Maybe the problem is solved when you save this: https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/index.php?title=Template:WoWs_SM&oldid=241227&action=edit
- That's a rollback, right? System won't allow it. 504 error. Thanks for the suggestion, though. iDuckman:na (talk)
- That was the problem. The using page(s) can't be opened or deleted. Disabling the macro (template) let me do that, but now the template can't be opened to re-enable it, nor does a rollback work. Russia will have to fix it. iDuckman:na (talk)
Can you please make Ship:Ships_of_Germany editable, and either remove the old link to the game guide from World of Warships or change it to the newest version (but that is still outdated (from 2017)). Thanks. --Franz_von_Suppe:eu (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can't lift the lock. They took our Admin privileges when the wiki ate itself. I don't even know that I can edit it. Let me try. iDuckman:na (talk)
- Nope. Can't touch it. I'll ask around.
I think most pages should not be protected. It's a wiki. Pages should be editable. Recently I corrected the Commander Skills page, now I would not be able to do that.
--Franz_von_Suppe:eu (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits. A few pages (Economy, Commander Skills) are considered "finished". I've been having to back out vandalism (intended or not) so set as Admin protected. Also some templates. Others I've set Auto-confirmed protected (not entirely sure what that does but it shouldn't affect you). If you see something on a locked page that needs changing, let me know -- I have my Admin status back. [Now, are you sure you don't want to be a Wiki Editor?] iDuckman:na (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Repair Party Data
Are you sure that this change you made is correct for British cruisers Tier III - VII? https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/index.php?title=Ship:Repair_Party_Data&diff=293595&oldid=293594 Russian wiki still says 10% and I did an experiment with Fiji which I think confirms that.
- As cited in the change, "All Cruisers except Graf Spee get 33% citadel restore." Suspicious that the Russian wiki differs, though. I'll ask in the Privateers channel.
- You're right! They get 10%, as does Nevsky (originally a bug but they decided to keep it). Thanks! iDuckman:na (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is it 33% or 50% for the citadel of Plymouth?
- Tier II Weymouth also has Repair Party (only 10 s action time).
- I asked specifically -- Plymouth has "standard cruiser heal", so 33%. I should have her on my press account, but don't. I'll double check when she shows up. If you've checked Weymouth, go ahead and make the edit. And thanks again.
- Is it 33% or 50% for the citadel of Plymouth?
Expert AA Marksman
- When you activate priority sector and press and hold Alt, you see the percentages.
- My experiments confirm that there is really less damage on the weak side.
- <hmmm> I wasn't aware that you could still see the percentages. I asked the devs once about this and got back the "No effect" answer. Based on your change I asked again through a different channel. I put the -25% weak side back and tagged it as "unconfirmed". I'll be disappointed if the displayed %s are right as it makes the skill worth a lot less, and casts considerable doubt on my first channel. Thanks for letting me know. iDuckman:na (talk)
"a line can't be reset unless all the ships are researched"
No, only the Tier X ship has to be researched.
- You reset the Worcester line. Omaha becomes unresearched. You can then reset the Des Moines line, and if you do, Omaha does not get another bonus because she is unresearched.
- You get a Tier VII early-access ship and research the line from it to Tier X, the lower tiers are unresearched. You can reset the line but only researched Tier V-X ships get the bonus.
The article https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/research-bureau-update/ says: "If, for any reason, the branch had gaps with unresearched ships, these ships will not receive bonuses for their first victories."
- Ah! I tried to think of an exception and didn't think of that combination. If you would roll back my change (I think that was all there was to it) and add a footnote about a split line being an exception, I'd appreciate it. iDuckman:na (talk)
Wiki admin stuff
Hi iDuckman, got your name from the Discord server. Few things, from Wiki Discussion, it says to only contact active Admins, and the only active person listed has some questionable content on their page. There's some suggestions I've made on template talk pages, for Template:Signal_Flags and Template:RP. I don't have access to make changes, and I've rarely seen comments/talk pages get answered here over the years. If you'd like help with admin things, I've been wiki admining for years here and there - I'd be happy to volunteer. I mainly play Warships, but I've got my hand in Tanks and to some extent Planes too (admittedly not as much as I used to).
- <hmph> I've never seen that page. Who are "Wiki Staff Members" supposed to be? I though each wiki was maintained independently. I wonder if I should add my name to the list of one.
- Your issues are answered on the cited pages. For easier discussion, can you find me on Discord? iDuckman#3161 I often can use some help.
iDuckman:na (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Right of answer and justification
In spite of my contribution to the wiki, recently I have received the following message:
We appreciate your interest in the wiki. However your recent contributions have not been constructive. Your edits have been largely personal opinion, used inappropriate spelling, did not follow the Style Guide, and in a few cases were just plain wrong. If you wish to dispute an edit or rollback, use the Discussion page or, better, the Wiki Open discord server. DO NOT revert changes by Wiki Editors. To bring the point home, I've blocked you from editing for two weeks.
To this, I would like to express my concerns and reasons, that your actions are not justified, because:
1. Sections about "Pros" and "Cons" of ships, are always more or less "personal opinion", shared and based on experience from actual play. If you continue further down the same road, you should delete/revert all such sections in ALL ship pages and maybe replace them with spreadsheets of Excel, showing DPM, penetration, overmatch and other such comparisons between ships, in order to be "mathematically justified" and not "personal opinion".
2. "Inappropriate spelling" - I have and still do use British English spelling, which is widespread in Europe, Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand (to name a few realms). As I see by the initials "na" besides your name, you are from North America and hence you may not be used to British spelling, but still you must be aware of it and that alone, does not make my spelling "wrong"!
3. Minor errors in formatting and styling, should never be a reason for deletion of content! If the formatting or styling were sub-optimal, why didn't you just fix them instead to delete whole paragraphs?
4. As for my contributions being "Plain wrong" I sense you are just taking actions based on personal animosity, which is quite strange to me, as we have never met before and I am unable to see the reason behind it! Based on in-game experience I have 6k+ battles and your account has about 600 for 5 years since it was registered! Assuming all this how can my judgement about in-game matters be "wrong" compared to yours? You are deleting my comments about ships you haven't even played!
By posting this, I am expecting a civilised answer of my questions and concerns and no matter if answered or not (or deleted), I will escalate my worries about these actions to higher authorities. Thank you for your attention and understanding! [Jean_Bart]
- Thank you for the civilised [sic] response. I note that you joined then immediately quit the Open Forum on discord.
- The wiki DOES NOT publish personal opinion. Pros and Cons have an objective basis. "Feels" are always inappropriate.
- If you would bother to read the Style Guide you would find that US English is the standard here. Even Wikipedia has a restriction against mixing regional spellings.
- "Minor errors in formatting and styling" is your stalking horse. Your contributions were rolled back for more substantial reasons. However, if you were truly interested in contributing to the wiki you would learn its standards.
- Personal animosity? Tender much? I have no idea who you are. Your edits were reported to me by members of my team which includes some of the best players in the game. In one or two cases you stated "facts" which were simply not so.
You are welcome to escalate your concerns. iDuckman:na (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Update needed for Service Costs: Ship_talk:Economy#To_Do.
- That slipped through the cracks, didn't it? I sure would like to see a citation to a primary source (I don't consider RU wiki to be a primary source). As best I recall, the low-tier premium service costs were confirmed empirically: thus the 0.95 and 0.85 multipliers. So there must have been a change after the table was compiled. But 0.90 does makes sense, I suppose. So changed. Thanks for the reminder.
- However, that leaves another issue. What is the service cost for low-tier premium ships with permacamo? iDuckman:na (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. iDuckman:na (talk)