User talk:Undouble

"Recovered" Charr Artifact/Drop rate

Several other users have also documented their drops from "Recovered" Charr Artifact at "Recovered" Charr Artifact/Drop rate and for all of them the total number is equal to the number of legion keys (summing up all four different types). I might be wrong because of the small sample, but based on the drop rate I assume that there is exactly one legion key in every artifact.

However, so far, you have added two drop with a lower number of keys than the total amount, namely:

{{"Recovered" Charr Artifact research line
 | Total = 2
 | Piece of Rare Unidentified Gear = 02 | Blood Legion Key = 01 | Legionnaire Staff#item4 = 01
 | user = Anonymous
 | timestamp = 02:29, 04 October 2019 (UTC)
}}

{{"Recovered" Charr Artifact research line
 | Total = 01
 | Piece of Rare Unidentified Gear = 01 | Flame Rifle#item7 = 01
 | user = Anonymous
 | timestamp = 18:17, 07 October 2019 (UTC)
}}

So two possiblities: either my assumption is wrong, well then everything is fine or your drop rate entries are incomplete. Hence, if possible may I ask you to check them again? --Tolkyria (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

For completion, including also your missing drop rate entry:

{{"Recovered" Charr Artifact research line
 | Total = 01
 | Piece of Rare Unidentified Gear = 01 | Flame Legion Key = 01 | Legionnaire Shield#item4 = 01
 | user = Anonymous
 | timestamp = 16:23, 07 October 2019 (UTC)
}}

The problem is that excluding your drop rate entries the legion key drop rate is 100%, namely 26 out of 26; while you have 2 keys out of 4 artifacts, i.e. 50% drop rate, that sounds really supicious.

Furthermore, Game updates/2019-10-01#Items states the following: ""Recovered" Charr Artifacts now have increased rewards: an additional piece of charr-themed gear, one of the four legion keys, and double the chance of receiving a Visage of the Khan-Ur." which can be interpreted as an guaranteed legion key drop. See also Talk:"Recovered" Charr Artifact#Oct 3 2019 note, I'm not the only one that reads it this way. Edit: typo --Tolkyria (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I want to let you know that sample size increased to 40+ and excluding your entries still provides a 100% drop rate. Therefore I removed your, in my eyes incorrect, two drop rate entries, see also Talk:"Recovered" Charr Artifact/Drop rate#Clarification. --Tolkyria (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "Recovered" Charr Artifact/Drop rate, I have to bother you again: before your edit we documented 238 total bags opened and 238 dropped keys (54 Iron Legion + 66 Flame Legion + 57 Blood Legion + 61 Ash Legion = 238), i.e. each artifact contains exactly one key. Now you are adding 50 total opened bags with only 13 keys. If possible, may I ask you again to check your dropped keys? The reason: with your edit you are implicitly claiming that over 15 other editors, who have contributed to the drop rate (all documenting exactly one key drop per bag), might not be correct... it simply can't be that you are the only one that do not have a 100% key drop rate. --Tolkyria (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Artifact race

Just wanted to give you a heads up, "Artifact" isn't a valid race, since Artifact is an in game item. Also for object in game that are coded like NPCs and therefore have to use the NPC infobox(for the time being anyway), it's best to just leave it alone as "object" or wait until ArenaNet tells us what it should be. Cheers! - Do_odleplex 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Widget bugs

Per my comment as I moved your bug report to the archive (Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs/archive 10#Stabilized Prophet Crystal), if you see any of those pesky widget bugs, press the "purge" button at the top of the buggy page. That will fix 99% of errors- if its still buggy, feel free to report it again. -Chieftain Alex 15:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this followup!!! I, and every other user who's seen this issue will be thrilled!!!

Visions of sysop

I saw your comments on both Tanetris' and Jon's RfRs, and I was curious as to what criteria you think qualifies someone to be an administrator (sysop or bureaucrat) on this wiki.

On Jon: "Any gamer who WANTS the title of "sysop" has to show an interest in PERFOMING the DUTIES of that position. More than 4 YEARS of "inactivity" says that he just wants the "title", not the responsibility, and WORST OF ALL, doesn't want ANYONE ELSE taking the "job"!! Let someone who WANTS the duty to do it."

This is immensely uncharitable at best. Jon was an essential and active mod for many years, and while he is inactive now, (and in my opinion should be removed from both sysop and bcrat on that basis), I can tell you, quite confidently, that Jon did perform his duties as both an editor and as an administrator for many years while he was active. To say that he only wanted the position for the title is a statement made in incredibly bad faith, and shows that you haven't done much research into Jon's role on this wiki in the past. Furthermore, there is no fixed number of sysops or bureaucrats; Jon's holding of his position does not prevent other people from becoming bureaucrats.

On Tane: "My thoughts are that a player who CHOOSES to act as a "sysop" MUST take an ACTIVE role in that position. Someone who looks on it as "just another bcrat position" is NOT suitable to serve as a sysop--------in another role, maybe Tanetris would be an EXCELLENT candidate---------but not as a "sysop"."

This is what initially sparked my interest about what you consider to be proper admin behavior. While Tanetris' actions aren't usually the most visible, I can assure you that he takes his admin position very seriously, and there is a lot of work that happens behind the scenes. As I said on his RfR, I do think he could be more transparent about how he makes decisions, which I think would also help dispel the notion that he doesn't do anything. I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Tanetris looks at his role as "just another bcrat position" to add to his resume; I don't think he's that active on other wikis (a cursory Google search doesn't produce any other high traffic pages under Tanetris' name). I think also there might be a misunderstanding about what the role of a sysop is meant to be on this wiki, and I was wondering what "other role" you think would better suit Tanetris. Aqua_[talk] 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of my working career was in Admin positions, primarily dealing with financial operations/investigations/analysis. To me, these activities are the HEART of SYSOPS----because they directly impact the HOW and WHY of the operations. None of these activities is a "decision-making" one-------all are an effort to provide the data needed to make RESPONSIBLE decisions possible. I look at the SYSOP function as an ADVISORY one, digging into the issue(s), investigating the how and why, and presenting findings (and evidentiary conclusions) to "management" so that appropriate decisions can be reached. To me, a "SYSOP" requires one to ACTIVELY pursue and investigate real and potential issues in an ongoing manner, to avoid "blindsiding" decision makers. Tanetris, IMHP, would serve better as a DECISION MAKER, having a clear understanding of the SYSOP process, but not "really" inclined to the degree of "work" required as an ACTIVE sysop. Tanetris's background and knowledge provides a solid foundation for this "higher level" position. Jon, on the other hand, BY HIS OWN ACTIONS, has shown he no longer has a "real" interest in being a SYSOP. Having been "away from the game" for over 4 years is telling. I have over 10 years experience in F&B management, but I wouldn't DREAM of trying to step back into that role, having been away for 4 years (actually over 35 years) and doing many other, equally important things. I "outgrew" F&B management and I feel that Tanetris has "probably" done the same. We can both "pat our backs" over the successes we achieved in these roles, but (at least I) have many other "accolades" that I can look back on, and I'm sure Tanetris has as well.Undouble (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"None of these activities is a "decision-making" one-------all are an effort to provide the data needed to make RESPONSIBLE decisions possible. I look at the SYSOP function as an ADVISORY one, digging into the issue(s), investigating the how and why, and presenting findings (and evidentiary conclusions) to "management" so that appropriate decisions can be reached." This is not how sysops work on this wiki, nor on any other wiki I have ever worked on. A word that gets thrown around a lot with respect to admins/sysops on this wiki is "discretion"; while wiki administrators can and should look into issues and consider whatever they find, at the end of the day, they still are the ones with the power to make a final decision (usually in the context of "does this behavior warrant a ban?"). When admins take formal action, they do need to be able to defend their choice, but the choice is theirs to make (and very, very few admin actions have been overturned from what I've seen on both this wiki and its predecessor).

Furthermore, it is not the sysop's job to lead discussion or direct other users. Some wikis have an unfortunate tendency to deify their administrators, but I've seen very little of that on this one. As an aside, I was one of the most prolific editors of the wiki prior to GW2's release and I never at any point was an admin (not that I didn't in my hubris try... twice...). Leading conversations about the wiki's content is not a role that only administrators are allowed to fill, and I often see many of them pointedly avoid being the drivers of discussion out of self-conscious concern that their admin status may influence the result.

On the subject of Jon, I want to underscore that I do not see any harm in removing him; he has clearly moved on and I think administrators should at least have a semblance of activity.

On the subject of Tanetris, I again don't think that what you're describing applies to him, and I honestly get the impression that you're projecting your own (learned) disdain for administrative roles onto him. There is no higher administrative role that bureaucrat, and on a wiki of this size, the actual "responsibilities" of the bureaucrats (both wiki-side things like user merges and user-side things like bans) are rarely needed or utilized.

Aqua_[talk] 21:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarity of your response. I agree that my experience in a Commercial and Governmental Administrative "role" does color my concept of what "admin" is, and does. I am so used to the "separation of powers" between the "deciders" and the "advisors", that I carry those concepts with me. That being said, I still would question Tanetris's (and Jon's) interest in fulfilling the responsibilities of this position, rather than the "prestige" of the title "SYSOP". Both of these gentlemen are well-known to many in the community, as gamers, and through their prior SYSOP service. The decision on both should, correctly, be made by the community as a whole, and not by individuals, like me, who view a SYSOP differently than others in THIS community.Undouble (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Locations

Hi friend, I saw that you've been creating some location pages, which is excellent! Hurray! :) I just wanted to point out that formatting for locations can be found at GW2W:LOCATION. I'm a fool and don't know how to link things like that but the location formatting page can also be accessed from the editing guide link in the sidebar. Looking forward to more of your edits! AnastashaRomanov (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)