User talk:Chupchup

Gem Price List
Go for it. =) Sashamorning 12:10, 16 July 2007 (PDT)

Gunning without a mission
Hoy! I just wanted to direct your attention to my reply on the Gunnery Talk Page. --Zava 16:24, 7 August 2007 (PDT)

Shout
Your recent edit on shout has some issues with it, see the discussion page -- Vorky 16:02, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

Your edit of Cannot_log_in
Hi Chupchup. Your edit of Cannot_log_in has just removed a fix that would resolve the exact issues that a lot of people are having at the moment, and even what was recommended as a fix by Demeter in an email I got today.

"If you're able to connect to the main website, it's possible that you have an entry in your Hosts file for that page, which is bypassing the lookup and allowing connection. You may wish to add the other IP addresses to that file if you know how to do so: this may allow you to connect. I'd recommend however that as soon as we post in the forums that this is fixed, you remember to go back and remove these entries, otherwise it can be pesky to troubleshoot if they're changed at any time (that's from personal experience!). " I just had to add the entries given to me by Demeter to be able to connect at all.

Man/Master at Arms
We need to hold on changing links for the Man or Master at Arms article until we can establish for certain which one the game currently uses. Are you able to check easily? --Belthazar451 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The game does not use the term at all. For the MAA order, it says something to the effect of "organize the defenders of the ship" or "coordinate the defense of the ship". MAA is not a term used in the Official documentation namespace at all. The only place Three Rings has mentioned it is in Ice Ocean changelog/2007-2 where it is mentioned three times as "man at arms" or "man-at-arms". Chupchup 05:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And what's the mouse-over text for the MAA's station symbol? --Belthazar451 08:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Man at arms, though I'm not sure if it has hyphens. Hrengito 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

PPSO Deletion
You wrote:
 * At this point, what needs to be done to convince an admin to delete it? Is it really that necessary to hang on to damaging articles like this? Who would object if I blanked it out? Chupchup 02:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not convincing that's required here, but motivation to stop procrastinating and just do it. So, with that in mind... mail me some cookies? =D --Belthazar451 10:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we had to wait a month since the last comment - so I wasn't sure I was allowed to delete it. /me gives you a massive tray of cookies!!! -- Adrielle ♥ =) 11:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanchuan
First off, apologies for undoing your edit before reading my messages. It was rash and unnecessary. My data and explanation for my results are as follows.

1 | 4 2 | 9 3 | 13 4 | 18 5 | 22 6 | 27 7 | 32 8 | Max (36)
 * 1) of small shots | # of SF Blocks

Originally I assumed that each small shot would produce X SF blocks. Thus, the number of total SF blocks would be X * the number of small shots (lets call the number of shots occurred n) incurred. I also assumed that nX would be rounded in some way to make it an integer.

Assuming nX is rounded to the nearest integer with .5 rounding up, each data point implies the following ranges for X.

1 | 4 | [3.5,4.5) 2 | 9 | [4.25,4.75) 3 | 13 | [4.167,4.5) 4 | 18 | [4.375,4.625) 5 | 22 | [4.3,4.5) 6 | 27 | [4.416,4.583) 7 | 32 | [4.5,4.64) 8 | Max (36)
 * 1) of small shots | # of SF Blocks | Range of X

As you may notice, the first data point implies that X must be less than 4.5, and the 7th data point implies it must be greater than or equal to 4.5. Thus, this method of rounding proved inconsistent.

Assuming nX is rounded to the nearest integer with .5 rounding down produced similar results with the first and seventh data points in disagreement.

Assuming nX is always rounded down to the nearest integer, each data point implies the following ranges for X.

1 | 4 | [4,5) 2 | 9 | [4.5,5) 3 | 13 | [4.33,4.67) 4 | 18 | [4.5,4.75) 5 | 22 | [4.4,4.6) 6 | 27 | [4.5,4.67) 7 | 32 | [4.57,4.71) 8 | Max (36)
 * 1) of small shots | # of SF Blocks | Range of X

In this case, all data points are consistent with each other, and the range of X is limited to [4.57,4.6). Also, take note that programming wise, it is quite simple to round down to the nearest integer, which makes it a likely choice for rounding. Now, with said range for X, the maximum damage for sf would be 36/X and the maximum sink damage would be (36/X)/0.6. This produces a Maximum Damage for SF range of (7.826,7.875] and a Maximum Damage for Sink range of (13.043478,13.125]. These ranges are not arbitrary, and have no range of error. As simplicity is often preferred, 13.125 is the most likely sink damage in it's range, producing the SF damage of 7.875. Admittedly I have not read Three Ring's Official Hit Points statement, although if their official statement contradicts the tested data, I would not be surprised, as the tend to prefer to keep the internal workings of the game vague.

If you find something wrong with either my math, or my method of testing, please let me know. Using this data I plan on testing ram damage within the next couple days. This will allow us to know at what point fractions become irrelevant. Shub10 03:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One minor note since I don't know your programming background: 13.125 is the simplest number to program in the sink range due to coding in binary. The fraction .125 is easily coded as .001. Shub10 03:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the fault in your math is assuming that 36 is maximum, when in reality it is 60 blocks for sinking damage that matters. If you take a look at this table, you can see that we have reliably reverse-engineered (without a word from the devs on how this works) the underlying hit-points mechanism for all ships and obstacles.


 * Much of my ram-damage research was done against a grand frigate, which has the finest granularity of hit points that can be discerned in the game: one SF block equals one hit from a small cannon ball. Now as you can see with my fanchuan conclusion, for the first time we do not have an even number of SF blocks to reflect damage, but it comes to 15.6 HP, or roughly 4.62 blocks per small cannon ball. Now, the whole reason I had distilled this chart down to 120 HP for a grand frigate, and 2 for a small cannon ball, is because all the other numbers worked out to even non-fractions with that scheme - until now. Now, we have to multiply by 5 across the board to get even numbers again. That's not a real problem, but I doubt that is how Three Rings actually calculates things. It's probably likely that they just stuck the fanchuan in at 26 hit points and called it done. Chupchup 03:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Except I did assume 60 is maximum for sink damage. Also, assuming three rings simply stuck it's hit points at 26 and leaving it at that is completely contradicted by the data provided. If you do not agree with my results, please either (a) test the data yourself and find the error within it, or (b) produce a mathematical proof that correlates your hit point model with the data. Otherwise, what I'm saying is my results explicitly prove your model to be flawed. Shub10 03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I just did my own tests, and I was unable to come up with any numbers to match my predictions. Your tested numbers are correct and you're right about the inconsistency between the first and seventh data points. I don't know how to explain it. The only other sure-fire test I can imagine would be to create a non-sinking event blockade, bring in a clean fanchuan, and see whether it takes 13 or 14 shots to sink it. This will not say anything about fractions between the two possibilities, though, because my numbers predict a sink HP of either 26 or 27... Chupchup 04:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems further impossible for a sink HP of 27, considering that 8 shots is max and not under max. The only possible number for sink HP is 26, but that predicts 23 blocks at 5 shots, not 22. I'm seriously at a loss about how to interpret any of this. Chupchup 05:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not plan on publicly furthering my research, as Three Rings policies (and history) imply that the moment it is publicly known how damage works in game, they will change it in order to keep our understanding vague. However, I thought I'd share a small piece of information with you, in case you plan on pursuing such understanding for yourself. A cutter that takes 1 small shot has 4 SF blocks of damage, and a cutter that takes 2 small shots has 10 SF blocks of damage. This simple scenario implies the damage system is not linear as previously assumed. If you'd like to do further research, I'd suggest starting from there. Shub10 02:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Style question
I notice that, in your edit of Booty share, you changed the section headings from title case to sentence case. I'm used to using sentence case because it's the Wikipedia style, but as best I can remember every YPPedia article that I've seen has used title case. Is it authoritatively established that all those other articles are wrong? Gascony 00:41, 25 August 2011 (PDT)
 * It has been brought up at YPPedia talk:Style guide, but no authoritative finish and no discussion since 2006. I'll bump it there. Chupchup 12:52, 25 August 2011 (PDT)

Ship lists
Psst. User:YugiohRo/Ships‎ is in the user namespace - the main namespace rules don't apply there, so it's ok for that page to have a list of standard-named ships. =) --Belthazar451 13:43, 28 October 2011 (PDT)
 * OK, thanks. Chupchup 13:44, 28 October 2011 (PDT)
 * Aha, so is User:Lizardorb. I'm getting the feeling you're making your way through some sort of list of links, in which case, you need to be careful to double-check which namespace the page is in. --Belthazar451 13:48, 28 October 2011 (PDT)
 * I had opened a tab on Lizardorb before I got your message, and I undid that immediately after making the change. Yes, I am working from "What links here" on the file File:Sloop dock.png. Chupchup 13:49, 28 October 2011 (PDT)

SHAM List
Yeah, I'm working on eliminating the pirates on the list who are long defunct. Doing this by hand currently, but I'm working with other pirates to hopefully better maintain this list. Just doing broad brushstrokes at the moment. Everyone who's been out since before this calendar year is getting clipped. Also, removed some pirates who don't exist anymore, never existed, or misspelled their names. Raijingamer
 * That's great work! Sorry I didn't see your talk page post right away, but I knew there was something purposeful about the edit when I saw it... Chupchup 12:23, 5 November 2011 (PDT)

Image renames
Oh, ack, didn't catch those stray spaces. I was only adding the "monthly" bit at the beginning and honestly didn't even look at the end parts. But does it even affect anything? I'm not sure it does.--Fannon 20:11, 30 January 2012 (PST)

good catch ;-)
ref: this... -- Franklincain (t/c) 18:34, 30 June 2012 (PDT)

Greeterlang Icons
Okay, finally got around to doing those icons. They're not perfect, but they'll work. Let me know if they look funny to you or you think anything needs to be adjusted. --Fannon 14:17, 5 July 2012 (PDT)
 * Thanks! Chupchup 14:18, 5 July 2012 (PDT)

Reverts
Ahoy! Thank you again for your contributions, I can tell that you care about the quality of the content in our wiki and we thank you for that! However, I'm a little concerned about some recent reverts. As mentioned in my previous PM, we only use a revert on cases of clear vandalism and we avoid using them to undo changes that other editors have made in good faith. If you feel that a page could be improved, then it's better to edit the page instead of reverting the work of a fellow editor. If you can't determine how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page, even if it takes a little longer! There's useful information in this page in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reverting. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to drop a note on my discussion page. --Clotho 22:20, 10 July 2012 (PDT)
 * I don't at all see where the policy you linked prevents undoing good faith edits. I thought I was abundantly clear in my edit summary why I reverted the change. If it is indeed policy that we can't use undo except for vandalism then it needs to be written up clearly, because that is definitely contrary to policy on Wikipedia or any other Wiki I have used before. Chupchup 23:08, 10 July 2012 (PDT)


 * (Stating my own opinion...) It's not so much a matter of reverting the good-faith changes that I made; it's more the fact that you did so yourself, -instead- of telling me, "hey Franklin, you may not have realized that those bold-face entries were there for (specific reason)" which would have then given me the chance to fix what I broke.  It's a matter of courtesy and respect to one's fellow contributors.  (Ref.: Bullet #4.)  You took action yourself, and you did so immediately, without even trying to work with me.  Based on your response above, I'm left with the opinion that the thought of trying to work with me probably never even crossed your mind; your comments above completely glossed over the breach of etiquette that occurred and focused exclusively on the rules of "revert" vs "no revert".  I sincerely hope I'm misinterpreting here; I would be relieved to be proven wrong in this instance.  -- Franklincain (t/c) 00:23, 11 July 2012 (PDT)


 * But this is exactly how collaborative editing is done. It is not necessary to discuss every time a change is necessary. The edit notice for YPPedia says, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.
 * I am following the principle known on Wikipedia as BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. In this process, one editor makes a "bold" change to the article. It may be accepted by consensus and allowed to stand - many are. If another editor, watching, disagrees with the change, he may "revert" using undo or by editing the article. This shows that the proposed edit does not have consensus yet. The original author may have the article watchlisted or otherwise notice the change, and s/he still thinks it was worthwhile, so s/he starts a discussion on the talk page. The discussion achieves consensus and the article is updated later to reflect the agreement there. This is how BRD works, it maximizes collaborative editing while allowing for consensus to naturally occur. It prevents edit-wars by encouraging discussion rather than an endless cycle of reverts.
 * I have been using Wikipedia actively for over four years, and have logged 14,442 edits to date. I have a completely clean block record. I have userrights reviewer, rollbacker, and autopatrolled. I am an instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. Most of my work is reverting vandalism and unconstructive edits. I see good-faith edits all the time and I can clearly distinguish them from vandalism, but I regularly revert both kinds, and nobody has told me that I can't.
 * Perhaps you are thinking of "rollback", which is a privileged userright in MediaWiki software, and on Wikipedia is restricted to use against vandalism only. This is mostly because it generates an automatic edit summary that cannot be changed, and there are other tools that work like rollback that can be used effectively for good-faith edits, such as Twinkle. Undo is not restricted in this way; anyone can use it, and the default edit summary is customizable.
 * If undo is considered harmful to good-faith edits, then I am interested to know why it is frequently used by administrators in this manner. User:Belthazar451: ; User:Faulkston: ; User:Addyrielle: ; User:Thunderbird:, , ,.
 * I have been using undo without incident for four years here on YPPedia. I am curious when this policy originated, where it is documented, and why I have not been warned before. Chupchup 06:28, 11 July 2012 (PDT)


 * Focusing for the moment on BRD, here's how I see this chain of events:
 * 1) I saw a problem -- text was bolded within an article, without any explanation of why it was bolded. So, I removed the boldface.
 * 2) You saw my edit as a problem, so you reverted my change, adding a brief explanation for your revert into the "edit summary".
 * 3) Based solely on that "edit summary" (i.e. no entry from you on the Talk page for that article, and no explanatory message from you on my User Talk page), I learned the reason for the bold-face, and added that explanation into the article, solving the problem that I originally noticed (i.e. bold-face without reason).
 * If this is correct, then where is the "D" ("Discuss") in this? It's "BRD", not "BR".  It was your lack of discussion (and not the revert itself) which I perceived as the breach of etiquette.  (Yes, in a perfect world, you could have merely told me, and given me the opportunity to fix it myself, allowing me to "save face," but a brief message in my User Talk page would have sufficed.)  -- Franklincain (t/c) 10:39, 11 July 2012 (PDT)
 * To clarify, we are not trying to discourage anyone from using reverts. However, they should only be used after careful consideration. Quoting from the link above: A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert is a useful guideline. --Clotho 11:30, 11 July 2012 (PDT)


 * I am sorry that I offended you, Franklin. I am also sorry Clotho feels I did not give careful consideration to my edits. I will try to be more careful in the future. Chupchup 23:36, 13 July 2012 (PDT)

no redirects from user space
Actually, it's the other way around that is not allowed -- we're not allowed to link to the User page from the associated pirate page. Redirecting FROM the user page TO the pirate page IS allowed. (I can think of at least one example that's been in place for several years...) -- Franklincain (t/c) 10:49, 13 July 2012 (PDT)
 * Oh, okay, sorry about that. Chupchup 10:53, 13 July 2012 (PDT)

force-toc in "black market"
I was using the force-TOC in that article in order to give one blank line's empty space between the last intro paragraph and the TOC. I'm guessing you did not realize that specific force-toc was actually doing something useful. I'd also like to point out that other authors have used force-toc in the past in other articles here, for the same or similar reasons, all for the same ultimate goal of improving the readability of the articles. -- Franklincain (t/c) 16:44, 28 July 2012 (PDT)
 * That blank line can also be inserted as a simple blank line, without the need to force a Table of Contents when you don't actually mean to force it, you mean to insert a blank line. Chupchup 17:52, 28 July 2012 (PDT)

QuarterMaster
Your edit/comment about:http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/QuarterMaster_Pirate_Helper You said and I quote "Software had no license statement to permit redistribution, therefore the legality of these downloads is extremely questionable.) " I got this program from here:http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/Talk:QuarterMaster_Pirate_Helper Under "Domain has lapsed". All I did was take the RAR file and make it into a self-extracting exe file using winzip. I used the same online file manager used by Franklincain (t/c) and got the files from his link at the bottom. I simply edited the page so that people didnt have to look there they could use the main page. Please reconsider updating the link. Oceaneer is no longer a valid domain.
 * I have opened a discussion about this here in the QuarterMaster thread on the forums. The problem is that Tailspin never issued a license statement. Therefore, nobody but him has the right to redistribute or modify the software. While it is extremely unlikely that he will sue you for making it available, it is important to properly license software and abide by these terms. Placing an unauthorized download on YPPedia could make Three Rings legally liable. It is important to ensure that the download is properly licensed before offering it in public. Thanks for understanding. If you have further comment you can post in the forums where more eyes will see it. Chupchup 20:14, 27 October 2012 (PDT)

Delete template
Ahoy! Just to let you know, the template can also include a reason as to why you want it deleted, just add it as the second parameter. For example put as I have done for where you marked a article for deletion at Template:Disambig Skulls. Regards, Kris. 11:16, 2 January 2013 (PST)
 * Thanks. Chupchup 11:55, 2 January 2013 (PST)
 * Also, left you a reply on Faulkstons talk page 11:58, 2 January 2013 (PST)

Viridian is dead, has no more Crews
If this were a "historical category" then we'd still have crews beginning with "A" through "C" still in this category, and we'd also still have the all of the corresponding categories for the other dead oceans. In the case of this latter point, please notice that Fannon already deleted the obsolete categories for Midnight and Cobalt -- please read the deletion notes -- after clearing them out, by moving them into either the "live/new" ocean's category or else the old ocean's "defunct" category.

Since I'm trying to clean up Viridian (and maybe Malachite also, in time) in the same way, it would help if you were to reverse your counter-action of my work (1, 2). (If I do it myself, it would be seen as an edit war, which I'd like to avoid.)

Thank you. -- Franklincain (t/c) 08:47, 3 July 2013 (PDT)


 * Addendum: Please read Fannon's comments here for verification. -- Franklincain (t/c) 09:02, 3 July 2013 (PDT)


 * I disagree strongly with the deletion and depopulation of these categories, as I mentioned here: User_talk:Faulkston. I don't believe that more work should be done to destroy the information preserved in them until we can reach a real consensus on whether they should be done away with or not. As far as I am concerned, we have no consensus for action yet and the old categories should be restored. I would appreciate if you did not take action until we can reach it. Chupchup 18:09, 3 July 2013 (PDT)


 * If others start discussing this issue (presumably to gather a consensus), then I'll wait a reasonable amount of time for the discussion to reach an agreement. Failing that, I'll conclude that the three of us who have expressed an opinion (you, me, and Fannon, in the afore-mentioned conversation) are the consensus, and I'll resume this work.  I think this is a fair compromise.  -- Franklincain (t/c) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (PDT)


 * We would need to seek a more centralized venue for discussion rather than user talk pages. I suggest posting a forum thread about it for best results. Also, what kind of consensus is made by two for and one against deletion? Chupchup 19:52, 3 July 2013 (PDT)

I've reported your vandalism on Rum_Soaked_Devils to Clotho. If you don't like the fact that a consensus was already made, before either of us started working on this category, that's your problem - not mine. And from now on, you can take these matters up directly with her, or with one of the admins, instead of approaching me directly. I've tried to work with you, but I do not see you make any efforts to even TRY to meet me halfway. -- Franklincain (t/c) 14:52, 14 July 2013 (PDT)

Risa
I've reverted your edit to "Risa" (when you replaced the entire article with a redirect), as this article contains historical data which would be lost with your change. If you wish to contest this, please feel free to contact an administrator. -- Franklincain (t/c) 22:20, 24 July 2013 (PDT)

Removing trophy spoilers
Ahoy - I want to flag up a recent edit of yours that concerns the no trophy spoilers rule. Surely the text "Achieved ultimate puzzle standing in Gunnery and poker" is too vague to count as a spoiler? The only spoiler here I see is that the ultimate standing is the highest standing achievable (and anyone will tell you that, as well as the wiki pages on puzzle standing/ultimate list). Indeed, folk have been bragging about their ultimates for years before trophies came along. I reckon you could despoilerize it completely by replacing every instance of "Achieved ultimate x trophy" you come across to "Reached ultimate standing in X" instead of wiping it outright. By the same reasoning, "I reached position #n on the ultimate list" would be ok too. --Therobotdude 10:59, 4 April 2014 (PDT)

Some other edits you should look at are 1 2 3; all three trophy instances could possibly be salvaged as per my comments above. In the first edit you also zap some false positives! --Therobotdude 15:24, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
 * It's not merely a question of spoilers. It's the fact that trophies are available on the Pirate Profile yoweb page and therefore not necessary to be mentioned in YPPedia, because it is redundant. The exception we grant is if some extra information is given, such as the date the trophy was granted. I stand by all my edits. For the discussion which led to this policy, please see YPPedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Chupchup 17:04, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
 * The point about redundant information is a fair one, although it is not strictly an actual policy as far as I can see. The discussion you pointed me to was never voted upon and did not make it to the policy & guidelines page. Moreover the nearest relevant vote to restrict triggers makes no mention of that discussion either. I would also ask why some redundant pieces of information are allowed (current flag, current crew, current senior officers/royals etc) yet a lot of these things go out of date very quickly (whereas an ultimate x achievement never dates). Last thing, even by the value proposition argument your edit to link number 1 above actually removed some information not present on the yoweb page: the #6, #7 etc. While I will restore this portion momentarily, what logic is there to taking a pirate's #1 out of an achievement list and leaving the #6 and #7? --Therobotdude 18:12, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
 * "Trophies are not permitted on pirate pages". Trophy triggers are restricted to the Trophy article. We don't vote on YPPedia, we follow consensus. And as for the logic question, I was about to ask you the same thing. Chupchup 18:17, 4 April 2014 (PDT)
 * I am enforcing policy and guidelines as I see them. If you wish to modify them then I suggest joining the discussions to which I pointed, rather than on my user talk page. Chupchup 18:19, 4 April 2014 (PDT)