with every single style and convention used on Knowledge (XXG). That

1363:"A program's own documentation, website, source code, etc will also almost always be more authoritative in documenting a program's current features and functionality than a 3rd party book which covers a software program because software evolves much at a much faster rate than books can be published." 438:

it doesn't have RS. I can see GNG per se being tough for software to meet, but getting one or two secondary RS just isn't that high of a burden to meet. All I wanted was one or two RS mentioning Orion, to go forward with its inclusion here. Without RS, it really shouldn't, since nearly every other

156:

Notability not established, and inappropriately redirected to this article. I've found no reliable, independent, notable sources, discussing this IRC client in news, magazines, journals, or books. The blue link to ] is a redirect to this very article, which cites no sources about this client. The

5549:

does not dictate or limit the inclusion of material. So no, the majority are not in favour of this. The "majority" is not made up of a couple of editors who've never contributed to this article (I've been contributing to it and the related articles heavily for years). If this ends up going to AN/I,

4927:

by presenting the material within the article in a skewed Knowledge (XXG)-notable only way and eliminates coverage of material important to the parent topic of "IRC clients", including coverage of the very first IRC client and other historical or influential clients which predate Google by nearly a

3652:

Noted, denied. My summary of positions in the RFC is carefully neutral, because it includes the full range of positions, including your apparent position that a mute source can be cited as if it actually said something (Orion's author). Though you write "reliable primary source", your definition of

2415:

IRWolfie-, since you seem to have an interest in Internet Relay Chat, if I compile my notes and create some sandboxed outlines and drafts, would you be interested in helping to sort this mess out and rebuild this content to make it more useful for our readers? How about articles for clients such as

2259:

assessment. We aren't attempting to discuss a "minority viewpoint" and the content is nothing more than facts, which is about as neutral as it gets. This article is specifically limited in scope to IRC clients, of which there are a finite number. There are roughly less than 100 client programs that

2071:

There was previously work underway right here within this article by a number of editors (including myself) to add additional footnotes and citations. The first step which was previously completed (before another editor came along and blanked roughly half of this article, which included the removal

669:

be included in this comparison, even though nobody anywhere has written about it? No independent sources needed? That any joker in a garage can write whatever they want on their publicity brochure, website, blog, forum, and wiki, and you'd include it in this article, comparing its unverified (and

5487:

IRC isn't an area with lots of print sources and if we totally stick to them, we could aswell also just leave the work in this section altogether (which is what I partially engaged in the last months). But I agree that a bit of cleanup in the IRC clients listing would be appropriate, if it doesn't

2788:

Firm rules are needed for what should and should not be mentioned. The existence of a wiki article is a good indicator since it indicates reliable sources discuss the client. If the article doesn't exist, create one! otherwise If it's not notable enough for an article then it probably shouldn't be

634:

The main issue I see looking at the larger view is that we currently do not have a Manual of Style page which covers the various forms of comparison articles. This leads to many people not having a fundamental understanding of how and why they are structured the way they are, why they include what

177:

which can be used to create an article for Orion, and any other non-article-yet-possibly-notable clients. IMHO, "notable enough for this list" should mean "has its own article in which notability is established." Otherwise, this comparison's entries will always be vulnerable to summary deletion,

5491:

So I suggest adding a weak policy for inclusion first (e.g. one more or less large 3rd party site mentioning the client) and if, after removing all the clutter based on that, the list is still full of irrelevant information and clients noone uses, establishing a new discussion about a more strict

5308:

As for your insinuations, I have nothing to do with Enric, and as I explained in my private email response to you, I welcome any challenge you may wish to put to my edit history and standing here. Bring it on. You are trying to keep unsourced material in this Knowledge (XXG) article, which is in

4739:

allows us to perform the trivial OR that "yes, this client supports this feature" if it has documentation (which is not obviously inaccurate) or a changelog/release notes (again, excluding obvious fiction), and in addition can be tested to ascertain whether it exhibits signs of having the feature

3768:

In principle, no, it wouldn't be included. But that would depend on the book and the claims made in it, and it ought to be dealt with case-by-case. If the book is called "Extensive list of all IRC software under the Sun" then, no, it wouldn't be enough. If it's under a chapter called "Significant

3474:

I'll be brief. There is zero value to Knowledge (XXG) readers if claims cannot be verified from independent reliable sources. This is a fact of Knowledge (XXG) enshrined as a bedrock policy with which you have so far refused to embrace. Claims unsupported by published independent sources directly

530:

an acceptable use of a primary source here on Knowledge (XXG). It is very common to cite a program's own site and documentation for verification of the release date/version and for features/functionality of the software itself. As I mentioned above, we can't use primary sources for other purposes

5568:

We want to contribute (and yes that means removing clients which don't seem to have grounds for inclusion) but that requires firm criteria and the majority of those who commented are in favour of requiring reliable third party sources discussing the client as grounds for inclusion or an existing

3071:

The previous approach worked well enough which is why this massive discussion seems a little silly for this particular (boring) article. I really consider it a shame and a disservice for our readers that all this debate and disruption of the article content boils down to the previous disruptive

1508:

snark about my level of understanding notwithstanding, Knowledge (XXG) isn't about primary sources. Orion has zero verifiability: the fact of its existence is based entirely, and endlessly, on copy/paste of text from its original website (which lists zero details), and a few non-RS distribution

5343:

You falsely accuse me of trying to "exclude the very first IRC client ever written, which came bundled with the original IRCd"; I have made no such effort. I suspect that sources for it exist which have not yet been found, such as dead-tree books, or even newsgroup items by notable authors (the

4228:

deem to be "non-notable" items within larger articles (or for example lists of fictional characters). What it ultimately boils down to, is you would really like for the notability guideline to exclude and restrict article content, but thankfully it is explicit in that it does not. I'll note for

4197:

have been able to use it as the reference standard and be written with yet later clients using ircII as their reference standard? The first IRC client was written by Jarkko Oikarinen himself while creating the IRC RFC; RFC 1459 and as a reference standard software program, it was intended to be

5069:

There are lots of clients with lots of sources. Let the clients without reliable sources go, move them to Talk until a source is found, and give yourself a little peace. If they were really all that important, wouldn't have somebody written about them? As for encyclopedias having bias toward

4015:

others), nor do all of them really all need standalone articles. Simple features and functionality are often better detailed in this comparison article and left as a redirect (as many have been for years). It makes no sense to have dozens upon dozens of stubs which do little more than list the

2848:

The problem with mandating a secondary source before adding material to this article where we already have reliable primary sources for plain and simple facts is that we still end up limiting the article's content in a subjective way and excluding material which is of interest to readers. As I

242:

in any magazines or related blog, journals or related blog, newsletters, or books. One such review will be good, two would be better; then I'd call it sourced. At the moment, it should be removed from all this article's tables, IMHO. All new software suffers from this sourcing and notability

4538:

as Lexein specifies. Most notably I would encourage keeping items that are not notable enough for a standalone article, but still got third party sources for enough verifiability for inclusion which also provide a minimum notability (while that one wouldn't meet the standards for a standalone

3401:

The size of the article was manageable, it was maintained, it had been fact checked (and work had been underway to expand the footnotes and in-line citations), and it did not have a problem with spammers using it for promotion of their commercial wares. Since we already violated the Knowledge

3009:

software reviews are going to meet those qualifications though, including the canned reviews software authors can submit themselves to certain sites. In the past we only had a handful of sites like IRC-Junkie which were dedicated to IRC news, but today that is pretty much the only one left.

2318:

A fair number of entries which were removed from this article during the mass blanking are covered in books which are not indexed by Google Books (which I mentioned in earlier discussions). As I've also already mentioned above, Google Books does not index all works which give coverage to this

1772:

What's strange here is the inclusion of essentially abandonware which hasn't changed or been developed by anyone since 2006, which was never notable, and is now unlikely to ever be notable, or even (be honest) verifiable except through original research. On the website, Simone Tellini writes,

399:

is a good way to describe it. The good news I suppose is the original individual responsible for harassing me online for roughly 18 months (who took an interest in harming articles such as this and others where I had previously done significant amounts of editing) is now indef blocked here on

4038:

As I stated earlier, there is no requirement that a subject have a standalone article (per the notability guideline) before it can also be discussed within another article. Having such a requirement applied to articles would indeed greatly harm Knowledge (XXG) as it would often lead to a

1341:

within the larger IRC community is that it is only client of its kind which is made freely available under the Creative Commons license. This alone makes it worth including here for readers who are searching for a freely available open source software IRC client for the Microsoft Windows

1019:

in revenge (which Plaxico'd quite badly). Two of the three individuals involved abandoned their accounts when they were finally sanctioned and placed under edit restrictions. The third individual was later indef blocked for continuing to make personal attacks. For more background, see

1150:

Grapevine has been called "The best IRC client on any platform" by a number of experienced Amiga Internet users. it was one of the first major Internet applications available for the Amiga and it did such a good job of being an IRC client that until recently there was no competition

4158:

No, maybe the issue is that it didn't have any relevant feature, and it didn't influence later clients. Or maybe it was a later client that made IRC really popular. But we can't know that without RS. No, we shouldn't be adding any entries that don't have any RS showing relevance.

2901:

is for general readers, it's NOT done to state "The software's source code claims this feature." In this comparison chart, (a) there's no place for any such disclaiming language, and this adds undue weight to the claims made, and (b) no inline citation is offered (with a primary

2315:"unpopular" (which is still a subjective way to describe it) clients (like the random visual basic clients I mentioned that anyone can whip up fairly quickly), we simply can't do this with the notability guideline as it was never intended to do this and is ill-suited for the task. 5443:

by anyone, anywhere, not even its author, in any verifiable source (not even blogs, forums, or other wikis). If I'm "pushing" (your word), it's against the inclusion of material based on unreliable sources (without "the author describes" distancing language), silent sources,

5284:

You're wrong on policy, so you've shifted to insinuation, false accusation, and personal attacks. My only agenda is demanding actual reliable sources(of any kind), which you should respect as written in policy; your attempt to paint that in a bad light is disrespectful to the

760:

IRC clients. Is there any RS way to measure popularity in terms of downloads or usage? Yes, Google shows there are over 17,000 "hits", but it's only mentioned as an echo of Tellini's own description of the software (using the word "comfortable"). I don't recommend relying on

5367:

sources for every challenged claim in an article, and not to pretend that blatantly unreliable and unusable sources are reliable. Usually, it's made easy by well-written comprehensive sources discussing the item under discussion. Here, sadly, there exist no such sources for

94:

The platform column is pretty useless at the moment. It just lists the processor architecture not the actual platform. "Platform" means a combination of processor architecture, underlying OS, and vendor. Things like Android, Solaris, AmigaOS, Ubuntu etc. need to be added.

98:

If you listed *that* information, the web page might be useful to me. I came here to find an IRC client for a foreign platform that I didn't know anything about (something called Windows). Instead I ended up downloading Opera as I know that it has a built-in IRC client.

4262: 3934: 4849:

I don't oppose software documentation as a primary source, since it is descriptive prose, but I'm of the opinion that it's insufficient for inclusion, without discussion in at least one 3rd-party source. And in the case of no such documentation and no 3rd-party source

3930: 630:

for many such examples. While Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be used for promotion of "software X", if a particular software program is or has previously been well known and/or popular with users of that genre of software, then we should still include it in such comparison

3926: 3922: 5102: 2891:

I'm calling bullshit on your misrepresentation of my words. I never said primary sources can't be reliable. Primary sources can only be reliable about themselves as far as they actually make statements about themselves. Orion's author has written little or nothing

129:

Somebody please consider removing the platform column: A quick search on Debian's Package site will reveal most clients are for all the supported Platforms. The chart about OS support is much more useful in this case. --99.41.104.240 Thu Jan 20 00:09:13 UTC 2011

4193:. Your radical notion of "notability" yet again noted (the notability guideline still doesn't limit article content), your logic is quite simply absurd. As far as importance to readers goes, if the first IRC client hadn't existed, how would later clients like 4569:, and it is not unique with this problem. There just aren't very many books which have given much more than a mention to most IRC clients, although there is at least one book which compares a few of the Windows and MacOS clients in feature comparison charts. 545:

we do not limit article content based on the notability guideline. The notability guideline covers whether or not a topic meets the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. What came out of our last RFC on notability and lists also extends this to the

5304:

I posted the RfC (others requested it, if you read back) only to assess the state of consensus, which illustrates that most editors here want at least one independent reliable source for claims made, which is precisely on policy, though it's not what you

2354:

For someone who is unfamiliar with the larger history of IRC, many of the clients might seem obscure, however we should give them limited coverage where we can (such as in a comparison article) so that people who wish to learn more about the larger topic

2339:(1996 or thereabouts). This combined with the highly dynamic nature of web content (here one day, gone the next) means it can be just about impossible to use Google to find secondary sources for some of these older clients, even though they were once 1955:(primary) sources which includes both its own website and the license text embedded and included with the source code for the program itself. Your apparent personal dislike of certain types of primary sources notwithstanding, material simply can't be 4391:

elsewhere. As you find relevant reliable sources, please add them to the material in the article posthaste. If you have the energy to argue here, you probably have the energy to reliably source the table content where sources are lacking. Thank you.

873:

in the notability guideline itself and I further explained why attempting to use Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guideline to artificially limit article content ends up presenting a topic such as this to the reader in a biased "Knowledge (XXG)-notable"

5569:

article. The discussion has no connection to your experiences in other articles and I have seen no mass blanking: the criteria will help improve this article not make it worse. I should point out there is an existing template for stand-alone lists:

3329:

which resulted in the majority of these "red link" entries was disruptive and problematic and it looks like the majority of us at least agree on that fact even though there is a lot of disagreement here with regards to this specific article. As for

2753:. It's currently at version 2.39, and seems to be available in Japanese only. It's, however, the most used IRC client in Japan, or at least as far as I remember, all Japanese people I've seen or known, use it. There's also a third one, for iOS. - 1107:, and while I can't see that we've ever had an article for it on Knowledge (XXG) (and it would seem to meet the requirements of the GNG for the purposes of a standalone article), coverage of this client certainly should be included in this article. 2706:

Your grounds for including ii is that you think it is unique, uniqueness isn't grounds for inclusion either. you're basically saying it's notable just without using the word 'notable'. Being mentioned in irc-junkie isn't grounds for inclusion :).

3140:, plus one primary source (for details listed in the table), would be more than sufficient. I'm being inclusive here, and inclusionist as well. I'd accept a blog entry from an industry-notable author (an author who has been published in other 5372:

not even documentation. So, I guess we're done, except for dispute resolution. Keeping out unsourced material (or properly sourcing it) is neither a dead horse, a red herring, nor a straw man: it's policy. Too bad you don't see it that way.

1655:

not lists or tables of comparison, and is not intended to give a pass to material lacking any independent reliable sources, only, as it explicitly states: "articles which are short and unlikely to be expanded." It is not appropriate to use

3221:

The sad thing, from a Knowledge (XXG) policy, guideline, and essay point of view, is that this article has been allowed to fester, unsourced and unweeded, for so long. It might be a lovely tall garden of unsourced weeds, but they're weeds,

3051:

which is why both IM clients and mobile IRC clients are not included here. Article size limitations combined with the radically different operating system requirements of handheld/mobile devices are the reasons why mobile IRC clients were

2884:"Popular" again, eh? Produce a reliable source supporting the popularity of any these obscure, decidedly unpopular clients. Knowledge (XXG) is not about sources you like, it's about independent reliable sources. Perhaps you missed reading 3941: 5320:

You've researched my edit history: good. You saw that during an AfD, I and two other editors proposed clear inclusion criteria and advocated a search for better sources, and I'm proud of that work. My motivations are above reproach. You

345:

for more on this. A program's own documentation, website, source code, etc will also almost always be more authoritative in documenting a program's current features and functionality than a 3rd party book which covers a software program

3064:, in that if we can't find anything about a particular client, be it secondary coverage, primary coverage for non-controversial hard facts such as software requirements, features, functionality, etc, it will likely be considered either 2377:

forms of living things, space bodies, or scientific concepts, and few people will ever know about them in the first place in order to even desire to read about them. Yet there is sourced information about them, so they qualify to be

3945: 723:

In case anyone wonders, I have nothing against Orion or its author. It has become the lightning rod, unfortunately, in this discussion, because it completely lacks any support in independent reliable sources, and therefore fails

1835:

Since this is only you and I on this, and since there are no clearly stated inclusion criteria, and since you seem unwilling to see shoehorning of unverifiable, unsourced claims as a problem, I think the next logical step is

678:) claims against other clients for which RS have established verifiability? That's a remarkably low threshold of inclusion, with which I disagree, and I'm an inclusionist. Keep in mind, there's not one shred of independent 2849:

mentioned above, due to the dynamic nature of the internet and web, you won't be able to find a non-primary source for anything related to many early (and previously popular) clients including the first one which was called

5309:

blatant opposition to a bedrock policy, and trying to keep it there by a variety of edge-case reasoning. This is a slippery slope which leads to an unsourced Knowledge (XXG), which tens of thousands of editors do not want.

737:, state the actual inclusion criteria concisely, at least at the top of the Talk page. Don't bother yelling at or insulting me, due to your failure to clearly state whatever consensus your prior discussions have reached. -- 816:. I politely request that you strikethrough or delete your rant against "attackers" - it has no place in a discussion of this article's improvement. As soon as you do that, I'll do the same for this. As for XIRCON, the 3027:

In the past I tended to remove drive-by entries which I thought were promotional efforts for commercial software, but I can count on one hand just how many of those I've had to deal with over the last 2+ years. We just

4386:

All, please keep other disputes (and "notes for newcomers") out of this discussion about improving this article. If you have a conflict with an editor, take it to your talk page, or their talk page, or please pursue

3657:

the client, and none of the details about the client come from any sort of reliable source. As for how deletions help Knowledge (XXG)? That's not a proper complaint about the RFC, so I've answered in a new section.

2264:

operating system...), which prior to the blanking that occurred here, we only covered roughly 55-60 or so of those. Because we are already working within a very limited subtopic, claiming coverage of clients violates

1181:

like many books is not indexed (either full or in part) and text-searchable with Google, so a simple Google Books search is not going to turn it up as a source for the great many IRC-related subtopics it covers. (cf.

581:

a finite number of "IRC clients" out there, I don't feel that we should include every pet project someone has ever written in Visual Basic (I often found that many of these were written in Visual Basic, however there

1905:

and just want to wikilawyer, I really don't feel that there is much of a reason for me to continue to attempt to have a discussion with you. Your comments thus far seem to indicate that you have a general dislike of

439:

item in this comparison has RS. (Also note that I didn't delete it, just commented it out, because I respect the work involved in adding entries). Was I wrong to infer inclusion criteria based on extant entries? --

2411:

have standalone articles. I've had many restored and worked on them one at a time as time permits, but the cleanup process for that mess is much more work than it was for that individual to mass-prod and mass-AfD

3457:

You are right, I hadn't spotted that part of the discussion. So, that only means that AmIRC would be guaranteed an entry in the list. It doesn't undermine my main point: that we should remove entries with no RS.

3056:

out into their own comparison article. (Note that many of those clients are extremely popular with users of handheld devices and are very much in need of either standalone articles or coverage in a larger prose

2155:, it doesn't matter which language a source is written in – if a non-English source is available when an English source is not, or the non-English source is better, the non-English source can and should be used. 609:

comparison article talk pages and even when challenged and eventually struck down by others, they end up popping up again elsewhere. If we were to attempt to artificially limit comparison articles such as this

4905:

using a primary source, which as I noted previously, is going to be more reliable than a book because of the delay in the publishing process of a book compared to the rapid and constant evolution of software.

5113:. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving coverage to subtopics (be it "red links" or "non links") which don't qualify for their own standalone article under the notability guideline. Your attempt to 4210:

client. You cannot logically argue that the first IRC client software is unimportant to readers reading about this subtopic and should thus be excluded, although that is what you've systematically tried to

2896:

Orion - I've asked you to produce evidence of any such writings. None of the claims about Orion in this table, are sourced from anywhere, primary or third party, and definitely not the author's website or

3398:. Both of these specific clients are unique (as were most of those which were removed as part of the mass-blanking of this article) and our readers have demonstrated that they want to read more about them. 2864:

in cases such as this where all we need them for are simple facts about the software itself. We've used such sources for software as far back as I know and they have never been a problem when used in this

1053:

AmIRC is probably the most popular client for the Amiga. It supports all the basics, emphasizing well-developed standard features rather than modern toys, and provides a stable and secure chat environment.

5000:

allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

4446:

Again, I should follow more constantly, so I will comment only short: IETF standards are reliable, if the paper is a standard (not unknown useless drafts, exceptions are widely accepted "drafts" like the

5289:

foundation of Knowledge (XXG). I stand by everything I've written above, which counters your every attempt to rationalize unsourced content, content sourced by itself, and original research, focusing on

1513:

reflects badly on every Knowledge (XXG) editor who touches an article, and on Knowledge (XXG) as a whole. At no point have I implied any bad faith on any editor's part here - promo can be unintentional.

4802:

of, as Tothwolf describes, what "readers wish to read about", its responsibility is to the sourced facts: to present facts already reported by others, and not "simple facts" as observed by editors; see

2039:

for our readers. It has also been previously demonstrated that the more information these articles contain (subject to usability limits for typical web browsers), the more helpful our readers find them.

1607:

as the authority for claims, by using language like, "The author of the software claims (x)." But in this article, in this table, there's no opportunity for this qualifying language. The presence of

5065:

The now quite old and well-established Knowledge (XXG)-wide bedrock requirement for reliable sources (not my own idea, by the way, but that of thousands of Wikipedians) stands in the way of including

3207:

There seems to be confusion of "uncontroversial" with "unchallengeable". All unsourced material can be challenged, and I have done so with Orion: it's unsourced because you didn't cite an independent

693:

Linking Orion (blue link) elevates its apparent stature to "as mentioned on Knowledge (XXG)", purporting to link to an article with reliable, independent sources supporting Orion. Linking Orion to

4582: 434:. Orion has neither. Your fight's not with me, and I'm not a deletionist, nor a campaigner against lists, comparisons, or you. If you reread what I wrote carefully, Orion doesn't have an article 1735:

rely on primary sources such as websites, changelogs, even software binaries themselves, for occasional facts. These inclusions are always on the bubble, because they live in the shadow lands of

4718:

the author). Thus, I think the criterion for inclusion in this article should be any source indicating that there exist users of the client who are not authors of it. The source need not be a

4266: 1013: 1237:

of the features. I'm fine with that. Finally, perhaps I wasn't clear, but not even bloggers or forum folk have reviewed Orion. Nobody. That's how unabashedly non-notable it is. I doubt that

594:

of IRC) even when a client does not have a standalone article, regardless of whether or not it meets the requirements of the notability guideline for the purposes of a standalone article. E.g.

117:

he? solaris is in, amigaos also, android is a Linux, ubuntu also: so why not looking in these columns? these table/comparison is more cluttered that every other comparison i saw in wikipedia!

4490:

other Knowledge (XXG) articles. I found this had been discussed repeatedly while I was researching why we didn't have a citation template for IETF documents prior to designing and coding the

2493:; as you have just mentioned this is not grounds for inclusion and all others should also be removed that. (Side note: I notice you and Lexein leave giant comments, is this not a bit much!?) 997:

are no longer available. This really isn't surprising either, given the slow decline in popularity of IRC with the introduction of some of the newer web-based social networking technologies.

4923:

As previously noted, your own idea of mandating a 3rd party source before we can discuss something in this article ends up going too far in the other direction. This idea ends up violating

5120:

Moreover, you continue to gloss over (and ignore when challenged) the fact that you are also trying to exclude the very first IRC client ever written, which came bundled with the original

4251: 196:

I can't figure out how to add that correctly to references. Also, can you please fix the formatting/links on the first table's Orion entry? I was trying to make the tables consistent.

1353:'s latest features and functionality have not been covered in a dead-tree (cloth-eared?) or otherwise independent third-party source that we cannot mention them here? How about in the 780:

which will indicate how many people are using which client? If not, how can we, as Knowledge (XXG) editors, decide download or usage popularity at all? We can't. We have to rely on

4275:

I'll also note for newcomers that you were in the minority opinion, with the article being overwhelming kept intact. In any case, Enric, as far as this discussion goes, you and I are

3871:

being improved. Because of this, a software program's own documentation or source code is generally much more authoritative when discussing the software's features and functionality.

1966:(in particular, "Subject-specific common knowledge"), although as I've previously stated, I much prefer to have something to show that a particular program verifiably exists. I also 3630:

have not explained how removing information about historical software programs and information about programs readers wish to read about helps improve Knowledge (XXG). I brought up

5099:. Filing an RFC to try to gain an advantage because you don't like the way long standing Policy is written and that I can cite it when you began the wikilawyering is inappropriate. 4334:. And that second version does have RS mentioning it, just as one could expect from a notable software program. Sooooo, a strict inclusion criteria would work well in this case. -- 3626:

Lexein, This is not exactly what was discussed above. Your wording is decidely non-neutral and appears to be an attempt to sway discussion in the direction you want it to go. You

526:

a reliable source for non-controversial facts about the subject itself. As I mentioned above, a primary source can be used to show that "program X" supports "feature Y", and this

1660:

to shoehorn a non-notable, non-verifiable item (Orion) into a larger encompassing article which contains no prose, and into a comparison table consisting of mostly independently

3436:) before we can have an entry here only hurts our readers. This whole subjective busy-body task of removing on-topic, verifiable material only results in an article which is of 2860:

One major problem I've noticed in these discussions is that there are a number of editors who for whatever reason either dislike or don't understand that primary sources can be

3115:

It's not about promotion, it's about cruft and about non-notable items making it into lists. As I was saying, we need a inclusion criteria: that all entries have an article. --

2824:

inclusive the list, the more valuable it is to readers - and while there needs to be a limit that stops just anything being added, the GNG is too far in the other direction. -

1619:

want Knowledge (XXG) to lend an authoritative "voice" to fundamentally unverified factoids? Yes, editors can "verify" features themselves by running the software, but that's

3394:

to play around with and keep busy with. How does removing simple factual data about these clients in any way help our readers learn more about this subject? Quite simply, it

5631:

I should point out if there is local consensus to require a source or a certain type of source, then that's OK. Just don't call it notability, because it's not notability.

2343:

popular and were at one time discussed widely. Can you find a non-primary source for the very first IRC client (simply called "irc") which was initially distributed with

1379:

software program which a developer or company sold and used as a revenue source, I would have removed from this article myself, as I have with other software in the past.

3010:

IRC-Junkie has also previously pass muster for being a reliable source in and of itself, including several AfD discussions, so that review for ii is actually meaningful.

5205:

consider "non-notable" content failed, you began this latest tactic of trying to put words in my mouth and twisting anything you could in order to try to discredit me.

3591:) "inclusion criteria" and what, if any, they should be. Wherever possible, provide wikilinks to appropriate sections of policy/guideline/essay. Should the criteria be 3325:

client had more than enough coverage (including published works) to justify a standalone article. The mass-prod and mass-AfD behaviour directly attributable to a small

1221:

About IRC clients which have independent RS, I of course welcome including them here. Old sources are fine. Dead tree sources are fine. Clients with zero independent

966:), if we don't have an English source which states that open source software program "X" supports feature "Y", the source code of the program itself can be cited as it 3253:

For example, under this criteria, "ii" and "Orion" wouldn't have entries. But AmIRC would have an entry, but only because one of the porters claims that it influenced

2384:

This becomes even more pertinent when you consider that Internet Relay Chat is effectively a society of its own (a fact which you can find stated in published works).

1077:

AmIRC is the aforementioned competition to Grapevine. As with the other "Am" applications, it is the Amiga Technologies choice for inclusion in the A1200 Surfer pack.

828:

some decently citable sources about XIRCON - I found them in 3 seconds. If you felt that strongly about XIRCON, why did you request to delete its userfied version at

3874:

Requiring 3rd party sources for simple facts ends up limiting this article's content to solely "Knowledge (XXG)-notable" items. This means we can't even include the

5527:

It seems that the majority are in favour of at -least- mention of the client in one reliable third party source, should this then not be the grounds for inclusion?

5409:

You should have stopped at "I cannot parse" and left a question. My position about assuming good faith is supported in policy; as an editor I have discretion to

5070:

published sources, you're absolutely right. It's not undue, though, because that's how encyclopedias strive for accountability and reliability; it's the only way.

5010:

Knowledge (XXG) source; we agree on that. Even if he was, he didn't publish any separate documentation about the program, we agree on that. So your invocation of

704:

Notability is important as a concept, even though we're not talking about "article level" notability. We can't just make stuff up, or quote primary sources with

212:

Bah nevermind - just read the *sshattery above. I guess they'll do a bulk fix, anyways when the article is repaired. Wow, mass deletes of sourced materials FTL!

5450:

Keeping out unsourced material (or properly sourcing it) is neither a dead horse, a red herring, nor a straw man: it's policy. Too bad you don't see it that way.

5577:. A comparison article and a list are effectively the same thing; in fact this article appears to be a combination of lists (first two tables) and comparisons. 2015: 493:

At the moment, criteria #1 is a barrier to Orion, but that barrier lifts as soon as it's noticed and written about. Knowledge (XXG) has always been about what

2749:

There are two different IRC clients named LimeChat. One is the one mentioned in this article, the other one is a Windows client by the same author. See here:

5128: 4553:

Again, how does doing this help us improve coverage of this subject? Such a proposal will result in excluding coverage of historically important subtopics

2109:

just because you don't personally agree with the longstanding practice of using reliable primary sources to verify software features and functionality for

4744:

we would require 3rd party RS. If source is available, but the target platform is not, then drawing conclusions from source code is not really OR; it is

3315:

material, so it would stand to reason then that continuing to try to apply your own subjective criteria is fatally flawed. You even removed the entry for

955:

reliable for the purposes of showing that the client is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. The source code

3348:

argument you've tried repeatedly to use here hasn't held up in talk page discussions or AfDs for computing and software comparisons so you really should

3959:

Notable IRC clients have RS books making non-trivial mentions of them. So, we should be requiring such RS before accepting a given client as notable. --

1703:

details about itself. Which has been my point all along. But here, Orion's publicly verifiable (verifiable by non-programmers) facts amount to nothing.

1747:

may challenge unsourced material, and delete it. For the sake of this article's strength in the face of AfD, it should not include unsourced material.

3257:(and, that source is not all that good; personally, honestly, I feel that it would be a bit weird not to have a single Amiga client in the list). -- 1983:

have a native Mac OS version. That said, it wouldn't be all that surprising to see a well-written Unix-like program that is also compatible with say

1001: 599: 342: 3938: 2163: 81: 76: 71: 59: 1357:

article itself? We can certainly verify those features using mIRC's own documentation and website, which are certainly reliable and acceptable per

1028: 4062:

Your argument is still wrong because the first, second and fifth books that I linked are about the 1988 original IRCd not about the second one. --

238:

independent (completely unrelated to Tellini), notable (established, published) 3rd-party source. The Orion client has not been reviewed or even

4579:

to limit coverage of a subject (aka "require a 3rd party source for inclusion") within an article. While this article is technically not a list,

4185:

claims in this article. We are noting factual data about the actual clients for which the clients' own documentation is perfectly acceptable per

1615:

weight to the table contents, as if they are verified as accurate, when in fact, no such proof exists, not even in the author's website. Do you

430:

or similar. This article certainly looked to me like most of the entries have a) an article and/or b) reliable secondary sources, for example,

5488:

lead to a list of 5 clients - which is what I am really afraid of taking the massive deletions on Wikiproject IRC the last months into account.

5298:

are not sources, exceptions for broadcast media notwithstanding. As pertains to this article and Knowledge (XXG) in general, I stand by this:

4500:

template (which due to the complex nature of these documents, is probably one of our most complex but still easily used citation templates). --

562:. As I've previously stated above, this seems to make perfect sense when it comes to such lists. What came out of the RFC still does not cover 3952: 2486:

which don't have their own article should not be included as the above quote showed. I should note also you reverted my edits where I removed

5360:

which merits no inclusion, lacking every kind of reliable source. There is a difference there, if you'd stop for a moment and think about it.

3020:

of these different operating systems and system architectures). That in and of itself defines a hard limit for what this article could ever

5448:

sources unsupported by any other sources of any kind, or original research. I trust you understand my meaning now. If not, I refer you to

3016:

IRC clients out there. As I mentioned above, there are really only about 100 or so which have ever had much exposure at all (which covers

100: 5117:

a 3rd party source as inclusion criteria is your own vain attempt at trying to force the notability guideline to restrict article content.

3634:

primary sources for simple facts about the software itself (features, options, version, operating system requirements, etc), which is per

5550:

given the past targeting of this and other articles I've contributed to, including the AfDs followed by blanking with sockpuppets, there

3520:

A vote (open for a week) should perhaps be taken to determine if an existing article on the client is needed for inclusion here or not.

2754: 1925:

to your opinions, and I've been more than willing to hear you out, it still doesn't change the fact that some of your arguments such as

137: 2578: 2399:. Just because someone was able to mass-prod and mass-AfD many of these articles (with about 1/3 or so still not yet restored) without 1603:

There's a basic problem with using primary sources in comparisons: tables. In prose, Knowledge (XXG) distances itself, as described in

4435: 213: 199: 5184: 2617: 1947:

Orion's basic features and use of the Creative Commons license as an open source software program for the Microsoft Windows platform

1446: 1187: 586:

been popular software programs written in Visual Basic in the past too). We should however mention the features and functionality of

4643: 1143: 1122: 1070: 1046: 3565:

A call for a "vote" is really a call for concise discussion to reach consensus about something. The following is how it's done. --

357:

state that every single fact needs an inline citation. It would be quite silly and even disruptive to the reading of an article to

322: 962:

for the purposes of showing that the software supports features "X", "Y", and "Z". While English sources are much preferable (see

361:

an inline citation for every single fact contained within an article. Anything controversial, suspect, or otherwise likely to be

5198:

to a larger article as it makes little sense to have a stub article which is little more than a feature list and version number.

4388: 2909:

the claims made (and in the case of Orion, no such will likely ever be found). Sources, sources, sources. Why hasn't even the

1191: 686:

of Orion as an IRC client. By what Knowledge (XXG) policy/guideline/essay do you really think Orion's inclusion should stand?

283: 5391:

is clearly wrong, you choose to ignore the fact that your proposed rule would exclude it, and make up some guff about what you

4467: 3882:

software for which we only have primary sources (and perhaps a few usenet discussions which mention using "irc software"). Per

1566:

to be able to verify claims made in any kind of Knowledge (XXG) article (prose, table, list) in reliable sources. Explicitly,

5077:

independent reliable source. Other editors seem to want articles or multiple sources, so your battle isn't really with me. --

3155:

article's merits. What's happening is that a number of editors believe the material here should be sourced, or not be here.

2300: 2151:

sources are perfectly acceptable for the verification of features and functionality for a particular software program. While

635:

they include, etc. Editors who work on these forms of articles tend to learn this stuff hands-on, but at some point we still

47: 17: 5492:

policy. But please don't rush deleting 90% of the article including the interesting parts, that has happened way too often.

4414:, which was probably instrumental in the framing and development of the IRC specification and protocol? Do you realise how 3167:

Orion.) "Hard facts" don't count unless they are, in the main, sourced. Unsourced "hard facts" are the very definition of

2091:

software programs. You can't argue it both ways. Self-published primary sources can be used for such features/functionality

3311:" and "non-notable" are your own personal opinions. You already made it clear that you aren't too familiar with this topic 2846:(hence why it explicitly states that the notability guideline does not apply to the inclusion/exclusion of content itself). 5166: 4330:

So, the first IRCd does not appear in RS because it was not notable. And the really notable client was the second version

4022: 2599: 1428: 989:

IRC clients, yes, there are metrics we can use, although two of the better online ones such as the "Top IRC clients" from

623: 388: 5574: 4869:

That's all fine and good, however noting simple facts about a software program using the program's own documentation per

1021: 5310: 5160: 2917:

here, anywhere? And since the author hasn't written about its feature set (except in the source code), isn't anything

2593: 2566:

be included here. I'm not able to locate enough with a quick search where I feel it would meet the requirements of the

1999: 1910:

articles. Honestly, I'm not sure why you have chosen to focus on this specific article if it offends you so. There are

1775:"Since I haven’t had time to dedicate to this project in years, it’s now available under a Creative Commons license..." 1728: 1422: 869:

What I said above is Knowledge (XXG)-notability is not a valid metric for article content inclusion/exclusion. This is

382: 3948: 3225:

Look, this is not difficult. Find the independent RS sources to support a substantial number of claims about a client

3211:

source, and even the primary source has no details; further no source exists which mentions its details; hence, it is

2804:

I agree. It's time to establish a firm criteria for inclusion. The requirement of having an article looks good enough.

2212:

weight. "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

5176: 2609: 1438: 5218:

You showed up here out of the blue, having never edited this article, nor contributed to articles within the parent

2809:

If one of the clients is not notable, then its article can be challenged via PROD and AFD (and contested at DRV). --

169:

article which cites, yes, the developer and Mozilla sites, but also includes magazine articles, reviews, and books.

4539:

article). If I'm actually too late to enter this vote, please remove my vote again (or add a fitting remark to it).

4092: 3378:

Lexein, your personal opinion about both ii and Orion noted, I firmly believe both should be included here because

38: 3475:

damage Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility, reducing it to a blog, a catalog or PR. Once the toehold of even a single

3379: 2134: 2050: 1970:

like to see an inline citation for the latest release version and date for a software program because it makes it

1282: 979: 605:

It isn't just here that this "discussion" keeps coming up. I've see these same notability arguments brought up on

310: 5570: 4203: 4035:. Those guidelines and policies are quite explicit that such merging is perfectly acceptable and even preferable. 3231:

putting material about that client in the article. I'm really not that fussy, believe me: I'm an inclusionist. --

2373:, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. For example, few people are aware or interested in some 2129:

cite a program's own documentation and/or source code for non-contentious facts about the program itself per the

2087:

been covered in anything other than primary sources, including the program's own documentation. This is true for

1115: 1039: 5476:

I think this would be an improvement if we also allowed big third party sites. E.g. if you take the deletion of

5300:

it is a disservice to readers, and always will be, to present unsourced material as if it were reliably sourced.

5286: 4452: 3836:(for the same reasoning as Enric Naval). Edit: I should note that I also think all claims should be verifiable. 3540: 3048: 1963: 558:

would itself need to be considered notable as a group in order to have a "List of University of X alumni who Y"

5417: 4780: 2351:

in terms of "I've never heard of it, it isn't notable" is not valid justification for removing article content.

2296: 2045:

does not state that the language of the source has to be English only, and as stated above, this is covered in

1024:. These three individuals were the ones involved in the discussions above which 71.214.52.97 and I referred to. 104: 4873:

or even source code or documentation embedded within the source code when we have an open source program (per

2366: 2348: 1744: 1578:

as a primary source for lists of features, but may allow facts from "right-click/properties", or "Help" files.

1016:. After I made this report, one if the individuals involved attempted to initiate an ArbCom amendment request 313:

there is nothing preventing us from discussing a particular software program in relation to others. For basic

5439:: it is, by comparison, new; its existence has been purely online, yet there is no evidence of it ever being 5257:

I don't see a point in continuing this discussion, so I'm done discussing this with you. I again suggest you

4996:"Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as 3985:

cira 1988, and there are no dead tree sources or other 3rd party sources which discuss the IRC client called

3355:

Lexein and Enric, neither of you have addressed my point above regarding historically important clients like

2758: 2647:

of interest to readers who would otherwise be interested in reading about this (generally boring) subject. --

343:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

141: 4749:

general (and I would like to mention that essentially all technical points made by Tothwolf are accurate).

4632: 4627:

Piccard, Paul L.; Baskin, Brian; Edwards, Craig; Spillman, George (2005-05-01). "Common IRC Clients by OS".

4199: 3036:

commercial software. The last several additions which have been discussed here were attempts by readers to

2365:"Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the 217: 203: 5266: 5235: 4933: 4423: 4218: 4003:, a very large number of historical and influential IRC clients do not have Knowledge (XXG) articles (i.e. 3002: 2839: 2567: 2388: 2280: 2144: 2099: 2023:

appears to be a very strong interest in open source software for the Microsoft Windows platform. Consensus

1604: 1410: 1306: 1286: 291: 133: 5400: 5334:"up here out of the blue, having never edited this article, nor contributed to articles within the parent 4754: 4431: 3372: 1550:

blog entry, or the program itself. The only claim supported is that it runs on "Windows", and that's on a

829: 5230:

content and coverage of subtopics (in your mind) from this article. Unfortunately for you and Enric (who

4636: 3367:

sources such as its source code and the limited documentation. This also doesn't address clients such as

2571: 2165:

but I daresay that the majority just don't want or have time to argue these complex points with you :) --

659: 362: 4726:. Note that this is distinct from Tothwolf's SELFPUB argument, since I am using it not for the article 4339: 4164: 4119: 4067: 3964: 3814: 3774: 3730: 3463: 3262: 3120: 2814: 1136: 1063: 251:. I hope you understand that I have the same problem with any entry in this list which lacks an article 5172: 4028: 2605: 2360: 1538:

Everything about Orion in these tables is unsourced, and at the moment, unsourceable - therefore, it's

1466: 1434: 821: 541:

The notability argument for inclusion of content however has no place within a comparison article. Per

3787:

I realize "mention" was too narrow. "Substantial description/review" is more of what I meant. Struck

5573:"This is a stand-alone list. Please only add subjects that have a Knowledge (XXG) article." also see 5241:

does not apply to article content. Full stop. You and Enric both have wikilawyered this to death and

5054:

Consumer Reports or a research lab, or a software documentation service. As for Orion, we're back to

4829:

to describe pottery color, shape, weight, glyphs or country of origin without reliable sources. It's

4471: 4448: 1330: 5424: 5262: 5136: 5062:

that Orion merits inclusion, even though its details are zero-reliably-sourced? Yes or no, at least.

5026: 5011: 4894: 4870: 4732: 4723: 4190: 3865: 3635: 3339: 3326: 2374: 2347:? I've been lucky just to be able to find the source code for this historic software program. Using 2148: 2130: 2092: 2042: 1567: 1505: 1456: 1358: 1300: 898: 627: 519: 338: 318: 231: 5640: 5621: 5603: 5586: 5582: 5563: 5536: 5532: 5516: 5501: 5461: 5404: 5382: 5278: 5086: 4970: 4863: 4837:

to describe software details or features which have not been discussed in independent sources (and

4776: 4758: 4695: 4619: 4548: 4509: 4483: 4461: 4439: 4401: 4343: 4288: 4168: 4149: 4123: 4105: 4071: 4052: 3968: 3907: 3845: 3841: 3818: 3800: 3778: 3759: 3734: 3717: 3700: 3667: 3647: 3620: 3574: 3560: 3529: 3525: 3496: 3467: 3449: 3266: 3240: 3124: 3081: 2995: 2991: 2981: 2966: 2962: 2937: 2878: 2833: 2818: 2798: 2794: 2777: 2773: 2762: 2716: 2712: 2656: 2502: 2498: 2436: 2324: 2217: 2174: 1866: 1862: 1852: 1478: 1250: 1203: 850: 746: 648: 509: 448: 416: 268: 221: 207: 187: 145: 123: 108: 5180: 4032: 3345: 2613: 2577:

source for IRC-related news and information. It has also been a topic of interest over at reddit.

2011: 1442: 161:

General Notability Guideline, yes, applies to articles, but the Orion IRC Client lacks sufficient

5617: 5599: 5559: 5512: 5497: 5274: 4966: 4691: 4656: 4615: 4544: 4505: 4494: 4284: 4145: 4101: 4082: 4048: 4040: 3903: 3643: 3556: 3445: 3077: 2874: 2652: 2432: 2319:

subtopic or to the parent "Internet Relay Chat" topic. Google and Google Books are not magic and

2170: 1810:

If Orion is so great, why hasn't even one independent reliable source written one thing about it?

1474: 1199: 1157: 1083: 644: 412: 243:

battle. At the moment, I'm not bothered that Orion doesn't have an article - it's definitely not

5242: 5092: 5039: 5034: 4957: 4803: 4586: 4258: 4229:

newcomers to this discussion that you tried these arguments previously, even refusing to follow

4114:

Maybe that's why the client doesn't have its own article? Because only the daemon is notable? --

3688: 3547:. Aside from that, a one-size-fits-all approach isn't going to work, be it here, or with other 3349: 3308: 3200:(not "a single editor") aside from me, have removed unsourced material (though I'm the only one 3053: 3040:

content which this article previously covered before it was largely blanked by the efforts of a

2986:

So what then is the criteria for inclusion? What is to stop -any- and every client being added?

2640: 2624: 2582: 2479: 2396: 2266: 2256: 2209: 2065: 1917: 1902: 1612: 1510: 1399: 1372: 1230: 817: 713: 563: 287: 5363:

Your preferences aside, it is in every article's and every editor's best interest, to push for

4821:

As a side note, this is the reason why source code and binaries are poor WP sources - they are

4096:

program. I note just as before you still choose not to respond to the other issues I raised. --

5477: 5396: 4750: 4640: 4427: 3424:

reliable primary), trying to limit this article's content in a subjective way, be it up front

2570:

for the purposes of a standalone article, but it has been covered in depth by IRC-Junkie.org,

1140: 1119: 1067: 1043: 5484:- and I think deleting such a software makes the whole Knowledge (XXG) IRC section worthless. 4924: 4913: 4909: 4874: 4745: 4736: 4214: 3805:

Note: I can resign myself to a criteria of only one RS. I'm just hoping that at least it's a

3544: 2272: 2260:

have actually been popular with users over the last few decades (Microsoft Windows isn't the

2152: 2114: 2110: 2046: 1695:

coverage in RS, both in magazines and books. What are you on about? As soon as a topic has

1403: 1368: 963: 909:

use primary and self-published sources in the manner I described above. Take for example the

902: 619: 427: 404: 5457: 5378: 5082: 4859: 4833:

to dismantle a toaster to describe its parts without reliable sources. In that light, it's

4558: 4456: 4397: 4335: 4160: 4115: 4063: 3977:

correct, yet again you prove you really don't know this material... I was not talking about

3960: 3810: 3796: 3770: 3755: 3726: 3712: 3696: 3663: 3616: 3570: 3492: 3459: 3258: 3236: 3116: 2933: 2810: 1848: 1509:

sites. That's one way promo occurs - no matter who's doing it. The continued inclusion of

1334: 1246: 893:

be reliable; it depends on the source and how it is used. While blogs, email lists, etc are

846: 773: 742: 505: 444: 424:

state the inclusion criteria somewhere like the top of the article and/or in hidden comments

264: 183: 118: 5410: 5351: 5156: 5110: 5051: 4797:

How does deletion of original research help Knowledge (XXG) and this article? That's easy.

4572: 4230: 4017: 4004: 3061: 2888:- arguments to avoid in deletion discussions such as "It's interesting" and "it's popular." 2885: 2632: 2588: 2547:

IRWolfie-, I didn't revert you specifically. If you check the edit history of the article,

2417: 2392: 2288: 2284: 2276: 2118: 1995: 1657: 1648: 1562:? This is not a wikiwiki about software; verifiability at Knowledge (XXG) is intended for 1418: 971: 870: 863:

Lexein, you appear to be misinterpreting what 71.214.52.97 and myself were referring to as

687: 615: 559: 542: 536: 377: 303: 295: 244: 158: 4681: 4669: 3535:

While I don't like making short replies with just a link to a policy or guideline, such a

2977: 2829: 2548: 2336: 1930: 1281:

doesn't seem to be translating is the threshold for inclusion of content in an article is

1170: 1096: 298:

section of the notability guideline is quite explicit on this and trying to limit article

5055: 5045: 4989: 4981: 4878: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4798: 4767: 4719: 4534: 3725:, to avoid the inclusion of entries that only have one review in one software website. -- 3707: 3683: 3653:"reliable" is highly suspect (see Orion). You need to see that that author wrote nothing 3208: 3168: 3156: 3137: 2922: 2639:

things we should exclude here, however I'm of the opinion that we are far from violating

2106: 1956: 1837: 1661: 1620: 1539: 1295: 1226: 1222: 1177:

I could cite dozens and dozens of these but I think you probably get the idea. Note that

838: 807: 793: 789: 781: 777: 725: 717: 701:

about Orion. This constitutes a use of WP as PROMO, and should not be encouraged at all.

679: 462: 256: 248: 235: 174: 162: 2482:

weight for inclusion, I did not mention notability. Undue Makes sense because some like

1651:

is a dead horse in this discussion - I daresay it is intended to apply to articles with

468:

Features/details: The primary source (software author's website) is good enough for the

5636: 5578: 5528: 5332:

and others to add reliably sourced content a while back, so gee, I guess I didn't show

5258: 5096: 4955:

taken steps to prevent it. This however has not been a problem, and your proposal is a

4475: 3837: 3521: 2987: 2958: 2790: 2769: 2708: 2494: 2328: 2213: 1911: 1858: 994: 914: 5546: 5542: 4706: 4603: 4576: 4186: 3883: 3852: 3433: 3425: 3375:

which were also highly regarded by users and influential and previously included here.

3141: 2789:

included here. ii is a good example, I've never seen a reliable source discussing it.

1778: 1547: 709: 673: 178:

one by one, by deletionists, or even quite reasonable "no source? delete" editors. --

5613: 5595: 5555: 5508: 5493: 5270: 4962: 4687: 4611: 4540: 4501: 4280: 4141: 4097: 4044: 3899: 3639: 3552: 3441: 3407: 3403: 3073: 2870: 2648: 2428: 2400: 2166: 1470: 1195: 640: 408: 4016:

version number and features, which is why we've merged and redirected them here per

2421: 403:

There are a number of highly skilled editors who work on comparison articles within

4198:

minimalist and did not include a lot of extra features. It was created well before

3181:

This article is being scrutinized and discussed because its inclusion criteria are

1462: 910: 1131:

Jeacle, Karl (1996). "Running the Best Software: Internet Relay Chat: Grapevine".

1110:

Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "Odds and Ends: IRC for Other Platforms: Amiga".

1034:

Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "Odds and Ends: IRC for Other Platforms: Amiga".

5554:

be some serious questions raised about some of the editors who showed up here. --

5427:

notwithstanding. I trust that sources (dead-tree, RFC, newsgroups) do exist for

5037:, or publishers of self-observed "truth" - we have, as a group, agreed that only 1417:

doesn't (at least yet) qualify for a stand-alone article. As I stated above, the

1313:

is what is required. Your earlier argument was that we couldn't even verify that

812:

Nobody's attacking anybody here except for you and an anonymous IP calling me an

472:

software features. Detailed features do not require secondary RS for purpose of

5453: 5374: 5147:

of those characters is considered "notable" on its own, which is why we tend to

5140: 5078: 4855: 4393: 3792: 3751: 3692: 3659: 3612: 3566: 3488: 3232: 2929: 2562:

filesystem as the "user interface". This makes it unique enough where I feel it

2370: 1844: 1242: 842: 738: 731:

And again, to put a button on it, if you don't want discussions such as this to

501: 440: 333:) there is nothing wrong with using a primary source to verify that program "X" 260: 179: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2068:, which when used with tables, are typically located directly below the table. 1225:

should wait. Including such clients in a survey or comparison article is solid

2973: 2825: 2320: 1183: 1058:

Jeacle, Karl (1996). "Running the Best Software: Internet Relay Chat: AmIRC".

1004:

was very much flawed, but it is just one example of many which were part of a

897:

not considered "reliable" (especially for the purposes of a BLP article), per

824:

but did you, really, make an effort to find RS to justify the article? There

765: 2423:

which was the dominant Microsoft Windows client prior to the introduction of

1542:. Nothing added was based on reliable third-party sources, or the author's 956: 5632: 5328: 5211: 3065: 768:(3rd of 19 IRC clients at 1000+ downloads), with Yahoo India's IM client is 484:

require secondary RS, because Knowledge (XXG)'s "voice" is the voice of the

431: 166: 4908:

a binary is "program x's binary is y kilobytes in size" which would be per

4854:

no discussion even in newsgroups (for old clients), sorry, no inclusion. --

4712:

a source (SELFPUB acceptable) indicating the existence of independent users

3834:

Support, one article, or multiple 3rd-party RS for entries with no articles

3723:

Support, one article, or multiple 3rd-party RS for entries with no articles

2307:

are helpful for different purposes. While I do agree with you that we need

2137:, this is commonly done and there is little point in arguing about it here. 1382:

The developer for Orion also didn't coverage of it to this article, I did,

1192:

Knowledge (XXG):Perennial proposals#Require or prefer free, online sources

5201:

Lexein, When your earlier tactics and arguments here to exclude what you

3878:

IRC client ever written, which was originally distributed with the early

2295:

Subtopic navigation is not the intended purpose of a comparison article.

1984: 867:, which were some of the "discussions" much further up on this talk page. 626:

are among some of our most popular articles here on Knowledge (XXG). See

165:

to possess its own article. For comparison, see the rather well-sourced

958:

and included documentation (Changes.txt, Readme.txt, etc) would also be

792:, we have to abandon the notion of popularity in toto, and rely only on 350:

software evolves much at a much faster rate than books can be published.

2838:

Right, my point has been that notability in terms of Knowledge (XXG)'s

4598:

a complex list. What the RFC boils down to, is because the subject of

2768:

Please provide reliable sources to show it is the most used in Japan.

1914:

you can go work on if you really don't like the content of this one...

1774: 1543: 949: 294:

does not limit what can or cannot be written about in an article. The

193: 5481: 4242:

while making these same claims of "non-notability" and wikilawyering

4008: 3368: 3174:

The only definition of "coverage" that matters to Knowledge (XXG) is

2332: 2275:

by presenting a skewed view of the topic as a whole if we attempt to

1988: 1975:

however, might be best served by one or more inline citations, as it

803:

Reminders: I didn't delete Orion, just commented it out until it has

595: 247:

generally notable enough for that - I'm just looking for any kind of

5105:) and on other comparison article talk pages is that these articles 3481:

which actually write about themselves (which Orion's author has not)

2283:

in order to remove and artificially limit article content to solely

2027:

of the discussion you and I have going on here continues to be that

4086:

program whatsoever. Per your own argument they need to discuss the

3406:

by bringing up conspiracy theorists above, to quote the late great

1554:

entirely. Where's the source that it doesn't handle proxies? The

982:

when it comes to the software program's features and functionality.

933:(since that would be considered original research), if a developer 927:"The next version of the Linux kernel will include support for "Y"" 776:

downloads. Are there any usage-based server statistics reported in

5135:

trying to argue against using The Simpsons episodes themselves as

4331: 4239: 4207: 4194: 3990: 3331: 3316: 3254: 3929:

O'Reilly 2004, and from publishers that could be reliable or not

3711:

per Lexein. (my dream would be that every feature is sourced...)

1469:

here, where we were also able to give it much better coverage. --

1012:

drafts within my userspace is detailed in the AN/I report I made

762: 639:

need to write a MoS page which covers these forms of articles. --

5121: 4806:. Knowledge (XXG), and all formal encyclopedias, are not about 4257:

Enric, you still appear to only be here to somehow in your mind

4250:

come across. Those interested can read about it in the archives

3918: 3879: 3360: 2854: 2559: 2427:? How about Grapevine for the Amiga platform, as noted above? -- 2424: 2344: 2080: 1551: 1354: 1350: 3921:

does have dead tree sources available from reliable publishers

3864:

primary sources are acceptable for non-controversial facts per

3479:

is established, I'm willing to be inclusive of primary sources

5165:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be 4021:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be 2598:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be 1979:

be somewhat unusual for a native Microsoft Windows program to

1427:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be 387:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be 25: 5058:, and we're done, and Orion's out, in my considered opinion. 4903:"software x supports Microsoft Windows and requires plugin z" 4482:, as Mabdul puts it). We cite a number of IETF drafts in the 2925:? As Charlie Brooker has said, "Don't say it isn't, it is." 4825:(in alternate forms), not "writing about the thing." It's 4478:

too can be reliable sources (and I'm not familiar with any

2321:

should not be used as a sole means of information gathering

1901:

to be snarky with you, however if you are really only here

1623:, and it's not the way it's done at encyclopedias, or here. 1241:

of the other IRC clents listed here can make that claim. --

5575:

Knowledge (XXG):Stand-alone_list#Common_selection_criteria

4590:

we similarly do not use the notability guideline to limit

2627:

in the case of the very first IRC client which was called

1337:

license. One thing (among others) which makes Orion quite

1112:

The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat

1036:

The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat

990: 602:

for that one and take particular note of who the nom was).

4889:

such as "x is better than y" based on such simple facts,

4565:(aka published books) which discuss the first IRC client 1664:, verifiable items, mostly possessing their own articles. 3432:

have a reliable secondary source" (exact same result as

3005:

for the purposes of creating a standalone article. Not

622:

of the overall subject. Comparison articles, especially

535:

it supports feature X" because that would fall afoul of

5609: 5592: 5480:

happened mainly due to lack of print sources, although

5255: 5253: 5194:

to merge and redirect articles like the one we had for

4273: 4236: 4234: 3791:, above. And I agree that lists shouldn't be sources.-- 3319: 3176:

discussion in third-party independent reliable sources.

3068:

or a hoax and is unlikely to remain in the tables here.

2750: 2491: 2069: 1459: 1451: 1383: 1271:

Based on your reply it appears you at least understand

1017: 837:

Anybody else? Opinion about requiring one cloth-eared

422:

For this discussion to stop coming up repeatedly, just

5006:

The one-off author of Orion cannot fairly be termed a

1398:

how it comes across to others when you referenced the

4988:

some of what you wrote: Quoting directly from policy

4206:

existed, both of which were first implemented in the

2643:

by including information which is very much on-topic

2478:

I was very explicit in saying that I think they have

2403:

and as an intentional means of being disruptive does

708:

independent verification. Comparison article or not,

566:, nor does it cover other forms of lists or articles. 353:

Keep in mind, however, that the verifiability policy

5413:

about the existence of sources (this is why the tag

5261:

and find something else to do which doesn't involve

4410:

Enric Naval: "didn't influence later clients"? The

3587:

This is not a vote. Briefly discuss your position (

3487:. Nothing about Orion there, either, I'm afraid. -- 3420:

that we really should have sources (be it secondary

2921:

write about it an example of the very definition of

2113:

articles. This has been discussed previously within

2014:

find the content you consider "non-notable" useful,

373:"... and inappropriately redirected to this article" 4629:

Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise

3931:

Securing IM and P2P applications for the enterprise

3856:The notability guideline does not apply to article 3012:On to your current question, there actually aren't 2006:content, not just prose. It does not matter if you 306:

was not a view supported by one of the recent RFCs.

5243:continuing to try to claim it so won't change that 4980:You've got a critical error in your discussion of 3946:The dictionary of multimedia: terms & acronyms 3161:if they actually write something about themselves. 2010:consider something to be "non-notable" or not. If 1022:User talk:Tothwolf/Archive 4#On the subject of COI 800:(not GNG article-grade notability), of the client. 3363:. The only real sources we have for it today are 3130:Enric Naval: An article may be too much to ask. 2554:ii is as far as I've been able to determine, the 2208:Many of the clients listed here are present with 2162:other editors lurking and reading our discussion 458:proposed inclusion criteria for this comparison: 4901:acceptable to note such non-controversial facts 4269:, additional links on request) where you argued 4080:No, those books still contain no mention of the 3001:hence suitable for the purposes of establishing 2018:to include it. Despite your comments otherwise, 569:Now, with this specific article, my argument is 4841:to describe based on source code or binaries). 4724:Self-published sources as sources on themselves 2064:As for "qualifying language" we can and do use 1944:as nothing was copy/pasted from somewhere else. 921:considered reliable for the purposes of citing 913:. Emails, usenet posts, and blog posts made by 788:I say, in the absence of popularity reports in 756:- Tothwolf, you state you only want to include 5482:SearchIRC lists it as second to most used IRCd 4561:) which was bundled with irc2.4. There are no 3611:source which has no details about the item? -- 3607:source which has details about the item, or a 2121:and while you might not like the fact that we 1737:not supported by reliable third party sources, 1394:somehow a spammer for adding it here, that is 941:still include his statement as a direct quote. 931:"The Linux kernel is better than because ..." 577:single IRC client ever written... While there 5226:like Enric Naval began pushing to remove all 4224:nor does not prevent us from discussing what 3989:which was included with it. Why do you think 2292:the point in even having comparison articles? 2271:As I've said previously, we end up violating 877:To further expand on what I said above, both 461:Inclusion: One notable independent secondary 8: 5431:because I AGF about Tothwolf's claims about 5129:List of recurring characters in The Simpsons 4947:IRC clients on Knowledge (XXG) and had this 2635:, or even Grapevine? I agree that there are 2147:does not restrict or limit article content. 1699:coverage in RS, a primary source can supply 697:is disingenuous, because this article cites 531:such as "Program A is better than Program B 4731:of Verifiability, I think a combination of 4213:Enric, we've already had this out with the 3997:? It was the follow up to the first client. 1029:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/AmIRC 929:. While we certainly can't use them to say 325:from a primary source (e.g. program "A" is 230:Thanks. However, Tellini is the author, a 3894:, it only helps determine if a particular 2105:I really don't see the point in involving 796:verification of the existence, and hence, 321:source is sufficient. As long as we don't 3477:discussion by third-party reliable source 1857:I agree with Lexein on this. (see below) 690:- is this IRC client worth invoking that? 550:of a list, e.g. the subject (but not the 4920:English sources when they are available. 4881:. Original research would require us to 3981:IRCd. The IRCd I'm talking about is the 2327:dates to about 1988, which predates the 2153:English sources are generally preferable 1321:for the program certainly shows that it 1031:. Here are two dead-tree sources for it: 901:and longstanding common practice within 5155:into larger lists and articles per the 5046:external, independent, reliable sources 4943:, if there was actual money to be made 4936:does not limit the content of articles. 4474:are considered to be reliable sources. 1349:argument, would you argue that because 1317:existed -- the link to the website and 923:"The Linux kernel supports feature "X"" 662:for a while before responding to this. 5248:Lexein, given your "tactics" and your 5234:showed up here in a similar way), the 4677: 4665: 4654: 3583:Inclusion criteria request for comment 3384:Knowledge (XXG) exists for our readers 3382:clearly want to know more about them. 3159:are best. Primary sources can be used 1166: 1155: 1092: 1081: 772:at 143,000. BTW ChatZilla is at over 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4271:"Delete all the non-notable entries." 3951:1997 with another google books search 3334:, didn't you read above that we have 1605:WP:THIRDPARTY#Non-independent_sources 1455:(which at the time was a tiny little 1188:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Cost 590:or better known clients (as known by 236:reliable (nonblog, nonforum, nonwiki) 7: 4812:reportage about the thing by others. 3917:Your argument is incorrect, because 3898:should have a standalone article. -- 2596:states among other relevant things: 1731:. Other articles about software do 1449:. Per these policies and practices, 1425:states among other relevant things: 385:states among other relevant things: 4788:In re deletion of original research 4650:Table 16.1 IRC Clients and Features 3937:2010 found via google books search 2905:third-party source) which supports 2842:just doesn't work well for article 2255:IRWolfie-, I don't agree with your 1008:larger pattern. The reason I CSD'd 323:attempt to draw our own conclusions 279:Good grief... Why is this argument 194:http://tellini.info/software/orion/ 5387:What you mean is, since excluding 3178:Primary sources aren't "coverage." 3032:with drive-by additions trying to 2913:written about its feature set, as 2287:material. This is part of why the 2102:does not apply to article content. 1991:on the Microsoft Windows platform. 948:, the software program's own site 917:and other Linux kernel developers 24: 5017:because the author wrote nothing 4949:ever actually been a problem here 4222:does not restrict article content 4177:Enric, we aren't making any such 3748:substantial description or review 3743:Comment: does this mean that one 3338:published sources for it anyway? 1741:not supported by primary sources. 1333:program made available under the 1325:. It also shows that the program 937:such a statement on his blog, we 428:WP:LIST#Lead section or paragraph 5109:encyclopedic and do not violate 3047:We are also limited in terms of 2397:notability is also not temporary 1987:that can also be compiled under 1118:: No Starch Press. pp. 249–250. 522:a self-published primary source 497:, say about the article subject. 29: 5169:into larger articles or lists." 4958:solution in search of a problem 4261:and only showed up here due to 4025:into larger articles or lists." 3944:, Wiley 1995 and probably also 3147:To clarify: this discussion is 3030:never really had a problem here 2784:Firm rules for inclusion needed 2602:into larger articles or lists." 2573:which is considered a reliable 2359:find more information on them. 2061:is more than sufficient anyway. 1431:into larger articles or lists." 978:acceptable for the purposes of 889:be used on Knowledge (XXG) and 810:, ffs. I do respect the work. ( 391:into larger articles or lists." 3163:(Orion's author wrote nothing 1927:"Orion has zero verifiability" 1921:said, while you are certainly 1275:of the points I tried to make. 1139:: Bookmark Publishing. p. 75. 1066:: Bookmark Publishing. p. 76. 618:items, we end up presenting a 556:"University of X alumni who Y" 18:Talk:Comparison of IRC clients 1: 5365:actual policy-deemed reliable 4625:Here is one such comparison: 4090:client program, not the IRCd 3923:Integrating Linux and Windows 3750:in a book is insufficient? -- 3438:far less value to our readers 3359:that originally shipped with 3187:, and much of its content is 822:undeletion request was denied 649:10:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 510:01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 449:14:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 417:10:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 4555:such as the first IRC client 3599:is required, or one or more 3340:Google is not a magic oracle 2369:argument. Many subjects are 1916:Lexein, I really don't mind 820:was damnably short, and its 786:we can't just make stuff up. 682:evidence which supports the 480:about the detailed features 269:02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 222:14:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 208:14:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 188:18:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 146:00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 124:23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 109:10:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 5317:, but is not relevant here. 5043:matters, as established by 3949:Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers 3589:support, oppose, or neutral 3412:What the hell is going on?! 2631:that I mentioned above, or 2016:we still have an obligation 1433:This is also echoed by the 1042:: No Starch Press. p. 249. 5656: 5641:13:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 5622:14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 5604:22:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 5587:20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 5564:19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 5537:18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 5517:18:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 5502:18:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC) 5462:09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC) 5405:16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 4971:23:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 4864:16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 4759:15:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 4696:11:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 4620:11:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 4549:10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 4510:20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 4462:16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 4453:IETFs April fools standard 4440:15:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 4402:16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 4344:22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 4289:22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 4169:01:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 4150:01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 4124:23:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 4106:23:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 4072:22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 4053:21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 3969:18:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 3942:The New Internet Navigator 3908:15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 3846:21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3819:11:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 3801:22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 3779:15:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 3760:01:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 3735:19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3718:17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3701:17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3668:16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 3648:15:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 3621:17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3575:17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3561:00:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3530:22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 3497:17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3468:19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3450:21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 3267:11:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 3241:10:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 3136:independent, third-party, 3125:06:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 3082:05:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC) 2996:23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 2982:23:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 2967:18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 2938:09:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 2879:17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2834:13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2819:13:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2799:20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC) 2717:09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2657:03:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 2503:01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 2437:00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 2175:06:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) 2077:features and functionality 1912:millions of other articles 1867:20:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC) 1853:08:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 1479:18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC) 1386:. While I don't think you 1277:One important point which 1251:13:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC) 766:download popularity rating 665:Are you saying that Orion 315:features and functionality 5571:Template:Stand-alone_list 5383:16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 5279:04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 5087:08:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 5021:Orion. So you invoke the 4984:policy. You may wish to 4893:within this article. Per 4771:and the source should be 3935:Ubuntu 10.10 Server Guide 3886:the notability guideline 2778:16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2763:11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2391:should not be misused to 2299:are quite different from 1347:sentence-level notability 1291:sentence-level notability 1204:10:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 1133:First Steps Amiga Surfin' 1116:San Francisco, California 1060:First Steps Amiga Surfin' 1040:San Francisco, California 851:08:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 747:16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC) 728:, a bedrock policy at WP. 317:of a software program, a 173:by locating and listing 5594:in the section below. -- 5157:Alternatives to deletion 4883:draw our own conclusions 4480:"unknown useless drafts" 4238:to remove the entry for 2589:Alternatives to deletion 2558:IRC client which uses a 2552:mistake in the process). 2490:because it was 'notable' 2055:"right-click/properties" 1996:alternatives to deletion 1962:Further, not everything 1777:. Specifically, per the 1649:Alternatives to deletion 1419:Alternatives to deletion 378:Alternatives to deletion 369:however have a citation. 5139:as others have already 5073:BTW I'm only proposing 4633:Rockland, Massachusetts 4606:, we can also create a 4557:(originally written by 4533:Support, one 3rd-party 4132:Well, let's see... The 3706:Support, one 3rd-party 3682:Support, one 3rd-party 2586:previously stated, the 2311:to exclude some of the 2158:Lexein, there actually 1903:to try to prove a point 1609:the table format itself 1367:Your other argument of 1307:independent third-party 1293:as you refer to it). A 616:Knowledge (XXG)-notable 573:that we should include 476:here. (In my opinion, 426:as recommended in, say 5423:exists), your pointed 5137:self-published sources 5127:Good grief, we have a 5091:Lexein, I suggest you 4877:) does not constitute 4389:WP:Conflict resolution 4246:than anyone else I've 3204:rather than deleting). 2367:I've never heard of it 1959:if it can be verified. 1548:Orion goes Open Source 395:71.214.52.97, I think 365:by the average reader 286:? This stuff has been 5608:...and replied again 5265:your own view of the 5185:articles for deletion 5131:(and I would suggest 4887:subjective statements 4608:"List of IRC clients" 4412:very first IRC client 3386:. Knowledge (XXG) is 2618:articles for deletion 2349:subjective importance 2335:(1996-1998), and the 1447:articles for deletion 1137:Bedford, Bedfordshire 1064:Bedford, Bedfordshire 972:self-published source 905:'s scope, we can and 284:turning up here again 42:of past discussions. 5267:notability guideline 5210:is falling for your 5033:to be evaluators of 4934:notability guideline 4766:Require third party 4604:notability guideline 4577:notability guideline 4219:notability guideline 3925:Prentice Hall 2001, 3609:non-detailed primary 3539:would be counter to 3483:. BTW I'd even cite 3402:(XXG)-equivalent of 2840:notability guideline 2751:http://limechat.net/ 2568:notability guideline 2389:notability guideline 2281:notability guideline 2145:notability guideline 2135:verifiability policy 2100:notability guideline 2051:verifiability policy 1942:"copy/paste of text" 1411:notability guideline 1331:open source software 830:User:Tothwolf/XIRCON 624:software comparisons 292:notability guideline 5336:Internet Relay Chat 5250:apparent motivation 5220:Internet Relay Chat 5103:latest such example 5060:Do you still assert 4710:per Tothwolf, plus 4637:Syngress Publishing 4563:"3rd party sources" 4486:article as well as 4484:Internet Relay Chat 4263:this disruptive AfD 3983:first IRCd software 3549:"Comparison of ..." 3245:I would settle for 2301:comparison articles 2269:makes little sense. 2075:The latest/current 1964:requires a citation 1931:factually incorrect 1329:a freely available 1103:Another example is 1027:Another example is 985:As far as defining 818:deletion discussion 798:relative notability 309:As long as we have 5425:misrepresentations 5325:have noticed that 5311:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 5149:merge and redirect 5101:Consensus at AfD ( 4891:which we do not do 4676:Unknown parameter 4664:Unknown parameter 4602:already meets the 4575:we do not use the 4470:documents such as 4416:completely idiotic 4041:chicken or the egg 3595:, or a standalone 3485:newsgroup archives 2853:that shipped with 2297:Navigational lists 2031:articles are both 1729:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 1452:Orion (IRC client) 1165:Unknown parameter 1091:Unknown parameter 288:discussed to death 152:Orion (IRC client) 5411:assume good faith 5352:assume good faith 5151:such content and 5056:original research 4879:original research 4845:About IRC clients 4810:, they are about 4443: 4426:comment added by 3973:My "argument" is 3350:let that one drop 3250:made by their RS. 3169:original research 2923:original research 2393:limit the content 1951:verifiable using 1936:Orion verifiably 1897:Lexein, I wasn't 1743:At any moment, a 1621:original research 1384:back in June 2009 1309:which allows for 1227:Original research 993:and another from 841:for inclusion? -- 695:this very article 495:secondary sources 488:not the editors.) 337:feature "Y". See 329:than program "B" 136:comment added by 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5647: 5422: 5416: 5025:as a source (as 4951:, we would have 4928:decade. This is 4823:the thing itself 4808:the thing itself 4685: 4679: 4673: 4667: 4662: 4660: 4652: 4559:Jarkko Oikarinen 4499: 4493: 4442: 4420: 3603:source(s), or a 3197:Several editors, 2623:Would you argue 2620:also cover this. 1454: 1335:Creative Commons 1174: 1168: 1163: 1161: 1153: 1128: 1100: 1094: 1089: 1087: 1079: 1055: 688:Ignore all rules 620:very skewed view 148: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5655: 5654: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5525: 5420: 5418:Citation needed 5414: 5287:WP:Five pillars 5175:section of the 5161:deletion policy 5159:section of the 4790: 4675: 4666:|editorn-first= 4663: 4653: 4646: 4639:. pp. 432–433. 4626: 4497: 4491: 4449:data uri scheme 4421: 3687:is enough, per 3678: 3585: 3541:WP:NOTDEMOCRACY 3138:reliable source 2786: 2747: 2608:section of the 2594:deletion policy 2592:section of the 2395:of an article, 2337:Wayback Machine 2141:To sum this up, 2133:section of the 2049:section of the 2029:"Comparison of" 2020:general readers 2000:deletion policy 1998:section of the 1739:and frequently 1564:general readers 1450: 1437:section of the 1423:deletion policy 1421:section of the 1296:reliable source 1179:The Book of IRC 1164: 1154: 1146: 1130: 1125: 1109: 1090: 1080: 1073: 1057: 1049: 1033: 991:irc.netsplit.de 839:reliable source 699:no such sources 560:standalone list 463:reliable source 383:deletion policy 381:section of the 302:based with the 154: 131: 92: 90:Platform column 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5653: 5651: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5606: 5545:is policy and 5524: 5521: 5520: 5519: 5504: 5489: 5485: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5446:purely primary 5361: 5350:am willing to 5341: 5318: 5306: 5302: 5295: 5177:editing policy 5171:, and per the 5163:which states: 5141:tried and died 5071: 5063: 5004: 5003: 5002: 4975: 4974: 4847: 4846: 4819: 4818: 4795: 4794: 4789: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4777:SchmuckyTheCat 4762: 4761: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4678:|editorn-last= 4644: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4464: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4226:you personally 4172: 4171: 4153: 4152: 4127: 4126: 4109: 4108: 4075: 4074: 4057: 4056: 3956: 3955: 3912: 3911: 3888:does not apply 3848: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3782: 3781: 3763: 3762: 3738: 3737: 3720: 3703: 3677: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3584: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3251: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3205: 3202:commenting out 3193: 3179: 3145: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3060:There is also 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2926: 2898: 2897:documentation. 2889: 2806: 2805: 2785: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2746: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2610:editing policy 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2329:World Wide Web 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2149:Self-published 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1841: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1439:editing policy 1390:to imply that 1301:self-published 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1144: 1129: 1123: 1108: 1071: 1056: 1047: 1032: 915:Linus Torvalds 883:self-published 856: 855: 854: 853: 835: 801: 750: 749: 734:keep recurring 729: 721: 702: 691: 655: 654: 653: 652: 564:embedded lists 513: 512: 498: 491: 490: 489: 466: 452: 451: 276: 274: 273: 272: 271: 232:primary source 225: 224: 210: 197: 153: 150: 127: 126: 113: 101:87.194.208.119 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5652: 5643: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5623: 5619: 5615: 5611: 5607: 5605: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5590: 5589: 5588: 5584: 5580: 5576: 5572: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5561: 5557: 5553: 5548: 5544: 5541: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5522: 5518: 5514: 5510: 5505: 5503: 5499: 5495: 5490: 5486: 5483: 5479: 5475: 5463: 5459: 5455: 5451: 5447: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5430: 5426: 5419: 5412: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5402: 5398: 5394: 5390: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5380: 5376: 5371: 5366: 5362: 5359: 5355: 5353: 5347: 5342: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5330: 5324: 5319: 5316: 5312: 5307: 5303: 5301: 5296: 5293: 5288: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5256: 5254: 5251: 5246: 5244: 5240: 5239: 5233: 5229: 5228:"non-notable" 5225: 5221: 5216: 5215: 5213: 5209: 5204: 5199: 5197: 5193: 5188: 5186: 5182: 5178: 5174: 5170: 5168: 5162: 5158: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5138: 5134: 5130: 5125: 5123: 5118: 5116: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5084: 5080: 5076: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5061: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5047: 5042: 5041: 5040:verifiability 5036: 5032: 5028: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5015:doesn't apply 5013: 5009: 5005: 5001: 4999: 4994: 4993: 4991: 4987: 4986:strikethrough 4983: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4973: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4960: 4959: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4937: 4935: 4931: 4926: 4921: 4919: 4916:we generally 4915: 4911: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4817:More specific 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4800: 4792: 4791: 4787: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4769: 4764: 4763: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4747: 4743: 4738: 4734: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4708: 4703: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4683: 4671: 4658: 4651: 4647: 4645:1-59749-017-2 4642: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4600:"IRC clients" 4597: 4594:of a subject 4593: 4589: 4588: 4584: 4578: 4574: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4537: 4536: 4531: 4530: 4511: 4507: 4503: 4496: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4463: 4460: 4459: 4454: 4450: 4445: 4444: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4390: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4291: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4259:prove a point 4255: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4235: 4233:and edit war 4232: 4227: 4223: 4220: 4216: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4094: 4089: 4085: 4084: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4036: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4024: 4019: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3953: 3950: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3910: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3872: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3854: 3849: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3832: 3831: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3746: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3721: 3719: 3716: 3715: 3710: 3709: 3704: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3685: 3680: 3679: 3675: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3656: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3582: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3428:or backdoor " 3427: 3423: 3419: 3414: 3413: 3409: 3408:Chuck Shramek 3405: 3399: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3376: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3351: 3347: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3229: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3210: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3194: 3192: 3191: 3186: 3185: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3144:publications. 3143: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3129: 3128: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3084: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3069: 3067: 3063: 3058: 3055: 3050: 3045: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3025: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3008: 3004: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2899: 2895: 2890: 2887: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2866: 2863: 2858: 2856: 2852: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2755:94.140.73.150 2752: 2744: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2601: 2595: 2591: 2590: 2584: 2580: 2579: 2576: 2572: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2550: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2439: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2419: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2401:due diligence 2398: 2394: 2390: 2385: 2383: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2362: 2358: 2352: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2316: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2268: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2156: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2103: 2101: 2097: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2062: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1943: 1939: 1934: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1919: 1913: 1909: 1908:Comparison of 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552:separate page 1549: 1545: 1544:Orion webpage 1541: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1458: 1453: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1430: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1407: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1380: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1283:verifiability 1280: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1180: 1175: 1172: 1159: 1152: 1147: 1145:1-85550-007-8 1142: 1138: 1134: 1126: 1124:1-886411-29-8 1121: 1117: 1113: 1106: 1101: 1098: 1085: 1078: 1074: 1072:1-85550-007-8 1069: 1065: 1061: 1054: 1050: 1048:1-886411-29-8 1045: 1041: 1037: 1030: 1025: 1023: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 998: 996: 992: 988: 983: 981: 980:verifiability 977: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 954: 950: 947: 942: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 875: 872: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 833: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 809: 806: 802: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 764: 759: 755: 752: 751: 748: 744: 740: 736: 735: 730: 727: 722: 719: 715: 711: 710:verifiability 707: 703: 700: 696: 692: 689: 685: 681: 677: 676: 675: 668: 664: 663: 661: 657: 656: 651: 650: 646: 642: 638: 632: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 608: 603: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 580: 576: 572: 567: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 544: 538: 534: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 515: 514: 511: 507: 503: 499: 496: 492: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 464: 460: 459: 457: 454: 453: 450: 446: 442: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 420: 419: 418: 414: 410: 406: 401: 398: 393: 392: 390: 384: 380: 379: 374: 370: 368: 364: 360: 356: 351: 349: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 316: 312: 311:verifiability 307: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 282: 277: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 241: 237: 233: 229: 228: 227: 226: 223: 219: 215: 211: 209: 205: 201: 198: 195: 192: 191: 190: 189: 185: 181: 176: 172: 168: 164: 160: 151: 149: 147: 143: 139: 138:99.41.104.240 135: 125: 122: 121: 116: 115: 114: 111: 110: 106: 102: 96: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5630: 5551: 5526: 5449: 5445: 5440: 5436: 5432: 5428: 5392: 5388: 5369: 5364: 5357: 5349: 5345: 5337: 5333: 5326: 5322: 5315:The Simpsons 5314: 5299: 5291: 5249: 5247: 5237: 5232:oddly enough 5231: 5227: 5223: 5219: 5217: 5207: 5206: 5202: 5200: 5195: 5191: 5189: 5164: 5153:simple facts 5152: 5148: 5144: 5132: 5126: 5119: 5114: 5106: 5100: 5074: 5066: 5059: 5044: 5038: 5030: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5007: 4997: 4995: 4985: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4938: 4929: 4922: 4917: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4851: 4848: 4822: 4820: 4811: 4807: 4796: 4772: 4765: 4741: 4727: 4715: 4711: 4704: 4649: 4628: 4607: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4580: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4554: 4532: 4487: 4479: 4457: 4428:Phase Theory 4422:— Preceding 4415: 4411: 4276: 4270: 4256: 4247: 4243: 4225: 4221: 4217:debate. The 4212: 4182: 4178: 4137: 4133: 4091: 4087: 4081: 4037: 4020: 4012: 4000: 3998: 3994: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3875: 3873: 3869: 3861: 3857: 3850: 3833: 3806: 3788: 3747: 3744: 3722: 3713: 3705: 3681: 3654: 3631: 3627: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3586: 3551:articles. -- 3548: 3536: 3519: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3437: 3429: 3421: 3417: 3415: 3411: 3404:Godwin's law 3400: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3377: 3364: 3356: 3354: 3343: 3335: 3322: 3312: 3246: 3227: 3226: 3222:nonetheless. 3213: 3212: 3201: 3196: 3195: 3189: 3188: 3184:non-existent 3183: 3182: 3175: 3164: 3160: 3152: 3148: 3132: 3131: 3070: 3062:common sense 3059: 3049:article size 3046: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3026: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3011: 3006: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2893: 2867: 2861: 2859: 2850: 2847: 2843: 2787: 2748: 2644: 2636: 2628: 2622: 2597: 2587: 2581: 2574: 2563: 2555: 2553: 2487: 2483: 2414: 2408: 2404: 2386: 2381: 2364: 2356: 2353: 2340: 2325:parent topic 2317: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2294: 2285:wiki-notable 2270: 2261: 2159: 2157: 2140: 2139: 2126: 2122: 2104: 2095: 2093:verification 2088: 2084: 2076: 2074: 2063: 2059:"Help files" 2058: 2054: 2041: 2036: 2033:encyclopedic 2032: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2007: 2003: 1993: 1980: 1976: 1971: 1967: 1961: 1952: 1948: 1946: 1941: 1937: 1935: 1926: 1922: 1915: 1907: 1898: 1782: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1689: 1652: 1616: 1608: 1575: 1571: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1426: 1414: 1408: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1381: 1376: 1366: 1362: 1346: 1344: 1338: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1311:verification 1310: 1303: 1294: 1290: 1278: 1276: 1272: 1238: 1234: 1178: 1176: 1149: 1132: 1111: 1104: 1102: 1076: 1059: 1052: 1035: 1026: 1009: 1005: 999: 986: 984: 975: 967: 959: 952: 951:for example 945: 943: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 911:Linux kernel 906: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 876: 868: 865:"asshattery" 864: 825: 813: 811: 804: 797: 785: 769: 757: 753: 733: 732: 705: 698: 694: 683: 674:UNVERIFIABLE 672: 671: 666: 660:WP:DISENGAGE 636: 633: 611: 606: 604: 591: 587: 583: 578: 574: 570: 568: 555: 551: 547: 540: 532: 527: 523: 494: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 455: 435: 423: 402: 396: 394: 386: 376: 372: 371: 366: 358: 354: 352: 347: 334: 330: 326: 314: 308: 299: 280: 278: 275: 252: 239: 214:71.214.52.97 200:71.214.52.97 170: 155: 128: 119: 112: 97: 93: 65: 43: 37: 5354:about that. 5327:I did edit 5263:POV-pushing 5236:notability 5222:topic, and 5183:section of 5173:WP:PRESERVE 5023:source code 4773:significant 4631:(1st ed.). 4336:Enric Naval 4179:speculative 4161:Enric Naval 4136:IRC client 4116:Enric Naval 4064:Enric Naval 4043:dilemma. -- 4029:WP:PRESERVE 3961:Enric Naval 3890:to article 3811:Enric Naval 3771:Enric Naval 3727:Enric Naval 3601:third-party 3593:No criteria 3460:Enric Naval 3418:fully agree 3380:our readers 3344:Enric, the 3259:Enric Naval 3117:Enric Naval 3044:individual. 2811:Enric Naval 2616:section of 2606:WP:PRESERVE 2361:WP:ITSLOCAL 2143:again, the 2012:our readers 2002:applies to 1745:deletionist 1576:source code 1570:states, as 1556:source code 1445:section of 1435:WP:PRESERVE 1402:section of 1345:Given your 1319:source code 1151:whatsoever. 1114:(1st ed.). 1038:(1st ed.). 970:a reliable 290:above. The 171:Please help 132:—Preceding 36:This is an 5313:, such as 5214:arguments. 5203:personally 5192:far better 5027:WP:SELFPUB 5012:WP:SELFPUB 4895:WP:SELFPUB 4871:WP:SELFPUB 4793:In General 4733:WP:SELFPUB 4267:background 4191:WP:SELFPUB 4183:subjective 4134:very first 3993:is called 3866:WP:SELFPUB 3676:Discussion 3636:WP:SELFPUB 3388:not a game 3214:unsourced. 3190:unsourced. 3003:notability 2409:should not 2407:mean they 2387:While the 2378:included." 2131:WP:SELFPUB 2043:WP:PRIMARY 2008:personally 1701:additional 1568:WP:PRIMARY 1506:WP:UNCIVIL 1467:redirected 1409:Under the 1377:commercial 1359:WP:SELFPUB 1339:noteworthy 1287:notability 1184:FUTON bias 1002:XiRCON AfD 899:WP:SELFPUB 871:made clear 784:, because 774:5,000,000+ 763:Softonic's 628:WP:COMP/PP 520:WP:SELFPUB 397:*sshattery 363:challenged 339:WP:SELFPUB 331:because... 5579:IRWolfie- 5529:IRWolfie- 5441:discussed 5329:ChatZilla 5238:guideline 5212:straw man 5181:WP:BEFORE 4716:including 4680:ignored ( 4668:ignored ( 4657:cite book 4495:Cite IETF 4202:and even 4033:WP:BEFORE 3927:IRC hacks 3838:IRWolfie- 3522:IRWolfie- 3346:WP:NOTDIR 3066:vaporware 3057:article.) 3014:that many 2988:IRWolfie- 2959:IRWolfie- 2791:IRWolfie- 2770:IRWolfie- 2709:IRWolfie- 2614:WP:BEFORE 2575:secondary 2495:IRWolfie- 2412:articles. 2341:extremely 2214:IRWolfie- 2111:computing 2066:footnotes 1859:IRWolfie- 1443:WP:BEFORE 1342:platform. 1169:ignored ( 1158:cite book 1105:Grapevine 1095:ignored ( 1084:cite book 1000:Yes, the 895:generally 684:existence 658:I had to 631:articles. 598:(see the 432:Chatzilla 240:mentioned 167:Chatzilla 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5614:Tothwolf 5596:Tothwolf 5591:Replied 5556:Tothwolf 5523:Criteria 5509:Yarcanox 5494:Yarcanox 5478:InspIRCd 5356:But not 5346:old ones 5271:Tothwolf 5035:WP:TRUTH 5008:reliable 4963:Tothwolf 4945:spamming 4939:Lexein, 4932:why the 4885:or make 4804:WP:TRUTH 4705:Require 4688:Tothwolf 4612:Tothwolf 4592:coverage 4587:WP:LISTN 4583:this RFC 4541:Yarcanox 4502:Tothwolf 4436:contribs 4424:unsigned 4281:Tothwolf 4244:far more 4142:Tothwolf 4098:Tothwolf 4045:Tothwolf 3900:Tothwolf 3862:Reliable 3851:Require 3689:WP:TRUTH 3640:Tothwolf 3632:reliable 3553:Tothwolf 3442:Tothwolf 3416:While I 3327:tag team 3307:Enric, " 3247:multiple 3074:Tothwolf 3022:possibly 2915:detailed 2871:Tothwolf 2862:reliable 2745:LimeChat 2649:Tothwolf 2641:WP:UNDUE 2625:WP:UNDUE 2612:and the 2583:WP:UNDUE 2480:WP:UNDUE 2429:Tothwolf 2371:esoteric 2363:states: 2331:(1991), 2309:some way 2267:WP:UNDUE 2257:WP:UNDUE 2210:WP:UNDUE 2167:Tothwolf 1985:Mac OS X 1953:reliable 1923:entitled 1781:, since 1613:WP:UNDUE 1511:WP:PROMO 1471:Tothwolf 1457:sub-stub 1441:and the 1400:WP:PROMO 1388:intended 1373:WP:PROMO 1299:, be it 1231:WP:PROMO 1196:Tothwolf 960:reliable 885:sources 754:Addendum 714:WP:TRUTH 680:reliable 641:Tothwolf 470:detailed 409:Tothwolf 355:does not 335:supports 134:unsigned 5393:suspect 5338:topic". 5259:move on 5143:). Not 5115:mandate 5097:move on 5093:drop it 4953:already 4925:WP:NPOV 4914:WP:RSUE 4910:WP:BLUE 4875:WP:RSUE 4746:WP:BLUE 4737:WP:BLUE 4728:content 4215:WP:FICT 3995:irc-two 3892:content 3858:content 3789:mention 3745:mention 3605:primary 3597:article 3545:WP:VOTE 3396:doesn't 3392:editors 3365:primary 3142:notable 3038:restore 3034:promote 2844:content 2375:obscure 2273:WP:NPOV 2115:WP:COMP 2047:WP:RSUE 2037:helpful 2025:outside 1733:in part 1558:? The 1404:WP:SPAM 1396:exactly 1369:WP:SPAM 1229:and/or 1167:|month= 1093:|month= 987:popular 964:WP:RSUE 944:As for 903:WP:COMP 879:primary 874:manner. 758:popular 588:popular 548:subject 533:because 486:sources 478:writing 474:listing 456:Example 436:because 405:WP:COMP 359:require 348:because 319:primary 300:content 39:archive 5454:Lexein 5375:Lexein 5370:Orion, 5358:Orion, 5348:) and 5323:should 5208:No one 5190:It is 5167:merged 5111:WP:NOT 5079:Lexein 5067:Orion. 5052:WP:NOT 5050:WP is 4998:facts, 4918:prefer 4856:Lexein 4722:, per 4596:within 4573:WP:NNC 4567:at all 4476:Drafts 4458:mabdul 4394:Lexein 4231:WP:BRD 4093:daemon 4083:client 4023:merged 4018:WP:ATD 4009:XiRCON 3933:2005, 3809:RS. -- 3793:Lexein 3752:Lexein 3714:mabdul 3693:Lexein 3660:Lexein 3613:Lexein 3567:Lexein 3489:Lexein 3373:Zircon 3369:XiRCON 3233:Lexein 3228:before 3151:about 3042:single 3024:cover. 2930:Lexein 2911:author 2907:any of 2886:WP:ATA 2600:merged 2564:should 2333:Google 2323:. The 2313:really 2289:WP:NNC 2277:misuse 2119:WP:RSN 1989:Cygwin 1968:really 1938:exists 1899:trying 1845:Lexein 1658:WP:ATD 1653:prose, 1617:really 1611:lends 1572:policy 1463:merged 1461:) was 1429:merged 1323:exists 1285:, not 1243:Lexein 1190:, and 843:Lexein 814:asshat 739:Lexein 716:, and 667:should 637:really 612:solely 596:XiRCON 543:WP:NNC 537:WP:NOR 524:can be 502:Lexein 441:Lexein 389:merged 375:? The 367:should 327:better 304:WP:GNG 296:WP:NNC 261:Lexein 245:WP:GNG 234:not a 180:Lexein 159:WP:GNG 120:mabdul 5437:Orion 5340:Ouch! 5305:want. 5292:Orion 5196:Orion 5019:about 4990:WP:OR 4982:WP:OR 4930:again 4799:WP:OR 4768:WP:RS 4720:WP:RS 4535:WP:RS 4466:Yes, 4332:ircii 4240:KVIrc 4208:ircII 4195:ircII 4088:"irc" 4005:WSIRC 4001:"irc" 3999:Like 3991:ircII 3987:"irc" 3975:quite 3896:topic 3876:first 3708:WP:RS 3684:WP:RS 3655:about 3628:still 3332:AmIRC 3321:when 3317:KVIrc 3309:cruft 3255:XChat 3209:WP:RS 3165:about 3157:WP:RS 3054:split 2974:Bilby 2894:about 2851:"irc" 2826:Bilby 2633:WSIRC 2418:WSIRC 2107:WP:3O 2083:have 1957:WP:OR 1918:civil 1838:WP:3O 1662:WP:RS 1540:WP:OR 1504:Your 1415:Orion 1315:Orion 1279:still 1223:WP:RS 995:Alexa 946:Orion 939:could 808:WP:RS 794:WP:RS 790:WP:RS 782:WP:RS 778:WP:RS 726:WP:RS 718:WP:RS 592:users 575:every 554:) of 552:title 281:still 259:. -- 257:WP:RS 249:WP:RS 175:WP:RS 163:WP:RS 16:< 5637:talk 5633:Gigs 5618:talk 5612:. -- 5610:here 5600:talk 5583:talk 5560:talk 5552:will 5547:WP:N 5543:WP:V 5533:talk 5513:talk 5498:talk 5458:talk 5401:talk 5379:talk 5275:talk 5269:. -- 5224:just 5179:and 5122:IRCd 5095:and 5083:talk 4967:talk 4961:. -- 4860:talk 4781:talk 4755:talk 4742:then 4735:and 4707:WP:V 4692:talk 4682:help 4670:help 4641:ISBN 4616:talk 4610:. -- 4585:and 4581:per 4571:Per 4545:talk 4506:talk 4488:many 4472:RFCs 4468:IETF 4432:talk 4398:talk 4340:talk 4285:talk 4279:. -- 4277:done 4252:here 4248:ever 4204:CTCP 4189:and 4187:WP:V 4165:talk 4146:talk 4138:ever 4120:talk 4102:talk 4068:talk 4049:talk 4031:and 4013:many 4011:and 3979:that 3965:talk 3919:IRCd 3904:talk 3884:WP:N 3880:IRCd 3853:WP:V 3842:talk 3815:talk 3807:good 3797:talk 3775:talk 3756:talk 3731:talk 3697:talk 3664:talk 3644:talk 3638:. -- 3617:talk 3571:talk 3557:talk 3543:and 3537:vote 3526:talk 3493:talk 3464:talk 3446:talk 3440:. -- 3434:WP:N 3430:must 3426:WP:N 3390:for 3371:and 3361:IRCd 3323:that 3263:talk 3237:talk 3153:this 3149:only 3121:talk 3078:talk 2992:talk 2978:talk 2963:talk 2934:talk 2875:talk 2865:way. 2855:IRCd 2830:talk 2815:talk 2795:talk 2774:talk 2759:talk 2713:talk 2653:talk 2637:some 2604:The 2560:FIFO 2556:only 2499:talk 2433:talk 2425:mIRC 2380:and 2345:IRCd 2305:both 2303:and 2279:the 2262:only 2218:talk 2171:talk 2125:and 2117:and 2098:the 2089:most 2081:mIRC 2057:and 2035:and 1994:The 1981:also 1972:much 1929:are 1863:talk 1849:talk 1783:2006 1779:blog 1690:mIRC 1475:talk 1465:and 1355:mIRC 1351:mIRC 1289:(or 1273:most 1247:talk 1235:rest 1200:talk 1194:) -- 1171:help 1141:ISBN 1120:ISBN 1097:help 1068:ISBN 1044:ISBN 1014:here 1006:much 974:and 935:made 925:and 881:and 847:talk 743:talk 706:zero 645:talk 607:many 584:have 518:Per 506:talk 482:does 445:talk 413:talk 341:and 265:talk 255:any 218:talk 204:talk 184:talk 142:talk 105:talk 5433:irc 5429:irc 5389:irc 5145:one 5133:not 5107:are 5075:one 5031:not 4941:now 4897:it 4852:and 4455:.) 4451:or 4211:do. 4200:DCC 4181:or 3357:irc 3336:two 3133:One 3018:all 3007:all 2919:you 2645:and 2629:irc 2405:not 2357:can 2160:are 2123:can 2096:and 2085:not 2079:of 2004:all 1977:can 1697:any 1693:has 1560:GUI 1546:or 1392:I'm 1239:any 1010:all 919:are 891:can 887:can 826:are 805:one 614:to 600:AfD 579:are 571:not 253:and 5639:) 5620:) 5602:) 5585:) 5562:) 5535:) 5515:) 5500:) 5460:) 5452:-- 5421:}} 5415:{{ 5403:) 5397:PT 5381:) 5373:-- 5277:) 5252:, 5085:) 4992:: 4969:) 4899:is 4862:) 4839:OR 4835:OR 4831:OR 4827:OR 4775:. 4757:) 4751:PT 4694:) 4686:-- 4674:; 4661:: 4659:}} 4655:{{ 4648:. 4635:: 4618:) 4547:) 4508:) 4498:}} 4492:{{ 4438:) 4434:• 4400:) 4392:-- 4342:) 4287:) 4167:) 4159:-- 4148:) 4122:) 4104:) 4070:) 4051:) 4027:, 4007:, 3967:) 3940:. 3906:) 3860:. 3844:) 3817:) 3799:) 3777:) 3758:) 3733:) 3699:) 3666:) 3658:-- 3646:) 3619:) 3573:) 3559:) 3528:) 3495:) 3466:) 3458:-- 3448:) 3422:or 3410:, 3352:. 3313:or 3265:) 3239:) 3171:. 3127:: 3123:) 3080:) 2994:) 2980:) 2965:) 2936:) 2928:-- 2903:or 2877:) 2832:) 2817:) 2797:) 2776:) 2761:) 2715:) 2655:) 2549:ii 2501:) 2488:ii 2484:ii 2435:) 2420:, 2173:) 2127:do 1949:is 1865:) 1851:) 1843:-- 1477:) 1413:, 1327:is 1304:or 1249:) 1202:) 1186:, 1162:: 1160:}} 1156:{{ 1148:. 1135:. 1088:: 1086:}} 1082:{{ 1075:. 1062:. 1051:. 976:is 968:is 953:is 907:do 849:) 770:#1 745:) 712:, 647:) 528:is 508:) 500:-- 447:) 415:) 267:) 220:) 206:) 186:) 144:) 107:) 5635:( 5616:( 5598:( 5581:( 5558:( 5531:( 5511:( 5496:( 5456:( 5399:( 5377:( 5294:. 5273:( 5245:. 5187:. 5124:. 5081:( 5048:. 4965:( 4858:( 4783:) 4779:( 4753:( 4690:( 4684:) 4672:) 4614:( 4543:( 4504:( 4430:( 4396:( 4338:( 4283:( 4265:( 4254:. 4163:( 4144:( 4118:( 4100:( 4066:( 4047:( 3963:( 3954:. 3902:( 3868:. 3840:( 3813:( 3795:( 3773:( 3754:( 3729:( 3695:( 3662:( 3642:( 3615:( 3569:( 3555:( 3524:( 3491:( 3462:( 3444:( 3342:. 3261:( 3235:( 3119:( 3076:( 2990:( 2976:( 2961:( 2932:( 2873:( 2857:. 2828:( 2813:( 2793:( 2772:( 2757:( 2711:( 2651:( 2497:( 2431:( 2220:) 2216:( 2169:( 1933:. 1861:( 1847:( 1840:. 1785:. 1473:( 1406:. 1371:( 1245:( 1198:( 1173:) 1127:. 1099:) 845:( 834:) 741:( 720:. 643:( 539:. 504:( 443:( 411:( 263:( 216:( 202:( 182:( 140:( 103:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index