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)