Talk:Eggdrop

Irony
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)
 * ...which were given the opportunity to do so only in the wake of your own takeover, orbi. Drasil (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

How much of the history in this article can be verified? Grocer (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it may sound funny, it's true. And according to the history of Eggdrop, the information about #GayTeen is correct. Nothing in the Eggdrop article is a hoax or a prank, I have correctly sourced the information and proven its validity. - [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] nath a nrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and I don't know why it keeps getting removed and restored, it's a fact. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] nath a nrd o tcom (T • C • W) 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, but what is it?
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? (Explain_jargon). Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * «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)

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

Censorship of #gayteen in article
Mention of the EFNet channel #gayteen in the article has been censored many times by different people with various supposed reasons. I'm including additional references below that would be difficult to include as inline citations.

Editors should note that this passage easily passes the search engine test.
 * Search Engine Test

Google search for "eggdrop" "gayteen"

Valis was the name of Robey Pointer's #gayteen Eggdrop bot (see below).
 * Valis

Valis and #gayteen are mentioned in [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.04/netbots.html?pg=5 Wired 4.04: Bots Are Hot! p.5]

While the ABOUT file included with Eggdrop itself is probably about as authoritative as it gets, it is also possible to find reference to EFNet #gayteen in very old versions of Eggdrop itself.
 * ABOUT file

Many old versions of Eggdrop are available via the Eggheads FTP server.

Eggdrop version 0.7d (released April 11, 1994)
 * Notable versions

From the file 'sample.config' contained in the 0.7c source archive:

Eggdrop version 0.9r (released December 1, 1995)

From the file 'eggdrop.doc' contained in the 0.9r source archive:

Tothwolf (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the specific channel where the channel originated adds anything to the article. It's lack of mention could be due to it's lack of relevance, not "censorship". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "channel originated"? Notability and relevance are not issues here. It is important to the history of this software as this is the very reason Robey Pointer created it. This fact has been stated in the article since at least August 2005 (although at that time, unsourced) and is not a recent addition to the article. The WP:NNC section of the notability guideline also states: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Although I've shown above why this is historically important, the WP:NNC of the notability guideline makes it clear that your comment of "Why is this notable?"  is rather moot. In addition (as if the above isn't already enough), 24.165.151.49 is a sockpuppet of someone who rather enjoys wikistalking my past edits. While I certainly do have the technical evidence to back up my claim, providing it on-wiki would also publicly out that individual. You do also realise that the above talk page section was also written almost two years ago and that no one has taken issue with any of this (after actual references were provided of course) until 24.165.151.49 showed up here? --Tothwolf (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * stop making paranoid claims about users "stalking" you if you cannot back such claims with evidence. YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADMONISHED BY ARBCOM FOR "allegations of misconduct against other editors without substantiating them" [] and the arbcom admin stated in your official admonishment and sanctioning that "Tothwolf does appear to have COI issues with Eggdrop at least, but his behavioral issues are more concerning". your unsubstantiated claims against other editors ends now.
 * and i agree that #gayteen is a superfluous detail. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a published book as a third source and have restored the mention of this channel yet again. As I said above, this channel was the very reason Eggdrop itself was created, so it is historically important to the background and history of this software, making it far from "superfluous". These three citations are more than sufficient to support this:
 * For that fact, Comma, I suggest you read up on the definition of superfluous. superfluous: "in excess of what is required or sufficient" Now, Comma, you've been told repeatedly to stop your edit warring and baiting on this article  and to disengage and stop harassing/wikistalking/wikihounding. I was not admonished as you claim I was  and this time I am not falling for your "baiting" here.    Theserialcomma, you can and should consider my reply here and the reply I posted to User:IRWolfie-'s talk page  your last and final warnings: Stop the personal attacks      and harassment, and leave me alone or I WILL seek a community ban for your long-term harassment behaviours towards myself and other editors. Your cyberstalking and abuse of numerous editors has been extremely well documented and will be more than sufficient to push for a formal community ban. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your 2 sources you cite above merely show the relevance to the first eggdrop to #gayteen but not why it should be mentioned in the article on Eggdrops. For instances you do not mention the name of the first bot which is another unnecessary detail. The actual channel name adds nothing to the article itself, merely a channel being disrupted is the important detail. Note your original removal you linked to a censorship page. Removing superflous details is not censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the book source more closely. The channel wars in #gayteen were the reason Robey Pointer created Eggdrop itself. Eggdrop did not exist prior to that point. This makes mention of that channel very relevant to the history of Eggdrop. So these claims of the channel itself not being "relevant" and "superfluous" are meritless. Just because you find the channel name objectionable does not mean it should not be discussed in the article as Wikipedia is not censored). --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For that fact, Comma, I suggest you read up on the definition of superfluous. superfluous: "in excess of what is required or sufficient" Now, Comma, you've been told repeatedly to stop your edit warring and baiting on this article  and to disengage and stop harassing/wikistalking/wikihounding. I was not admonished as you claim I was  and this time I am not falling for your "baiting" here.    Theserialcomma, you can and should consider my reply here and the reply I posted to User:IRWolfie-'s talk page  your last and final warnings: Stop the personal attacks      and harassment, and leave me alone or I WILL seek a community ban for your long-term harassment behaviours towards myself and other editors. Your cyberstalking and abuse of numerous editors has been extremely well documented and will be more than sufficient to push for a formal community ban. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your 2 sources you cite above merely show the relevance to the first eggdrop to #gayteen but not why it should be mentioned in the article on Eggdrops. For instances you do not mention the name of the first bot which is another unnecessary detail. The actual channel name adds nothing to the article itself, merely a channel being disrupted is the important detail. Note your original removal you linked to a censorship page. Removing superflous details is not censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the book source more closely. The channel wars in #gayteen were the reason Robey Pointer created Eggdrop itself. Eggdrop did not exist prior to that point. This makes mention of that channel very relevant to the history of Eggdrop. So these claims of the channel itself not being "relevant" and "superfluous" are meritless. Just because you find the channel name objectionable does not mean it should not be discussed in the article as Wikipedia is not censored). --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

it's been long substantiated and non-contentious that there is a developer for eggdrop named 'tothwolf'. multiple admins/arbitrators have pointed out this conflict of interest and requested that 'tothwolf' did not edit this article since this entity has such an obvious POV and COI. it is not surprising, therefore, that 'tothwolf' has a vested emotional interest in nostalgic irrelevancies of the history of eggdrop and #gayteen, and will edit war to keep their superfluous and non-notable trivia in the article. this is what happens when you have a conflict of interest: your emotions overtake your ability to edit from a neutral perspective. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Theserialcomma: Stop making personal attacks. You have yet to back up your claims that I'm making bad edits to this article with actual diffs (please provide them) and constantly making claims that I'm actively editing contrary to WP:NPOV without the ability to produce said evidence is in and of itself a personal attack. You on the other hand, Theserialcomma, have attempted time and time again to harass, provoke, and bait numerous editors into edit warring with you, not only here on this article, but also in countless other articles and pages within Wikipedia and those behaviours have been extremely well documented. While I've contributed patches and bugfixes, volunteered in support channels, etc in my spare time over the years, it does not mean I have a "conflict of interest" when it comes to editing a Wikipedia article about Eggdrop. The WP:COI guideline makes this perfectly clear and SarekOfVulcan stated during the COI/N discussion: "No, it strongly discourages editing to "promote your own interests". Writing about what you know isn't automatically a conflict." "And, in a nutshell: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount."(emphasis mine) If Tothwolf can confidently make that assertion, there's no issue here."  It is not a conflict of interest for me to work on a Wikipedia article which covers Eggdrop, nor would it be a conflict of interest for me to write about MediaWiki or Wikipedia because I've contributed here. These claims by Theserialcomma were previously addressed    during the COI/N discussion from May 2009 which Theserialcomma initiated  while attempting to provoke a dispute  (while simultaneously filing a false SPI against me ). It was also addressed again during an ArbCom case after Theserialcomma yet again tried to use this as a means to attack my character (see: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence) Theserialcomma, it is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to misuse a comment made by Hersfold during the ArbCom case.    To further put this in perspective, Hersfold's comment  was made in the Abstain section, with further comments from bainer  and Hersfold, with Hersfold stating: "I think that the latter is suitably covered with Decorum and Casting aspersions; as NYB says, a COI isn't always a bad thing, and I don't believe it was here except as a tool to discredit others."  According to http://cvs.eggheads.org/viewvc/eggdrop1.6/THANKS?view=markup Eggdrop has had at least 582 contributors over the years, although this list is not 100% complete due to incomplete information about contributors to pre 0.9 versions. How many other contributors do you think have also contributed to this article? How many have contributed to Wikipedia? I'd reckon quite a lot of them... Now, the "#gayteen" history which Theserialcomma and "24.165.151.49" removed from the article is material which existed here long before I ever edited the article. Note revision 232895295 from August 19, 2008  Also note the lack of any sort of references in the article at the time. Theserialcomma, either back up your claims with evidence or stop making them. Making constant claims I'm violating WP:NPOV without the ability to produce actual evidence is a personal attack. Many editors, including myself can and have produced evidence of your harassment behaviours towards numerous editors and if you continue to harass and attack people it can and will be used as evidence to justify a formal community ban. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The existence of something in the article for a period of time to me does justify its inclusion: Articles can't be improved if content isn't changed/replaced at times. I am also unsure why my edit is such a contentious issue. Perhaps a good compromise may be something of the form: "It was originally written by Robey Pointer in December 1993 to help manage and protect a gay focused EFnet channel" It is still an unnecessary detail but should alleviate your worries of censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * looking in, to say this without specifying the name of the channel would be very vague, and the usual response to such a phrase in any article is a comment. Vague statements of importance are promotional. Exact ones are informative. It would also seem to me that the motivation for forming a notable product is certainly relevant content.    DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

promotional wording
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)

COI
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)

Oldest bot in active development?
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]
 * [although in addition to other sources, this book also cites Wikipedia for the 1993 development date]
 * [although in addition to other sources, this book also cites Wikipedia for the 1993 development date]
 * [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)
 * 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)

Active Development
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)