User talk:Janizdreg

The value given in DeHackEd is the radius, not the width. Fredrik 10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (PST)

By the way, you've done a lot of great work here. Keep it up! Fredrik 10:21, 6 Feb 2005 (PST)


 * Thanks, I intend to. Janizdreg 01:12, 7 Feb 2005 (PST)

You now have administrator rights. Fredrik 11:35, 7 Feb 2005 (PST)

To do: Create a comprehensive history article with detailed information on how Doom came to be (including stuff like what features were dropped and why, how the name DOOM was chosen, influences, etc.)


 * Hey, I've started working on something like that for Wikipedia (also to be used here, of course, with modifications). I've put up what I've written so far at wikipedia:User:Fredrik/Development of Doom. A trimmed version of Doom WAD should probably also be imported here. Fredrik 16:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good, plus your development article is pretty much similiar to what I had in mind. If I'll write something about the later development stages, I'll add it straight into your article. Janizdreg 17:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Add the missing Hell Knight Evilution IWAD stat   --- hey, somebody beat me to it! :> Ryan W 21:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The weapon articles have "rate of fire" numbers, but the monster articles don't. You seem to have added (some of) these numbers &mdash; where did you get them? Or do I just need to get DeHackEd and root through a few frame tables? Ryan W 04:37, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't add them, but that's what you'll probably have to do. Janizdreg 19:07, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hey
It's generally not a good idea to block IPs infinitely. A month or so usually does the job, unless there's been long term abuse from it. oTHErONE (Contribs) 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be a worthwhile principle, but there is some precedent for such blocks (see the block log).   Ryan W 09:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Outline of monster articles
Although it seems cynical to assume that we will never have information for these sections, I can understand deleting "development" and "notes" when they are currently empty. But what on earth is the purpose of these two edits? As can be seen here, the two topics are in principle quite distinct. A whole paragraph could be written just about how to attack the arch-vile with your fist. Ryan W 05:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in keeping headers that have no actual text under/related to them. If someone will write a tactical analysis (for example) for these articles, he/she can then readd the Tactical analysis-header. -- Janizdreg 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the harm in making suggestions about what text should be included, as a first step toward a more complete article (that editor may not immediately have time to do all the research him/herself). By your logic, every heading in this article should be deleted.    Ryan W 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point there. You are right. Feel free to readd the headers if you want, I won't delete them from now on. -- Janizdreg 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess what I should have asked was, is your objection editorial or philosophical (i.e., do you disagree with the proposed outline?), so thanks for reading my mind. :>   In fairness, not every editor agrees that every article should be "encyclopaedic"; on the other hand, after I originally added the new sections to 10+ monster articles, some people did come along fairly soon and fill in a few of the blank areas.  I'll try to divide up the existing text more thoroughly if I put the headers back in.    Ryan W 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wide logo
In response to your question: "What is this for?"

Hi.. allow me to introduce myself. My name is Joe. I am a new contracted employee of Wikia. One of my assignments is to design logos for the top 50 Wikia Gaming wikis to use with the quartz skins (QuartzSlate and QuartzSmoke). The file I uploaded is the quartz logo I designed for the Doom wiki. JoePlay (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Joe, welcome to the strange world of trying to make changes to gaming websites. :D    Does this mean that Wikia now officially sanctions photoshopped copyrighted material (at least when the unmodified version is "fair use")?  That would be interesting news.    Ryan W 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to myself: Of the 65 wikis listed at Most active communities, I estimate that 52 use a photoshopped copyrighted image for their main logo (can't always tell because my pop culture knowledge has limits).  Therefore, I conclude that the Wikia staff aren't desperately concerned, and will drop the subject for now I guess.    Ryan W 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. I now removed the delete tag from the image. -- Janizdreg 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation
Hi! Thanks for your cooperation by editing my created articles. Cheers. Sorcerer 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Wikis are about cooperation after all. ;-) -- Janizdreg 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Namco?
Hey Janizdreg - I probably should have stated why I removed the reference to Namco in References_to_Classic_Doom_in_Doom_3, but not to Capcom. There are no sources I can find that link the "Nabcon" to Namco - All references to it that I can find (forums, etc) relate the name only to Capcom - That is, Doom wiki is the ONLY place on the net I can find that associates "Nabcon" to "Namco." This makes sense especially because the Street Fighter games (on which the Super Turbo Turkey Puncher 3 logo is based) were created by Capcom, and are in no way related to Namco.

All of this means that it is very unlikely the name "Nabcon" is meant to be a portmanteau of the two companies, which is why I removed the reference to Namco. Zack 07:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that out. It's fixed now. -- Janizdreg 07:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Mancubuses
Hi, I noticed your to-do list and I just want to let you know that I attempted to replace all the occurrences of “Mancubuses” with “Mancubi” in the Final Doom articles. Special:Contributions/99.245.100.94. —Shidou 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thank you! -- Janizdreg 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just noticed that Plutonia maps 17–32 still had “Mancubuses” in their articles, so I tried to fix them too. I thought you already finished Plutonia when I first checked. ;) I hope it’s done now. —Shidou 01:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. My Java program has a problem logging in; I hope it’s not a problem.

Doom: Gates of Hell
We have four articles whose titles begin with Doom:. They are usually unreadable and uneditable, due to a longstanding MediaWiki bug which you yourself reported. In the past, this bug has been fixed during one upgrade and reintroduced in another; as recently as last week, the articles could not be accessed. Unless you have new evidence that this is permanent, I strongly feel that we cannot rely on the Wikia people to keep it working (cross-wiki promotion is one of their big priorities). Therefore, we must seize this opportunity to rename them and delete the redirects. Ryan W 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we probably should rename them. I'll look into it soon, unless you or someone else does it first. -- Janizdreg 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's done.  :>     Ryan W 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Doom 3: Worlds on Fire appears to have this issue as well. Am I able to change this? I see the "Move this page" link but knowing my Wiki expertise I'm likely to somehow blow up a server farm somewhere if I click the wrong button. :P Zack 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving articles is easy and perfectly safe (the moves can always be undone), but I can do it for you if you are hesitant about doing it yourself. But what would you suggest as the new title? Just "Worlds on Fire" or "Doom 3 - Worlds on Fire" (if this type of format works properly) maybe? -- Janizdreg 01:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh... what makes you say that? "Doom 3:" should be perfectly fine unless there is a wiki about Doom 3 (in which case I will be increasingly embarrassed).    Ryan W 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Yooo Janizdreg,

Many thanks from myself and the all other members of the EWZ clan for making the changes to the EWZ wiki page.

You still playing doom? or any of the games which use the same game engine?

W!ld*Rage {EWZ}


 * Sure am, though not as often as I used to. Doom multiplayer (and SP naturally) is still awesome though, and even today I immensely enjoy it each time I play. I'm currently not interested in joining a clan though. -- Janizdreg 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Crossovers
I'm not convinced that there's enough material for this category, since at least half the items are easter eggs or parodies, not crossover fiction as such. But regardless, can you explain why you put it in Category:Community? Most of the articles (e.g. the secret levels in Doom II) are about commercial products. Ryan W 06:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't originally come up with the category idea (surprise surprise, it was Chex_guy who did), I merely deleted the original "Crossover fiction" category and replaced it with the "Crossovers" one. Setting "Community" as its parent category was Chex_guy's logic as well. Personally I haven't put much thought into the significance of the crossovers category and article, so if you feel they are pointless, feel free to nominate them for deletion. -- Janizdreg 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Thomas "Lutrov71" Lutrov
I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I feel that it is related to the Codeimp situation. While the current discussion has IMHO failed to produce consensus for a general, detailed policy, Codeimp or any future concerned community member would have a legitimate, common-sense complaint if the article wasn't deleted.

One user requests deletion, gives reasons for his opinion, and then (more or less) tolerates weeks and weeks of abstract debate only to not get what he wants. Another user requests deletion with no explanation at all, and the article is deleted a few days later? Wikis are eternally under construction, as we all know, but that particular inconsistency seems a bit different from having inconsistent categorizations or navbox formats.

If there is anything about the Lutrov71 case that you didn't already tell everyone in the old Central Processing thread, I would really appreciate hearing it. Ryan W 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I see no reason why an article about Lutrov that just mentions his DOOM projects should be deleted. He can request or suggest the deletion, but the proposal should be dismissed if he has no reasons for it. If he does have reasons, those should be weighted with objectivity in mind like we are all (I hope) doing in CodeImp's case. Who is like God? 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to sidetrack this with yet another hypothetical scenario, but I am trying to understand your "preemptive attitude" argument better.


 * Suppose there is an article about me on the Doom Wiki. A short one, an inoffensive one, because I have never been a major figure or done anything controversial, but with my real name in the title.  Suppose further that I see the article and nominate it for deletion, saying, "I realize that this doesn't violate any laws, conforms to Wikia's terms of use, and adheres to the Doom Wiki's biographical policies.  I simply feel that having a gaming site on the first page of this Google search damages my job prospects, maybe even my credit rating.  I don't have any tables of statistics or anything to show you in support of that statement; it's just considered common knowledge in the country/region/city where I live."  What do you say to me?    Ryan W 06:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what he would say, but I would say "Even if we do delete it, it's not going to do you much good anyway.". Nuxius 07:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, the wiki only mentions stuff that's already on the web. Ryan W, that sounds pretty contrived... the systematic discrimination of nerds/geeks? In any case, I'd give any person asking for a real name removal (this is not the same as the deletion of an article, though) credit if he or she never disclosed his or her name intentionally. Occasionally people discover WAD designers' names by some investigation, for example, or the name leaks without their consent (assuming they don't later adopt its open usage anyway). I'd remove the real name and keep the nick for the wiki entry, in that case. Otherwise, I'm not going to "help" them, as by complying with those discriminatory rules you mentioned, they are furthering them. I'd also suggest they join or support any civil groups denouncing such behavior by companies or employers, if possible. Who is like God? 08:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That actually sounds pretty balanced. I believe we have one or two of those "leaked" author names on the wiki already, although I can't remember the details.  I wish I could agree with you that my example is contrived, although judging from reminiscences by some of the old "Doom gods", there are many countries where it doesn't happen at all.  (I myself got lucky in that I have a fairly ordinary name; one has to wade through quite a few irrelevant people, mostly in high school sports results, to find any of my non-careerist activities.   :>     Ryan W 09:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have much to add to the previous discussion. Deleting the article straight away was an obvious mistake and a rushed decision on my part. If we are going to create an actual policy for deleting established biography articles upon the subject's request, I have to agree with myk - the person in question should first provide valid rationale to back up the deletion. -- Janizdreg 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, what the heck. I guess I could still state why I felt the need to delete the article at the time, even though my rationale wasn't all that well thought out. After Lutrov requested the deletion, I heard a rumour that he had moved on to non-doomy things in his life and didn't want to be associated with Doom anymore due to various personal reasons. Back then (and probably now too) the first Google result with his real name is our article about him. Because of this I felt that we were hurting his private life in an inappropriate way and quickly ended up deleting his article. Looking back at the decision now, it was based more on a feeling (guilt) instead of thinking rationally, which I guess writing an encyclopedia should be all about. Plus, deciding what to do based on a rumour is most certainly not a smart thing to do. -- Janizdreg 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you; that's very informative.   Ryan W 06:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)