User talk:Quasar

Hi Quasar, welcome to the Doom Wiki. You may want to read Doom Wiki:Style for the style guide. BTW, when refering to people in writeups, link to their writeup page (like Simon "Fraggle" Howard), not their user page on the Doom Wiki (User:Fraggle). This keeps the wiki itself separate from what we're trying to write up. Fraggle 21:19, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Template:Disputed
"Wow, a factual accuracy dispute template."  As long as knowing C is not a requirement for contributing, we will always need a factual accuracy dispute template! :>   (Actually, even those people seem to argue over certain things...)  For what it's worth, I approve highly. Ryan W 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi :) I wasn't sure whether or not I should create that template, but I felt it and its corresponding category could be helpful for pointing out articles that have accuracy issues to the wiki community. I do hope you didn't take it wrong in relation to the Arch-vile article, though -- I added it there because I personally didn't know what to do with the article and I didn't want anybody to miss the discussion on the talk page :) --Quasar 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO the template is useful. And as I tried to point out on the talk page, I wrote that stub myself so I know it's dubious.  :>


 * I confess that I rarely play vanilla nowadays because PrBoom has spoiled me for lower resolutions. I really thought I had read about this bug on Ledmeister's site, but then I couldn't find it again.  If what you're saying is true, then the article should be deleted.    Ryan W 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, port-specific bugs are not notable enough for their own pages (does anybody really need an entire article on the "marked spot" problem in Doom95?). If you're certain that this problem originates with MBF, not vanilla, then I think you should VfD the article and call for a merge into MBF, so that our other expert coders can weigh in. Ryan W 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)  Sheesh, I really should read my own pontifications more carefully. Never mind. :P   Ryan W 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Noclip bug
"Added note about relation to wallrunning, which is the only phenomenon I've personally observed to cause this."  Neither of the cited demos involves wallrunning. Ryan W 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. But if wallrunning isn't the sole cause (I do know wallrunning *can* cause it because wallrunning voodoo dolls sometimes miss triggering linedefs in BOOM maps...), there must be some other specific phenomenon responsible for it. Sounds like something that needs investigation o_O --Quasar 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Segfault/lightning flash near very tall structures
"rgw" is "the" with your left hand one key to the left, at least on a QWERTY keyboard. Ryan W 13:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, indeed it is ;) --Quasar 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Map size limit
Wrap behavior has nothing to do with the blockmap limit, so I removed that info from this article.  Oh, okay. That was my interpretation of this discussion, but you would know better than I. Which bug article *should* mention it, in your opinion? Ryan W 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is an entirely distinct phenomenon that deserves its own article. All of the bizarre engine behavior that occurs at and near the wrap boundaries is a consequence of massive integer overflow in distance, line of sight, and R_PointInSubsector calculations. For example, monsters who are 32000 units away may suddenly be able to see you, scratch you, or in the case of Archviles, flame you. You may see parts of the real level drawing at ghosted locations, including such bizarre and otherwise impossible effects like rotating, moving walls and infinite horizon flats. These are all interrelated and have no other reason other than overflow and wrapping of calculations that occurs at this point. The blockmap origin of maps is usually set in a tight bounding box around the map's extents. You can move outside this easily, especially on maps such as DOOM II MAP30. Monsters who spawn at (0,0) on this map due to the (0,0) respawning bug will also display a ghost effect -- this is due to the fact they have been spawned outside the limits of the blockmap, and therefore they have no block links. The point behind mentioning this is that you will not start seeing these kinds of weird effects here -- it's not related to the blockmap :)--Quasar 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who can be a reviewer
As per Ryan W's suggestion, I figured I'd offer my services as a reviewer. - DooMAD 10:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to be a reviewer, heheheh. GhostlyDeath 18:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dungeon Keeper map set
Hi, did you ever make your DK map set public? I can't find it anywhere. Just noticed http://dk.youfailit.net/ still running! -- Jmtd 11:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your high-salaried bureaucrat judgement is again needed
Please see here. Ryan W 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki configuration
Um... at the risk of sounding like a prick, who turned on autopromotion with no announcement or discussion? Ryan W 12:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not me... --Quasar 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New quality approval for Super shotgun and others
Hey, Quasar. The article in question has gathered quite a few new pending edits. Since the article has been put in "quality" range using Reviewer status, all the Editors have been unable to publish the subsequent changes. Seeing that you've been around quite recently, I thought to ask for another approval for the article to get the new changes visible to all viewers (if DooMAD is reading this, he's able to do it as well, being a Reviewer too).

As a second note, I wish that there would be no more quality approvals for any new articles; this doesn't apply to you as you've already changed your quality checking behavior so that Editors are also able to check the new edits (like here) but DooMAD has just left another quality approval (here) so there's still an issue with this; since the users that review new edits on a regular basis are all Editors and not Reviewers, any later edits cannot be published in these articles.

Just to bring the matter up, not to be a dick. Here's some more information about the problem and here are the quality articles that currently need reviewing. (You can safely ignore the Puzzle item; I undid my own minor edit after noticing the conditions). Thanks. --Jartapran 23:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Either that or more people need to have reviewer status. By the way, it's ridiculous that admins aren't reviewers by default. Can delete a page, move it to another name and create a new in its place, can disable quality control on a page, but cannot approve quality changes. Wuh? --Gez 09:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can get me a list of admins who are not reviewers, I will resolve that problem. --Quasar 15:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Using Special:ListUsers, I can make this:


 * 1) Bloodshedder ‎(doomer, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 2) Cyb ‎(doomer, administrator)
 * 3) Fraggle ‎(doomer, editor, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 4) Fredrik ‎(bureaucrat, doomer, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 5) Gez ‎(doomer, editor, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 6) Janizdreg ‎(doomer, editor, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 7) Jdowland ‎(doomer, administrator)
 * 8) Quasar ‎(doomer, editor, reviewer, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 9) Radius ‎(doomer, administrator)
 * 10) Ryan W ‎(doomer, editor, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 11) Sarge Baldy ‎(doomer, administrator)
 * 12) Schneelocke ‎(doomer, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 13) SpiderMastermind ‎(bureaucrat, editor, administrator)
 * 14) TheDarkArchon ‎(doomer, administrator)
 * 15) TheGreenHerring ‎(doomer, editor, administrator, emailconfirmed)
 * 16) Who is like God? ‎(doomer, administrator)
 * So to answer the question, admins who are not reviewers include all admins who are not Quasar. :p --Gez 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Admins are now implicitly reviewers. --SpiderMastermind 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't seem to work. :/ --Gez 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you make something differently when you saved your withdrawal edit? For that time it became automatically approved Teal stuff. --Jartapran 21:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess rolling back to an approved version would make it automatically approved... --Gez 21:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, they're implicitly Editors now. The "validate" permission will make them Reviewers.  (Sorry for reminding you how bass-ackwards MediaWiki is...)    Ryan W 21:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Try it now :P --Quasar 01:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)