This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
MIRC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Khaled Mardam-Bey was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into MIRC. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am sorry but I can't stand incorrect screenshots, please change it with this one (I can't upload images yet):
http://i44.tinypic.com/2he91k3.png
Client: mIRC 6.35 / OS: Windows 7 Ultimate / Network: freenode / Channel: #wikipedia-en
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreobox ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Odd, I remember having mIRC in 1994 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.120.239 ( talk) 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
--update, I did some research; It would appear I am incorrect. I guess I used mIRC in 1995. I know I had version 2.something 16bit for a while; good list of all versions; perhaps this should be added to the article as a version history. If you click the ?, it gives more info on each one http://mirc.slacker.to/download/oldver.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.120.239 ( talk) 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It states "It costs $20 to register it after the 30-day evaluation period, though no functions are disabled if mIRC is run for longer than 30 days unregistered; a nag screen merely delays the start of the program. Recent versions of mIRC also spawn new browser windows with the registration page." I have a copy currently at 108 days old, and it does not allow me to use it now. I believe this may have stopped working at 100 days. Older versions went well beyond this. But this should be modified to reflect current version of the trialware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.199.208 ( talk) 07:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Who are the primary users of mIRC??? The article doesn't make any mention of this except to state that mIRC was a popular download on CNET's download.com back in 2003. The reason why I ask is because I use the internet a LOT . . . . but I don't know anybody who uses mIRC (even I don't use it). This is a teenybopper application, yes??? If so, perhaps something along these lines should be included in the article. I also read recently that "Every major criminal in the world is on ICQ", but I don't think criminals use mIRC very much, do they? That's why the US gov't tried to block the sale of ICQ to a Russian group. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.39.241 ( talk) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added a few {{ Citation needed}} templates, because some material refers to a living person, and so must be reliably sourced, preferably by independent sources. If there are interviews or writings about the claimed facts, please provide citations. Significant claims about the product must be reliably sourced. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This was unsourced for a very long time, and was recently deleted (not by me). I've dragged it here for discussion and help. Please!
Seriously, please source this paragraph about features, esp. the user-sugg part. -- Lexein ( talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I have boldly removed the "Citation style" tag, as unhelpful to readers, and misplaced.
Lack of a citation has nothing to do with citation style. They are two entirely different issues. Please stop misusing these tags. The {{ refimprove}} tag entirely addresses the requirement for additional sources in independent reliable sources. If you disagree, discuss that. If you think I have erred, please either discuss, or refer me to any, and all WP:Dispute resolution measures you deem appropriate. Your contributions have been only partially helpful, and you have contributed nothing to the improvement of the article. Please read WP:TIGERS, and step away from the WP:DEADHORSE. -- Lexein ( talk) 02:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
We are paraphrasing a person, who has said something written by him, on the forum which he owns, and we are attributing the statement to him. The "self-published?" tag has no place there at all - the fact that it is self published is not only abundantly obvious, but it completely permitted by WP:SELFPUBLISH. Come on, seriously. -- Lexein ( talk) 02:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Web forum is definitely a self-published source. The "about themselves" exception does not apply here, as "itself" in this case is a forum, not its owner or its topic. That said, this reference goes to the person that can be identified as developer, so this source is primary; in this respect it doesn't differ much from the statement on the official site or mIRC's help file. But
WP:IRS is not the only policy on topic. The primary sources are supposed to be used with care, and using them
to back up the speculations on the software's history and design choice-related advocacy is not something one would call "careful use". Note, that we also have
WP:NPOV, which requires to assign weight according to the weight reliable sources give to the particular topic. The bottom line: the whole section should be either removed or supported by secondary sources; this particular source should be tagged with {{
primary source-inline}}.
P.S.: the {{ citation style}} tag was definitely not warranted. Given the amount of primary sources among footnotes, {{ refimprove}} is certainly appropriate.— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 20:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written for readers; excessive use of maintenance templates hurts readability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 21:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, take note that using forum posts on Wikipedia articles are largely not accepted according to
WP:SELFPUBLISH. Therefore, removing it.
Karjam, AKA KarjamP (
talk)
06:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
@czarkoff - For some reason, I had the idea that {{ cn}} did not add anything to categories, but that {{ refimprove}} did. Turns out, neither do that. I notice that the list of articles containing these templates, is the list of the articles linking to the template, as in " What links here (to Refimprove)" (which links this cool Transclusion Count tool). Is that the reason why, if {{ cn}} is used, the {{ refimprove}} is not needed? I wish that was explained in the use documentation, as in "The use of this template adds the article to a list, making possible semi-automated review processes" or something to that effect. Awaiting your reply. -- Lexein ( talk) 12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MIRC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Could be like this or like mirc but it's not important is it? The whole legality behind irc clients is based entirely on mirc as a software program. The software that does this for people seems a little intuitive however yet brings up the idea of bots once again.
′≈≈$‽ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.4.104 ( talk) 06:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@ QuickQuokka How is clarifying the 'm' in mIRC does not stand for anything not relevant? A lot of Wikipedia pages add a quick note after the main term to clarify something.
For example, Internet_Explorer 2600:8802:1913:1F00:597D:6253:DD1B:21F4 ( talk) 17:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
MIRC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Khaled Mardam-Bey was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into MIRC. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am sorry but I can't stand incorrect screenshots, please change it with this one (I can't upload images yet):
http://i44.tinypic.com/2he91k3.png
Client: mIRC 6.35 / OS: Windows 7 Ultimate / Network: freenode / Channel: #wikipedia-en
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreobox ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Odd, I remember having mIRC in 1994 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.120.239 ( talk) 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
--update, I did some research; It would appear I am incorrect. I guess I used mIRC in 1995. I know I had version 2.something 16bit for a while; good list of all versions; perhaps this should be added to the article as a version history. If you click the ?, it gives more info on each one http://mirc.slacker.to/download/oldver.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.120.239 ( talk) 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It states "It costs $20 to register it after the 30-day evaluation period, though no functions are disabled if mIRC is run for longer than 30 days unregistered; a nag screen merely delays the start of the program. Recent versions of mIRC also spawn new browser windows with the registration page." I have a copy currently at 108 days old, and it does not allow me to use it now. I believe this may have stopped working at 100 days. Older versions went well beyond this. But this should be modified to reflect current version of the trialware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.199.208 ( talk) 07:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Who are the primary users of mIRC??? The article doesn't make any mention of this except to state that mIRC was a popular download on CNET's download.com back in 2003. The reason why I ask is because I use the internet a LOT . . . . but I don't know anybody who uses mIRC (even I don't use it). This is a teenybopper application, yes??? If so, perhaps something along these lines should be included in the article. I also read recently that "Every major criminal in the world is on ICQ", but I don't think criminals use mIRC very much, do they? That's why the US gov't tried to block the sale of ICQ to a Russian group. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.39.241 ( talk) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added a few {{ Citation needed}} templates, because some material refers to a living person, and so must be reliably sourced, preferably by independent sources. If there are interviews or writings about the claimed facts, please provide citations. Significant claims about the product must be reliably sourced. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This was unsourced for a very long time, and was recently deleted (not by me). I've dragged it here for discussion and help. Please!
Seriously, please source this paragraph about features, esp. the user-sugg part. -- Lexein ( talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I have boldly removed the "Citation style" tag, as unhelpful to readers, and misplaced.
Lack of a citation has nothing to do with citation style. They are two entirely different issues. Please stop misusing these tags. The {{ refimprove}} tag entirely addresses the requirement for additional sources in independent reliable sources. If you disagree, discuss that. If you think I have erred, please either discuss, or refer me to any, and all WP:Dispute resolution measures you deem appropriate. Your contributions have been only partially helpful, and you have contributed nothing to the improvement of the article. Please read WP:TIGERS, and step away from the WP:DEADHORSE. -- Lexein ( talk) 02:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
We are paraphrasing a person, who has said something written by him, on the forum which he owns, and we are attributing the statement to him. The "self-published?" tag has no place there at all - the fact that it is self published is not only abundantly obvious, but it completely permitted by WP:SELFPUBLISH. Come on, seriously. -- Lexein ( talk) 02:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Web forum is definitely a self-published source. The "about themselves" exception does not apply here, as "itself" in this case is a forum, not its owner or its topic. That said, this reference goes to the person that can be identified as developer, so this source is primary; in this respect it doesn't differ much from the statement on the official site or mIRC's help file. But
WP:IRS is not the only policy on topic. The primary sources are supposed to be used with care, and using them
to back up the speculations on the software's history and design choice-related advocacy is not something one would call "careful use". Note, that we also have
WP:NPOV, which requires to assign weight according to the weight reliable sources give to the particular topic. The bottom line: the whole section should be either removed or supported by secondary sources; this particular source should be tagged with {{
primary source-inline}}.
P.S.: the {{ citation style}} tag was definitely not warranted. Given the amount of primary sources among footnotes, {{ refimprove}} is certainly appropriate.— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 20:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written for readers; excessive use of maintenance templates hurts readability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 21:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, take note that using forum posts on Wikipedia articles are largely not accepted according to
WP:SELFPUBLISH. Therefore, removing it.
Karjam, AKA KarjamP (
talk)
06:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
@czarkoff - For some reason, I had the idea that {{ cn}} did not add anything to categories, but that {{ refimprove}} did. Turns out, neither do that. I notice that the list of articles containing these templates, is the list of the articles linking to the template, as in " What links here (to Refimprove)" (which links this cool Transclusion Count tool). Is that the reason why, if {{ cn}} is used, the {{ refimprove}} is not needed? I wish that was explained in the use documentation, as in "The use of this template adds the article to a list, making possible semi-automated review processes" or something to that effect. Awaiting your reply. -- Lexein ( talk) 12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MIRC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Could be like this or like mirc but it's not important is it? The whole legality behind irc clients is based entirely on mirc as a software program. The software that does this for people seems a little intuitive however yet brings up the idea of bots once again.
′≈≈$‽ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.4.104 ( talk) 06:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@ QuickQuokka How is clarifying the 'm' in mIRC does not stand for anything not relevant? A lot of Wikipedia pages add a quick note after the main term to clarify something.
For example, Internet_Explorer 2600:8802:1913:1F00:597D:6253:DD1B:21F4 ( talk) 17:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)