User talk:Gez

Thanks!
Thanks for catching my error on the DoomEd nums for the ZDoom-compatible spawn and anchor points on the Polyobject article. I should have known, since EE supports the same DoomEd nums, but I was too lazy to double check and thought I knew from memory ;) --Quasar 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) --Gez 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

James Haley (Quasar)
IIRC we have some precedent here for not redirecting bio articles to user profiles. Pages in the main space are theoretically supposed to adhere to some standards of "encyclopedic" content (NPOV, citing sources, good grammar). It is therefore not a great idea for a reader to click a link in an article and get a user page, which can say almost anything the editor feels like putting there. (This is *not* a statement about Quasar himself; we all know he is a good writer. :>   Ryan W 16:52, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

idgames template issue
I think something went wrong with your idgames template update: the "at Doomworld/idgames" part of the template doesn't seem to be displayed at all when the template is used. -- Janizdreg 21:43, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is annoying. It worked at first. Okay, I fixed it. It works now. I purged the page a couple of times after I was done just to be sure. --Gez 21:59, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

ZDoom version history and Strife support
Excellent work on the ZDoom version history so far, and thank you very much for writing it up. Now I'd just like to know if you left the initial addition of Strife support without an exact matching version number on purpose or not. That's the only thing in the list that didn't look quite right when I did a quick read-through. -- Janizdreg 04:12, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I don't know in which version it appeared. There's a date for when it happened, with Randy making a thread about having successfully played through the full game, but that's somewhere between 2.0.47 and 2.0.97. Likewise, I'd have liked to say in which version(s) Heretic and Hexen support were completed, but it's unclear. --Gez 09:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Item mystery
Since you seem to have dug deeper into the code of the early Doom versions (specifically the Alphas), would you perchance happen to have any info as to what the mystery items are in map 11 of Doom 0.5? The ThingID is 2032; the items are strangely found in only one (1) map in the entire Doom series. Specifically in the "console room" of what later became Spawning Vats. A mystery it is. 128.214.133.2 15:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the code, just at the resources: the content of the wads, because I was adding support to the early graphic formats (among other things) to SLADE 3. If you know that 2030 is Flag Stand Marker, you already know more than me about the things. Looking at the exe in a hex editor, there's a lot of info that can be gained because it's there in plain text: the list of sprites, states, the names of data structures... But this doesn't shed much light on the issue, since presumably if the item doesn't appear, it's because it was already removed from the source. Among the sprites in the wad, a sparky thing can be found (SPARA0, SPARB0, SPARC0). It's one of the things that have no corresponding states apparently, like the barrels (of which there were several types). Maybe that? I haven't looked at the map format so I can't tell you much. --Gez 16:56, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no prob. Cheers for the info. Eh, the 2030 item makes an appearance in Doom 0.4; it's just a marker and the sprite for it is FLG1/FLG2 (looks like the bottom part of the Wolfenstein 3D flag stand). Of course it's all conjecture, albeit somewhat educated conjecture. To be honest there's so precious little to go by regarding the pre-retail Doom versions that pretty much anything you come up with is authoritative. 82.181.90.65 21:12, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know if you will do anything with these, but here they are:

Alpha stuff, them is. 128.214.133.2 08:56, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd tentatively suggest sparks. They could have been put in this room to indicate computer malfunction (electric arcs from the consoles). These sprites are not used by anything in this list. Not that we'll ever know for sure... --Gez 11:43, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Stuff
Awesome work on the Doom 64 level descriptions, even though they're simple and don't contain map layouts and what not, I liked how you described the nature of each map. I may add the map layouts myself if I get around to it.

--Aldaraia 01:58, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did? Are you sure? --Gez 07:58, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Marathon article
''WIKIA! That WYSIWYG interface you make people use by default is a DISASTER!''  Not only that &mdash; it is now impossible to log in unless javascript is enabled. Probably few users can edit from their phones now. Ryan W 23:06, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Copyright conversation (ugh)

 * some people have reported that the full episode is available even in just the demo version, meaning that these instructions allow someone to play the new level on a PC despite not having bought it. Therefore, I think it is inappropriate . . .


 * Demos in XBLA contain the complete game, its just the license stored which disable the full version. So yes, you are able to extract the complete doom2.wad out of the demo. This counts for XBLA Ultimate Doom too.--Cybdmn 20:55, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * * sigh *  Clearly we all need to go back to 9600 baud modems, so that publishers aren't tempted to distribute extra material like this...    Ryan W 21:25, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Do you suppose this reasoning also applies to the "leftover" maps in Chex Quest? (In theory, anyway; Chex Quest is pretty old.) I could have sworn we mentioned those in our article at one point, although it's not there currently. Ryan W 19:46, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say so. Even though it's less relevant since now the way to get Chex Quest would be to get the Chex Quest 3 IWAD, which does not contain leftover Doom resources. --Gez 19:49, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Succession templates
While your changes to the succession templates make sense for source ports, they effectively restrict use of the templates only to source ports, and this was not the intent when I added them. Indeed, they are used for multiple purposes on Wikipedia, for everything from lines of royalty to number 1 hit songs to record-holding athletes. This is why the wording was generic enough to be used for anything. Do we need a better solution to this, such that the text is parameterized? --Quasar 17:14, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, on Wikipedia it's used for a lot of things, but this here wiki is a lot more specific. I'm not sure what else it could be used for. Versions of maps? They tend to be on the same page (and even then, "based on" makes more sense). IRC channels? Not sure they really need a genealogy. The only potential use for preceded/succeeded here would be the people who were Cacowarded "Mappers of the Year" and, even there, it would be a bit silly I think. (Cacowarded maps already have a navbox template, and you can't really say that a single map is preceded by ten and succeeded by ten others.)
 * As generic as preceded/succeeded may seem, I think it's wrong in the context of source ports, because it automatically obsoletes those that were succeeded by one. I don't think one can say that Skulltag makes GZDoom obsolete for example. A succession would be more if it were, like royalty or best-selling hit songs, the most popular ports each year, and that's data we don't have (other than wild guesses based mostly on anecdotal evidence), and that's also not how it's been used for the moment. So yeah, sure, the text can be made a parameter, but I think it can wait until a use for that is found... --Gez 17:30, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

re: hexen trivia
I stand corrected, thanks. I thought the Mage had green blood because 1. the regular death, and 2. getting hit in gameplay seemed to produce green blood or flesh sometimes. Having actually looked through ripped sprites, you were right. In addition, I've found that the "death by fire" animation applies to all player sprites. I was misled because I could only seem to get that effect by using the bloodscourge against the bosses. Now that I've found more Hexen info online, I won't be misled by gameplay events.

I edited a bit more to make it read better in the new context. Xcalibur201 21:50, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup for "final leg" of new wiki
Hi Gez. It makes me sick to write this, because you have made a lot of great contributions here, but I am concerned about your recent series of edits.

I really, really, really, really think we should delay any large-scale content changes until *after* the site is fully open; we should do only what is necessary to get it online. Part of the wiki's mission has always been to avoid being just another gaming site, with endless confrontations between the sysops and the other members. Therefore, we must avoid the impression that admins have a privileged position in making content decisions. Deleting articles without discussion, especially, is guaranteed to create hostility.

Now, unfortunately, it may be that admins need to be more heavy-handed on the new site (without Wikia's protections against vandals and spambots). However, no discussion on that issue has yet occurred. In fact, as a content editor, I agree with all your changes and I encourage you to keep doing them when the community can actually choose to follow along and ask questions. Until then, though, can I possibly persuade you to hold off?

&mdash;User:Ryan W not logged in


 * If you want to know what's going on, I'm going through this and reviewing the pages in order. This allowed me to notice a few problems that are quickly fixed then I do so. If fixing an issue would take longer, I keep the page unreviewed. While I'd be fine with discussions before deletion and similar acts, the fact is that on this wiki, it just doesn't happen, unfortunately. --Gez 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'm divided. My bad for not checking the review log after reading your Doomworld posts.  I guess I can see reasons to kickstart this new feature now (provided people want it &mdash; again, no one has attempted to find out).  I still predict some backlash from people who feel like the revisions are faits accomplis.


 * I'm not seeing what you're seeing in those cleanup categories. When people participate, they work as intended.  Because we can't force people to volunteer their time, it's a slow process.  Even so, I could argue for decisive behavior in any of those cases *except* deletion, because non-admins have such a limited ability to disagree.    Ryan W 00:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor status to decrease the amount of your chores
Hey, Gez. Since you're the one who has approved the vast majority of my edits (76 out of 78, actually), I thought about suggesting the following on your talk page. To release more time for you to make new contributions, I could be given Editor status. For example, as you checked the 48 changes I made to upload the map data for Heretic's levels and also the edits that took place to get the thing stats added, you probably didn't check the factual accuracy of them but only trusted me that the data is correct and approved the edits only to get them published to everyone. And that's fine for I've checked by myself that there are no errors in the figures.

In case the previous is true, it could be easier for both you and me if I could check and thereby publish my future edits independently. Now when I need to make a few category changes for a couple of the map articles, it would be frustrating for you to make the approval process again and again for changes that are so slight. Then again, it could be rude from me to ask for the status for this sole purpose but if it's about that, I'm willing to do other Editor chores although my current contribution work here takes quite a lot of my time. You, or any other user more superior than me, will decide if the arguments for receiving the status are sufficient. --Jartapran 07:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anons
Having fun deleting all those pages? I think it's about time that we make some kind of policy change because the spam is clearly out of hand. --Quasar 17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly fun, but since I made the "block" messages give a link to the nuke page, it's done with reasonably quickly. Given how formulaic these spambots are (they always do the same thing), I think there was merit in my earlier suggestion, because the wiki could then do the blocking automatically. --Gez 18:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We need Manc's help in order to implement that extension. --Quasar 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Picked up a medikit that you REALLY need!
Sorry to bother but could you check the pending change there? Judging by the history, there has seemed to be a lot of fix edits, and I'm uncertain with the code. You do know about it so I'd appreciate your help. --Jartapran 09:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)