Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plan to update page[edit]

 – --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plan to update page[edit]

 – --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia talk:IRC
 – Seahawk01 (talk)

Hello, I am planning on updating this page and also:

also, I am planning on updating how information is displayed about IRC on:

I have two primary concerns that I wish to put forward:

  1. more general information for users, and especially new users, about how to approach IRC
  2. outline policy on how IRC users should edit Wikipedia (example: posting IRC logs on talk pages)

I plan to do this over the next month a little at a time and am very open to discussions, reaching consensus, etc.

Thanks!

Seahawk01 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you plan to update it to? Especially considering you've not discussed it with relevant parties, @Seahawk01:?Praxidicae (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: hey, I am discussing with relevant parties. That's what the Talk page is for, right? Seahawk01 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you're not discussing it with relevant parties, you're discussing it with people you have a grudge against. Praxidicae (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Praxidicae on this. The proposal seems to be in bad faith, simply based on a dispute they had on IRC and also a blatant disregard for #wikipedia-en-help's IRC policy by publicly posting logs. --Az1568 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Az1568 I was not aware of the policy at the time, but since then I and another member have made sure all those links have been removed. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: and @Az1568: please see below. Also, don't I have a right, as a member of the Wikipedia community, to make a proposal as to how a topic is to be dealt with? I would appreciate it if you both refrain from attacks and stick to the issues. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove IRC chat from WP:Questions page[edit]

 – --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia talk:IRC
 – Seahawk01 (talk)

Hello, I am proposing to remove the information on IRC chat from this page. The freenode IRC chat channels are not in any way affiliated with Wikipedia, so I think providing information here is very misleading and makes new users think it is an official part of the Wikipedia project.

There are some additional things to note:

  • no oversight by Wikipedia of the IRC channels
  • outside Wikipedia's formal channels and procedures
  • no IRC public logs
  • no records of discussions that lead to edits
  • no voting for IRC mods on Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia can easily host an IRC server if the project needs it
  • no tags on edits due to IRC conversations, so no tracking

all in all, I find it very much the opposite of the procedures found on Wikipedia.

I will make the change and remove the information, but wanted to give a bit of notice first.

Seahawk01 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

alternative[edit]

An alternative to removing the IRC chat information is to make more explicit the fact that IRC is not associated with Wikipedia, but run independently by volunteers and then link to more "new user" information. More information for new users can be added either at either Wikipedia:IRC or Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help.

Seahawk01 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be doing this on a whim, solely based on a dispute you had on IRC with another editor. Simply for that fact, I'd say any removal would be rather biased, so imo you really shouldn't be removing anything at all. --Az1568 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Az1568: true, I was initially motivated by a dispute. But, I'm pretty much over that dispute. On the other hand, I feel I was mislead as a new user into believing that the IRC chat was official because of mention on this page. So, I've decided to help out and redo policy on Wikipedia:IRC or Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help plus rework what is on this article. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you took the time to read the page, you'd see there is a governance structure to how Wikimedia's IRC channels are run. So I'm not certain as to why you've proposed to unilaterally remove links to IRC and taking that resource away from everyone without first speaking to any of the folks that help run the IRC channels? --Az1568 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes "official"? The IRC channels are run by volunteers, as with basically everything. Vermont (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Are you purposely being disruptive? Praxidicae (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae not at all. Please see my answer above. Also, please note I am talking on the Talk page about proposed changes, not rashly changing anything yet. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seahawk01: Can you please stop with the forum shopping? It gets confusing and is detrimental to consensus to have a conversation spread out across multiple talk pages. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron11598: I am not forum shopping. I am trying to notify interested members. Why don't you centralize the discussion and we can precede proceed from there. Thanks. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seahawk01 Do you mean proceed? Praxidicae (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae corrected Seahawk01 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this hang on a second before continuing the discussion --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Done --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron11598 this is great, thank you. Also, I want to discuss this over a period of a week or two. I wasn't planning on discussing it all tonight. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Az1568 and Praxidicae: I've centralized the discussion here just a quick fyi ping. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different than your complaint about IRC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Suggest_Wikipedia_does_not_mention_IRC_as_a_source_for_help? Natureium (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well, Natureium, I posted that before thinking. Then I thought about it and realized the proper course of action was to propose the changes on the appropriate article Talk pages, notify interested parties, and make the changes. So, I do regret posting to idea lab...that was rash. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some major misconception here that there is any sort of "official" Wikipedia help. All help, whether on the IRC help channel, or at the Teahouse, is provided by volunteer experienced editors. The IRC help channel is no more or less official than the Teahouse or other help forums on Wikipedia, except in that public logging is not allowed due to a variety of privacy concerns (especially for helpees, who may not understand the import of what they are disclosing). Removing the IRC help channel from the help pages would be detrimental as it allows new editors who do not understand how to post to talk pages or have other difficulties that preclude them making use of the Teahouse to ask questions, and to ask questions that are too sensitive to ask publicly. It is also blatantly contentious to post across a wide variety of forums about the same thing. Waggie (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the changes I would like to make at User:Seahawk01/IRC. I suggest we reach a consensus and then do a Wikipedia:Edit requests. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to explain why your changes are off-base:
  1. IRC users, on their own initiative, may keep private logs of conversations, which can be helpful when dealing with users who need help spanning multiple days. What aren't allowed are public logs - i.e. a publicly-viewable log. This is in part for those users' own protection; most IRC clients' logs expose the IPs of users who don't have a hostmask in /join messages, and newcomers have been known to leave personal contact information in public channels such as -en-help.
  2. All users should not "have equal say". Some channels have very specific requirements to be voiced in them (-en-revdel only allows admins to be voiced, and -en-help has specific requirements for a +v flag, for instance). It is ludicrous to say that someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works has any right to help users who likewise have no idea how Wikipedia works, or that a non-administrator has any right to be an inquisitor for -en-unblock.
  3. Channel operators can, and SHOULD, be able to take unilateral action against trolls in the channels, and indeed they frequently do. What they don't do is take unilateral action against someone who has a legitimate question or gripe, or remove someone who isn't doing anything wrong (like evading a channel ban or harassing people via PM). Most of the time if an op isn't called for blatant trolling they're called in because a helpee is getting belligerent and/or rejecting any answers given them.
  4. If an issue is controversial enough that it needs to be discussed on-Wiki, any helper worth their salt can and will point them to the talk page of the article in controversy.
  5. "Remind user must also compromise" is useless. This is solely aimed at -en-help, and almost every user who doesn't compromise is either high conflict-of-interest or is more interested in venting their frustrations at someone, not legitimate help. Not to mention that at -en-revdel, wikimedia-tech, and -en-unblock, a user is in absolutely no position to be able to compromise by design.
  6. "Avoid[ing] powertripping" is redundant. Powertripping channel operators get their flags revoked.
  7. If the situation is such that it's patently obvious the user needs blocked on-wiki and someone is raising the alarm on IRC an admin can and should block on Wikipedia based on an IRC reply. That's part of why the !admin stalkword exists.
  8. While it looks good on paper, in practice most of the people we talk with in -en-help (again, this particular bullet is a gripe with -en-help) are so ignorant of how Wikipedia works that (a) they don't know talk pages exist and (b) assume we're employees, not volunteers. This is as much a cultural thing than anything - most of our helpees come from the Subcontinent, and no amount of education we can provide in the course of 30m-3h can change this that rapidly.
  9. There is no need to document changes made to an article via IRC. One shouldn't even be making controversial changes based off of an IRC chat anyways, and on the instances where I have edited on behalf of a helpee I have made it clear I'm doing it on behalf of that user, usually explaining why as I do so.
  10. Usually when I explain why I am tagging a helpee's article for speedy deletion they point out other articles and claim we're being hypocrites or biased. Most of the time, I helpfully tag these other articles as well as explain that Wikipedia is chronically short on admins.
  11. The last bullet is redundant. This is a gripe with -en-help specifically, and we already do this (since a fair chunk of people who come in are demanding to know why their page was deleted).
Hope this helps explain everything, including your angry crusade to make -en-help bend to your will because the result you got was not the result you wanted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 02:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jéské Couriano, I really don't think you are trying to find a consensus here. I, on the other hand, am making an honest effort to correct what I see is wrong in IRC.
In terms of this thread, let me remind you that:
  • you guys came in here and attacked me like a swarm of bees (see WP:IRC "When the channels are used to attack Wikipedians, or when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships.")
  • half you guys attacked me right here to begin with and should just be banned from discussion
  • you guys all definitely have a bias, so should not be editing on this topic anyway
  • I am perfectly willing to seek other channels of complaint to correct what I think needs correcting on these pages
So, I suggest you tone it down a little and seek to find common ground at least with the spirit, if not the letter, of my proposed edits. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We're not attacking you. There's a difference between attacking a contributor and attacking their poorly-thought-out suggestions; the former is an ad hominem while the latter is good debate strategy.
  2. This suggestion is ludicrous on its face and only reinforces the suspicion that you have ulterior motives here, especially as you're the one casting aspersions here.
  3. By that logic, this thread should be hatted. You're not without bias - from what I can gather (I was not in channel for the incident in question) you started this crusade when a helper draftified one of your articles as opposed to tagging it for deletion. This is well beyond disproportionate and goes right into the realm of viperesque.
  4. Yet you have not. Literally almost everything you have written since that fateful day has either been to try and force these changes through in retaliation for the helpers actually doing you a favour and draftifying your page, or forcibly putting the article in mainspace via copy-pasting, which has resulted in an AfD debate that in all honestly shouldn't have needed to be filed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano, I have copied your suggestions to User:Seahawk01/IRCv2 and will try to combine them with User:Seahawk01/IRC over the next week or two. Maybe I can find some sort of common ground. Seahawk01 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained to you on my user talk page (and in order to keep the conversation contiguous will reiterate here) your suggestions betray a complete lack of knowledge as to how the IRC channels work and are governed, and while you have had a bad experience it doesn't justify tearing down something that has worked for at least a decade out of what amounts to spite. There's literally no way to reconcile what you want with what the IRC channels (and -en-help in particular) are designed to do; most of those suggestions are either things that're already best practice, assumes a higher familiarity with Wikipedia than what is actually the case as far as helpees go, are forbidden by channel/network policies, at odds with the channels' design, and/or are so specific to -en-help that implementing them would screw over unrelated channels (-en-revdel, wikimedia-tech, -en-unblock, to name a few). There is no "there" there and no point trying to pretend there is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 01:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it here changes little and less, since every criticism I and others have laid against your suggestion applies whether we're talking IRC in general or a specific channel. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 01:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano replied to your talk page Seahawk01 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the overall discusssion contiguous, I will reply here. My point is that the venue is, as a general rule, not terribly relevant as what you're proposing is largely more wide-ranging than a single channel. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano OK, thanks for the reply. But, please note I did promise not to post here until January and just give this topic a rest (see end of this thread). So, I'd rather not be posting here and deal with it on Talk pages instead. Seahawk01 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that the discussion as a whole not be overly fragmented, hence why I replied here instead of on my talk page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I complerely concur with everything Jéské Couriano has said above. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron11598 see above Seahawk01 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seahawk01: I think you need to retract some of your statements above, as they border on personal attacks, in particular your assumption of bad faith, "I really don't think you are trying to find a consensus here." Casting aspersions is a violation of our policy on civility.
Half you guys attacked me right here. Please provide diffs for this assertion or retract this statement.
you guys all definitely have a bias, so should not be editing on this topic anyway, you have a bias as well, although contrary to the others that have expressed themselves here.
you guys came in here and attacked me like a swarm of bees again please provide diffs or retract your statement. Failing to do so is considered a personal attack. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron11598, my reply is do whatever you feel you need to do. I'm not worried. I would prefer if you resolved this issue on my Talk page, second best is through the Teahouse. Finally, if you want to report me, go ahead. Seahawk01 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron11598 you will need to give me some time to respond to what you said above...as in I will fully respond to you over the next week. But, on the other hand, we can just both agree to move beyond this and that would probably be better. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano, regarding what you say is an "angry crusade", I've had a perfectly wonderful time on Wikipedia until I went into the IRC chat rooms. This is what happened:
  • user puts page into draft space
  • user disappears saying "doesn't really have the experience"
  • two other users gang up on me
this is what I think should of happened:
  • user says disagrees with tone of article, offers to help fix
    • puts post on Talk page outlining what needs to be fixed
    • gives me a few days to make changes
  • article is much better because of experience
Think about it Seahawk01 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as a regular helper, nine times out of ten the users that come into -help don't know what a talk page is and have a serious competency issue (either conflict of interest or language barrier) that makes helping them on the talk page wildly impractical. Not to mention that this would completely defeat the purpose of -en-help, which is to provide as real-time of help as is possible given Wikipedia's and IRC's nature. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify everyone I think this is extremely unproductive. I have copied User:Jéské Couriano reply to User:Seahawk01/IRCv2 and will try to combine this with my suggestions at User:Seahawk01/IRC. I do not intend to post here again for at least until after the New Year and plan on working on other things. You all, of course, can contact me on my Talk page. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seahawk01: What do you find unproductive? The topic you've raised? The patient replies and dialogue happening? Killiondude (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Killiondude, what I find unproductive is the only one who made any effort to discuss editing was Jéské Couriano, so I am just going to stop posting here for two weeks until January. Please post on my Talk page if you have more to discuss. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of a tiny corner of Wikipedia. I'm sure there's info somewhere about how many watchers this page has that are "active" Wikipedians and it will just be a few dozen. Jeske is nice. So is Cam. They've both made logical comments and have tried to explain the situation to you, but it does not seem like you are willing to understand that your one negative interaction on IRC doesn't mean it is worthless. I will not contact you on your talk page to discuss a topic you raised on a separate talk page. I hope you do what you've mentioned and take some time to reflect on this discussion here, though. Have a good day. Killiondude (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask everyone posting here to identify their relationship to IRC[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:IRC
 – Seahawk01 (talk)

In the interests of full disclosure, I am requesting everyone posting here to identify their relationship to IRC. Particularly, I would like to know who is currently in a channel while posting here, who is an admin, etc. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? Pretty much everyone who's going to be editing this talk page, myself included, is going to be someone who uses IRC in the first place. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano, I think if someone would start another post in good faith and take maybe 50% of what I proposed, I would probably be in agreement, we could reach a consensus and request an edit and then no, this would not be necessary. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything you've proposed is either best practice already, too specific to -en-help, or unworkable in real-world circumstances as I've detailed above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is necessary; however I am a group contact for the Counter Vandalism Network on Freenode, and have channel operator privileges in about a dozen different Wikimedia related channels. For a full list of my IRC privileges see Meta:User:Cameron11598/IRC/Channel Access. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seahawk01, it can reasonably be assumed most people commenting on WT:IRC are on IRC in some capacity. Vermont (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my reply to User:Cameron11598[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:IRC
 – Seahawk01 (talk)
A placeholder is not needed. This page isn't going anywhere. SQLQuery me! 03:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this is a placeholder for my reply to User:Cameron11598 which I will fill out next week. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preview diff in IRC[edit]

I'm pretty I saw somewhere on Wikipedia that you can preview diff links within IRC channels, such as on #cvn-wp-en connect, similar to the Navigation Popups gadget. Does anyone know where this diff link preview within IRC channels tool thingy is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can I Log In (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably related to your client. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're looking for WP:Scripts#IRC_channel_scripts? Waggie (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggie: I've looked at them, but none have to do anything with previewing diffs. Navigation Popups allows you to hover over diffs and preview it without going to the link. I'm looking for anything similar to that for IRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can I Log In (talk • contribs) 11:44, March 24, 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what to tell you, just pointing you at the resources we have related to "I'm pretty I saw somewhere on Wikipedia that you can preview diff links within IRC channels" as close as I can manage. Please remember to sign your messages with "~~~~". Waggie (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-help idling[edit]

I was asked today to leave the wikipedia-en-help channel as I'm not voiced (due to awaiting a cloak) - and, whilst the person requesting I do so was doing so in good faith in line with the guidelines at WP:IRC/HELPWHO, it did make me wonder if this rule is there for the sake of being a rule, rather than actually being a useful guideline. Unlike in the revdel channel where it makes sense to discourage idling due to potentially sensitive information being shared, surely idling in -en-help is no different from a new user reading the Teahouse or help desk, and thus you're not doing any harm by idling, and in fact might be interested in learning things from the queries that do come in? Just a thought for consideration. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OcarinaOfTime, we often have helpees who unwittingly reveal PII in #wikipedia-en-help connect (usually email addresses and phone numbers), and as such we do restrict access as noted in HELPWHO to voiced users. In addition, we have had issues with UPEs attempting to "solicit business" (read: scam) from confused helpees, so we must be very careful. I'll follow up with you further on IRC. Thank you! Waggie (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I understand, I hadn't considered the private nature of IRC vs the open nature of Wikipedia meaning additional precautions need to be in place on the former. Retracting my suggestion on that basis! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banned[edit]

So, I was just looking through the IRC channel when it said I was banned from it by @User:Waggie. I have no idea why. Can someone help? P.S. I use this username for Irc as well as wikipedia: Ghinga7 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghinga7, my apologies. You were on from the same ISP as a blocked troll we had only a little while earlier in the channel, and you were idling in the channel without saying anything. I've unbanned you now. Thanks for posting here. Waggie (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't done something wrong. Ghinga7 (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

How do I block other people from editing my page? Joann di Cristofaro (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change status of #wikipedia-en-helpers[edit]

I'm not exactly sure when or how it happened, but I understood #wikipedia-en-helpers to now be invitation-only and not open, but the IRC guidelines have not been updated to reflect this fact. If I knew more, I'd suggest new wording. It would also be good to explain whether there are guidelines on who should be invited. There has to be a way for new helpers to get started. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's a sufficient explanation. Thanks. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection[edit]

I want to apply semi protection in one page how to apply ? Umarabubakr (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at WP:Requests for page protection. Note that protection is not going to be used to win a content dispute or control article content. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help&oldid=999562171"