User talk:CodeImp

Hi Pascal, do you know if there is an equivalent to DoomConnector for *nix? Ducon 18:22, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Not at the moment, but a new Doom Connector (4) is in development and when that is finished, we will see if we can make a linux port of it. This however will take a long while to complete. If you only want to play using ZDaemon, there is a ZDaemon-only launcher developed by someone that runs on linux. Best to check the ZDaemon forums on that. CodeImp
 * I just want to play with my old and simple PrBoom… Thanks anyway; I’ll wait, there’s no hurry. Or maybe you can just include it in xqf. Ducon 18:31, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT)

copyright
Could you please clarify copyright for the image Image:Pascal_november2004.jpg that you uploaded, in accordance with Image_use_policy? Many thanks, -- Jdowland 19:01, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * The picture is mine, use it as you like, but if it was up to be I would delete it as it is a very old picture. --CodeImp 03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

CodeImp article
you don't see me writing about zdaemon's actions against Doom Connector either, do you.  If that is a significant part of the Doom community's history, and you are willing to release your writing under the GFDL, of course you could.

Our policies on bio articles are a bit nebulous at the moment, so could you explain more fully what you mean by "unwise"? Ryan W 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, most people don't know all about this issue, most people just heard a few things, mostly from the other party, because ZDaemon folks like to talk a lot about me that way. The ZDaemon administration and me (with Doom Connector in particular) just don't go along together. When this things happened, I discussed it with a trustworthy person who spoke with both parties and the consensus is to just drop the issue and both ignore each other. I'm totally willing to do so, and have been doing so for years now. Ever since then I am not posting any of this in my article, the Doom Connector article, nor the ZDaemon article or anywhere else, because it is provocative and offensive. Hence it is unwise for these ZDaemon minions to come over here and provoke me with their biased stories without knowing about ZDaemon's actions. How more detailed can I define "unwise"? --CodeImp 03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I understand &mdash; "unwise" meaning "needlessly incendiary, therefore counterproductive". I apologize if that was obvious to everybody who was around at the time, but I wasn't, so I was confused.


 * The issue now becomes: is this a minor historical event, something people rarely think about when they think of you? If so, then I agree that it can be omitted.  If not, however, then it is impossible to have a complete and balanced article about you (unlike Wikipedia, we cannot legally do this despite your objections).  I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else needs to answer this question right now, just that it is important because it is bound to come up again (Andy Kempling, Uwe Girlich, Steffen Winterfeldt).  IMHO we need to either make the policy more specific, or start deleting controversial articles.    Ryan W 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we could call it a community if it lacked any controversy. :)


 * I re-added the paragraph before noticing this here discussion and I apologize for acting prematurely. I believe it deserves to be shown, but in CodeImp's defense it needs to be as NPOV as possible, including more detail on why the issue has long since been mutually disregarded by involved parties. IE, an explanation along the lines of "ZDaemon and CodeImp have agreed to 'drop the issue' ..." and so on, if what CodeImp says above is true. Zack 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources for the latter point may be difficult to come by if it happened on IRC or in e-mail (most of those forum links posted by deathz0r are broken too). I don't particularly want the CodeImp article deleted, and I think changing the neutrality policy would be a slippery slope.  Those are the only two options I can think of, however, given that people have not exactly fallen all over themselves to do the necessary research for a fair and thorough writeup (I myself lack the required longevity, contacts, and [probably] temperament IMHO).  CodeImp himself is a human being with free will and therefore may disagree with some parts of our policy page &mdash; indeed, many Wikia sites do not even attempt to be NPOV when writing bio articles for living people (I am thinking of fanfic communities with articles about authors; Wikifur has also had issues along these lines).  If CodeImp sticks to his opinion and people don't want to have a courtesy deletion policy, I suppose the next step is to prowl around the listserv etc. for advice from veteran Wikians.    Ryan W 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a few adjustments to the Controversy section when I brought it back. I am trying to make it clear that whether CodeImp did anything against ZDaemon is not a fact, but it is certainly provable that he was accused by Raider (by the linked forum post) of doing so. I believe this fits very well within NPOV rules. If you feel that NPOV was the biggest issue preventing a solid decision on whether the article should stay or go, then I feel the problem has been alleviated. The only thing left, as you pointed out, is whether or not we should do a "courtesy" deletion. Now's the perfect opportunity to poll everybody.


 * (Off topic) Wikifur allows anybody and their mother to write an extensive article about themselves. Thankfully Doom Wiki has a policy against that or we'd be up to our space helmets in garbage. :) Zack 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could post several of this kind of accusations on the ZDaemon page, with logs and all, but let's not just do that. Anyone who feels the need to post these kind of provoking/accusing statements without the full cause and the provoking action on the other page is just trying to attack through defamation on character, but I suppose that is considered normal to some of you . I have had enough of this argument. Do you want your wiki to be a flamewar, or be at all? Remove your unjustified accusations or remove my whole profile, before I feel the need to retaliate. CodeImp 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Given your edit summary, I'm not sure you're still reading this, but here goes.


 * The page you linked to contains completely unsourced statements, presented with no lines of reasoning, and written by a pre-selected committee who cannot be contradicted (except by starting one's own site, as you say). There is not supposed to be anything remotely like that on the Doom Wiki.  If you find some, feel free to erase it and report that person for vandalism.  It is true, unfortunately, that unsourced statements about the trojan were added to the CodeImp article several times in 2005, but in every case they were removed immediately (by Jon Dowland, I believe).


 * There is certainly no place for flamewars here, especially in the articles themselves. (I thought that that was clearly stated on the policy page, but maybe the wording should be more specific.)  That is why we require sources for all information not obtainable through playtesting/editing, why we carefully identify opinions as opinions and not facts, and why controversial topics are discussed, in a forum open to any reader or editor, before large chunks of text are changed.  (Otherwise they generally get reverted, usually by Fraggle.)


 * In fact, none of our policies about bio articles are really set in stone, which is why Zaximus and I tried to suggest several alternative solutions to this problem, one of which was removing the trojan paragraph (though I admit I haven't asked our other major contributors about that yet). If I had dictatorial authority over this site, I might delete the CodeImp article, because it uses your real name and mentions trojans and DoS attacks &mdash; so it could affect your job prospects, for example, which would be a disgrace.


 * Finally, while I don't use ZDaemon myself, I know that the ZDaemon article has nonsense posted to it (temporarily) on a regular basis, especially in the "criticism" and "clans" sections. If your accusations have sources, as you say above, they would probably improve the article.


 * Ryan W 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The page you linked to contains completely unsourced statements, presented with no lines of reasoning, and written by a pre-selected committee who cannot be contradicted (except by starting one's own site, as you say)." The reason why I linked to that page was not because it is a source of information. The reason why I linked to that page was to show how some people, the committee who cannot be contradicted, the ZDaemon administration in this case, think that defamation of character is common sense, which is what the page does (I think it real life this is even illegal, although I'm not 100% sure on that). But you just explained yourself that this cannot be used as a source of information and neither can any other link to their website or forums, especially because it is all biased (they still have a user-base to care about, they are not going to write 'we are assholes, we did this and that to those people' anywhere). I am still waiting on your decision; remove the unjustified accusations or remove my whole profile. CodeImp 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because this is a wiki, no one user makes content or policy decisions (especially if they affect a large group of articles). I have asked for more opinions on the general discussion page, but truthfully I don't know how long that will take; there are a lot of editors who only check in every week or so.  If you think that is too slow, tell me, and I will blank the article and lock it down until the policy is clarified.    Ryan W 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say admins decide, it is their site. But fair enough, clearing it is a temporary acceptable alternative. CodeImp 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's blanked. I'll also ask people to post on the general page instead of here, so discussion isn't diluted over multiple locations.    Ryan W 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)