Talk:Comparison of IRC clients/Archive 4

1725:. Get real: any Knowledge (XXG) editor can be objective about whether sources exist, and whether material is properly sourced, regardless of the topic area and expertise. If an editor cannot verify a claim in an article against cited sources, or finds the sources inexcusably weak, they have the incontrovertible right, under explicit policy, guideline, essay, and consensus, to speak up, and have their concerns honored, civilly. It is editors, by consensus, who determine article content - there are many, many editors here who want better sourcing, and inline citations, for claims made in this list cum table. Best to get along with them, and try to build consensus. Yes, compromise is probably necessary. As for why inclusion should be justified, and why defend challenged material, read 95:

honest: Lexein, IRWolfie, why exactly are you trying to make this into the equivalent of a Favorites list for IRC clients? I'm not a huge wiki editor, I can't link rules left and right, but I know that being a dick is looked down upon, and I have to call you both out on it. This is a comparison list of IRC clients. That means it compares IRC clients. Not popular IRC clients. Not Well Known IRC clients. Not your favorite IRC client. All IRC clients. Anyone who attempts to argue this otherwise promptly gets very displeased, nearly rude response rebuffing them from you both. So what's up, you two? What exactly do you have against this page?

4443:). However, here we have a situation where a large piece of text is commented out not while there is a search for consensus but in the hope that a source verifying the commented text will arrive at a later date. This is not acceptable both because of the size of the commented sections and because of the uncertainty that such a source or sources will ever arrive. If there is support for the text, but no reliable sources, then may I suggest storing the commented text in a subpage of the talk page so that it can be easily accessed when necessary. In the meantime, the commented text should be deleted. -- 1733:

or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Knowledge (XXG) reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Knowledge (XXG) is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing. --

220: 3193:, would result in the deletion of most IRC articles, and the drastic shortening of this page. The criteria here, under the extant fragile consensus, should not be dismissed so easily as "too stringent." Things could be so much worse. I do wish you would read, and assume good faith about (and appreciate), all the hard work that has gone before to save this and other IRC-related articles from oblivion, while still supporting the Knowledge (XXG) tenet of independent reliable sourcing of all content. -- 5233:, it's as easy as that. But, I suspect that your concerns are about IRCjr, not LeetIRC, so why don't we keep the arguments relevant? Sometimes it's difficult for people to see how something could be considered non-notable on Knowledge (XXG) when it seems so notable to them. This is one side effect of having a conflict of interest, it's difficult for you to look at the situation objectively. Consider the types of sources which are ubiquitous for truly notable IRC clients, like 4747:"Shrug." That's all you have to say. I went through the effort to properly do the table, include sources, and to make it consistent with the rest of the table. You deleted it on sight after reading the first line - if you had gone to line two, you'd have seen the third source. Which was appropriate to put as a version footnote, just like the other entries in the table do. It was on the second line of changes that I made! How much work would it have been to look at it? 1085:

fact, examples of the few acceptable uses of source code in Knowledge (XXG), which are not in dispute here. Nearly all the articles are about the practice of software engineering; a few are about specific software products. But still, none of the articles offered use inline citations to primary source code files for features of a software product itself, or anything else. I examined dozens of the articles at random, I'll describe four representative examples here:

3754:

lonely client added it to the table nobody accused him of a conflict of interest. I am quite frustrated with the intransigence here to opening the article up, and excuse me if it shows. Nobody really expects to be able to force anything in, because the (undo) button being wielded here by the people sitting on the article is too quick and too easy. You do not see any bogus editing caused by that forum thread - learn to take things in context.

31: 1367:, for example, it's not citing the source itself, it's really citing the NOTES and UPDATES files, which explain the cited fact in plain English; the link to the actual code file could be removed but it's good to have it there for verification purposes. Significant comments inside the source code are probably citable too. Making your own analysis from an uncommented function in a code file wouldn't be OK. 3550: 3802:

should be changed to "Comparison of popular IRC clients"... otherwise, leave them ALL if they are verifyable. And this is IMO, but I think IRCjr and LeetIRC are particularly notable because of the fact that they are clients for DOS that are still under development. That is a rarity, and they certainly will have their niche of users even in 2011. They appear to be the only two.

1371:

cite specific features from plain English comments in the source code and the project files. These texts can be taken as being part of the documentation of the project, as a last resource for features that don't appear in the documentation manuals because they are too specialized. I think that this has already been told to you in this talk page:

5275:

legitimate entry, and even suggested that I have Mike Chambers (the author of LeetIRC) write a review to give me an additional reliable source. So using the same criteria as applied to LeetIRC seemed perfectly logical to me. The refusal to add IRCjr but leave LeetIRC seems wrong given that LeetIRC was the standard I was given to use.

142:). I'm in favor of all clients listed in this list/table being supported by at least one independent reliable source. Otherwise, it's just a list of random self-proclaimed clients with no independent verification. I'm even willing to go so far as to try to establish reliability for sources which at first appear not to be reliable. 4502:. The commented text prevents needless re-introduction of material by well-meaning editors who will otherwise waste a lot of time adding material they "notice is missing" from the tables. The only time the commented material is going to be seen is during editing, so it doesn't get in anyone's way. Commenting out otherwise 180:

Unfortunately, as I discussed with Lexein, due to template changes and improvements to other sections of this article, it wasn't possible to simply revert back to a previous version and update from there. I'd planned to have it done by now, but I'd greatly underestimated just how time consuming the task would be. --

3340:. I never accepted MTCP as an IRC client, and I doubt Tothwolf did. The client has never been reviewed or significantly mentioned on its own. When the interested editors return, we will of course continue to discuss it. You decided to misread my suggestion to get IRCjr reviewed as "get MTCP reviewed." That was 969:, there will be endless, frequently fruitless debate, endlessly restarting. We're farther along that track now, and some actual concrete good could come from this and other discussions. I say, no point in giving up now. Though I do see definite value in getting back to articles, too, as I explained in my email. 3651:. Both of these facts seriously harm your credibility here when it comes to discussing things related to IRCjr. This may seem counter-intuitive (after all, who is a better source of information about IRCjr than the person who created it, right?), but this is the way Knowledge (XXG) works. Knowledge (XXG) is a 1534:). (The fun part comes when secondary and primary sources are in disagreement and you have to asses their relative reliability. This is usually solved by finding better secondary sources that explain why the primary sources are wrong, misleading, or why they need to be interpreted in a certain context. This is 5093:

Apparently you don't like being wrong, and called out on it. Try to be more professional - you dropped the ball on this. You've been going way over the top to try to prevent this particular edit, even though there are other clients on the list as well (or poorly) sourced. Your bias shows pretty clearly.

2470:, but in my beard-stroking opinion, it reads as a recommendation, by an expert, in a book, even without a full review. Since the primary source is fully informative, I'm inclined to pass this entry. Obviously, more exhaustive reviews are desirable, but that desire, to me, does not exclude this client. -- 746:, "Sources must support the material clearly and directly" - presumably, without internal conflict or vagueness. Would the file name and line number be cited? Hm. If not, why not? Interestingly, no such information seems to have been listed in citations so far. It's an interesting test case. I hereby 5062:

And now you are are posting links to funny pictures claiming I'm the problem. (That's an elementary school tactic.) Let's see, an editor who deletes without reading what he is deleting, or somebody who makes an edit with properly sourced material and has it deleted on sight. Where is the problem?

3469:

And you conveniently choose to ignore that the reliable source for FreeDOS that is used to justify LeetIRC being on the list is content free, and is not a review of LeetIRC. The references from FreeDOS just say that it was shipped with FreeDOS. If FreeDOS ships the entire mTCP suite (which is does,

3292:

As for concensus, Tothwolf was clearly of the opinion that it should be included. I am too. Other people are commenting (anonymously, but still commenting) about the overly restrictive inclusion policies in this article. We don't have consensus - we have a draw, and it is easier to undo than it is

1732:

If Knowledge (XXG) had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial,

1084:

The size or detail of WP is no issue. I do wish you'd taken my request seriously. This portion of the discussion is about citing source code as a WP source, especially from a primary source, to support claims about software features. The examples offered are not concrete examples of this, but are in

737:

Consider: if source code were to be cited, which part? Whole releases? Code blocks? Statements? Function names? Comments? Documentation embeds? Readmes? What if the comment says, "connect to proxy" but the code does no such thing? Or if the code seems to, but waaaay down in the header files, that

629:

A programmer reading a program learns information about instructing a computer, and might use this information to improve personal programming skills and perhaps the craft of programming. Moreover, programmers communicating ideas to one another almost inevitably communicate in code, much as musicians

286:

I did not say I don't know much about the subject, I know of many (heard of, not used, I know use irssi exclusively) of the clients listed. I said I don't know much about these specific clients since I have -never- heard of them. I think there is no reason to justify their inclusion that I have seen,

3933:

include them all, but there are two reasons why we probably shouldn't... One, due to browser limitations it would be difficult to include all clients in a single article and have it still remain useful to readers (we would have to split the material into multiple articles, which would then limit the

3753:

As for conflict of interest, I am the author and I've never hidden that. Authors of other IRC clients are trying to get their clients added to the list too, *for completeness*. Right now you have one IRC client for DOS listed; there are at least three. I can assure you when the author of that one

3239:

Let's narrow the scope of the discussion - reliable sources. IRCjr has the virtually the same sourcing as LeetIRC. The only difference is that it is distributed with a group of other programs. The reliable source used in both cases are the home page for the programs and a reference from FreeDOS.

3076:

Lexein, by your reasoning if I write an operating system and an office suite, and then I include the worlds best IRC client in there, that IRC client would be excluded. I'm playing by your rules here - the reliable sources that I cited are the same as those used by LeetIRC, and those don't count as

1984:

sufficient with its significant mention in a reliable source (a book) + one informative primary source. Simple verifiability and reliability are enough. Tothwolf disagrees with insistence on external verifiability, and SchmuckyTheCat disagrees that one independent RS is enough for a list entry : in

1851:

As I mentioned to Lexein the other day, ultimately the best thing we can do with a handful of clients which are difficult to source will be to just comment them out for the time being. This will prevent others from wasting a lot of time re-adding them again (often with less accurate information) and

1307:

Reading source code does not require "specialist knowledge". Source code 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

1136:

My position remains that quoting or citing of source code files from primary sources hasn't happened, not for software features, not where code is discussed for the purpose of illustration, nor where it is quoted in toto (an RS quoting it is used instead), or anywhere else. I believe it is, in fact,

958:

I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my challenge about trying to actually _use_ source code as a source, and its pitfalls. There is value in that discussion, and it could escalate to the establishment of an essay or guideline on allowing, and under what circumstances, such usage. You should see that

892:

meaning of the quote is that programmers are the intended human audience for source code, and possess skills and training suitable for its interpretation. At Knowledge (XXG), we rely on sources which unambiguously make statements, which we then cite. Source code is not necessarily such a clear and

194:

Looking forward to it! This stuff does take a lot of time, that's for sure. I just hope you get it to a usable state before you completely burn out or lose your mind. I sorta wish Cirt would take a stab at some of the harder to source items - he has access to a university library, apparently, and

94:

I'm just going to ask a simple, blunt question. I'm just a simple guy that was looking for IRC clients, and was dissapointed and just how small this comparison list was. I went to the talk page... and found a multi-page argument about 'Firm Rules for Inclusion' and bickering over Orion. I'm gonna be

5228:

on Knowledge (XXG). There is nothing preventing anyone from adding non-notable entries to this list, therefore the existence of an IRC client in this list doesn't conclusively prove that it is notable. If you truly believe that LeetIRC is not notable enough to be on this list, then delete it from

4687:

As for the SourceForge announcement not being reliable enough - don't raise the bar again. The announcement is from Jim Hall. It is project news for the FreeDOS project that he maintains. He controls the news items that get posted there; nobody asked him to do that, or gave him wording to use as

4481:

Collectively, the hidden text is very large. Regardless of length, each individual line should not be included anyway because of the uncertainty associated with when a source will be found. Hidden text is generally meant to be used for instructional or informational purposes and is not really meant

3979:

mbbrutman: stop moaning! I am also an author of a relatively new IRC client (ClicksAndWhistles) which did have a standalone article and entries in the tables but it was deleted due to not being notable enough at the time (it may be now). Editing an encylcolpedia for the purposes of shameless self

3778:

SW - one more thing before this matter is closed. You accuse me of being a single purpose editor. Go see the IBM PCjr page - I clearly am not a single purpose editor. There are also plenty of other edits that I did anonymously to deny people the chance to carp; not every editor needs to be on an

3579:

I've read the above discussion, browsed recent editing history, and looked at the relevant external sources. My opinion is that IRCjr should not be included in this list. When adding an entry to a list on Knowledge (XXG), the entry must satisfy the inclusion criteria for the list. Since this list

2550:

Well, they do a lot of reviews there, so there's some expertise. The prose is usually balanced, not glossing over deficiencies, listing pros and cons. Though they are on the short side (this one's 269 words), reviews there seem to have a consistent style and format. (I don't like that a reader has

2395:

is not the way forward for this article to be inclusive without being indiscriminate. We, as editors, should simply recognize when sources have spoken. The problem is solved. Our decision is made for us by the existence of those sources. I believe in a balance between the dual Knowledge (XXG) goals

1848:

as discussed above). Lexein and Yarcanox had offered to help add sources, but we still need to not bulk remove material if a source can't be located right away since Google Books doesn't index everything and since a lot of material is difficult to find today, such as has been discussed elsewhere on

1610:

Once again, I fail to understand how somebody who only has a passing knowledge of the subject matter is able to exercise a line item veto based on what they consider notable or not notable. There are other clients that you seem to have an issue with to, including IRCjr which used to appear in this

872:

articles, then for the benefit of Knowledge (XXG) and everyone else (anyone who has had the patience to fully read our back-and-forth arguments deserves a barnstar or two), it might be best if you and I go back to working in the subject areas we generally tended to work in prior to our argument and

229:

These are the specific clients I have issue with being included LeetIRC, nexIRC, Neebly, KoolChat, DMDirc and AmIRC and ii. I admit that I don't know much of anything about these clients, but it is for those who wish to have them included show why so, not for me to justify their exclusion. Is there

5274:

I was told (in the history of this discussion) to get more sources. I waited for more sources to become available - specifically the FreeDOS crowd picked up on the code when I released the source code. That made the references effectively the same as LeetIRC. People have pointed to LeetIRC as a

5172:

plus informative primary source. FreeDOS was a reluctantly permitted, and on-the-bubble, source held up by (apparently solely by) my personal enthusiasm, and always persistently opposed by at least two other vocal, involved, editors. Said enthusiasm has, as you might have noticed by now, subsided.

5122:

It's time to stop the madness. We should be discussing what the inclusion criteria are in the face of a thinly sourced subject area - IRCjr is not the only client that is being blocked from the table. Do we need another table/article for lesser known clients? Is there a better way to have these

5032:

Absolutely fascinating! You delete edits without fulling reading them. When it's pointed out that the material you deleted is properly sourced (at least by your rules) you scold for not bringing that up early. When it's pointed out that the original edits that you deleted had the reference, you

3824:

With all due respect, an IRC client isn't notable just because you (or I) "think" that it is. If they are so unique because they are DOS clients that are still under development, then someone other than their authors would be writing more than 1-sentence mentions about them. List articles always

3722:

Advertising? You are kidding me, right? This is open source DOS software ... which is why we are having such a problem with notability. Nobody is reviewing DOS software; the notability guidelines are inappropriate for such a narrow domain. This point has been gone over and over ... it narrows

3592:

easily, so they get a free pass. Other clients, however, need to have at least a minimum of third party coverage to be verifiable. There are two sources in the article (currently commented out) for IRCjr. The first is a link to the FreeDOS website, to a page on MTCP. There are zero mentions of

2251:

is disputed, or dispute it yourself in the policy's page. As far as I am concerned, most editors agree that list articles can have their own inclusion criteria to limit the number of items, and that the inclusion criteria can require a certain level of notability for items in the list. For example

785:

of source code as a reliable source which can be used without support by any other source, and without appropriate distancing language, and do so without resorting to the non-applicable foreign language provision of RS, or you must prove that editors describing a subject is not original research.

179:

I actually have an offline draft where I've gone back through the older revisions to pull salvageable content and reintegrate it with the newer templates. I need to make one or two more passes over it and make a few more template changes, then we can begin to add sources for more of these entries.

2760:

is not about the content of an article, it's about the notability of the topic of an article, so we don't say "notability" here about clients, we use "verifiability" and "reliability" of sources. I'm shocked, shocked I say, that you haven't pored through every word of the above discussions (heh).

1613:

Just because you have not heard of a client doesn't mean you have the right to prevent others from seeing it in a comparison table. And I'm willing to bet that you don't have a DOS machine available, so you have no inclination or desire to ever hear about clients for that operating system. (And

1370:

However, they are still primary sources and we shouldn't have entries in the list that are based only around them (in the same way that we shouldn't have an article that is only based in primary sources). Once a client has an entry in the list (because it has third-party RS) you should be able to

1278:

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. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to

3801:

The notability guideline refers to whether or not a certain topic can have it's own full article. It should not apply to something like this. This page is supposed to compare IRC clients. If you want to exclude certain clients that clearly exist because they are not popular, this article's title

3152:

Lexein, I think we need to have an external review here. My reliable sources are nearly identical to those of LeetIRC, and the FreeDOS.Org link is not a review, just a listing. To be consistent you should add mTCP, or decide that LeetIRC and others in the tables are not well enough sourced and

1529:

About citing from the HISTORY documentation file and then citing also the source file, that's for purposes of verification, I think that's called "substantiation of what secondary sources say by citing primary sources". For example, in historic articles you can cite what a historian says about a

4817:

the Sourceforge ref per se (used only in the 2nd table) until after 3O. Nobody would have missed the Sourceforge ref if you had put it in the first and second table. And you didn't mention the FreeDOS home page with the announcement until just above here. I'm pretty sure I'm free to wait for a

1124:

is about the practice of software engineering, and the quoted code blocks, inline cited from the IOCCC (refs #10 & #11) (not the original author), are short, unambiguous, and complete; claims made about the features of the obfuscated software are not cited from its source code, but from the

4259:

at this article among those involved, both adding and deleting editors. Discussion here encompasses a long history to which you may not have been a party. It's in the archives. Because of the difficulty in adding content to tables, and the request by adding editors, and expressed agreement by

3011:

IRCjr has exactly the same sourcing as LeetIRC - weak references on FreeDOS and the author's home page. The only difference is that IRCjr is part of a larger group of applications and gets downloaded with that group. I can't prohibit people from talking about the group of applications (which

2390:

I'm quite satisfied that the existence, and indeed recommendation, of Limechat has been independently verified by at least one independent reliable source, and its primary source is informative enough. That's enough. It's no longer unsourced. Battling for more is the same as battling that an

916:

by big companies with editorial policies and even a set of standardized formats. Big difference with the source code written by a one-off random blighter in a garage with a website. Sheet music date, author, publisher, key, tempo, are clearly stated with a common language without complicating

5092:

And now you are posting essays to defend yourself. You should spend as much time reading the material you are about to delete! Then maybe this kind of crap wouldn't happen, and Wiki would get such a bad reputation. I love the part about not wanting to hear anything from particular people.

1530:

famous general and then you add some primary material like contemporary texts of Plutarch to substantiate it. In a folklore article you can cite from secondary sources that a certain lore character was drawn in a certain way before 1930, and provide drawings pre-1930 to substantiate it (see

1417:, the 'NOTES' file supports "CTCP" being added in version 2.1 and 'source/ctcp.c' gives us the author, "Michael Sandrof". Similarly, for the statement "The DCC protocol was implemented by Troy Rollo in 1991 for version 2.1.2.", the 'UPDATES' file supports "DCC" being added in version 2.1.2: 4782:

This entire fiasco shows what is wrong with the editing of this article. Now the fate of the entry (and a related entry which you've been defending) depends on two people who've shown a tendency to delete rather than include. It's not like this table was so large that it was out of hand.

2698:

The Zenirc website itself isn't a reliable source for its attributes? I count eight clients in this comparison which don't "have a page" at all, and I didn't even bother to see how many of the rest of them had "stubby" pages. That just isn't a good argument against inlcuding clients in the

3627:

Mbbrutman also repeatedly contends that LeetIRC has the same sourcing as IRCjr, and it is allowed to remain on the list. Firstly, since LeetIRC's entry on FreeDOS is actually about LeetIRC (and mentions it by name), the sourcing of the two articles is not identical. Secondly, using the

4041:(the first two accounts eventually abandoned after being sanctioned by ArbCom and the third later blocked for this very behaviour), which itself was part of their campaign of harassment towards me (since I had been working on this article), and is detailed in the links at the top of my 1325:

then you are going to have to take your argument to a much larger venue because this has been acceptable practice here on Knowledge (XXG) since the beginning. I did note you dropped your "source code isn't a reliable source" argument, so I'm not surprised to see you trying to now claim

1783:

And there will likely be quite a few more when the mass-blanking of this article is undone soon (including quite a few which are now blue links and should have never been removed from these tables in the first place)...that is, until people begin restoring and adding references per

267:

because as has been brought up above, and can be seen in the edit history of the article, we've never had much of a problem with "spammers" here. There just isn't much money to be made in "spamming IRC clients", and especially the Freeware and Open Source clients you are mentioning

2146:

links to had accidentally been tagged as a content guideline (along with a number of other such pages) when it was meant to be tagged as a MoS guideline... You dropped that argument when that was pointed out and corrected but then went on to try to make other arguments to exclude

5188:

You say you deleted nothing pre-emptively. Yet you deleted a new entry, then blamed me for not pointing out a reference that was part of the entry you deleted. So at a minimum you deleted without fully reading, and tried to assign responsibility for the missed reference to

3007:

There is nothing "freakin' difficult to understand." IRCjr has its own end user documentation. It has its own web page and has had it continuously. It was the first (and only) application I released, back when mTCP didn't have a name and it was entirely embedded in IRCjr.

715:

That quote does not support the position that some random unknown blighter's software source code constitutes a reliable, verifiable source on Knowledge (XXG), nor the claim that no expertise is required to understand source code. The quote indeed invokes "human being", but

2500:

Deletion imposes too great a burden on re-adding editors once the revert window has closed. There has been consensus that all entries without articles will be sourced, so deletion is not necessary - commenting out is enough. (Enric, thanks very much for commenting out, and

1617:

Why on earth are we trying to justify inclusion of particular subject matter to somebody who isn't interested in the subject matter, and isn't being very objective? Nobody is asking for separate articles, and that is where the notability "GUIDELINES" would be applicable.

405:

BitchX is fine for the article since it has it's own article. I don't see why EPIC is not included since third party references can show its notability. Also since wikipedia does not have firm rules that does allow for applying an inclusion criteria to the article.

230:

any current justification for their inclusion. note: if a client is being included because you think it is interesting then you are implicitly applying notability as a criteria. I have no objection at this time with any of the other clients currently in the article.

465:. All of these have had a major following and tons of users, but again due to the dynamic nature of the web and internet as a whole (including stuff which used to be readily available via FTP), it isn't as easy to find information on some of these as it once was. 5284:

The discussion here should be what are the inclusion criteria; following the lead of Cnet and Lifehacker is going to cause a lot of clients to be excluded, and needlessly too. This article is not serving its readers with such a narrow focus. (Mike - retired!)

2343:(The name Gavin Collins is vaguely familiar to me, we have commented in the same discussions a few times. I had no idea that he had been banned. No, I don't think that I am going to get banned for my comments in this talk page. Now, you, on the other hand.....) 863:

Lexein, this is the last time I'll state this. If all you want to do is fight and attack other editors such as myself who disagree with you, then I see no point in attempting to continue to discuss any of this with you. While you and I may not always agree,

4620:

For showing existence? Or for showing the minimum level of notability that we should put it in the list? Yes on the first, no on the second. This is also why LeetIRC should be removed. A database listing from an open source project merely shows existence.

4087:

an independent RS discussing it, for verifiability. Back to the present, we're still agreeing about the need for independent verifiability, aren't we? I mean, several clients are back specifically because of our mutual and cooperative work in that regard.

4764:

You spend all of this time deleting and telling me why it doesn't belong in the table, when it clearly is as reliably sourced as other things in the table. And all you have to say is 'Shrug'. Where I come from, when people make a mistake they own up to

5223:

mentions IRCjr except for saying that it is the IRC client for mTCP, a TCP/IP stack which is used to run programs on ancient computers. If your entire argument rests on the fact that LeetIRC is sourced as poorly as IRCjr was, then your argument is that

3723:

the scope of the article so greatly and it's not a credible article. Look at the count of clients - 30 or so. Some of them have not been updated since the last century! Can you really call this a "Comparison of IRC Clients" given how incomplete it is?

3184:

I think I made it clear that I would abide by group consensus on IRCjr. Getting inclusion criteria here has been a hard battle, balancing Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements for reliable sources and topic-area source availability, quality, and reliability.

1563:

Going back to names of authors. If there are other sources that are more secondary, then you should cite those sources. And then you can cite too the primary sources to substantiate the claim, and to provide further verification that the claim is indeed

3417:

That is the problem inherent here - this isn't about mTCP, it is about IRCjr. IRCjr is the IRC client that was listed in this article, deleted, and can not get added back in. The fact that it is part of a collection of programs called mTCP is

3349:. I think you know that if the inclusion criteria were relaxed, then the article would be decimated again by deleters asserting "unsourced", and afflicted by edit wars again. Period. I do not want that. At the moment of this writing, IRCjr is 2752:

BTW the RS doesn't have to support all features claims, but it does have to be a non-trivial discussion of the client, not just a listing, or a terse comment. This is why Circe and Zenirc aren't quite ready for listing here yet. I say "yet",

2069:

is not used as a criterion for inclusion here, but reliability and verifiability are. I think Limechat has exceeded the threshold of inclusion for a list/chart: one reliable independent source, and one informative, reliable primary source.

4308:

I'm not big on spirit, policy backs me. We could argue about this but the quickest way to resolve it is simply for you or someone else to find some decent sources for it's inclusion. I never remove properly sourced material from articles.

4852:

The burden is on you to read before deleting! That's a basic responsibility of an editor! I had wrongly assumed you did at least that. It's fascinating that any mistake I make is mine, and any mistake that you make is mine too. (Mike)

4640:

Do you not read what other people try to edit here? Go to that version. Go to the release history table. Look at the date. Follow the footnote! I had that link on the release history footnote! It's been there all along! That is on

3938:). Two, there were a lot of small one-off clients written in languages such as Visual Basic which never really had any users and were largely of interest only to their author, and including those would not really be beneficial to readers. 1861:

on the other hand is not helping to improve this article and if need be I'll post screenshots of me having to ban him from some other sites and communities prior to him suddenly popping up here. I guess he has nothing more to do since

3344:

and you should accept the (perhaps momentary) consequences of that decision. Please stop using provocative, uncivil language, like "patronizing" when I am only trying to remind you of the work which you wish to dismiss. Please read

3015:

Jim Hall's content says nothing more meaningful about LeetIRC than it does about mTCP, which he points out in the announcement includes IRCjr. You (Lexein) specifically mentioned that you considered Jim Hall to be a reliable source.

1704:

doesn't say pretend to be civil, it says, "be civil." Inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to improve the situation, such as: "continue to try to force through something using the notability guideline". Well, I see an effort to force

3443:

I'm not asking anybody to include mTCP - I am asking to have IRCjr included. Your interpretation that IRCjr does not exist because it is part of a set of other programs (all of which are stand alone executables) is ill-informed and

4654:

I specifically tried to make the IRCjr entry as clean and as properly sourced as the LeetIRC reference to avoid this silliness. You yourself said it looked like the same references last week when you first tried to justify deleting

2964:

disputed the addition of IRCjr, and deleted, with the edit comment "Seems NN". This establishes one editor's firm objection. Per the wishes of several adding editors here, and the assent of two (?) deleting editors, I restored and

4335:

article. Please read the 2010 and 2011 discussions to see where things are here, now, especially about inclusion criteria, rationale for use of particular sources, and rehabilitation of sources. Policy backs us all. That's why we

909:. And, for open source code, which can vary considerably over time and may not have any fixed releases, just a repository, it's even worse. And don't make that out to be an attack, either. It's just a position which has merit. 4045:. Basically, the later AfD attempts of this and other articles I had previously edited began to fail (as other Knowledge (XXG) editors caught on to what these three individuals were up to), so they changed tactics and instead 3086:

As for the collection argument, I can't force people to talk about IRCjr in isolation, nor is that reasonable. I'm not going to change the way I distribute my IRC client for inclusion in this table - that is not reasonable

1936:

Limechat sourcing is not sufficient. HydraIRC and nettalk should have sources added to their articles by those familiar with them, or be removed. Several clients do not have entries in every table, but that is maintenance.

4534:

Remove commented items: agreed. Remove item (IRCjr) not named in source: agreed. But since 3O did not declare LeetIRC "poorly sourced", I've partially reverted SchmuckyTheCat's edit. Careful with that trigger finger, Tex.

2027: 3257:

Given that, how do you exclude one but not the other? Excluding it because it is packaged with other programs is not reasonable. Especially since the supposed 2nd reliable source from FreeDOS.org does not review either

2039: 1585:

TL;DR: you can't make a citation that only says "I read the dcc.c file myself and I can tell that it performs DCC ACTION because I can interpret source code". And you should use more secondary sources whenever possible.

156:

The point: the voice of Knowledge (XXG) is the voice of the reliable sources which we cite. If no reliable sources speak on a topic, then neither does WP. Hence, there are few IRC entries in this comparison table. See

2149:

This also isn't a list, this is an article which includes tables of facts, as discussed at length elsewhere on this talk page. This would be a list of it was simply a list of wikilinks to other articles, which is what

928:

You've often told people to "back off" and "go away". That's not the Knowledge (XXG) way, and it's not my way. If you honestly felt attacked, above, sorry - there's joshing, and there are attacks, and I was joshing,

4053:, it is rather unfortunate that a few more people got sucked into this and took up their cause, which has resulted in a continuation of the drama and edit warring long after those three individuals were sanctioned. -- 3740:). That reference was also in the deleted (now commented out) IRCjr entry; look at the version history footnote. It was a recent reference too. So yes, the FreeDOS.Org owner is aware of it and mentions it by name. 4411:. In this case we've commented pending sourcing. The material is not visible to the public, is not controversial, is not BLP, and is not extraordinary claims, so deletion is not called for. I've taken this to 5160:. As I have repeatedly stated, and the edit history will back me up, I deleted nothing preemptively, and I deleted nothing without apparent consensus. A review of the inclusion criteria discussion will show 2046:: $ 4.99). Two other apps with loyal following are (...) IRC may be an ancient (in Internet years) technology, but with apps such as Colloquy and LimeChat for the iPhone, it will live for many years to come." 3825:

have inclusion criteria, just because this one doesn't specifically define the criteria doesn't mean we can or should include every last IRC client that has ever existed. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

2871:

Ah. That's helpful, and belongs in a hidden comment at the top of articles where used. One question: what's the threshold for "no longer maintained?" A primary source on the project? I'd be cool with that.--

2551:

to click "read more" to see the whole review.) Anyways, since that's the only independent source at the moment, if editors feel strongly about it, I wouldn't mind re-commenting it. Thoughts from others? --

595:

Knowledge (XXG)'s voice should only be used to speak the words of reliable (independent or primary) sources, never unreliable ones without explicit distancing language, and never original research. --

2455:. Above Lexein called this a significant mention defending it. Not. Does this also contradict the table itself which says Limechat was developed with Objective C? What is the source for Objective C? 972:

Your interpretation of my attempting to focus on policy as another "personal attack" is uncalled for, as it keeps focus on editors, not articles and yes, policy. Again I invite you to actually read

2319: 1630:

I am being entirely objective in asking for a standard inclusion criteria that applies to all clients. If I wasn't interested in the subject area at all I wouldn't be trying to improve the article.

485: 4231:

Where do you get this idea from? Unsourced content can be deleted at any time by anyone, the onus is on the person adding the content to find source before returning not the person deleting it. --

138:

by other reliable sources. But they're not. This list, unfortunately, has had to be built up manually from individual sources and existing Knowledge (XXG) articles (which exist due to sufficient

747: 368:. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". " 3495:

We are not reaching a consensus - see the part about "stalemate" above. Tothwolf clearly did accept it. It was a part of the article for a good long time before the damaging deletion frenzy.

1193:

when noting that a software program supports a feature. Source code will generally even be more accurate of a software program's own documentation included with the software (<sarcasm: -->

2166:, if that were previously agreed to by the editors who maintained it. When comparative elements, footnotes, and text are introduced however, it ceases to simply be a "list of wikilinks" and 588:) and b) it's unreliable without verification(ask any senior software engineer): verification of source code requires original research (inspection, compilation, functional testing), which 3876:- discussed in an independent reliable source". I keep saying: we need help digging up sources which aren't online, and reliable sources can pop up in some of the most surprising places: 2154:

was written for. As also previously discussed on this talk page, we simply didn't have comparison articles when that Manual of Style page was being drafted. Now, the text you mentioned at

849:

and are willing to throw out everything in order to do so. To take this one step further, if we can cite sheet music for simple facts, we can similarly cite source code for simple facts.

4391:

Your deletion and reversion and edit summary goes against policy, against consensus here, and against your inferred consent above to let the commented material stand. You again deleted

4344:, intended to improve Knowledge (XXG) while not unduly penalizing the editing team, when content which is nearly sufficiently sourced, and can be reasonably expected to be fully so. -- 4046: 2131: 2123: 1100:

language. There is no quoting or inline citation of the software source code, or the embedded source, to support claims. (Also, the extant examples are OR, as they are not quoted from

1069:

On a side note, the best way to handle "unreleased" code in a repository is to link to a static revision id, much as we do when we have to link to the static version of a wiki page. --

330:. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Knowledge (XXG) can cover, or the total amount of content. " 859:. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Knowledge (XXG) can cover, or the total amount of content." 3365:

takes some time to understand what the fragile consensus arrived at so far has achieved. If you wish 3O to be able to do their job, you and I should stop talking now, and just wait.

2589: 2261: 2257: 976:. You're not a victim here. I have no desire to see you stop editing, or stop discussing, here, or anywhere else, though I do wish you'd sometimes see other points of view. -- 5063:

I think anybody who is reading this can figure that out, despite your refusal to take any responsibility for a preemptive delete, and then spending a week trying to justify it.

1840:

We won't be adding more new clients to this article yet, just restoring those that were mass-blanked, which also included the removal of refs and some footnotes (although I am

835:"Instructions such as computer code, which are intended to be executable by a computer, will often convey information capable of comprehension and assessment by a human being." 845:

As a programmer yourself, you know this is true, and while you understand that my arguments have merit, you have become so fixated on "winning" your argument with me that you

626:

Instructions such as computer code, which are intended to be executable by a computer, will often convey information capable of comprehension and assessment by a human being.

287:

but maybe I can be swayed with the right evidence. Also I have no interest in answering this colour question you refer to: since I would be about 6 to 8 at the time, also see

4482:

to park content (except when consensus seeking is in process). I agree that saving disparate table entries in a subpage is a bummer but that's really the proper way to go.--

4813:

Yep, shrug. Cameron Scott deleted "on sight", I reverted and commented it out instead. I have nothing to own up to. We work with what we're given. You did not explicitly

4467:

about deletion vs hiding, given a better editor, and would likely not have ever bothered with commenting. The "stash" subpage helps a little, I suppose, in the interim. --

4017:

Erm, actually, ClicksAndWhistles was removed from this comparison article as part of that mass-blanking last year in August 2010 and didn't have anything to with either

2163: 123:

What's up? I agree with SchmuckyTheCat's reply. We're not going for a "Favorites" list, nor claiming to be all-inclusive, nor attempting to be rude. For me, it's about

1658:"I admit that I don't know much of anything about these clients, but it is for those who wish to have them included show why so, not for me to justify their exclusion." 3376:

IRCjr, but discussed, and now appears to be willing to wait for 3O, for which I am appreciative. Because 3 editors were involved you may have to request assistance at

1918:

Schmucky removed DMDirc, and I have commented out Koolchat, Neebly and nexIRC (forgot to mention that one in the edit summary). ii seems to have passable sources now.

4122:

as well as many others; are neither of these sources reliable enough and if not why? Do *all* the other clients in these tables have more reliable sources? (Leigh)

2003:, which has been established (without dispute) as a reliable source on the subject of IRC. Your deletion has made the work of ref'ing that entry that much harder. -- 3659:. If IRCjr was notable, then an independent reliable source would have already written something about it and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Furthermore, 3736:

Getting to the specifics of IRCjr, one of the references that you both failed to mention - a FreeDOS.Org announcement mentioning IRCjr as part of the mTCP suite. (

5241:, and then look at the sources that you're putting forward, which are data tables and single-sentence mentions. I think your best move at this point would be to 2093: 1131:

shows source code which is quoted from sections of published academic articles which include source code (ref #10). The article is cited, not source code files.

584:("the source code lists the following features") because a) it's a transformation of the subject (it's like a WP editor citing the text on a vase - it's obvious 1040: 4688:

I'm sure somebody is going to suggest. It's just as credible as if it had appeared directly as FreeDOS.org. (In fact, it does appear right on FreeDOS.org! (

1096:

are about the language embedded within the product, which is reliably documented, for the purpose of illustration of the embedded language, not the software's

4818:

consensus of other editors. I may contribute further, I may not. Just wait for the other editors to contribute. Table size was never an issue, by the way. --

3012:

includes IRCjr), nor do I want to. Is that really a criteria for excluding it? Am I supposed to change how it is distributed to get it included back here?

520:

IRC clients" isn't going to fly. You can't prevent those of us who wish to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of IRC from discussing any of these clients in

4718:

other client, all basic verification sources are in the topmost table. Anyways, it's down to the two current deleting editors, now, as I indicated above. --

3162:

Personally, I think the requirements for this page are too stringent. I am not alone here - it should be reviewed at a higher level by an impartial party.

2418:

source, a source that actually talked abut the client and described it. Now we have this entry, which is supported only by mentions in lists of software. --

4499: 1425:

While neither of these facts is disputed, and can be backed up with other sources, this is an example of where a primary or self-published source is both

1826:

Just to be clear. I don't oppose that more clients are added, as long as they have articles, or there are sources that fulfill the inclusion criteria. --

937:

what I think might been misinterpreted. You could do the same, for some of your harsher rhetoric and accusations, by the way, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

1448:. ('source/ctcp.c' also gives us the name of the author, lynX, who anyone familiar with early IRC history will probably know as Carl 'lynX' v. Loesch.) 3566: 2618:, who seems to have written reasonably high-quality, informed reviews so far. If it had been a nonsense review, I would never have tried citing it. -- 786:

Also, if you wouldn't mind, please prove that source code has been used "since the beginning," or, as you have demanded so many times, "drop it." --

532: 4169: 1373:

once a client has fulfilled the inclusion criteria via third-party secondary RS, you can use primary sources to cite its difficult-to-source features

868:

If you are unwilling to at least consider my points, coming from someone who has invested 100s of hours into this article and even more into related

81: 69: 64: 59: 4460:

What's the definition of "large"? Each item constitutes of a hundred bytes or so of content, excepting templates, table formatting codes, and refs.

765:

As for your demand that I provide a link, I need not, nor need I drop it. Your attempt to invert responsibility is inappropriate, and goes against

1283:

analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

1121: 1021: 257:

don't know much about this subject, then go study up on the topic before proposing that we remove material from the article. AmIRC even meets the

3470:

as the reference says) then it is shipping IRCjr as well as LeetIRC. Yet that does not seem to be good enough. Apply the criteria consistently.

2253: 482:

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,

312:

you've heard of those at least. How about ircII? You do realize that the person who first began removing material here initially tried to have

4119: 3689:. He referred to the practice as "shilling" and "laughable". I reasonably expected him to conduct that process via email, not publicly, with 1013: 308:

So, if you are familiar with irssi, where exactly would you classify BitchX or EPIC (notice someone removed this one from this article)? I'm

3803: 1240:

examples would require the person verifying the source to be able to read a non-English source. The second is going to be more reliable. --

341: 4185: 3877: 2270:

Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles).

4049:

to give the illusion of "majority consensus" in order to try to blank the article instead. Considering that they were doing this purely

1017: 5292: 5201: 5130: 4854: 4123: 3983: 3105:

You can fight with the deletionist. I think that the overly restrictive notability criteria being invoked here are equally damaging.

2712: 2643: 96: 955:

does rest with the adding or restoring editor. But I do believe in the entirety of it - I seek sources and AGF about offline sources.

361: 4891: 4114:

What/who determines if a source is "reliable"? What are the reliability "metrics" exactly? ClicksAndWhistles has been reviewed by

3946: 539:, which can also include using the documentation and source code of a program for verification of its features and functionality. -- 271:

IRWolfie-, care to have a go at the question I posed above for Enric since he apparently has no intention of trying to answer it? --

695: 893:

unambiguous source for Knowledge (XXG), due to the realities of computer language implementations, subtleties, and the fact that

4271:

sourcing. We've also agreed that primary sources count, and significant mentions in RS count, for those items without articles.

2857:

has historically been used in software comparisons to indicate software which is no longer being developed and/or maintained. --

2202: 1359:

statements. A non-programmer will not be able to interpret them. Citing actual source code is not an accepted practice, see how

3915:

doesn't have anything to do with the inclusion or exclusion of article content. The only thing which matters as far as article

1486: 4278:

sources, they just aren't quite enough for this article's inclusion criteria, IMHO. The content is not literally "unsourced."

843:"Moreover, programmers communicating ideas to one another almost inevitably communicate in code, much as musicians use notes." 4463:

OK about deletion, though it's a pain to add back - six tables to be edited, in WP's non-WYSIWYG interface. I wouldn't care

1137:

universally considered original research and/or too weak as a primary source. So, in my opinion, it shouldn't happen here. --

47: 17: 4284:

also says: "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." This is in the spirit of

2206: 5033:

blame it on me for not pointing that out, without taking any responsibility for not reading what you pre-emptively deleted.

3949:

while having zero actual interest in (or even knowledge about) the topic or content they are edit warring over has made it

3647:, and the fact that the only edits you've made on Knowledge (XXG) were to add information about IRCjr means that you are a 3240:

The reference from FreeDOS in both cases note that the programs are available in FreeDOS. That's all. It is not a review.

2396:

of informativeness and reliability and verifiability, and I think that is accomplished by compromising, in this way, here,

1355:

Errrr, Tothwolf, I'm afraid that we are not talking about the same thing. I and Lexein are talking about citing the actual

1062:

where the reader is a native English speaker. This doesn't mean we can't cite source code. If we had to cite sources which

951:

I must, without rancor, stand by my remark about inversion of responsibility. I'm sorry, but your argument isn't with me.

940:

It's natural, when arguments feel personal when they really aren't, to shut down the discussion. My advice is to instead,

5194:

Just read before you delete something. It makes things easier. It is also part of the responsibility of editing. (Mike)

634: 3860:, to have their own articles, and may never, and we're at peace with that. That particular alligator has left the swamp. 3690: 3660: 2991:. It is not: IMHO, FreeDOS helps, but it's not a review, or sole mention of IRCjr. Does the group feel the same way? -- 2907:

There used to be text in the article which explained the convention for readers, but it looks like someone removed it. --

2614:

IMHO, only if used with care. Editor discretion is still required. In this case, the Neebly review was written by their

1183:. Neither of these arguments is true. The real argument from those making such arguments is that citing source code will 622: 373: 3686: 2466:

It's RubyCocoa - fixed, and confirmed with an additional ref. Schmucky, I can see your objection to the book reference

1048: 454: 436: 5225: 3629: 1433: 1422: 1231: 866:

I will continue to improve content here on Knowledge (XXG) using the best available methods and sources at my disposal.

3520:

I filed a WP:3O for this anomaly, but because we have more than two editors involved that is not going to resolve it.

756:

anti-original-research crusaders I've had dealings with in the past to the shredding-of-the-tissue-of-bad-ideas party.

525: 5219:

Mike, the additional source that I didn't mention in the 3O response above really doesn't change things. The source

4714:

Shrug. Doesn't bother me that I didn't see your, rather buried, third source, or even that 3O missed it, because for

4435:

It is acceptable to comment out a small portion of text while an on-going consensus seeking attempt is going on (see

3643:, and shouldn't be used in that fashion. The fact that you are (presumably) the developer of IRCjr means you have a 3640: 3361:

in my position about displaying LeetIRC (a client), and not displaying MTCP (a suite). Sorry. I can only hope that

1465:

thing, subtemplate "functions", docs, regression tests and all). Previously we used (and still use) a combination of

288: 2096:, We sort of agreed that each entry needed a mention in one independent RS. I think that these two mentions are not 1753:

As I said I do not know the details of every client, nor should I be expected to. IRWolfie- 13:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1665:"Also I have no interest in answering this colour question you refer to: since I would be about 6 to 8 at the time." 846: 5238: 1052: 1036: 38: 4022: 3920: 3077:

proper reviews of the LeetIRC client either other than to mention that it is shipping with FreeDOS or was updated.

2731:

We have, for the eight clients without articles, included them here with inline citations of a primary source and

2034:

was written using Ruby— it's a great demonstration of a Ruby-powered GUI app." looks like a list of Ruby software.

743: 691: 536: 469:"Also since wikipedia does not have firm rules that does allow for applying an inclusion criteria to the article." 4985: 4550:

Once again, the selective editing is mind boggling. IRCjr is clearly mentioned in this other FreeDOS reference (

4375:

Well, then, welcome back. We've sourced a bunch since then, and improved a bunch of related articles, to boot. --

4176:) addresses the most favored qualities of sources considered reliable. Exceptions and questions are discussed at 3854:

as reported by multiple reliable independent sources, over a period of time, establishing significant importance.

2042:. p 91 "Several IRC apps are available in the App Store that work on your Iphone. Colloquy (...) as is LimeChat ( 1044: 631: 627: 4199:

it was noted that at a prior article deletion discussion, Softonic was considered reliable. I'd be inclined to

4196: 3593:

IRCjr on this page, so this page verifies nothing. The second source is to the developer's website. This is a

2642:

Why aren't ANY of the emacs-based clients included? There are at least 3 notable ones: Zenirc, ERC, and Rcirc --

2122:

Nah, we aren't going to have this out again, Enric. You already know better. You previously tried this argument

888:

No. Do not assume bad faith about me, don't parse so narrowly, and don't see attacks where there are none. The

334: 128: 4626: 3807: 2460: 1942: 1539: 1360: 1356: 376:. Rules on Knowledge (XXG) are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. " 115: 917:

internal ambiguities. This stands in magnificently stark contrast to, as stated previously, source code which

670: 837:

Source code is a text language that can be read and understand by a human and is no different from any other

4365: 4314: 4236: 4127: 3987: 3132: 2716: 2647: 104: 100: 5288: 5197: 5126: 4018: 3912: 3865: 3849: 2974: 2290: 1671: 1322: 1031:. Not all material on Knowledge (XXG) is going to be within the grasp of every single reader. For example, 258: 5296: 5205: 5134: 4858: 2683:

So ERC is in, rcirc is ready to add, but I'm not aware of its features. Oh, and Circe is for emacs too! --

1863: 827: 664: 642: 5242: 2931:

mbbrutman has added back IRCjr under the rubric of MTCP, using the same independent source as LeetIRC. I

2728:

I didn't say Zenirc's site isn't reliable for features. I said there are no independent RS at the moment.

1681:...even though it is counter to the notability guideline's usage instructions and other core policies. -- 1656:

I'm not sure how you can claim that you are being objective when you admittedly don't know the material:

1027:

Again, Knowledge (XXG) is not paper. The general structure of Knowledge (XXG) allows a reader to read to

945: 941: 766: 4488: 4449: 2597: 2540: 2423: 2365: 2105: 2055: 1953: 1926: 1897: 1831: 1773: 1591: 1380: 1294: 1032: 3655:, we don't get our information directly from the creator of something because we are not publishers of 3652: 2294: 2174:

becomes the rule. While it would make no sense to create a list of nothing but redlinks, which is what

1856: 850: 321: 219: 158: 150: 1128: 516:

What this means is the whole argument of "require a 3rd party source for inclusion so we can exclude

5157: 4784: 4693: 4665: 4555: 4436: 3780: 3755: 3633: 3594: 3521: 3314: 3294: 3163: 3106: 3020: 1619: 1273: 1214:

source code might not be readable by a layperson (not all), but that does not mean we can't cite it.

1190: 683: 528: 5300: 5251: 5209: 5182: 5138: 4997: 4948: 4903: 4862: 4827: 4792: 4788: 4727: 4701: 4697: 4673: 4669: 4622: 4615: 4563: 4559: 4544: 4519: 4493: 4476: 4454: 4424: 4384: 4369: 4318: 4297: 4240: 4212: 4146: 4131: 4097: 4062: 4038: 4008: 3966: 3889: 3831: 3811: 3788: 3784: 3763: 3759: 3706: 3669: 3529: 3525: 3389: 3380:, since 3O might demur. I am willing to abide by EA, as well, in case that is not already clear. -- 3322: 3318: 3302: 3298: 3202: 3171: 3167: 3136: 3114: 3110: 3067: 3028: 3024: 3000: 2956: 2916: 2902: 2880: 2866: 2842: 2788: 2770: 2720: 2703:

to the standard represented by certain other clients in the list. Anyway, maybe I'll get around to

2692: 2678: 2651: 2627: 2601: 2580: 2560: 2544: 2521: 2479: 2456: 2427: 2409: 2369: 2360:

Now, please, your time would be better spent finding sources for Limechat and other IRC clients. --

2241: 2109: 2079: 2059: 2012: 1971: 1957: 1938: 1930: 1901: 1886: 1835: 1821: 1797: 1777: 1748: 1690: 1639: 1635: 1595: 1498: 1444:, as a hypothetical example we could cite 'source/ctcp.c' by itself to support a statement such as 1384: 1341: 1298: 1249: 1146: 1078: 985: 882: 795: 707: 604: 548: 521: 415: 411: 387: 303: 299: 280: 239: 235: 204: 189: 174: 111: 5123:

clients listed without tables that are so wide that they fill the screen, and then some? (Mike)

4281: 4203:

ClicksandWhistles based on that review. The AddictiveTips review is an open question. I'll ask. --

3346: 1996: 1726: 1697: 1207:

a published book (due to the lengthy process of publishing and printing a book as outlined above).

1028: 973: 952: 815:

yet on the other hand you turn around and do the very same thing while attempting to disguise the

770: 558:" Bzzt. Although documentation about the subject may be cited as a primary source, because it is 317: 4944: 4515: 4361: 4310: 4232: 4058: 4042: 3962: 3923:. This has already been debated heavily so there is no point in trying to argue notability again. 3369: 3128: 2961: 2912: 2898: 2862: 2289:

The Manual of style says quite clearly that a table with sortable columns is a list article, see

2237: 2222: 1882: 1817: 1793: 1768:

There are still these clients without third party RS: nexIRC, Neebly, KoolChat, DMDirc and ii. --

1686: 1494: 1479: 1455: 1337: 1245: 1074: 1058:

Not all source code will be able to be understood by a general audience. The same holds true for

878: 703: 544: 383: 276: 185: 5230: 3581: 2265: 2229: 1701: 1419:"Direct Client Connections implemented. /DCC CHAT opens a direct connection to another client. " 1411:"for example, it's not citing the source itself, it's really citing the NOTES and UPDATES files" 687: 489: 264: 3945:

spurred by a handful of individuals who are only here editing Knowledge (XXG) in an attempt to

2322:. It's about the notability of the lists themselves, but there is some applicable stuff like " 2000: 1469: 445:

When people discuss the topic of text based *nix IRC clients, the main ones that come up are:

443:

and others when a large portion of this article was blanked following the mass-AfD disruption.

4936: 3942: 3613: 3573:

is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

2749:

haven't added rcirc yet is that I get hives editing tables. PITA. I added ERC, and got hives.

2704: 2324:"List of..." is irrelevant. A stand-alone list by any other name is still a stand-alone list. 1734: 1309: 1059: 869: 838: 458: 162: 5178: 4993: 4899: 4823: 4723: 4611: 4540: 4483: 4472: 4444: 4440: 4420: 4380: 4349: 4293: 4248: 4208: 4093: 4004: 3885: 3702: 3385: 3198: 3063: 2996: 2952: 2890: 2876: 2838: 2784: 2766: 2688: 2674: 2662: 2623: 2593: 2576: 2556: 2536: 2517: 2475: 2419: 2405: 2361: 2101: 2075: 2051: 2008: 1967: 1949: 1922: 1893: 1827: 1769: 1744: 1587: 1531: 1376: 1290: 1142: 981: 856: 791: 600: 327: 292:

Nor does Knowledge (XXG) grant users privileges or respect based on subject-matter expertise

200: 170: 4595: 4551: 4192: 4181: 4177: 4083:

in sources which could be rehabilitated as reliable. At the diff above, ClicksandWhistles

3857: 3737: 3648: 3644: 3565:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on

2708: 2568: 2248: 2218: 2210: 2198: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2155: 2151: 2143: 2135: 2130:, among other places. It has been repeatedly rejected by other editors even as far back as 1845: 865: 816: 475: 145:

The "bickering about Orion" was not (for me) about Orion - it was about verifiability and

5246: 4141: 4034: 3826: 3664: 3096:

It effectively has the same sourcing as LeetIRC. They should both either stay or both go.

1995:- commenting out is much preferred, SchmuckyTheCat. And by the way, per the full text of 4412: 4173: 4137: 3656: 3617: 3598: 3555: 3377: 3362: 3186: 2734: 2658: 1722: 1710: 1426: 1115: 965: 778: 774: 590: 585: 581: 146: 139: 124: 3868:

applies to articles, not items. We editors occasionally goof and say "notable" when we

3588:. Obviously, any IRC client which already has its own wiki article should already pass 4030: 3019:

If it has the same sourcing as LeetIRC, then they should either both stay or both go.

1631: 1184: 1066:

could understand, most of the categories I linked above would be empty of non-existent.

407: 295: 231: 5161: 3873: 3621: 3608:" Since the first source isn't actually a source for IRCjr, the second source is the 3589: 3585: 3570: 2757: 2615: 1999:, you would have noticed that DMDirc has a primary source, and a descriptive entry at 1921:

After those changes, I am not spotting any further problematic entries in the list? --

1785: 1718: 679: 678:

Lexein, either provide a link which explicitly states source code is unacceptable per

506: 479: 365: 4940: 4576:, does not include the Sourceforge reference, and 3O didn't know about it. That's on 4511: 4054: 3958: 3927:" doesn't mean we can or should include every last IRC client that has ever existed." 2979:

reliability and verifiability (and in this case, applicability) of sources do apply.

2908: 2894: 2858: 2233: 1878: 1813: 1789: 1682: 1490: 1333: 1241: 1070: 874: 699: 540: 379: 272: 181: 4184:). For IRC articles specifically, two sources have been rationalized as reliable at 2496:

that there be no further deletions from tables - instead, enclose disputed items in

3050:, then it's in. So far, though, I don't know if you noticed, but there's an actual 2851: 2817: 2699:

comparison. "Notability" for the clients I named should also be easy to establish,

2592:. Well, meh, it appears that people think that Softonic reviews are reliable.... -- 345: 2217:

and linked to the notability guideline for people. This more recent "addition" to

2090:(with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people) 2050:

I'm not sure that this is enough to show that Limechat is a notable IRC client. --

1729:. As for why sources _do_ determine WP content, and should, I leave you with this 1709:

content that's so non-notable, so poorly documented, so little-discussed, and so

4580:

You mentioned it too late, and buried it in a bunch of yelling. Now, let's ask:

4510:

material also allows us to easily restore it later as references are improved. --

1308:

with that language (at least the structure and main components) which is why per

1202:

keep their external documentation updated when they modify code!</sarcasm: -->

5174: 4989: 4895: 4819: 4719: 4607: 4536: 4468: 4416: 4376: 4345: 4289: 4204: 4089: 4000: 3881: 3698: 3569:

and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The

3381: 3293:

to add so the overly restrictive interpretation of the policy keeps prevailing.

3194: 3059: 2992: 2948: 2872: 2834: 2827: 2807: 2780: 2762: 2684: 2670: 2619: 2572: 2552: 2513: 2471: 2401: 2071: 2004: 1963: 1740: 1138: 977: 787: 753: 596: 196: 166: 110:

All IRC clients isn't the purpose of the page, or Knowledge (XXG) as a project.

46:

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

3848:

A gentle reminder, and welcome to a possibly new user. First: Knowledge (XXG)

3580:

doesn't specifically define its own inclusion criteria (a separate issue which

3549: 1415:"The CTCP protocol was implemented by Michael Sandrof in 1990 for version 2.1." 1332:(redacted or otherwise) even though there isn't any interpretation required. -- 1114:

pages and standards documents are cited. (Also, the included example source is

857:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project

809:

Lexein, you know, on one hand you tell people to stop making personal attacks,

328:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project

4360:

I'm not new to this article - I deleted a lot of content from it last year. --

4079:

did a check around for sources for ClicksandWhistles, and didn't see anything

2449:

was written using Ruby— it's a great demonstration of a Ruby-powered GUI app."

1614:

that applies to any other operating system that you personally have not used.)

944:

for a while, as I sometimes do. It's helpful. Oh, and I really do mean read

5234: 4587: 4115: 2665:

does have a (now) well-sourced article, so it could reasonably be included.

820: 690:. It doesn't matter how loudly you exclaim otherwise, using source code for 580:

be used as a Knowledge (XXG) primary source without distancing language per

353: 261:, which is why I've kept it a red-link while I have a draft in my userspace. 2301:, and the see also section links to a page on how to make sortable columns. 1717:

is being resorted to, just to claim features which, gee, too bad, can't be

1110:

doesn't inline cite or quote any real online or offline source code. Only

3357:. I do not have a personal axe to grind, and I understand that you see an 4591: 3957:

have expressed interest in reading about and including nearly nothing. --

3852:

isn't the same as the commonly used term "notable". WP Notability means

3042:, okay, that's your opinion. I distinctly recall advising you to get the 2298: 1421:

and yet again the 'source/dcc.c' file gives us the author, "Troy Rollo".

1006:

In some cases source code is very clear, as described further below with

4340:

and reach consensus. Our working consensus here is within policy letter

1504:

About names of authors, I already told you that it should be OK to cite

819:

as "policy arguments", which are primarily made up of nothing more than

4601:

I don't know if such SourceForge announcements are considered reliable.

3929:

goes, because there is a very finite number of clients, we technically

2100:

enough to qualify. Can anyone find better source(s) for this client? --

1809: 1093: 1089: 1012:

As for articles with source code citations, one good place to start is

349: 501:

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

2446: 2031: 462: 4403:

unsourced, it has two sources. Its sourcing (arguably) does not yet

2657:

Zenirc doesn't have a page, a search produces a lack of independent

1405:...because I'm the one who last worked on that part of the article. 1279:

describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

127:. Knowledge (XXG) aims to be an encyclopedia, not a catch-all; read 3856:

We already know that many IRC clients don't have enough RS to meet

2168:"The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content" 1177:"source code can't be understood by non-experts so we can't use it" 3632:

argument on Knowledge (XXG) usually doesn't get you far (see also

2886: 2666: 2532: 1402: 1364: 1007: 646: 450: 446: 440: 223: 218: 4395:

further discussion clarifying the consensus of involved editors

2535:

is a bit too far-fetched for "a reliable third-party source". --

1181:"source code isn't a reliable source, ever, and we can't use it" 1107: 921:

be internally consistent, but more often is simply doomed to be

4331:

We agree on more than you think, but I must repeat, welcome to

4140:

for a discussion on how to determine if a source is reliable.

2893:, there is no doubt that the client is no longer maintained. -- 2391:

article must exist for every entry, and we already agreed that

833:. That does not change the fact that it states what it states. 3191:

without regard to expertise and reliability in this topic area

1438:"Added commands /me and /describe to produce ACTION messages." 742:

null macro'd? It's a Pandora's Box of original research. Per

619: 25: 4267:, we've arrived at the compromise of commenting out, pending 2209:. The reason for this is simple, the longstanding wording at 2043: 1538:

common in ancient and medieval history articles, for example

1413:

is incorrect, you do have it half correct. For the statement

3685:

About the astroturfing: it was my suggestion that Mbbrutman

3222:

Please stop with the patronizing lecture and stick to facts.

2943:

This is a comparison if IRC clients, not TCP stacks. Why is

2669:

does have an article, but it's very stubby at the moment. --

1670:...and continue to try to force through something using the 1230:

See line 267 "do_finger()" of 'source/ctcp.c' included with

3058:

in the interim. There are bigger problems, is my point. --

2823:

are in use. Any rationale? I'm tempted to standardize on

1892:

Commenting them out would be ok, while you find sources. --

1436:

as another example. While the 'source/HISTORY' file states

316:

of these deleted as non-notable? If you are going to quote

4689: 1220: 493:

we similarly do not use the notability guideline to limit

2977:

per se doesn't apply to content, only to whole articles,

1696:

WTF? Everybody, goddamnit, stop attacking editors. Read

195:

sources I'd have to pay hundreds of dollars to access. --

134:

Ideally, all IRC clients would be cataloged and compared

4552:

http://sourceforge.net/news/?group_id=5109&id=302479

4265:

one involved deleting editor (and no comment by another)

3738:

http://sourceforge.net/news/?group_id=5109&id=302479

3046:

reviewed or mentioned. If other editors agree about the

1328:"interpreting source code requires specialist knowledge" 320:, then I'll do some quoting of my own. Let's start with 4573: 4026: 3606:

base articles and material entirely on primary sources.

2414:

That's why I asked that the inclusion criteria was one

2023:

The only two sources for Limechat in google books are:

1874: 1867: 1859: 1804: 1678: 1667: 1660: 1406: 1330: 813: 4047:

took to coordination and meatpuppetry on the talk page

4029:. This took place right after the last AfD attempt by 2142:

it was discovered that the Manual of Style page which

1432:

Now, lets take "CTCP ACTION" (aka the /me command) in

439:

was removed along with numerous other clients such as

344:. It incorporates elements of general and specialized 3953:

difficult to find balance between including material

3663:

is not constructive, and I assure you it won't work.

3624:, and therefore should not be included in this list. 3620:

can be provided on IRCjr, it cannot be shown to pass

3127:'The Deletionist' - does that makes you 'The SPI'? -- 2987:

accompanied by removal. I do want IRCjr to be here,

2983:

My own objection above was objection for discussion,

2741:

My remark about "stubby" articles was simply that we

1852:

will allow us to restore them as sources are located.

873:

do our best to avoid crossing paths in the future. --

471:...I think you have that backwards, as I said before: 3054:

dispute with revert warring going on, as opposed to

1676:"multiple 3rd-party RS for entries with no articles" 831:

and I fully expected you to wikilawyer when I did so

811:"WTF? Everybody, goddamnit, stop attacking editors." 263:

Further, what you are pushing here still amounts to

4498:Actually, the size of the text does not matter per 2203:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)#Lists of people

2197:Something else to take note of is the very top of 1540:Talk:Alexander_the_Great#A_few_additional_comments 1088:Source code examples in software articles such as 2318:While looking for Gavin's ban rationale, I found 2207:Knowledge (XXG):Stand-alone lists#Lists of people 2164:User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients 1461:was a red-link too, until I created it (yes, the 364:. We strive for articles that advocate no single 3584:), it defaults to inclusion criteria of passing 3368:Please note that we do not exactly have a draw, 826:I realise you didn't like the fact I could cite 3558:(regarding the inclusion of IRCjr in this list) 3153:strike them until they are well enough sourced. 2969:IRCjr pending discussion by involved editors. 2745:an article to be substantial. The only reason 2571:- if thumbs down, I'll re-comment the entry. -- 2094:a RfC to set an inclusion criteria in this list 1020:. For something a little more challenging, try 1506:significant comments inside a source code file 1175:No, the argument has gone back and forth that 4645:for deleting first without thinking about it. 4500:Knowledge (XXG):Don't worry about performance 4227:We comment out, not delete, pending sourcing. 3681:I had not noticed that the FreeDOS MCTP page 1041:Category:Mathematical and theoretical biology 8: 3338:specifically about MTCP and the FreeDOS cite 3336:As I said, I would abide by group consensus 4664:It is at least as well sourced as LeetIRC. 3695:as an administrator of vintage-computer.com 3641:Knowledge (XXG) is not a means of promotion 3639:Finally, I'd like to remind Mbbrutman that 3355:pending group discussion of MTCP vs FreeDOS 2885:Mainly common sense. With a client such as 2028:Beggining Ruby: From Novice to Professional 362:Knowledge (XXG) has a neutral point of view 3034:If you _really_ think that a mention of a 2779:rcirc has been added, and ERC expanded. -- 1948:I made a separate section for Limechat. -- 1287:base articles entirely on primary sources. 781:, etc., etc. Instead, you must prove the 5265:I am taking your advice - this is futile. 3661:conspiring to "astroturf" Knowledge (XXG) 3567:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients 1985:my opinion, these two extrema cancel out. 1812:noted below) were merged here per AfD. -- 1319:"Program X includes feature A, B, and C." 959:as long as there is no explicit criteria 591:is not usable in Knowledge (XXG) articles 533:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients 342:Knowledge (XXG) is an online encyclopedia 4399:prior to your deletion. The material is 3038:is as direct as a mention of a specific 2738:, in the topmost table, lefthand column. 2178:was aimed at preventing, neither it nor 1980:Limechat sourcing, for this list/chart, 1802:Not to mention, many clients, including 1446:"ircII supports the "CTCP ACTION" event" 1401:I find it interesting that you bring up 1316:English sources when they are available. 374:Knowledge (XXG) does not have firm rules 3995:It's actually a case of "... not being 2947:so freakin' difficult to understand? -- 2127: 1189:Source code is reliable and usable per 1122:International Obfuscated C Code Contest 1022:International Obfuscated C Code Contest 720:as differentiated from a computer, and 4262:at least two involved deleting editors 3779:ego trip and see their name in print. 2488:No more deletions. Comment out, please 2326:", which is coherent with WP:LISTNAME. 2320:the "inclusion criteria for lists" RfC 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5229:the list. As long as you do it in a 3980:promotion is just not on! :) --Leigh 2733:at least one independent substantive 1014:Category:Articles with example C code 963:, and no guideline about source code 7: 2134:. Your prior argument also included 1674:as a means to limit article content 1663:...don't care to know the material: 1226:"ircII IRC-ohjelma tukee CTCP sormi" 1029:whatever level of detail they desire 2297:. The table format is mentioned in 1723:original research (compile, verify) 1018:Category:Articles with example code 4586:Is IRCjr sourced well enough with 3683:didn't even name IRCjr explicitly. 2447:http://limechat.net/mac/)—LimeChat 2032:http://limechat.net/mac/)—LimeChat 847:can't see the forest for the trees 744:WP:Verifiability#Original_research 724:referring to programmers, which is 535:so long as the material itself is 333:...and how about some quotes from 24: 4584:SchmuckyTheCat and Cameron Scott: 3947:seek some sort of self-importance 2973:It should be observed that while 2221:is still disputed. Does the name 2065:Don't say "notable" - notability 1210:As for the non-experts argument, 728:the very next word in the quote. 641:— Newman, Cabranes and Thompson, 4178:the Reliable sources Noticeboard 3858:the General Notability Guideline 3548: 3275:Apply the criteria consistently. 2291:WP:STANDALONE#General_formatting 1653:"I am being entirely objective " 1289:" (emphasis in the original). -- 29: 4170:WP:Identifying reliable sources 3997:verifiable in a reliable source 2228:Enric, this is a clear case of 2182:were ever intended to apply to 2040:Taking your Iphone 4 to the Max 1321:is perfectly acceptable and if 752:We'll just invite some serious 694:of a program's features is not 5301:23:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 5252:21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 5210:19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 5183:19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 5139:19:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 4998:11:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 4949:10:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 4904:21:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4863:21:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4828:20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4793:19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4728:19:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4702:18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4674:18:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4616:18:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4564:17:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4545:17:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 4520:09:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 4494:18:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 4477:15:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 4455:13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 4425:10:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4385:10:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4370:10:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4319:10:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4298:09:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4241:09:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 4213:15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 4147:15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 4132:13:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 4098:09:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 4063:08:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 4009:03:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 3967:16:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3890:06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3832:05:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3812:02:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3789:04:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 3764:03:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 3707:00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 3670:23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 3530:03:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 3390:03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 3323:02:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 3303:02:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 3203:02:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 3172:17:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 3137:13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 3115:13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 3068:12:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 3029:12:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 3001:09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 2957:06:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 2917:11:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 2903:11:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 2881:10:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 2867:10:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 2533:a review in a download website 2510:don't delete, just comment out 1866:no longer exists. I've undone 1217:"ircII supports CTCP FINGER" – 673:(2nd Cir. November 28, 2001). 289:Knowledge (XXG):Expert_editors 18:Talk:Comparison of IRC clients 1: 2215:" except for lists of people" 1442:"Added CTCP ACTION handling." 215:Inclusion of Specific Clients 90:Why all clients aren't listed 5231:genuine and non-spiteful way 4415:. Stop until 3O responds. -- 2264:. This is also supported at 2030:. p 108 "Mac OSX: LimeChat ( 1185:lead to the end of the world 1118:- it's not from any source). 1049:Category:Theoretical physics 740:#define ConnectToProxy (...) 335:Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars 5170:substantially mentioning RS 3982:Preceding comment added by 2941:by itself as an IRC client. 2799:Use of rh vs rh2 templates? 2567:I've posed the question at 1611:comparison and was deleted. 1451:As for citation templates, 526:Internet Relay Chat clients 5320: 4588:FreeDOS "irc", not "IRCjr" 4186:WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources 3990:) 22:04, 19 September 2011 3934:article's usefulness as a 3878:WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources 3691:"I want to astroturf Wiki" 2989:as the subject of a source 2789:16:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 2771:21:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 2721:20:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 2693:13:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 2044:http://limechat.net/iphone 1855:SchmuckyTheCat's trolling/ 1749:02:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 1691:04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 1640:21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC) 1622:08:11, 22 April 2011 (CST) 1596:08:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 1532:Talk:Santa_Claus#Coca_Cola 1499:03:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 1385:09:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 1342:08:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 1299:07:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 1079:14:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 1053:Category:Organic chemistry 1037:Category:Molecular biology 986:09:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 883:02:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 796:13:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 708:04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 605:02:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 549:03:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 416:21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) 388:10:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 304:08:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 281:08:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 240:23:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC) 4692:- scroll down a little.) 2843:21:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 2679:12:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2652:20:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 2628:12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2602:07:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2581:06:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 2561:01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 2545:00:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 2428:10:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 2410:06:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 2370:21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 2242:19:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 2213:used to explicitly state 2110:18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 2080:17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 2060:17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 2013:18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 1972:18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 1958:17:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 1931:10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 1361:Template:cite source code 1045:Category:Particle physics 639: 205:00:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 190:22:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 175:19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 105:06:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 4596:Sourceforge announcement 4574:05:05, 13 September 2011 4572:This edit, added by you 4255:There is weak consensus 2522:00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2508:Can we get consensus on 2480:21:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2162:apply to a list such as 1409:While your statement of 1357:C (programming language) 4690:http://www.freedos.org/ 2833:, if nobody objects. -- 2205:which in turn links to 1902:17:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 1887:11:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 1844:going ahead and adding 1836:09:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 1822:03:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 1798:03:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 1778:19:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 1250:15:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC) 1221:http://www.example.com/ 1147:14:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC) 509:, we can also create a 4409:inclusion criteria yet 4247:(Question copied from 3941:At the same time, the 3649:single-purpose account 2616:most prolific reviewer 2505:on future sourcing.) 2201:itself still links to 1738: 905:which can differ from 901:which can differ from 828:Universal v. Reimerdes 665:Universal v. Reimerdes 643:Universal v. Reimerdes 226: 149:. Luckily, there's no 89: 3571:third opinion process 3556:third opinion request 2225:mean anything to you? 2158:as currently written 1730: 1033:Category:Astrophysics 925:of original research. 511:"List of IRC clients" 253:actions here. If you 249:up to you to justify 222: 42:of past discussions. 4407:meet this article's 3999:at the time ..." -- 3921:verifiability policy 3913:notability guideline 3687:"get IRCjr reviewed" 3645:conflict of interest 2661:for inclusion here. 2638:Emacs based clients? 2445:"Mac OSX: LimeChat ( 2266:WP:LISTS#List_naming 2232:, please drop it. -- 1672:notability guideline 1198:software developers 1129:Literate programming 507:notability guideline 480:notability guideline 259:notability guideline 4288:an encyclopedia. -- 4039:User:Theserialcomma 3616:(i.e. third-party) 3612:source. Unless an 3601:clearly tells us, " 2939:standalone mention 2569:WP:RSN#Softonic.com 2503:assuming good faith 1423:ircii-2.1.4e.tar.gz 1323:you don't like this 1232:ircii-2.1.4e.tar.gz 1060:non-English sources 522:Internet Relay Chat 161:and the surprising 3864:Correct, IP user, 3630:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 3582:should be resolved 3370:User:Cameron Scott 2962:User:Cameron Scott 2247:Please show where 1711:unreliably sourced 1363:is a red link. In 914:reliably published 839:non-English source 733:(joshing --lexein) 505:already meets the 478:we do not use the 227: 5291:comment added by 5226:other crap exists 5200:comment added by 5129:comment added by 4492: 4453: 3991: 3676: 3675: 3657:original research 3189:, read narrowly, 2590:RSN archived here 2398:for this article. 2186:article content, 738:function call is 696:original research 654: 653: 586:Original research 567:about the subject 513:for this subject. 265:instruction creep 147:original research 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5311: 5303: 5212: 5141: 4486: 4447: 4441:Help:Hidden text 4249:User talk:Lexein 3981: 3552: 3545: 3544: 3359:apparent paradox 2856: 2850: 2832: 2826: 2822: 2816: 2812: 2806: 2663:ERC (IRC client) 2659:reliable sources 2498:hidden comments. 2019:Limechat sources 1914:continuing again 1807: 1484: 1478: 1474: 1468: 1460: 1454: 1429:and appropriate. 1194:don't you know, 1113: 1016:, or better yet 897:can differ from 817:personal attacks 741: 668: 661: 650: 620: 140:reliable sources 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5319: 5318: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5286: 5195: 5124: 4532: 4433: 4229: 4195:, specifically 4035:User:Miami33139 3936:Comparison of x 3925:Now, as far as 3653:tertiary source 3618:reliable source 3353:, not deleted, 3325: 2935:wish IRCjr had 2929: 2854: 2848: 2830: 2824: 2820: 2814: 2810: 2804: 2801: 2640: 2529: 2490: 2299:MOS:LIST#Tables 2092:". We just had 2021: 1916: 1875:this discussion 1869:his removal of 1849:this talk page. 1803: 1766: 1482: 1476: 1472: 1466: 1458: 1452: 1111: 912:Sheet music is 748:double-dog dare 739: 675: 662: 658: 640: 556:and source code 529:spinout article 524:or an eventual 217: 129:WP:Five pillars 92: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5317: 5315: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5259: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5243:drop the stick 5214: 5213: 5191: 5190: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5064: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4737: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4681: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4623:SchmuckyTheCat 4604: 4603: 4602: 4599: 4567: 4566: 4531: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4461: 4432: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4388: 4387: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4279: 4272: 4228: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4189: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4120:Addictive Tips 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4051:"for the lulz" 4031:User:JBsupreme 4012: 4011: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3943:lame edit wars 3901: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3804:24.107.102.129 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3714: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3674: 3673: 3595:primary source 3575: 3574: 3562: 3561: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3403: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3366: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3212: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3146: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3071: 3070: 3006: 3004: 3003: 2981: 2928: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2905: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2774: 2773: 2754: 2750: 2739: 2729: 2696: 2695: 2681: 2639: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2584: 2583: 2564: 2563: 2528: 2525: 2494:formal request 2489: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2457:SchmuckyTheCat 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2190:long lists of 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2083: 2082: 2048: 2047: 2036: 2035: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2015: 1991:of content is 1986: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1939:SchmuckyTheCat 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1800: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1680: 1669: 1662: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1625: 1624: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1368: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1302: 1301: 1268: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1228: 1218: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1126: 1119: 1105: 1098:implementation 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 970: 956: 949: 938: 926: 910: 801: 800: 799: 798: 763: 735: 677: 655: 652: 651: 637: 636: 633: 624: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 370: 358: 338: 216: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 154: 143: 132: 120: 119: 112:SchmuckyTheCat 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5316: 5302: 5298: 5294: 5290: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5253: 5250: 5249: 5244: 5240: 5236: 5232: 5227: 5222: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5211: 5207: 5203: 5199: 5193: 5192: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5171: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5128: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5018: 4999: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4893: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4864: 4860: 4856: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4829: 4825: 4821: 4816: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4644: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4628: 4624: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4600: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4582: 4581: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4565: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4529: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4490: 4485: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4451: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4431:Third opinion 4430: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4389: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4362:Cameron Scott 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4334: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4320: 4316: 4312: 4311:Cameron Scott 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4280: 4277: 4273: 4270: 4266: 4263: 4258: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4250: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4233:Cameron Scott 4226: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4148: 4145: 4144: 4139: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4023:verifiability 4020: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3989: 3985: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3939: 3937: 3932: 3928: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3866:WP:Notability 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3850:WP:Notability 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3739: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3672: 3671: 3668: 3667: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3637: 3635: 3631: 3625: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3605: 3600: 3596: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3559: 3557: 3551: 3547: 3546: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351:commented out 3348: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3129:Cameron Scott 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2980: 2976: 2975:WP:Notability 2972: 2971: 2970: 2968: 2967:commented out 2963: 2959: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2926: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2853: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2829: 2819: 2809: 2798: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2737: 2736: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2637: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2531:I think that 2526: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2504: 2499: 2495: 2487: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2448: 2443: 2442: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2226: 2224: 2223:Gavin.collins 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2195: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2088:WP:NNC says " 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2068: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2045: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 2001:IRCJunkie.org 1998: 1994: 1993:not warranted 1990: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1944: 1940: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1919: 1913: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1865: 1860: 1858: 1853: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1801: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1763: 1752: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1737: 1736: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1679: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1666: 1661: 1659: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1615: 1609: 1608: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1489:documents. -- 1488: 1481: 1471: 1464: 1457: 1449: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1369: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1329: 1324: 1320: 1315: 1312:we generally 1311: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1286: 1282: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234:</ref: --> 1233: 1227: 1223:</ref: --> 1222: 1215: 1213: 1208: 1206: 1201: 1197: 1192: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1120: 1117: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1067: 1065: 1061: 1056: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1025: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1009: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 968: 967: 962: 957: 954: 950: 947: 943: 939: 936: 935:struckthrough 932: 927: 924: 920: 915: 911: 908: 904: 903:documentation 900: 896: 891: 887: 886: 885: 884: 880: 876: 871: 867: 861: 860: 858: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 829: 824: 822: 818: 814: 812: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 797: 793: 789: 784: 783:acceptability 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 761: 757: 755: 749: 745: 736: 734: 731: 727: 723: 719: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 674: 672: 667: 666: 660: 648: 644: 638: 632: 628: 625: 621: 606: 602: 598: 594: 592: 587: 583: 579: 575: 572: 568: 564: 562: 557: 553: 552: 551: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 527: 523: 519: 518:"non-notable" 514: 512: 508: 504: 503:"IRC clients" 500: 497:of a subject 496: 492: 491: 487: 481: 477: 472: 470: 466: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 442: 438: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 417: 413: 409: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 390: 389: 385: 381: 377: 375: 369: 367: 366:point of view 363: 357: 355: 351: 347: 346:encyclopedias 343: 336: 331: 329: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 306: 305: 301: 297: 293: 290: 285: 284: 283: 282: 278: 274: 269: 266: 260: 256: 252: 248: 244: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 225: 224:Mmmm... Kudzu 221: 214: 206: 202: 198: 193: 192: 191: 187: 183: 178: 177: 176: 172: 168: 164: 160: 155: 152: 148: 144: 141: 137: 133: 130: 126: 122: 121: 117: 113: 109: 108: 107: 106: 102: 98: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5293:96.42.66.188 5287:— Preceding 5258: 5247: 5220: 5202:96.42.66.188 5196:— Preceding 5169: 5165: 5156: 5131:96.42.66.188 5125:— Preceding 4855:96.42.66.188 4814: 4736: 4715: 4680: 4642: 4583: 4577: 4533: 4508:fact-checked 4507: 4503: 4464: 4434: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4359: 4341: 4337: 4332: 4285: 4275: 4268: 4264: 4261: 4256: 4246: 4230: 4200: 4142: 4124:86.175.41.70 4084: 4080: 4076: 4050: 3996: 3984:86.175.41.70 3978: 3954: 3950: 3940: 3935: 3930: 3926: 3924: 3919:goes is the 3916: 3900: 3869: 3861: 3853: 3827: 3713: 3694: 3682: 3665: 3638: 3626: 3609: 3603: 3602: 3578: 3554:Response to 3553: 3402: 3373: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3342:your choice, 3341: 3337: 3211: 3190: 3145: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3005: 2988: 2984: 2978: 2966: 2960: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2930: 2802: 2756:Correction: 2746: 2742: 2732: 2713:24.6.228.145 2700: 2697: 2644:24.6.228.145 2641: 2530: 2512:, please? -- 2509: 2507: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2491: 2467: 2452: 2444: 2415: 2397: 2392: 2323: 2269: 2227: 2214: 2196: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2167: 2159: 2148: 2139: 2097: 2089: 2066: 2049: 2022: 1992: 1988: 1981: 1920: 1917: 1870: 1854: 1850: 1841: 1767: 1731: 1714: 1706: 1675: 1664: 1657: 1655: 1652: 1616: 1612: 1535: 1505: 1462: 1450: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1431: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1408: 1372: 1327: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1284: 1280: 1277: 1267: 1237: 1236: 1229:<ref: --> 1225: 1219:<ref: --> 1216: 1211: 1209: 1204: 1199: 1195: 1188: 1180: 1176: 1101: 1097: 1068: 1063: 1057: 1051:, heck even 1026: 1011: 964: 960: 942:WP:DISENGAGE 934: 930: 922: 918: 913: 906: 902: 898: 894: 889: 862: 854: 842: 834: 830: 825: 810: 808: 782: 767:WP:CHALLENGE 759: 751: 732: 729: 725: 721: 717: 692:verification 676: 671:273 F.3d 429 663: 659: 656: 589: 577: 573: 570: 566: 560: 559: 555: 517: 515: 510: 502: 498: 494: 483: 473: 468: 467: 444: 371: 359: 339: 332: 325: 313: 309: 291: 270: 262: 254: 250: 246: 228: 135: 97:75.218.251.9 93: 75: 43: 37: 4085:didn't list 3870:mean to say 3418:irrelevant! 2707:instead of 2594:Enric Naval 2537:Enric Naval 2420:Enric Naval 2362:Enric Naval 2295:WP:LISTNAME 2102:Enric Naval 2098:substantial 2052:Enric Naval 1950:Enric Naval 1923:Enric Naval 1894:Enric Naval 1842:considering 1828:Enric Naval 1770:Enric Naval 1715:source code 1588:Enric Naval 1434:ircII-2.1.5 1377:Enric Naval 1291:Enric Naval 923:vast miasma 851:WP:NOTPAPER 754:deletionist 630:use notes. 574:source code 561:descriptive 322:WP:NOTPAPER 159:WP:NOTTRUTH 151:WP:DEADLINE 125:reliability 36:This is an 5158:WP:UNCIVIL 4594:, and now 4437:WP:COMMENT 4342:and spirit 4269:additional 4019:notability 3874:verifiable 3634:WP:POKEMON 3614:indepenent 3444:misguided. 3048:collection 3036:collection 2758:Notability 2709:mouthyness 2492:This is a 2453:not enough 2400:1RS1PS. -- 2138:, that is 1962:Thanks. -- 1764:Continuing 1274:WP:PRIMARY 1191:WP:SELFPUB 946:that thing 726:, oh look, 684:WP:SELFPUB 537:verifiable 354:gazetteers 255:admittedly 5235:ChatZilla 4785:Mbbrutman 4694:Mbbrutman 4666:Mbbrutman 4556:Mbbrutman 4282:WP:BURDEN 4043:talk page 4027:this diff 3951:extremely 3781:Mbbrutman 3756:Mbbrutman 3697:. Wow. -- 3522:Mbbrutman 3347:WP:TIGERS 3315:Mbbrutman 3295:Mbbrutman 3164:Mbbrutman 3107:Mbbrutman 3021:Mbbrutman 2192:wikilinks 1997:WP:BURDEN 1877:below. -- 1727:WP:BURDEN 1713:that the 1698:WP:TIGERS 1632:IRWolfie- 1620:MBBrutman 1480:Cite book 1456:Cite IETF 974:WP:TIGERS 953:WP:BURDEN 931:at worst. 907:helpfiles 870:computing 821:fallacies 771:WP:BURDEN 762:--lexein) 569:, by the 408:IRWolfie- 318:WP:EXPERT 296:IRWolfie- 232:IRWolfie- 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5289:unsigned 5198:unsigned 5166:at least 5127:unsigned 4986:WP:SHRUG 4941:Tothwolf 4892:No, you! 4512:Tothwolf 4286:building 4116:Softonic 4055:Tothwolf 3959:Tothwolf 3258:program! 3052:deletion 2909:Tothwolf 2895:Tothwolf 2859:Tothwolf 2705:boldness 2701:at least 2234:Tothwolf 2230:WP:STICK 2170:part of 2147:content. 1989:Deletion 1879:Tothwolf 1857:griefing 1814:Tothwolf 1790:Tothwolf 1721:without 1719:verified 1702:WP:CIVIL 1683:Tothwolf 1491:Tothwolf 1470:Cite web 1427:reliable 1334:Tothwolf 1242:Tothwolf 1104:source.) 1071:Tothwolf 899:comments 875:Tothwolf 853:states: 700:Tothwolf 565:written 541:Tothwolf 531:, or in 495:coverage 490:WP:LISTN 486:this RFC 380:Tothwolf 350:almanacs 273:Tothwolf 182:Tothwolf 136:en masse 4937:WP:LAME 4815:mention 4592:primary 4530:Post 3O 4504:correct 4489:comment 4450:comment 4338:discuss 4201:include 3955:readers 3917:content 3862:Second: 3374:deleted 3372:boldly 3087:either. 1810:leetIRC 1735:WP:FLAT 1310:WP:RSUE 1094:Verilog 1090:POV-Ray 890:overall 760:joshing 688:drop it 576:should 571:author, 459:ScrollZ 245:No, it 39:archive 5239:Mibbit 5221:barely 5175:Lexein 4990:Lexein 4896:Lexein 4820:Lexein 4720:Lexein 4608:Lexein 4537:Lexein 4469:Lexein 4465:at all 4417:Lexein 4377:Lexein 4346:Lexein 4290:Lexein 4274:There 4205:Lexein 4193:WP:RSN 4182:WP:RSN 4090:Lexein 4075:Ok, I 4025:, see 4001:Lexein 3882:Lexein 3699:Lexein 3604:Do not 3597:, and 3382:Lexein 3195:Lexein 3060:Lexein 3056:hiding 3044:client 3040:client 2993:Lexein 2949:Lexein 2873:Lexein 2835:Lexein 2781:Lexein 2763:Lexein 2743:prefer 2685:Lexein 2671:Lexein 2620:Lexein 2573:Lexein 2553:Lexein 2527:Neebly 2514:Lexein 2472:Lexein 2468:length 2402:Lexein 2249:WP:NNC 2219:WP:NNC 2211:WP:NNC 2199:WP:LSC 2180:WP:NNC 2176:WP:LSC 2172:WP:NNC 2156:WP:NNC 2152:WP:LSC 2144:WP:LSC 2136:WP:LSC 2126:, and 2072:Lexein 2067:per se 2005:Lexein 1964:Lexein 1808:(like 1805:nexIRC 1741:Lexein 1564:valid. 1463:entire 1314:prefer 1285:Do not 1281:Do not 1200:always 1139:Lexein 1125:IOCCC. 1064:anyone 978:Lexein 788:Lexein 750:you. 597:Lexein 563:prose, 499:within 476:WP:NNC 463:BitchX 461:, and 352:, and 197:Lexein 167:Lexein 4716:every 4413:WP:3O 4405:fully 4393:after 4174:WP:RS 4138:WP:RS 4136:Read 3931:could 3599:WP:OR 3378:WP:EA 3363:WP:3O 3187:WP:RS 2933:still 2927:IRCjr 2891:Homer 2887:PIRCH 2803:Both 2735:WP:RS 2667:Rcirc 2184:other 2160:could 2140:until 1846:WSIRC 1403:ircII 1365:IrcII 1272:From 1116:WP:OR 1008:ircII 966:there 933:I've 919:might 779:WP:OR 775:WP:RS 730:Ouch. 647:DeCSS 582:WP:RS 451:Irssi 447:ircII 441:PJIRC 16:< 5297:talk 5248:—SW— 5206:talk 5179:talk 5168:one 5162:WP:V 5135:talk 4994:talk 4945:talk 4900:talk 4859:talk 4824:talk 4789:talk 4724:talk 4698:talk 4670:talk 4627:talk 4612:talk 4578:you. 4560:talk 4554:) . 4541:talk 4516:talk 4506:and 4484:rgpk 4473:talk 4445:rgpk 4439:and 4421:talk 4397:here 4381:talk 4366:talk 4350:talk 4333:this 4315:talk 4294:talk 4257:here 4237:talk 4209:talk 4197:here 4143:—SW— 4128:talk 4118:and 4094:talk 4077:just 4059:talk 4005:talk 3988:talk 3963:talk 3911:The 3886:talk 3828:—SW— 3808:talk 3785:talk 3760:talk 3703:talk 3666:—SW— 3622:WP:V 3610:only 3590:WP:V 3586:WP:V 3526:talk 3386:talk 3319:talk 3299:talk 3199:talk 3168:talk 3133:talk 3111:talk 3064:talk 3025:talk 2997:talk 2953:talk 2945:that 2937:some 2913:talk 2899:talk 2877:talk 2863:talk 2839:talk 2813:and 2785:talk 2767:talk 2753:sir. 2717:talk 2711:. -- 2689:talk 2675:talk 2648:talk 2624:talk 2598:talk 2577:talk 2557:talk 2541:talk 2518:talk 2476:talk 2461:talk 2424:talk 2416:good 2406:talk 2393:that 2366:talk 2293:and 2262:here 2258:here 2254:here 2238:talk 2188:just 2132:this 2128:here 2124:here 2106:talk 2076:talk 2056:talk 2009:talk 1968:talk 1954:talk 1943:talk 1927:talk 1898:talk 1883:talk 1873:per 1832:talk 1818:talk 1794:talk 1788:. -- 1786:WP:V 1774:talk 1745:talk 1687:talk 1636:talk 1592:talk 1536:very 1495:talk 1487:IETF 1485:for 1475:and 1440:and 1381:talk 1375:. -- 1338:talk 1295:talk 1246:talk 1238:Both 1212:some 1179:and 1143:talk 1108:gets 1092:and 1075:talk 982:talk 961:here 895:code 879:talk 792:talk 722:only 718:only 704:talk 698:. -- 682:and 680:WP:V 601:talk 545:talk 488:and 484:per 474:Per 455:EPIC 437:EPIC 412:talk 384:talk 310:sure 300:talk 277:talk 268:now. 251:your 236:talk 201:talk 186:talk 171:talk 165:. -- 163:FLAT 116:talk 101:talk 5245:. 5237:or 5189:me. 4765:it. 4655:it. 4643:you 4401:not 4276:are 4191:At 4081:yet 4021:or 3636:). 2985:not 2889:or 2852:rh2 2818:rh2 2451:is 2268:: " 2260:or 1205:and 1196:all 1112:man 1102:any 686:or 657:1. 578:not 356:. " 314:all 294:. 5299:) 5208:) 5181:) 5173:-- 5164:, 5137:) 4996:) 4988:-- 4947:) 4939:-- 4902:) 4894:-- 4861:) 4826:) 4791:) 4726:) 4700:) 4672:) 4614:) 4606:-- 4590:, 4562:) 4543:) 4535:-- 4518:) 4475:) 4423:) 4383:) 4368:) 4352:)- 4317:) 4309:-- 4296:) 4239:) 4211:) 4130:) 4096:) 4088:-- 4061:) 4007:) 3965:) 3888:) 3880:-- 3810:) 3787:) 3762:) 3705:) 3693:, 3560:: 3528:) 3388:) 3321:) 3301:) 3201:) 3170:) 3135:) 3113:) 3066:) 3027:) 2999:) 2955:) 2915:) 2901:) 2879:) 2865:) 2855:}} 2849:{{ 2841:) 2831:}} 2828:rh 2825:{{ 2821:}} 2815:{{ 2811:}} 2808:rh 2805:{{ 2787:) 2769:) 2761:-- 2719:) 2691:) 2677:) 2650:) 2626:) 2600:) 2579:) 2559:) 2543:) 2520:) 2478:) 2463:) 2426:) 2408:) 2368:) 2256:, 2240:) 2108:) 2078:) 2070:-- 2058:) 2011:) 1982:is 1970:) 1956:) 1945:) 1929:) 1900:) 1885:) 1871:ii 1864:ED 1834:) 1820:) 1796:) 1776:) 1747:) 1739:-- 1707:in 1700:. 1689:) 1638:) 1594:) 1586:-- 1542:.) 1497:) 1483:}} 1477:{{ 1473:}} 1467:{{ 1459:}} 1453:{{ 1383:) 1340:) 1297:) 1248:) 1224:– 1203:) 1145:) 1077:) 1047:, 1043:, 1039:, 1035:, 984:) 881:) 841:. 794:) 777:, 773:, 769:, 706:) 669:, 635:” 623:“ 603:) 547:) 457:, 453:, 449:, 414:) 386:) 378:-- 348:, 324:: 302:) 279:) 247:is 238:) 203:) 188:) 173:) 103:) 5295:( 5204:( 5177:( 5133:( 4992:( 4943:( 4898:( 4857:( 4822:( 4787:( 4722:( 4696:( 4668:( 4629:) 4625:( 4610:( 4598:? 4558:( 4539:( 4514:( 4491:) 4487:( 4471:( 4452:) 4448:( 4419:( 4379:( 4364:( 4348:( 4313:( 4292:( 4251:) 4235:( 4207:( 4188:. 4180:( 4172:( 4126:( 4092:( 4057:( 4037:/ 4033:/ 4003:( 3986:( 3961:( 3884:( 3872:" 3806:( 3783:( 3758:( 3701:( 3524:( 3384:( 3317:( 3297:( 3197:( 3166:( 3131:( 3109:( 3062:( 3023:( 2995:( 2951:( 2911:( 2897:( 2875:( 2861:( 2837:( 2783:( 2765:( 2747:I 2715:( 2687:( 2673:( 2646:( 2622:( 2596:( 2575:( 2555:( 2539:( 2516:( 2474:( 2459:( 2422:( 2404:( 2364:( 2272:" 2236:( 2194:. 2104:( 2074:( 2054:( 2007:( 1966:( 1952:( 1941:( 1925:( 1896:( 1881:( 1830:( 1816:( 1792:( 1772:( 1743:( 1685:( 1634:( 1590:( 1508:. 1493:( 1379:( 1336:( 1293:( 1276:" 1244:( 1187:. 1141:( 1073:( 1055:. 1024:. 1010:. 980:( 948:. 877:( 855:" 823:. 790:( 758:( 702:( 649:) 645:( 599:( 593:. 554:" 543:( 410:( 382:( 372:" 360:" 340:" 337:: 326:" 298:( 275:( 234:( 199:( 184:( 169:( 153:. 131:. 118:) 114:( 99:( 50:.

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

Index