Talk:MIRC

Screenshot, please change it!
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)

(no header)
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)

Article Correction Request
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???
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)
 * mIRC was popular with teenagers and as well as adults back in late 1990s early 2000s. Had my own channel for six years when people I used to talk too, got older and moved on with their lives.  Other programs such as ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger etc are easier to use than mIRC.  That is possibly one reason why it's not as popular now. Adamdaley (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, IRC was all the rage back in the 90's and early 00's. However, many people moved over to IM clients such as ICQ and AOL Instant Messenger when those busted onto the scene. Since then, there has been a shift over to social networking sites (esp Facebook). I haven't used IRC/mIRC in years, but I assume the people that are still on there are old-timers who were around during IRC's glory days. For the most part though, even though IRC (like Usenet) is used by a lot of people and still good at what it does, it is mostly a relic of times past. I'd be surprised if many kids today even know what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.146.78 (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * IRC is still used heavily by programmers as it is a free, text-based, open protocol. The same cannot be said of IM clients or social networks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PINC0234896 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Coming late onto this, are the references to ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, AIM and social networking sites in relation to use for one-to-one chatting, chatting in known groups or chatting in random groups of strangers? The last is what I recall being the primary use of IRC.  It doesn't seem to make sense to say that people have moved onto these programs if they're using them for totally different things. — Smjg (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't notice that Adamdaley is blocked? He can't respond to you here, and shouldn't be using his own talk page for this either. Probably best if you request he email you. (imho) Have a nice day - w o lf  00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed just after I posted my comment. — Smjg (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced sections
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)

Please source this
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!
 * Over the years, various features suggested by users have been incorporated. This includes support for multiple server connections, SSL, UTF-8 display support and an option to view channels and notify lists in a treebar format rather than the default switchbar. mIRC is still in active development but it is very rarely announced what features will be introduced in the future.

Seriously, please source this paragraph about features, esp. the user-sugg part. --Lexein (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't get to bully editors into doing work you're perfectly capable of helping to do. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of the person adding information into an article, to ensure it is sourced. You don't get to pick and choose which site rules to ignore. 88.108.239.234 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation style tagging
I have boldly removed the "Citation style" tag, as unhelpful to readers, and misplaced.
 * 1) *Internal citation style is irrelevent. It is something which can be improved gradually, at any editor's whim, including the tagging editor who apparently has time for tagging and retagging but not article improvement
 * 2) Visible citation style, as long as citations are usable and understandable, does not have to be rigidly consistent. Citation style does not affect "the whole article"; it is restricted to the ==References== section. This tag belongs ONLY in the ==References== section, not at the top of the article.  Such a tag does not help the reader in any way.  It is merely a WP:DEADHORSE complaint from one editor to others, and as such has no place at the top of the article.
 * 3) If there are specific complaints, they should be discussed here without further tag spamming.  --Lexein (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How dare you call my edits spam. The multiple issues template exists for a reason, and is widely used. The citation style affects the WHOLE article, as it is a LACK of inline citations in the entire article that is the problem. It's inconsistent and un-encyclopedic. We expect better here. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * The citation style is inconsistent, we have inline citations and some books randomly thrown in at the end. The dead horse argument applies to the both of us, you know. ;] Mythpage88 (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest backing off from the unhelpful, uncivil attacks on my contributions. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, nothing uncivil anywhere. Take me to any WP:Dispute resolution you like. You have contributed only tags, in the wrong places - please stop putting wrong tags, in the wrong places, and read WP:SELFPUB. Your argument really is not with me!  You are being overzealous - that's why I referred you to WP:TIGERS. Please read it. It's spam when it's counterproductive - I could say "mistake" with the same assurance that my edits, comments and discussion have all been within policy and guideline.
 * Please stop attacking the article - that's all you are doing at this point. You don't get to bully editors into doing work you're perfectly capable of helping to do.
 * If you don't want responses, and reverts, don't make mistakes. --Lexein (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's spam when I post ten or twenty templates at the top of the page. It's spam when I add links to penis enlargement websites. It's spam when I ask for $20,000,000 (TWENTY MILLION USD) so that I can smuggle it out of Uganda. Putting my contributions on the same level as "spam" is nothing short of degrading, insulting, and just plain rude. It's not spam when it's "counterproductive".
 * How am I bullying? This is what I usually do, I add a few notes (in the form of a couple inline tags and templates) and then I can go back and fix the issues. Most importantly, it brings the issues to the attention of multiple editors, potentially leading to collaboration. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Take me to dispute resolution. --Lexein (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want it, be my guest. I, however, would rather not make a big deal of a few lines of text. I've seen it on the Beatles over capitalization of the word "the". It's ugly and I want no part of that laughable process. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, perhaps we could actually use the sources in a citation instead of wasting time arguing. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "We"? Hm. I do not think you have the standing to make that call, while you persist in tagging and not doing constructive work, adding content, adding citations. You'll find no editors who enjoy having articles defaced by tags, or who enjoy being harangued by tags to do work, by other editors who only tag,' without contributing constructive work before tagging. The goal, as expressed in the WP:Five pillars, of "building an encyclopedia" is not met by tagging, but is met by actually building. Tagging fundamentally defaces an article for the casual reader, who doesn't care how the sausage is made. All they see is that an article has been marked bad or deficient in some way. Only serious problems which harm the encyclopedia have any place at the tops of articles, and inconsistent citation styles, since they appear only at the bottom of the page, have never been, and never will be, such a problem. Call a request for comment, if you want to see.  You were (WP:BRD) bold, I reverted, and you, rather than just discussing, just kept reverting.  Not cool. See ya. --Lexein (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the way I talk, you ass. Mythpage88 (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you can't find it: "The patronizing "we" is sometimes used in addressing instead of "you," suggesting that the addressee is not alone in his situation, that "I am with you, we are in this together." A doctor may ask a patient: And how are we feeling today?"
 * Alternately, "In distinction to the patronizing "we" is the non-confrontative "we" used in T-V languages such as Spanish where the phrase ¿Cómo estamos? (literally, "How are we?") is sometimes used to avoid both over-familiarity and over-formality among near-peer acquaintances." Mythpage88 (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of tags
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)
 * Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
 * Additionally, are you just going to keep making new sections until someone agrees with you/I stop caring? Mythpage88 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I call to your attention, in the next paragraph of that very same page, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,"  in WP:SELFPUB. Your argument about Bey's statement about himself falls squarely into this category of permissible sources. Dude, I'm not your enemy, but you're making mistakes, and in a very public, and angry way. --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at bullet No. 5. The article is riddled with quotes and factoids from mirc.com. And I'm not your dude, buddy... Mythpage88 (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been agreed by consensus, among both deletionist and inclusionist editors, for YEARS, at many, many software article Talk pages, that the software publisher can be used to support explicit claims, just not all of them.. Independent reliable sources must support a substantial number of such claims; most reviews simply don't cover every feature. As you've read, for unremarkable and noncontroversial claims, primary sources can be used, without calling a redball emergency. I agree with keeping the refimprove tag. That is all that is needed at the top. I have already stated that the "inconsistent references" tag can be placed, without dispute by me, in the ==References== section, where it truly belongs. You do realize that the refs were put in there to answer the PROD over at MIRC scripting language, right? And I found them interesting and useful. We're all volunteers, and there is no deadline. You know these things, and yet you act as if those things aren't true. --Lexein (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see an example of this alleged consensus. Perhaps you could provide one, or maybe even two! The main issue with primary sources is that they're being used to supplement notability. If something is worth mentioning in the article, it's more than likely that it's mentioned elsewhere. With this in mind, primary sources should not be the primary citation category. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a fairly new editor, so you might be misunderstanding notability. The topic of the article is mIRC. The notability of mIRC has been established quite handily by several major independent reliable sources. 3. Nobody was trying to use primary sources to establish any sort of notability; they are there for verification. Please read WP:Notability -
 * "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:BLPN"
 * Nobody wants an article verified only by primary sources, not even me, but such verifiability by primary sources is useful and necessary to verify the claims being made by Wikipedia editors! Necessary, but also not sufficient on their own. I did not remove all of your 3rd-party tags, because some of them were indeed large enough claims to require such a ref. Please read WP:PRIMARY.  I'm not making this stuff up.  Whole bunches of editors have spent lots of time haggling and coming to agreement about how best to meet the goals of WP:Five pillars.  If you disagree with that work, or those pillars, or the dispute resolution process, well, what are you going to do?  Keep tagging and fighting with editors?  Not a good plan. I do wish you'd be more patient and less adamant, and become more acquainted with the agreed-upon policies, and guidelines. And read WP:TIGERS. --Lexein (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably should have been clearer. By notable, I meant "worthy of inclusion" (i.e. not trivia or excessive detail). Mythpage88 (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, advocacy is something I had not considered. I just figured, a quote is a quote is a quote, thinking it uncontroversial. The debate was milder than represented here; it was sorta public, but it was not covered in independent reliable sources, AFAIK. Tough one. Thanks.--Lexein (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Followup to 3O must warning tags be replicated both inside and outside the, so that the tag appears both in the prose, and in the reflist? Seems excessive to me. --Lexein (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (I made changes to the article re this 3O) --Lexein (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Each tag template is supposed to be used outside the reference unless its documentation states it should be used inside. Though I'm not sure it is documented explicitly somewhere, the editors are expected to be succinct on tags — each problematic source should be tagged only once and only with one tag highlighting most severe of its flaws. Also note, that templates for tagging references are generally considered to be mutually exclusive with general article tags (refimprove, primary, etc). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the inside/outside info. I have been acting on the notion that a refimprove is sometimes appropriate with citation needed tags; consider the nightmare scenario of a seemingly well-cited article with a refimprove but no CNs! Unhelpful! That's why I campaigned for the availability of a smaller refimprove tag, as an aid to both readers and editors, for use in sections. --Lexein (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was offline for these days and couldn't reply timely. The general idea is that you should tag problems as precise as you can: if you can put citation needed, synthesis-inline, primary source-inline, etc., you should place them instead of refimprove banner. In this particular case the refimprove banner is needed because of article's strong reliance on weak (both primary and unreliable) sources, and marking each source would be a bad choice readability-wise. If you could take care of marking all bad non-primary sources, refimprove should be replaced with primary. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem about the delay. Is this mutual-exclusivity a stylistic, or a more technical choise? See new topic below. Thanks again. --Lexein (talk) 12:01, 25 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 toWP:SELFPUBLISH. Therefore, removing it. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This deletion was incorrect, WP:SELFPUB (please click it) handily provides exceptions to SPS, which permit the author of a work who is an expert about that work, to write about himself and that work, on his own forum, which he owns, with a variety of restrictions, which his forum post meets. Of course we seek better sources, but this one squeaks by. All that said, I'm not convinced the color controversy matters, unless better sources support both sides. This has been discussed before, to a standstill. --Lexein (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lexein, I didn't see the policy below it (WP:SELFPUB), which is why I made this mistake. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated tracking of templates, and article issues
@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)
 * Both templates do the tracking job identically: they add the article to catchall and dated categories:
 * adds article to All articles needing additional references and Articles needing additional references from August 2012
 * adds article to All articles with unsourced statements and Articles with unsourced statements from August 2012.
 * There is no problem with having article in any number of maintenance categories. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I could not see those categories being added to, during my brief test. They must be really hidden categories. Oh well. Again, I observe that documentation would have helped shorten this discussion considerably. --Lexein (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The best documentation is the code itself. BTW, what do you mean by "really hidden"? Hidden categories are only shown if explicitly enabled in Preferences. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, but I do have Show hidden categories turned on. I believe the categories are being added to, but the categories you mentioned are not listed either in Read or in Edit mode, when I tested in a userspace file here and in the WP:Sandbox (here) -- hence, "really hidden". NOINDEX was noted in its hidden category in both tests. In the spirit of joking around, I'll just add that editors who are not template coders should read template code anyways - that's a great reason for usage documentation not to exist, or not to be correct, or not to mention useful side effects. Whee! --Lexein (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That happens because the auto-categorization doesn't happen outside main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oof. Okay, got me. Verified, clarified documentation, which partially existed. --Lexein (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801103533/http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/news/ to http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/news/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

IRC
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)

mIRC Abbreviation Meaning
@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)
 * Well, I think it should be included, but maybe not in the lede? How about the §History? Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I’ll work on that addition in §History. Thank you. 2600:8802:1913:1F00:597D:6253:DD1B:21F4 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)