Talk:Code2000

Journal : Code2000 : Usurpation ou libération ? Que fait la police ?

• http://linuxfr.org/users/thth/journaux/code2000-usurpation-ou-liberation-que-fait-la-police 184.171.248.70 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

GPL-3

This is GPLv3 on SourceForge now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.164.217 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

James Kass has now come out of seclusion, and stated that the Code2000 SourceForge project is indeed his project, and that Code2000, Code2001 and Code2002 are now licenced as GPLv3 -- see this email to the Unicode mailing list. I guess we can put update the article accordingly now. BabelStone (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That e-mail sounds like another forgery to me. This particular style and form of English is Wikinger's, I'm pretty certain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right to be cautious. The email is (or was) James Kass's, used on the Unicode mailing list up until 2006 (e.g. this one). The style of writing is less convincing (the old JK always used plain text mail, the new JK uses html mail; the old JK always signed himself "Best regards", the new JK does does not use any closing greeting), but if it is not the real James Kass, can someone have hacked his a/c, or do ATT recycle old, unused accounts? The latest changes to the Code2000 font of SF (version dated 2011-12-22) are also rather odd (adding an unencoded character at U+037F, but only in one of the cmap tables). At any rate, there are still enough doubts not to change article yet. Damn, why can't we have CU on emails. BabelStone (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a "capital yot" glyph at U+037F "As New Year gift I included both 037F and 03F3 in this font to appease all classicist needs" fits in with Wikinger's Modus operandi. BabelStone (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Intriguing. Account recycling would be my guess. In this mail he mentions that he is going to leave AT&T; then two months later he uses the address thunder-bird@earthlink.net instead, which indicates that he went through with the ISP change. Of course, he might have changed back, but such a move seems a bit unlikely to me. Also, for what it is worth, it seems pretty clear that whoever now writes the mails from jameskass@att.net has a native language which lacks articles. Alatius (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Try to register AT&T account abroad, you will get "Registration not allowed. You must have a U.S. based IP address to register for an att.net email account." So if somebody doesn't have AT&T internet connection, or lives abroad, then he is cut off. 66.116.153.91 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikinger always loved using open proxies. Like for instance this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what the rules on SourceForge are, but for my part I am satisfied that the new licence has not been put forward by the creator of the font. This should be conveyed to the Sourceforge project. -- Evertype·✆ 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The Code2000 user on SF has been deleted now, and the Code200X font files are no longer available for download from the site, although the SF project is still there. Wikinger is some sick bastard. BabelStone (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Some request from IP, 8 November 2013

Quote from 31.170.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): "..." Is it acceptable as external link per WP:external links? --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This was yet another sock IP of the long-term banned user who's been obsessed with this article for years, and that's exactly the reason why this article and its talkpage will continue to be protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Fontspace sites

Is this James Kass on the fontspace.com site the real guy? If so, should this version be regarded as the authentic font? https://www.fontspace.com/james-kass Mgolden (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Very likely not; creepy little vandal WP:LTA/Wikinger was obsessed with this font and known to impersonate Kass on other websites too. See discussion further up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Updated information

I have extensive updates to the page prepared. It was suggested to me that the best place to start would be on this talk page in order to avoid having changes reverted. I am the developer of the Code2xxx series of fonts. Either "BabelStone" or "Evertype", who posted earlier on this talk page, should be able to vouch for me. (I've been impersonated in the past.) Now that the updates are ready to send or make, should I just post all of the notes in one big chunk here on the talk page? Or would it be better to communicate with an administrator or other experienced editor privately? CodeJames (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, glad to see you here if it's really you – as you can see above, we've been aware of a long history of impersonation and abuse from a known vandal. If you have new information to share, feel free to post it here, but please be aware that ultimately we'll only be able to use information in the article that's based on reliable, published sources. Actually, now that I looked over the article once more, I see it's never actually had any sources, so it's currently doubtful if it would even pass current WP:Notability standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you! When I tried to sign up for the Unicode public discussion list in 2014 after a brief hiatus from the internet, I had to provide bona fides to the list administrator as well as various list members. Any of them, including "BabelStone" and "Evertype" as mentioned earlier, should be able to vouch for me. I'd prefer not to post their contact information publicly. The proposed changes here are factual and verifiable, but the text file is about 6KB. So I put the text file on-line here: https://www.code2001.com/Code2000_Wikipedia_update.txt . Some of the changes are simple, like changing "Code 2000" to "Code2000". Other changes are about the current versions and release dates as well as the fonts' coverage. For instance, Code2000 is shown as covering several Unicode script ranges which it has never covered, and there are now additional scripts covered in the more recent versions of the fonts. I would be happy to post that text file here, separately, if you say so. CodeJames (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from the proposed changes text: "Optional ending of the second paragraph, if the history given in the original should be preserved (and expanded) for the article: The original website went down in early 2011, and the domain name was subsequently taken by an Australian programming site. The Australian site went down, and the domain name was taken over by a hacker who restored older, archived webpages which link to obsolete versions of the fonts. ... [Not sure if "hacker" is an appropriate term for the article. Maybe "pirate" would be better.]" -- -- The older domain name, code2000 dot net, was recently re-registered via GoDaddy to Subramaniam Gowdham of Belgium. That domain is hosted by "OVH SAS". Upon consideration, I don't know the motivation behind "mirroring" the archived web site under its older domain name. E-mail messages to my old address (linked by PayPal buttons and mentioned frequently in those archived pages) get bounced as undeliverable. Perhaps this should be phrased as "...was taken over by someone who restored older...". CodeJames (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I also don't know 'the motivation behind "mirroring" the archived web site under its older domain name', but curious to note: on December 6, 2021, (I guess, about a year after the mirroring started) the site gained seo spam in the form of random phrases written in background-colored font linking to random spam sites, producing lines, when highlighted, like,

> But, if you're using an older operating system, you may have tried to see some of those special characters and become fairly frustrated when your font viewer failed or totally choked-up. schweizer online casino

It lost this SEO spam some time in or before January 2023, which is also shortly after I personally visited the site, noticed the seo spam links, and emailed the contact email on the page to ask/notify about it (and never received a reply). So... that's a weird time range. Like someone was using the page for SEO spam purposes, but not for the entire lifespan of the mirror. Maybe they are a spammer, but also just like fonts. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Update and potential IP connection to LTA

An IP user, @46.134.62.195, recently contacted me on my talk page to ask me to update the data based on [1]. After updating it, looking at the talk page made me realize the history of controversy regarding this page, and I've reverted my update. Is that specific website of any worth, and what should be done next? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)