Talk:Eggdrop

message: Ironically, #gayteen on EFNet was killed (closed out, locked and nobody ever came back) by a team of eggdrops. Orbital (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: Ben Dover? That has to be fake. 134.48.103.32 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax 

message: List of developers/contributors was removed? Damn I felt so proud being there, c'mon =))) Takeda 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developers 

message: Speaking as someone not familiar with Eggdrop or IRC: Could someone please include a jargon-free note at the beginning of this article on just what Eggdrop is/does? (Wikipedia:Explain_jargon#Subject-specific_terms). Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: «Eggdrop is a popular IRC bot.» the page says. One can follow the See also links to IRC bot and Internet Relay Chat. So I don't really see what you expect the page to say? -- skiidoo (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, but what is it? 

message: Just updated with the 1.6.18 update --83.88.93.252 10:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not right.  It's not out yet.--BarkerJr 02:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.6.18 version 

message: Repeated use of the product name is a sign of promotional writing; I adjusted this, and also condensed some of the  content.    DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: promotional wording

message: Jehochman suggested that I  comment on possible COI. As far as positive COI, I think the above explanations by Tothwolf    quite adequate. I particularly like his analogy that if his involvement with the subject project is COI, then nobody here could contribute--or even add sources-- to the articles on Wikipedia.  However, there is another side to this. My impression is that the attack on him and the article is so intensive & unreasonable that it might proceed from a negative COI towards either the product or himself personally.  I do not want to take any admin action here myself, but if this continues, I shall bring this to the appropriate noticeboard.    DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: COI

message: On 21 October 2010 Theserialcomma changed the article lede from "Eggdrop is a popular IRC bot and is the oldest IRC bot still in active development." to "Eggdrop is an IRC bot.". Both "popular" and "oldest IRC bot still in active development" were backed up with published sources, but the edit summary Theserialcomma used stated: "removed 'oldest bot' and 'popular'. 'popular' is pov and subjective, and 'oldest bot' is sourced to eggdrop's site, not a third party source"  In the same edit, Theserialcomma attempted to remove the two published sources, although they were restored by a bot  since they were also being used elsewhere in the article. Theserialcomma then went on to remove another published source (since restored) stating "rm invalid link" 
At least two published sources present in the article supported "oldest IRC bot still in active development":
*
*
and at least three support "popular" or "most common":
*
*
*
Other published sources include:
*
*
*
* [although in addition to other sources, this book also cites Wikipedia for the 1993 development date]
Given that this material was supported by reliable sources cited in the article, should it have been removed and labeled "pov" by Theserialcomma?  --Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, you're right: I undid it, it's clear from the references and from common knowledge. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest bot in active development? 

message: Its stated that this is still in active development which in some ways it is however current stable version has been at 1.6 for years, 1.7 was skipped and forked to 1.8 in git by many people and then eggdrop coders themselves took this version into "beta" so to speak, however no move has happened to make this current or stable (although it appears it is stable, personally using 1.6 as its a production box and i dont have time to play about or test something that isn't broken.)
But should we be adding references now to the 1.8 version or stating its out there but its a development version while still maintaining the info that 1.6.xx is current stable? - Killerchronic (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Development