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)
 * Same as before. :\ --Gez 07:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else to do. Try logging out? The server may have to be restarted before it changes the permissions, but *usually* this is not an issue. --Quasar 17:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK there was a small syntax problem in LocalSettings.php - the line I added started with a # instead of a $ so it was being treated as a comment. *Now* try again ;) --Quasar 07:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you have spare time after source port coding or wiki editing, could you review the changes in these pages? --Jartapran 10:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User group permissions overhaul
Hi Quasar. Are you still interested in doing this? I recalled you saying so on DW but now I can't find it. If so, I have a proposal ready, and I want to run it by you first, so you can tell me if it's at least good enough to justify the stability risks. :D    Ryan W 05:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Favicon.ico
The address bar icon is visible even though this file is missing. Is the file uploaded locally to Manc's box (in which case, not much point keeping the info page), or are $wgFavicon and $wgScriptPath pointing somewhere surprising? :7    Ryan W 05:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Due to the location where this file has to exist on the server, I'm not sure it ever was the live copy, and I'd assume it was missed by the file grabber during the Wiki import for the same reason .lmp and .wad files were missed - the grabber only got files in recognized formats. In order to apply universally, the favicon.ico has to be placed in the site's root folder, whereas files that are uploaded to MediaWiki through the frontend always end up stored deep inside the file hive under a path determined partially from the file's MD5 hash. --Quasar 13:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe it. Probably someone misunderstood configuration when we started... or else an early version of MediaWiki really could pull the uploaded file, and then that was changed for security.  Thanks much.    Ryan W 20:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous category?
What should a category be called for articles discussing various DeHackEd anomalies such as the Lost Soul property "bug"? Some of these are quite notable. ConSiGno 17:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:DeHackEd seemed like the obvious choice to me. --Gez 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. ConSiGno 18:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree as well. --Quasar 02:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Projectile type of Sub Entities
Since you know Strife well, you probably would like to have a look at this edit. I tested MAP29 (v1.3) on both Training and Elite, and it indeed seemed that the Sub Entities only fire Sigil 2 shots. Do you know if Sigil 1 projectiles were supposed to be a part of their weaponry, but there's a bug in the code that prevents them from working? I'm just wondering why there was a mention of Sigil 1 if there wasn't any basis for it.

I already published the change but only later thought about the matter. --Jartapran 08:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Subentities actually fire a "Sigil E Offshoot", which is one of the lightning bolts that usually come out sideways when you fire the final form of the Sigil. They have their own function for doing this; in Chocolate Strife Kaiser named it "A_FireSigilEOffshoot". This function is also called by Spectre B for its attack, though, so the two have identical properties. Neither are exactly equivalent to the player's Sigil attacks. Sigil 1 spawns MT_SIGIL_A_GROUND, which itself spawns vertical bolts, Sigil 2 spawns MT_SIGIL_B_SHOT, Sigil 3 fires 20 MT_SIGIL_C_SHOT projectiles, Sigil 4 fires one MT_SIGIL_D_SHOT, and Sigil 5 fires an MT_SIGIL_E_SHOT, which spawns 3 MT_SIGIL_E_OFFSHOOT to its left, right, and behind it every time it changes frames. --Quasar 20:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken template?
Re: this edit: What was broken in the zdoomwiki template? This link to the works for me. (Of course, if we have an interwiki entry for the ZDoom wiki now, it'll be better anyway to edit the template to use it instead of fussing around with wikiencode like it does now.) --Gez 10:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The transclusions of the template in that article were broken but, when I edited the page, it refreshed and the ones I did not see/change were suddenly corrected. We do not know what caused this, but, considering we are seriously behind the latest release of MediaWiki, it was probably a glitch in the wiki software. --Quasar 14:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem with another gif file
refuses to adopt later versions. The only thing it seems to take into account are the measures of the current version, which can be seen in the fact that the original picture has stretched vertically. The latest upload by me was based on Corbin's version but it failed too.

I've already created a png substitute of the previously linked picture and would be ready to upload it as a new file, but thought it would be fair to ask for your permission of it first. --Jartapran 12:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to ask my permission. The problems with GIFs are likely due to the old version of ImageMagick we're using. I've been trying to get Manc to upgrade it for a couple months now. Frankly I've given up. --Quasar 14:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Reasons to nominate an image for deletion
Hi Quasar. Wow, did I hit my head on something and start to disagree with everything that everyone posts? :P  Regarding this: Ryan W 16:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the amount of benefit to the server from deleting files is minimal   &mdash; Um, no one ever thinks about server load unless you or Manc mentions it.  :>   I think the power users trust you to flag problems, and have other things on their minds anyway.
 * 2) Deleting things just for the sake of deleting them has very little benefit.   &mdash; What?  It discourages people from using us as free hosting, and reduces clutter for the next person doing maintenance (who we want to be nice to, because they don't grow on trees).  Orphaned non-free media absolutely needs to be deleted; I suppose I've made rare exceptions where the intended use is incredibly obvious.  The MediaWiki developers have talked about "purging" deleted files on Wikipedia to improve performance, although they've never done so (except by accident during hardware upgrades), and indeed people have argued that deletions over a certain age be auto-purged so that even admins don't have perpetual access to the copyrighted content.
 * 3) the wikia version of this image currently has very high SEO   &mdash; Newbie question perhaps: doesn't this contradict what we've done elsewhere, e.g. reorganizing Entryway, to improve our rankings by *differing* from Wikia?


 * I probably gave the impression that I necessarily assume you're thinking the things I said, but I just wanted to explain some reasons that deletion isn't necessarily as large a benefit as it might seem while discussing that particular resource which, while certainly not vital, could be satisfactorily repurposed. As far as the "free hosting" point I have to agree, we don't want a sea of irrelevant things sticking around that have no use. Let's just make sure there's not a good use before we get rid of them. :) If server disk space were a concern (currently is not AFAIK) or we had a serious copyright issue, I'd consider purging deleted material in those cases. Right now we really don't have cause to think about it. For the wikia image, my reasoning there is that wikia's copy is showing up and ours currently is not. If we can bump theirs down and possibly even replace it, then that's good for us. I dunno if it will work or not. ;) --Quasar 18:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Um... no, I didn't get that impression. You have a right to your opinion (as would anyone else joining the deletion thread) that those points apply to that image.  I disagree, but I also didn't want to sidetrack the thread with what I said above, which is really not about that image but about how we tend to assess our whole stock of uploads to date.  If this post makes no sense then please ignore it; we've probably no chance of convincing each other anyways.  :>     Ryan W 15:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S.
What the heck is the spring 2014 rewrite project? And can anyone attend? :D   Ryan W 16:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Just an initiative put forward to me by fraggle (I dunno if he intends to participate himself or not) that we should start rewriting articles with the highest hit counts so that they differ substantially enough from those at our previous host to not be penalized for identical content. Never hurts to give them a good once over anyway and if it has an SEO benefit as well, then that's icing on the cake. --Quasar 17:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, I agree with this too. At last check I still had 1,045 items on my to-do list for the Doom/Doom II weapon and monster articles, plus 79 items for each notable map predating the source release, so hopefully I'll assist with some of that rewriting eventually...    Ryan W 18:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hello, I have seen you have created a redirect from Punch Dagger to Punch dagger. I would have moved Punch Dagger to Punch dagger instead, following the widespread naming conventions of this wiki. Sorry for nitpicking. What do you think? --Kyano 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably so. If we do that, then Punch dagger should become a redirect. I just went for the quick fix because I found a broken link. Correct thing to do is delete the redirect I created, then move Punch Dagger to Punch dagger and the move should leave a redirect automatically. --Quasar 15:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Message
Please take a look at your Doomworld PMs. :) --Gez 15:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Doom WAD Reviews
Just wanted to let you know that I now have Doom Wiki links to every PWAD article that I've reviewed, I think. I'll try to keep it updated as stuff appears. Thanks for all your hard work. --KMX E XII (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)