User talk:JonTheMon

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Warning[edit]

I have been tainted by LoL. You might want to stay away, since it's rather virulent. --JonTheMon 21:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Join the corruption! Just don't play Cho'Gath. I may have to kill you violently otherwise. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Traveler (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The daylight – it BUUUUUURNS! –User ARTy sig.png 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

AbuseFilter Check[edit]

I was just going through the log, and caught this edit. It may be that I'm running on too little sleep, and should currently be out the door at work, but when you have time could you take a look at this and see why it was disallowed? As far as I see, that user should have been autoconfirmed. G R E E N E R 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah, that filter could use a little tweaking. Are there any exceptions for a non-auto-confirmed user who remove a section? --JonTheMon 15:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
That might be one that would help if you limit it by namespace, and by who has recently edited the page - if a user (or IP) added a section, disallowing them from removing it does seem a little odd, for instance... could also consider just tagging such edits, instead of outright disallowing them; style it such that it clearly shows up on recentchanges and other folks can check them, without actually interfering in good faith edits? Granted, what little I know of this stuff was mostly gleaned copying things from Wikipedia to another wiki with a very different goal, so feel free to disregard me as a petulant outsider or something, but seeing as something I likewise did in userspace also triggered a disallow filter, perhaps I feel slightly more close to this whole heap or something. Apheori 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The filter is new to this wiki, so we are doing our best to monitor how it is working, and feedback is always appreciated. G R E E N E R 04:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally undoing vandalism isn't an issue; we're trying to use the filter to prevent it, and tagging it for RC won't do that, iirc. --JonTheMon 04:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Preventing vandalism and whatnot is certainly a reasonable goal, but what about other things being prevented along with it? It's usually better to allow unwanted edits through than to prevent potentially useful ones - even with the most elaborate filter there are likely to be some false positives. What it comes down to is your judgement of when the false positives are worth preventing as well, and when allowing the lot through won't really hurt anything anyway in the time it takes someone to notice and check the (section removed) on recentchanges. I would argue that such tagging is not only a viable alternative to disallowing, but preferable in many cases, especially the more ambiguous (sticking to the example - section blanking would be ambiguous, whereas adding a string of obscenities probably wouldn't, kind of thing). But erring on the side of caution like that even with the ones that shouldn't be ambiguous might be advisable anyway until the filters in question are more refined. Apheori 06:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem was the exorbitant amount of vandalizing edits, particularly on GW2W. A couple vandal edits here or there is easy to deal with, thousands per day (literally) got out of hand. If one filter proves to be more of a problem than an aid, obviously it can be tweaked/improved/removed if all else fails, but overall, the filters have been more of a boon than a detriment. -Auron 07:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally, the philosophy that we're employing is: if the user is not autoconfirmed, there are a lot of potential bad edits to watch out for. In general, we've tried to make the reasoning self-explanatory (e.g. Section Removal (not autoconfirmed)). That way, they know exactly why they can't do it. On the other hand, we're not so completely set in our ways that we can't change, so I'll try to bring it up to the community/admins about changing the behavior of some of the filters. --JonTheMon 16:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A weird thing happened on the way to changing my password for GW2W[edit]

I had trouble logging on to GW2 Wiki using the password I had last used, so I asked the system to email me a temp one. Problem resolved? Well, the immediate one, but this created new ones:

  • I was (unbeknownst to me) logged out of GWW.
  • I was forced to go through Capcha validations and couldn't log back on to GWW.

It turns out that the system wants to use the same password for both GW2W and GWW. I find this odd since I must create accounts independently, login separately, and get to set different preferences. (I'm also not quite sure I was getting the Capcha blockade, but perhaps it has to do with requesting a new password and getting auto-logged out.)

Have I misunderstood what's going on? Is this how things are intended to work? (If so, can we provide some type of warnings, at least when changing passwords?) (PS Feel free to move this to Ask a wiki question; if I missed something obvious, I thought you would have a quick answer.)

Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GWW and GW2W have always had shared accounts, with the same password and the same settings. - Tanetris 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You do see how that's not at all obvious, since you must logon separately? (Or, at least, if I'm logged on to one, I still have to logon to the other.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
So, I was somewhat surprised that I in particular was asked this question, but it seems to have worked itself out. Anyhow, if you still think it needs clarification, you could add something to the FAQ similar to the question on the GW2W FAQ about accounts between the wikis. --JonTheMon 20:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It should be added to the login screens, but I'm not sure which MediaWiki page it should be. You could also add something like "but if you were logged in on the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, you are still logged in there" to MediaWiki:Logouttext. pling User Pling sig.png 20:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
We (at the German wiki) use the MediaWiki:Loginstart. –User ARTy sig.png 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I could swear we put it some staggeringly obvious place around the login/user creation pages, to stop people getting mad about their nick being "stolen", but damned if I can find it. - Tanetris 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
gw2:MediaWiki:Userexists, but that only comes up after you insert a username. Maybe it would be better to put it on the first instance of the login page, so it's clear straightaway. Also, the reason for not unifying the logins completely is probably so you can use one account on GWW and a different account on GW2W. pling User Pling sig.png 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse filter — well done[edit]

Well done on the recent tweaks to the Abuse Filter. I've been watching the spam rate drop on RC and the block count rise on the AF logs. Thanks! (I am sure it must be a PITA and a half to ensure low false positives and low false negatives.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That last attack was impressively large. It was comforting to know that the AF worked, and it's good that it's been noticeable (and therefore helpful). --JonTheMon 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It's easy for us peons to forget how much ycch the admins keep away from us (even those of us who use {{delete}} on spam). I don't think we take enough time to say, thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for taking the time to look through a tedious edit to notice that things were actually changed in translation. I hope the next time someone (who isn't me) does that, you'll be as on top of it - I know I would have just tl;dr'd it. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mostly it's that your guide intrigued me, so I've kept tabs on its progress. But you're welcome. I did try to figure out if the IP was you, but there didn't seem to be a strong enough link. --JonTheMon 01:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Shoulda checkuser'd. I decided a few days ago that keeping the guide alive was more important than maintaining the IP's identity (or keeping the Armond identity separate from work computers). -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 01:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Eh, every once in a while I feel like letting an IP have their privacy and secret identity. --JonTheMon 03:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Weapons[edit]

Nice work on the weapon infobox cleanup!
On a different but related note, I saw that you changed the unique weapons to always say "Unique" in the type. Please check out Template talk:Weapon infobox. There are a could discussions where it was decided that unique is not part of the type, but no decision on how uniqueness should be displayed. I think listing it in the type for now is fine as a placeholder for a better way to display it, but that better way still needs to be decided on. -- User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 05:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Bans[edit]

There was somewhere that said how, but I can't find it anymore... How do you block an IP range? ~FarloUser Farlo Triad.pngTalk 07:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like you block an address, but followed by a forward slash and the range of hosts. Both the MediaWiki help page on that matter and Wikipedia's guidelines to range blocking give some insight, with the former providing further links to useful tools. Just don't ever block 0.0.0.0/0 ;)
You may probably want to look up specific addresses and find their parent's range and who those addresses belong to first though, otherwise you accidentally an entire country (that doesn't only consist of Asian/Russian spambots) --zeeZ 07:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I knew it used the same methods, I just didn't know how to mark down the range in the IP lingo, thanks for those links though :D ~FarloUser Farlo Triad.pngTalk 07:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An historical[edit]

is actually correct. "An history" (as in, "that mercenary has an history of violence) is not. English is smart, right? -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 17:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are saying the "h", right? --JonTheMon 17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Both are acceptable. Sardaukar User Sardaukar sig.png 18:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Both are ...awkward b/c they cause people to worry about grammar rather than the content. It's often better to rephrase to avoid the issue, e.g. instead of "this is a(n) historical precedent", try "this is the first time in history". – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Reasonable schmeasonable. This about being right! --JonTheMon 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Continued butting of heads. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 23:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious about block log text[edit]

Re: "unblocked #20755 ‎ (User unblocked)" on the block log.

What does it mean to unblock a number rather than a particular user? Is it the result undoing a false positive from the Abuse Filter? Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it has to do with auto-block (in this case, for user Ozzy22). When a user gets auto-blocked, it also blocks their ip, but not publicly (hence, a block number). When you unblock a user that's also been auto-blocked, it takes more than 1 unblock. --JonTheMon 20:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Mah bad, just saw your unblocks on the Log, now I know for next time I unblock someone :P ~FarloUser Farlo Triad.pngTalk 21:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
@Jon: thanks for reply. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Shadowed Text for IE[edit]

Given that Poke hasn't been on in a while, I was wondering if you could take a look at this and either add in the code or give me the OK to do so. I'd really like to start rolling out the new text for the maps, but I'm hesitant to without IE support. I don't want to go editing important pages, especially that one, since I really have no clue what it'd do. Thanks a lot :) ~FarloUser Farlo Triad.pngTalk 02:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

For actual css and some of the more complex html-related stuff, I'm not as good on, sorry. I'll try to remember who else was pretty good with css. --JonTheMon 04:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

AbuseFilter Exemption for Bot possible?[edit]

Hi, I was referred to you by Farlo about a request to do with the bot account KairuBot, which belongs to a bot currently under development for automated backup and partially automated link replacement of TexMod packages on GWW. The current issue is that the bot cannot handle AbuseFilter when it is updating a page with a new link, and will continue along on it's merry little way. I have little experience with AbuseFilter, but I'm hoping there is some way to exempt certain accounts? If you like, more information can be found here. --Kairu 03:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Thanks for the correction on banishing strike, I just tested it out and confirmed what you said. Zerohourrct 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In Soviet Tyria...[edit]

On John's page in a civil discussion I was asked to elaborate why I disagree with the OP's opinion about the live team doing an excellent job. I then had a couple of problems IRL which directly led me to spending more time organizing my thoughts together into a coherent complaint about the writing of the WoC content, which I posted on the page today. This, as anything that directly makes the live team members less competent than God himself, gets removed.

I disagree with the course of action you have taken and ask you to either back up your action directed towards censoring anything negative in arenanet's feedback, or cease this kind of activity, as the developers should be able to handle constructive criticism.

If you think that my wording was inappropriate then pointing out some of the "questionable material" would be appreciated greatly due to my current inability to spot some of the errors (burning with rage atm).

Hoping to regain the freedom of speech soon: --Boro 10px‎ 17:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's criticism and critique, there's constructive criticism, then there's small WoTs that don't provide enough benefit given their size and tone. Your post could have been much better if toned down to "I felt that the writing was lacking. For plot, Reiko wasn't well explained, either in her apparent non-recognition of Miku, or how she seizes the reigns of power. Ashu's decision is also thinly supported. For morality, shades of grey (like Reisen) were neat characters that devolved into wanting to rule Cantha for selfish reasons. And the topic of killing gangs with families was brought up but never developed or forced a true moral choice. As for an impact on the world, it feels like the status quo is maintained, unlike the changes of War in Kryta. Finally, it feels like any characterization of my own character was railroaded and subverted by this story." There, it gives your grievances without being overly confrontational or complaining nor being too long. No mentions of Hitler, baed, lulz, or faggots.
Generally, a dev page is for having clear, concise, polite communication. If it falls too outside that, I'll want to step in. --JonTheMon 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Aah. That makes sense. Seems like 1d4chan's style rubbed off on me without my notice. In this case if a bit different tone is allowed, I'm going to rewrite it shortly (as soon as my head cools down), and meanwhile remove that censure notice on John's page nevermind you were faster. --Boro 10px‎ 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If it's polite, concise, and on topic, it shouldn't be an issue. You might, however, consider responding on Felix's talk instead, since he was the one that asked for the elaboration. --JonTheMon 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to keep that in mind. and reduce the amount of 1d4chan I watch. --Boro 10px‎ 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Calculators[edit]

I have found 2 Guild Wars calculators, which are stand alone, and I consider somewhat useful when planning. The first is a simple XP grinding calculator that tells you how much XP you need to level up from solo hunting in PvE. The other I found, is a Skill calculator that breaks down your current skill points into divisions of probability. For example; you would enter your total skill points and the least you want to spend, followed by a division over a number of skills. This quickly returns the number of probable choices. Is there a page for these type of utilities? --Wendy Black 12:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would need an XP grinding calculator. Generally, you'd use the experience page and some farming guide. Otherwise, leveling in PvE is usually fastest with quests. And I'm not really sure how the second one works. How does probability play into skill points? --JonTheMon 14:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I link useful tools from my home page and rely on word-of-mouth to make them available to other people. If it's relevant, I'll rarely post a link on a talk page in response to a question (e.g. about price checks, I'll post links to the Estimator and my preferred auction site, even though both links are on my home page). A fair number of ppls follow your talk page, so I think you'll have success with this method, too.
I am otherwise hesitant about linking to external tools from mainspace pages for a couple of reasons, primarily security (e.g. it's all too easy for someone's well-intentioned utility to be hijacked for nefarious purposes). Some tools are too useful not to be mentioned, e.g. there's really no good alternative to TexMod and Cartography Made Easy. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It gives you all the possible combinations for spending your skill points. This is the skill output for a max spend on 125 to min 124 point over 4 skills;
12,6,3,1		Cost: 125
12,6,2,2		Cost: 124
12,5,4,2		Cost: 125
12,5,3,3		Cost: 124
11,8,4,1		Cost: 125
11,7,4,4		Cost: 125
11,6,6,3		Cost: 125
10,10,1,1		Cost: 124
10,9,5,1		Cost: 125
10,9,4,3		Cost: 125
10,8,6,3		Cost: 125
10,7,6,5		Cost: 125
10,6,6,6		Cost: 124
9,9,7,1			Cost: 125
9,8,8,2			Cost: 125
9,7,7,6			Cost: 125
I recently used the 9,7,7,6 for all my new level 15 heros. The download is here sorry no homepage, but apparently a well made program. There is a readme file inside the zip, unlike the grinding calculator. Which is a much simpler program, but I found it handy doing my VQs for my DoA title, better than trying to figure it out in my head. I could punch in 17 to 18 and see exactly how many minions I needed to kill on a VQ to level up. I suppose if you know the numbers you can just punch them up in a pocket calculator. That one is found here on my DoA page. Thanks both of you, I was just curious if anyone had some useful calculators or tools laying around. The only other skill calculator I found was online and on a forum. I didn't show much potential in that one, since I can enter those values directly into Guild Wars. Both the Grinding and Skill Calculators were thoroughly examined by my husband for malware and viruses. He told me they are both compressed scripts and said with respect to the programmers they did a good job except for some typos in the readme which was fixed.--Wendy Black 21:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
On the attribute point helper, I don't see it being too much more useful than our current page. And I'm confused about why you would want to keep track of levels past 20. --JonTheMon 13:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean about levels past 20 -but that's ok- that current page does not reverse calculate total points to skills and give me all possible spreads. Anyway, it is out there, if people want it. I guess I will just add that link someplace on one of my user pages. Like Tennessee Ernie Ford said, it can get to those who need it by word of mouth. Thanks and don't be a stranger. --Wendy Black 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism pages etc[edit]

Is there any point in my tagging pages with speedy deletion G1 if the topic of the spam is visible in RC anyway? (I realise some people don't use the enhanced recent changes) Basically my question is does it help or not. User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Once in a while something gets through and isn't promptly deleted, so I'd say if it's up for a bit and nobody has addressed it, go ahead and tag it. --JonTheMon 17:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Section ready to move.[edit]

Section (Re:March update) is ready to be moved. Shall I move it or do you want to do the procedure yourself? --Boro 10px‎ 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. It'll be good practice ;-) --JonTheMon 18:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
allright. Hope you don't mind if I take a sleep first. 0:21 am isn't the best time for such actions. --Boro 10px‎ 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Game update logon problems (any benefit to a default note?)[edit]

It seems that (nearly) each time we publish a game update, someone mentions that they are having trouble logging on. Sometimes they get a quick response and sometimes none at all. Regardless, I'm sure the poster is frustrated and worried even though it's (a) a common issue that is (b) (usually) easily resolved.

The reason this keeps happening is that the problem is unusual to the individual, even though it happens to someone each time there is an update. I am guessing that for every person that posts the question there are 5-20 others out there who come to the wiki to find out if there is a bugged update and don't bother posting.

Do you think there is any benefit to creating a template to preempt the question? (something like, "if your game did not launch correctly after applying this update, see [this link] for troubleshooting techniques" )Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need it, but if we wanted to do it, where would it go? Main update page? Each separate update page? There's a lot of places where you could try to preempt something. --JonTheMon 18:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm ok with not having one. I thought it was worth taking time to consider, but I'm ambivalent about how effective it would be. (The person who assumes a bug first without troubleshooting tends also to be the person who doesn't notice top/bottom notes.) It's also not all that much trouble for people like you or I to answer (or store a reply that we can paste). (If we did add a note, I'd put it as floating text on the talk page for each update.)Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hey do you guys have any editing projects that you need help with?User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Hey Jon, can you share your opinion on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship#Bureaucrats, elections, arbcomm? Thanks. pling User Pling sig.png 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I don't think you hear this often enough. Thanks for sticking around. --Wendy Black 21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Check User stuff[edit]

Hello, sorry to bother you, I have a question regarding checkuser + the results it finds. (you seem pretty familiar with rangeblocks...)

I looked up the users sourced from 199.15.234.86 - it found 23 different bots. I notice that this IP is similar to 199.15.234.142 - which also had a high number of bots sourced from it and has been blocked. I plugged those in that box that calculates what ip range you'd need to block + it got 199.15.234.0/24 - and a shedload of bots. I'm hesitant to use that range because a) thats 256 ip addresses and b) it also seems to include the "abuse filter" which I get the impression would be a terrible thing to block in my first week :P

Should I just block both individual IPs + all the accounts created by them, or something else? Chieftain Alex 00:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That range should be fine. The times it mentions abusefilter, it's b/c it's being blocked and that's apparently logged for the IP. Blocking 256 ip's really isn't that many. You need to be careful, but I only really get worried when i get up to 0.0/16 or so. --JonTheMon 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)