The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect to Doom source port. |
It wouldn't be accurate in the UD section to say that there are more than 50 players. Sure, there are 56 listed on the wiki, but only 30 of them are active/inactive. The rest of the people are not part of UD as they are retired, which goes past the definition of simply being inactive. Count for yourself, and you'll see that there's just slightly more than 30 active/inactive players who are not retired. Excelblue 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm really wondering if the Old Staffers fits into the article. On one end, it's historical information, but on the other, they are quite insignificant right now. I was thinking if it might be better if those were incorporated into a new history section in the article. Quite a few people on the old staffers are actually banned from ZDaemon. I'm wondering what everyone's opnion on that section is. Excelblue 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Whilst one could clearly see that some areas of the partial submissions required some thoughtful addressing, this article has completely suffered from a rigorous Disneyland patching. The critical yet obviously neutral commentary has seemingly been replaced with this Mickey Mouse piffle, and it borders on outright game box advertising! Excelblue, your praxis of rewriting this article to suit your tendentious ideas, which no-doubt arise out of your relationship with the ZDaemon crew, is becoming increasingly bothersome. Address the submissions properly, as you're now beginning to look a bit of an ass. --82.37.28.177
The trojan that happened a bit ago is not excatly related to ZDaemon. It's the action of one staff member and it did not significantly impact ZDaemon. As such, I decided to remove that section from this article. Also, it should be noted that getwad does not download IWADs, and if it does, it's probably a server that has not been properly set up. Thus, there is no need for the GetWAD controversy section. - Excelblue 23:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The clan page is constantly vandalized. We should stop posting junk and only leave the most famous clans up there, without any comments abuot them. Saying stuff like "rebels" and using clan pride should stop. BTW, I feel that the article is neutral for every part but the clan information in its current state. -
Excelblue 07:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The clan section is far from Junk. It is critical to the zdaemon.org community or they would not have devoted their FRONT PAGE [1] toward Active and non-Active clans. Clan membership is a huge part of the Zdaemon community. The vandalism needs to stop. The Zdaemon website speaks for itself. Stop vandalizing the wiki.
This article also has a lot of weasel word usage. Changing "While many say" to "Many say" is not a fix for it at all. If it can't be cited as fact in some fashion it should be carefully rephrased or removed. -- 67.100.236.58 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The KNorton section of Old Staffers is incorrect, "A conflict of ideology lead to KNorton's departure when the channel was officially adopted." The channel was not "officially adopted", the channel was stolen by Raider while KNorton was on his honeymoon. - 67.188.5.202 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this should be in the article, I feel it fails WP:V and if clan members keep reading it WP:NPOV. BJ Talk 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Clan activity not only relevant, but critical to Zdaemon.org by their own admission. They have dedicated nearly 50% of their front page toward their Clans. Stating both ACTIVE as well as NON-ACTIVE clans. Many or most of their servers for game play are hosted by these very clans. Including tcdoom.com, who is not on a clan member, but a strong advocate and supporter of the community.
Bjweeks has already been banned. He is using his high school internet access to cause problems on this wiki and if this continues, I will contact his high school directly and notify them of this abuse. -- Tcdoom 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the IP Address that you visited the wikipedia from was banned and that you had asked to have it unbanned. (As per your Talk).
Be that as it may, I am seeking mediation at this point as I do not wish to make this anymore personal than it has become.
As a show of good faith, I have not opted to re-add the tcdoom.com link to the "External Links" as I can understand how this may be perceived as "spam". I will yield in this regards to avoid controversy. I will explore policy in regards to this further and seek help and advisement regarding said from the mediator.-- Tcdoom 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"I don't think this should be in the article, I feel it fails WP:V and if clan members keep reading it WP:NPOV. BJ Talk 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"
It does not fail WP:V. Valid source is the very website that this topic is about, namely Zdaemon.org. Regarding WP:NPOV, I was not the sole contributor to this subject and sought permission from Raider who it he currently Zdaemon Project Leader. He is available via the Zdaemon Website if you wish to discuss. -- Tcdoom 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I am responding to a plea posted in Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here is my opinion:
In response to your statement about me "twisting" words, may I ask that you reference your own advice Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have never had an issue with anyone on Wikipedia and his aggressive deletion of content that was well received and static for some time, was irresponsible. It lead credence to my assumption that he was indeed not acting in good faith. He never reached out to me to discuss the matter, and simple posted one sentence and deleted the content.
In response to your closing statement as it pertains to the weight of clans, and following your logic, should another page be started? E.g. Zdaemon or Doom Clans? and then have a list of clans there? Likewise, should we take away the developers from this page as well? Should we start a page called Zdaemon Developers? With all due respect, I consider myself an expert on this wiki subject. I would add a greater weight to my opinion due to the number of years in the community (zdaemon) as well as the overall doom community, and online gaming in general. I would also like to site the project leaders opinion regarding clans and their relevancy in relation to zdaemon.
In regards to your comment regarding unnecessary detail, may I ask what authority you have on the subject of Doom, Zdaemon and their history? I ask because I would like to understand how you formed your opinion in regards to said. I currently run A Zdaemon Clan Website. We also host servers for the community and prior to that ran a 50 line BBS The Gaming Center BBS. The BBS supported nearly 5,000 registered members via the Internet and dialup. Many of the original members of the BBS migrated to the Internet and their Clans were made up of their former local environments where they were fist exposed to the online multiplayer experience.
Who the clans are is completely relevent. I say this because many of the project leaders came from and are still part of the said clans. This is further supported due to the fact that the Zdaemon community worked to introduce CTF (Capture the flag) into the port of Zdoom, which is a well establish game format played by Clans. Clans also host servers for users to play on. Clan Members contribute content and are the very foundation of Zdaemon's existance. I say this with confidence as staff members are in clans, host servers, and also contribute code. To cast these facts aside and casually dilute their relevancy, in my opinion, would be irresponsible to both the Zdaemon Community and any visitors of this Wiki Subject zdaemon
Also, I would ask that you re-read the wiki as there are two links posted which reference the importance of Clans and their role in Zdaemon and Doom. Perhaps you could expound or offer some feedback as to how you would present such references. I simply posted the references to subject matter, which I felt encompassed a bit of the history of FPS (First Person Shooters) and Clans.) -- Tcdoom 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the page per the third opinion because of my stated reasons and also because a edit war has started between two clans. Feel free to update the section with more info but please do not restore a clan list till a concenus has been estalbished on this talk page. BJ Talk 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and sorry for the slow response. I received an informal request for mediation recently, but I see you have already received a third opinion. Do you still feel the need for mediation? If so, are both of you interested in mediation? Armedblowfish ( talk| mail) 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.
As per Subject Defined sub‧ject /n., adj. ˈsʌbdʒɪkt; v. səbˈdʒɛkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suhb-jekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. that which forms a basic matter of thought, discussion, investigation, etc.: a subject of conversation.
As per
Domain Defined
do‧main /doʊˈmeɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[doh-meyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a field of action, thought, influence, etc.: the domain of science. 2. the territory governed by a single ruler or government; realm. 3. a realm or range of personal knowledge, responsibility, etc.
Clan Activity is the subject domain, meeting the criteria as per the above definitions.
Clan in multiplayer games relevant Clans in first person shooters deemed important also referenced with initial post
Zdaemon have over 55,000 references on Yahoo. Clan Activity in the community is important as the Zdaemon.org Website devotes more than 30% of their front page to said.
Lastly, it is important that before deleting links and citing reasons, one should read prior discussions as they have already addressed these very questions. It helps everyone involved :-)
Executive Summary:
1. Clans are to Zdaemon what Racing Teams are to Nascar 2. Zdaemon is to Doom what the Talladega Raceway is to Nascar 3. Millions of copies of the Doom game series have been sold. Millions of people have and still play versions of it today.
To say Zdaemon is not notable, is simply irresponsible based on the facts and comparisions I have presented here. To say clan activity is not notable is irresponsible based on the facts and comparisons I have presented.
I have seen little evidence on the part of those supporting deletion of said content, other than their claim that it is not notable or encyclopedic. Thus if this logic were applied equally throughout Wikipedia, we would have a responsibility to delete Nascar, it's raceways referenced, and their racing teams. Any sponsors of the racing teams would also need to be deleted as spam.
To base one's subjective opinion on the number of people who may be interested in a given topic would also be responsible. If there are ten people in the world who wish to discuss a prehistoric parasite, does not discount the prehistoric parasite nor its relevancy.
A lot of time and effort has gone into presenting the necessary evidence to support the Zdaemon Article as well as Clan Activity in said article. It would be irresponsible to discount the efforts and the supporting evidence.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect to Doom source port. |
It wouldn't be accurate in the UD section to say that there are more than 50 players. Sure, there are 56 listed on the wiki, but only 30 of them are active/inactive. The rest of the people are not part of UD as they are retired, which goes past the definition of simply being inactive. Count for yourself, and you'll see that there's just slightly more than 30 active/inactive players who are not retired. Excelblue 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm really wondering if the Old Staffers fits into the article. On one end, it's historical information, but on the other, they are quite insignificant right now. I was thinking if it might be better if those were incorporated into a new history section in the article. Quite a few people on the old staffers are actually banned from ZDaemon. I'm wondering what everyone's opnion on that section is. Excelblue 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Whilst one could clearly see that some areas of the partial submissions required some thoughtful addressing, this article has completely suffered from a rigorous Disneyland patching. The critical yet obviously neutral commentary has seemingly been replaced with this Mickey Mouse piffle, and it borders on outright game box advertising! Excelblue, your praxis of rewriting this article to suit your tendentious ideas, which no-doubt arise out of your relationship with the ZDaemon crew, is becoming increasingly bothersome. Address the submissions properly, as you're now beginning to look a bit of an ass. --82.37.28.177
The trojan that happened a bit ago is not excatly related to ZDaemon. It's the action of one staff member and it did not significantly impact ZDaemon. As such, I decided to remove that section from this article. Also, it should be noted that getwad does not download IWADs, and if it does, it's probably a server that has not been properly set up. Thus, there is no need for the GetWAD controversy section. - Excelblue 23:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The clan page is constantly vandalized. We should stop posting junk and only leave the most famous clans up there, without any comments abuot them. Saying stuff like "rebels" and using clan pride should stop. BTW, I feel that the article is neutral for every part but the clan information in its current state. -
Excelblue 07:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The clan section is far from Junk. It is critical to the zdaemon.org community or they would not have devoted their FRONT PAGE [1] toward Active and non-Active clans. Clan membership is a huge part of the Zdaemon community. The vandalism needs to stop. The Zdaemon website speaks for itself. Stop vandalizing the wiki.
This article also has a lot of weasel word usage. Changing "While many say" to "Many say" is not a fix for it at all. If it can't be cited as fact in some fashion it should be carefully rephrased or removed. -- 67.100.236.58 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The KNorton section of Old Staffers is incorrect, "A conflict of ideology lead to KNorton's departure when the channel was officially adopted." The channel was not "officially adopted", the channel was stolen by Raider while KNorton was on his honeymoon. - 67.188.5.202 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this should be in the article, I feel it fails WP:V and if clan members keep reading it WP:NPOV. BJ Talk 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Clan activity not only relevant, but critical to Zdaemon.org by their own admission. They have dedicated nearly 50% of their front page toward their Clans. Stating both ACTIVE as well as NON-ACTIVE clans. Many or most of their servers for game play are hosted by these very clans. Including tcdoom.com, who is not on a clan member, but a strong advocate and supporter of the community.
Bjweeks has already been banned. He is using his high school internet access to cause problems on this wiki and if this continues, I will contact his high school directly and notify them of this abuse. -- Tcdoom 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the IP Address that you visited the wikipedia from was banned and that you had asked to have it unbanned. (As per your Talk).
Be that as it may, I am seeking mediation at this point as I do not wish to make this anymore personal than it has become.
As a show of good faith, I have not opted to re-add the tcdoom.com link to the "External Links" as I can understand how this may be perceived as "spam". I will yield in this regards to avoid controversy. I will explore policy in regards to this further and seek help and advisement regarding said from the mediator.-- Tcdoom 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"I don't think this should be in the article, I feel it fails WP:V and if clan members keep reading it WP:NPOV. BJ Talk 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"
It does not fail WP:V. Valid source is the very website that this topic is about, namely Zdaemon.org. Regarding WP:NPOV, I was not the sole contributor to this subject and sought permission from Raider who it he currently Zdaemon Project Leader. He is available via the Zdaemon Website if you wish to discuss. -- Tcdoom 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I am responding to a plea posted in Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here is my opinion:
In response to your statement about me "twisting" words, may I ask that you reference your own advice Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have never had an issue with anyone on Wikipedia and his aggressive deletion of content that was well received and static for some time, was irresponsible. It lead credence to my assumption that he was indeed not acting in good faith. He never reached out to me to discuss the matter, and simple posted one sentence and deleted the content.
In response to your closing statement as it pertains to the weight of clans, and following your logic, should another page be started? E.g. Zdaemon or Doom Clans? and then have a list of clans there? Likewise, should we take away the developers from this page as well? Should we start a page called Zdaemon Developers? With all due respect, I consider myself an expert on this wiki subject. I would add a greater weight to my opinion due to the number of years in the community (zdaemon) as well as the overall doom community, and online gaming in general. I would also like to site the project leaders opinion regarding clans and their relevancy in relation to zdaemon.
In regards to your comment regarding unnecessary detail, may I ask what authority you have on the subject of Doom, Zdaemon and their history? I ask because I would like to understand how you formed your opinion in regards to said. I currently run A Zdaemon Clan Website. We also host servers for the community and prior to that ran a 50 line BBS The Gaming Center BBS. The BBS supported nearly 5,000 registered members via the Internet and dialup. Many of the original members of the BBS migrated to the Internet and their Clans were made up of their former local environments where they were fist exposed to the online multiplayer experience.
Who the clans are is completely relevent. I say this because many of the project leaders came from and are still part of the said clans. This is further supported due to the fact that the Zdaemon community worked to introduce CTF (Capture the flag) into the port of Zdoom, which is a well establish game format played by Clans. Clans also host servers for users to play on. Clan Members contribute content and are the very foundation of Zdaemon's existance. I say this with confidence as staff members are in clans, host servers, and also contribute code. To cast these facts aside and casually dilute their relevancy, in my opinion, would be irresponsible to both the Zdaemon Community and any visitors of this Wiki Subject zdaemon
Also, I would ask that you re-read the wiki as there are two links posted which reference the importance of Clans and their role in Zdaemon and Doom. Perhaps you could expound or offer some feedback as to how you would present such references. I simply posted the references to subject matter, which I felt encompassed a bit of the history of FPS (First Person Shooters) and Clans.) -- Tcdoom 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the page per the third opinion because of my stated reasons and also because a edit war has started between two clans. Feel free to update the section with more info but please do not restore a clan list till a concenus has been estalbished on this talk page. BJ Talk 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and sorry for the slow response. I received an informal request for mediation recently, but I see you have already received a third opinion. Do you still feel the need for mediation? If so, are both of you interested in mediation? Armedblowfish ( talk| mail) 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.
As per Subject Defined sub‧ject /n., adj. ˈsʌbdʒɪkt; v. səbˈdʒɛkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suhb-jekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. that which forms a basic matter of thought, discussion, investigation, etc.: a subject of conversation.
As per
Domain Defined
do‧main /doʊˈmeɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[doh-meyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a field of action, thought, influence, etc.: the domain of science. 2. the territory governed by a single ruler or government; realm. 3. a realm or range of personal knowledge, responsibility, etc.
Clan Activity is the subject domain, meeting the criteria as per the above definitions.
Clan in multiplayer games relevant Clans in first person shooters deemed important also referenced with initial post
Zdaemon have over 55,000 references on Yahoo. Clan Activity in the community is important as the Zdaemon.org Website devotes more than 30% of their front page to said.
Lastly, it is important that before deleting links and citing reasons, one should read prior discussions as they have already addressed these very questions. It helps everyone involved :-)
Executive Summary:
1. Clans are to Zdaemon what Racing Teams are to Nascar 2. Zdaemon is to Doom what the Talladega Raceway is to Nascar 3. Millions of copies of the Doom game series have been sold. Millions of people have and still play versions of it today.
To say Zdaemon is not notable, is simply irresponsible based on the facts and comparisions I have presented here. To say clan activity is not notable is irresponsible based on the facts and comparisons I have presented.
I have seen little evidence on the part of those supporting deletion of said content, other than their claim that it is not notable or encyclopedic. Thus if this logic were applied equally throughout Wikipedia, we would have a responsibility to delete Nascar, it's raceways referenced, and their racing teams. Any sponsors of the racing teams would also need to be deleted as spam.
To base one's subjective opinion on the number of people who may be interested in a given topic would also be responsible. If there are ten people in the world who wish to discuss a prehistoric parasite, does not discount the prehistoric parasite nor its relevancy.
A lot of time and effort has gone into presenting the necessary evidence to support the Zdaemon Article as well as Clan Activity in said article. It would be irresponsible to discount the efforts and the supporting evidence.