User talk:Calliope

Welcome

Hello Calliope! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. It looks like you've already been making some contributions, but you may want to take a look at the following links:

• Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our Patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox and don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors if you need any help. Have fun! –Eshe^talk 00:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice

I will give you the opportunity to revert yourself. Read the sentence:

Create a Fortify Armorer on self spell to boost your armorer skill to 99, if you make it 100 you won't level up. This does not actually make you train armorer any faster, but it does ensure that you do not run out of repair hammers.

The point of the sentence is to give you a tip on using hammers without breaking them, not about leveling. –Elliot ^talk 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now read the full section that you keep putting back:

Tricks to increase your armorer skill somewhat more artificially include:

...

Create a Fortify Armorer on self spell to boost your armorer skill to 100. This does not actually make you train armorer any faster, but it does ensure that you do not run out of repair hammers.

In other words, you are putting in a "trick" to raise your armorer skill that won't actually raise your armorer skill.

Raising your armorer level to 99 will dramatically reduce the number of hammers you break but will also let you level the skill. Calliope 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? increase your armorer skill somewhat more artificially Artificially = Fortify The point is about the hammers, not the level. –Elliot ^talk 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NO IT ISN'T!!! Read the paragraph! It's about using artificial methods to level your armorer skill. How about "Create custom Disintegrate Weapon or Disintegrate Armor spells so that you can cast the spell on yourself, then repair the disintegrated items. (This technique may also increase your Destruction skill)."? Please do not bother me further until you have read, and understood, the whole paragraph. Calliope 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that tip is very wrong, no matter what. If you can't level up anyway at 100, what's the point of not breaking hammers? Sorry, I think the whole tip should just be deleted. Krusty 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the point the person who made the edit is trying to make: if you raise your armorer skill to 100 you can't level it but if you only take it to 99 you can. Calliope 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact-checking is occasionally useful, as is starting a discussion before carrying out an edit war. I've started a discussion at Oblivion talk:Armorer#Fortifying Armorer to 100 to clarify that the original information in the article was correct; any changes were based on a misunderstanding of how Fortify Skill spells work. --Nephele^Talk 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I do check my facts, as I believe I have already proved on this wiki so please keep your sarcastic comments to yourself. I don't get the results you get but I will check again tomorrow. I'm also rather annoyed at the way you decided to bite the new user for edit warring rather than someone I now see is a patroller who should know better and who has been criticised for this behaviour before. Calliope 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you reason that only you were criticized for this edit war. The point is that this should have been discussed on a talk page way earlier. Then the earlier research and conclusions about the issue may have come up earlier and could be properly addressed. --Timenn-<talk> 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm... because it's on my talk page? I reverted it because Elliot's reasons were clearly wrong. Whether or not the technique worked, he obviously didn't understand what it was trying to say. Calliope 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

\=> I was not wrong; to quote Nephele: that the original information in the article was correct. Just drop it. And I did indeed understand what it was saying. –Elliot ^talk 16:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

At no point did you say that was your reason. You were wrong. Admit it. Calliope 17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

Can you please calm down? You're starting to act uncivil. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Idiocy is idiocy whatever it gets called. Calliope 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we just move on? Your behavior is outrageous. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, "Michaeldsuarez", I wasn't the one who started off that new topic. Don't throw around accusations you can't support. Calliope 17:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Support? Have you clicked my links? I provided enough evidence to back my statements. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I clicked on your links. None of those posts are worse than the accusations Elliot has thrown at me. Why are you not posting on HIS talk page with similar links? Are you just trying to support authority, Michaeldsuarez? Calliope 17:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't care about who's corrected or who's in charge; I care about your manners, so can you please calm down? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You obviously decided to attack me for some reason. Why are you not posting on Elliot's page telling him off for making unwarranted reversion? Why? Why are you picking on me? Do you hate women, Michaeldsuarez? Is that it? Do you hate new people? What is your reason? Calliope 17:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's your behavior, and only your behavior. It's just that you're being immature. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And Elliot is being MATURE???? Have you read HIS posts? Calliope 18:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Elliot isn't using ALLCAPS like yourself. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 18:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop. This isn't helping anything. I don't want to institute a temporary block, but so help me I will if you can't stop this. –Eshe^talk 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's Enough.

Everyone, please. This has gotten out of hand. We all need to remember that each of us is just doing our best to help improve the site. This ha been a misunderstanding. In the end, it does not matter who was right. None of us is perfect, but we must treat one another with respect.

What we should all take away from this is the importance of civil discussion in the event of a disagreement. I'd appreciate it if we could all let this situation go. –Eshe^talk 17:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but the activity at User talk:Elliot#Resign - you have no idea what you are doing is still occurring due to unregistered users. Perhaps protecting User talk:Elliot from edits by unregistered users is in order? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. It looks like there's a lot of repressed desire to see this bad patroller de-patrolled. Calliope 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that the nonsense added by unregistered users should stop. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. If they aren't brave enough to log in they should not be posting. I'm outside this whole matter but the constant edits on the changes page are really annoying. Griffinsong 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And again, WHY are you doing this on MY talk page? This is the SECOND time I have had to complain about this? Are you deliberately trying to scare new users away? Is that it? Calliope 17:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The new users are just being immature at the moment, so having unregistered users edit unmatched won't help fix the problem. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't protect anything right now. I just gave up my lunch break to deal with this. Everyone, please take a breather, calm down, and we'll deal with this later like civilied people. –Eshe^talk 17:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not add edit-war, as it is massively disruptive and ends up taking people away from what they should be doing. I've seen the "debate" between you and Calliope and you were both wrong so please drop it. Stop wasting people's time on such pointless matters. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, your account will be blocked from editing. —–rpeh•T•C•E• 18:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I went too far. I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one hit this time. Calliope 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

This Account has been blocked from editing UESPWiki for being a sockpuppet of User:Rpeh. If you wish to appeal the block, you may make your request on your talk page, which you can still edit even while being blocked. —Ratwar 05:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You had better believe I appeal this block! I'm nothing to do with Rpeh! I'm sorry for the trolling comments I made but I don't know Rpeh, I don't work with Rpeh and unless he lives in Greenwich I don't live anywhere near Rpeh. Calliope 16:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the evidence is overwhelming. You can't expect us to ignore that just because you swear it wasn't you. –Eshe^talk 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to lose one established good editor and one new but helpful editor, then feel free. Your site will be worse off for it. Calliope 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes life can throw up such amazing coincidences. From tonight's episode of M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye is accused of stealing from his campmates:

"I'm going to wait 'til you all come to your senses. Then we can find out who really took that stuff" - Hawkeye

and...

"See what happens when you jump to conclusions?" - Lt. Col. Blake

Of course, I'm sure you all know the result? Hawkeye was innocent and it was all down to somebody else. Calliope 18:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, but I have to second Eshe's conclusion. There's a greater likelihood of me winning the lottery on my next attempt than there is that an IP address would get recycled and re-assigned to the same person so quickly. The only reasonable conclusion would be that you were editing from the very same location with a shared IP address, and I'm pretty sure you'd know if you were doing so. As Eshe said, the evidence is overwhelming, so if by some astounding one-in-a-billion chance you're not rpeh, then the possibility of your loss and his are things we'll just have to live with. The board has lost Admins under less-than-ideal circumstances before and it has survived and flourished. I don't doubt that we will continue to do so. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide proof for the assertion that "There's a greater likelihood of me winning the lottery on my next attempt than there is that an IP address would get recycled and re-assigned to the same person so quickly", or are you using made up statistics as proof now? Calliope 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact it's obvious you're just making it up. As Rpeh has said on the administrator's noticeboard, Tiscali, that I use and that he obviously uses too, has two /16 ranges. Each of those contain 65,536 IP addresses. That means if you lose your IP, you have a 1 in 130,000 (ish) chance of getting any other IP. Look at the number of people in London, where Rpeh and I live. Look at the number of people on the internet. Look at the number of edits to UESP. Look at the number of times anon IPs have complained about getting a message that is nothing to do with them. Your statistics are weak. (edit) I forgot to add: the odds of winning the British lottery are about 1 in 14,000,000 - 100 times greater than the IP chance. Epic phail. Calliope 18:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist, let's take a look at that. The chance of two users in a row getting the same IP address is 1 in 130,000. The first user, and the intervening user, both have to relinquish those addresses within the space of that 10 minutes...highly unlikely, but at least theoretically possible. Then, however, the first user has to reclaim that exact same IP address...again, a 1 in 130,000 chance. Mutliply those two chances together and the chance becomes 1 in 1,6900,000,000 16,900,000,000 or 1.7 17 billion. So, as you can see, the 1 in 14 million chance of winning the lottery is peanuts compared to that. And that was only one of the pieces of evidence used in this case. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't studied maths much, have you? All that is necessary is that one user, say me, had one IP, then lost it and another user, say Rpeh, picked it up. We're not arguing about ONE ip, we're arguing about any IP that the two of us might share. Please revise your probability maths before replying. Calliope 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To build on Robin Hood's numbers... Calliope, you accurately describe the first part of the equation, but you forget that this account's edits are both before and after rpeh's. That means your 1 in 131,072 is incorrect. The actual chance is 1 in 17,179,869,184. Furthermore, this happened twice. In the other edit, The IP switched from Calliope to rpeh to Calliope to rpeh, a chance of 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,250. Now, the probability of both of these things happening is 1 in 38,685,626,227,668,100,000,000,000. Of course, these numbers still aren't exactly fair. I'm sure many of the IPs are in use, and are thus unavailable. Let's say only 1000 of the 131,072 IP addresses are normally available, that brings the chance down to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000, but wait you say! Since you both changed IPs multiple times where this didn't happen these numbers are wrong! So, to be more than generous, lets say that happened a thousand times, now we're down to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 or 0.0000000001%. Hell, even if only 10 IP addresses (unreasonably low) are available (and keeping the outrageously high 1000 possible chances), there is only a 1% chance for this to happen. Looks pretty open and shut to me.--Ratwar 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I misplaced a comma in my figures - that should've read 17 billion, not 1.7 billion. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Couple that with the fact that you know the ins and outs of your IP as well as rpeh does, highly unusual for most users, and all the other evidence on the AN page, and there's precious little doubt left in my mind at this point. As I say, though, on the absolutely astounding chance that all of this is somehow wrong, it's a chance we have to take and something we'll have to live with. As someone who has indeed studied math, and in fact won awards for it in high school, that's a chance I feel comfortable in taking. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 20:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! RobinHood gets pwned on his maths and claims that's what he meant all along. Nice try, phail again, move along.

Ratwar's figures are more interesting but still wrong. First, all ISPs use many of their IPs for permanent addresses rather than allocating them to the mobile pool. Second, I've only got your word for it that it happened both before and after, and since you obviously have a problem with Rpeh and are determined to get him out, you'll forgive me if I ignore you in any case. Ditto the "happened twice" point. It's fascinating that nobody has a convincing explanation for the fact that when Rpeh ran CheckUser he only got two IPs for me but when YOU ran it, you got exactly the right number to incriminate. Tell us, Ratwar... what IS your problem with Rpeh exactly? Why do you hate him and why did you choose ME rather than any of the other Tiscali users that you will find edit this site? Calliope 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RobinHood70, when your ISP has started messing you around by changing your IP a dozen times every hour, you get to spot it when it happens. I'm sure you can appreciate that. Calliope 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you look back at my original post, you'll see the misplaced comma. In any event, what this boils down to is this: a decision has been made and the only people who've expressed any significant objection to the evidence are the defendants, both of whom clearly know more than enough about dynamic IP addressing to understand why everybody else is exceedingly sceptical. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And again we see more lies and duplicity from the "kill Rpeh" crowd. So the people who defended him don't count? I see. Well if you are willing to ignore his and my edit histories, the extenuating evidence, other people's beliefs and every other factor that goes against your whole argument, then there isn't much point in continuing this discussion is there?

Goodbye, UESP. I thought you were decent people here. How wrong I was. I know I don't deserve anything special - I'm new and I trolled soon after joining, which I should not have done, but I never thought I would see such vitriol against the user who has done more than any other on this site. Maybe that's the problem - you're just jealous. Calliope 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot RoBoT! You know when you add Rpeh's and RoBoT's edits together, he is responsible for just under one in six edits on this site??? And you kick him out for doing nothing wrong? I think we're both better off without you. Calliope 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those people commented directly on the weight of the evidence, just their belief. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not content with being bad at maths, you're now bad at English too? Calliope 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Calliope, please don't include me in you list of people defending Rpeh, as I always said I think that you and him at least know each other and are posting from the same location(s). And since then the evidence presented has been extremely convincing that you are actually the same person.--Ninti 22:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Calliope, I don't have a problem with you. I am simply an administrator who noticed activities that shouldn't be done by an administrator, rpeh. I took the appropriate action because somebody needed to do it. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter what they've done for the site if they break the rules.--Ratwar 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your entire argument is based around the fact that I am Rpeh. So either you do have a problem with me or you're just confused. Perhaps you could tell us which it is, Ratwar? Calliope 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way - given that my whole internet connection has frozen solid about 100,000 times during all this fruitful debate, maybe one of you CheckAbUsers could see what has happened to my IP? I haven't bothered to check myself this time, and I haven't been on IRC so I haven't had dropped connections every 5 minutes. But maybe this will prove at least ONE part of what I'm telling you (And Rpeh "...hands out IP addresses like confetti...", as he said). Calliope 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is clear, of course, you don't plan on accepting that. So, I'll let you pick. You can either think I have a problem with you or I'm just confused. I'd go for the one that helps you sleep at night.--Ratwar 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sleeping perfectly, thanks. You are the one who banned a user THEN started a debate about them. YOU'RE the one who said you didn't want Rpeh coming back at all on IRC (you are all so worried about who UESPUser might be that you don't bother looking at the other lurkers!). agree with that UESPUser. Whatever the reason, you and Nephele have wanted him out for ages now. Well done. You've done it. Think on THAT when YOU try to sleep later on. Calliope 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Back when the discussion about probabilities was active, I started doing some calculations of my own. For largely selfish reasons (so my time wasn't entirely wasted, so the details stop rattling around my head) I figured I'd go ahead and post the information; there's also a fair bit of new info in what I've done.

I can join Robin Hood as being someone who has some qualifications to talk about probabilities. I'm a scientist who has taken graduate level classes in statistics, plus I just happen to be currently reading a book on randomness and probability (The Drunkard's Walk, if anyone really cares), so I've had a pretty thorough refresher on the details.

First, Calliope and rpeh are the only two Tiscali customers of interest. We don't know of any other Tiscali customers who have ever edited UESP (over the past three months, nobody else has matched any of rpeh's IP addresses, as discussed below). Furthermore, there aren't enough UESP editors for there to realistically be any other Tiscali customers. We're only interested in UESP editors who have actually been active (made edits) during a relevant time period (during a period in between two of Calliope's edits, or in between two of rpeh's edits). So, for example, during Wednesday (specifically during UK daytime) there were only 19 active registered editors; most of them are unquestionably not Tiscali customers, because they have stated they do not live in England. None of the remaining editors have stated where they live, so perhaps some of them are British, but even so it's unlikely that they use Tiscali (instead of one many other ISPs available in England). Even if we say it's remotely possible another couple of those editors use Tiscali, that changes the probabilities by a factor of 3 -- which really won't change any of the conclusions.

Second, the previously mentioned probabilities are relevant assuming that Calliope/rpeh's internet connection has reset -- i.e., if rpeh is already trying to get an IP connection, there's a 1 in 130,000 chance that he'll be given a specific number. However, another very significant part of the checkuser data is the timing -- the chances that, for example, Calliope would lose her IP connection specifically during the 5 minutes between her edit and rpeh's, thus making it even possible for rpeh to acquire that IP address. I've added that component into the probabilities, by assuming there's a 1 in 360 chance of a Tiscali IP address being reset each minute -- equivalent to an average 4 new IPs per day, consistent with rpeh's IP usage over the last three months.

The resulting probabilities are:

• 1 in ~130,000 is the chance that Calliope would be given a specific IP address twice in a row (a Calliope-Calliope match), ignoring the timing (i.e., assuming her internet connection has already been reset).
• 1 in ~10¹⁰ (10,000,000,000) would be the chance that rpeh uses that IP address before it was given back to Calliope (a Calliope-rpeh-Calliope match), again ignoring the timing.
• 1 in ~10¹⁴ would be the chance that Calliope happened to lose the IP address in precisely the 5 minutes before rpeh protected User_talk:Elliot (which was the first edit made by rpeh in 5 days), and then Calliope happened to get it back in precisely the 2 minutes after the page protection and before Calliope's next edit.
  • I'm being somewhat generous here; the probability could go up as high as 10¹⁸ if you consider that both rpeh and Calliope (not just Calliope) need to have their internet connections reset during the first 5 minutes, and then again both of them need to have another reset during the following 2 minutes. But perhaps Tiscali reset all IPs system-wide, or perhaps rpeh only first logged onto the internet at precisely this time.
• 1 in ~10²⁸ would be the chance of something like this happening twice, give or take a few zeros -- and as Ratwar already pointed out, the second event was a triple-IP match, so again this is actually the generous number.

The other part of the equation is how many opportunities there were for it to happen. For example, between any two edits made by Calliope it's possible for her IP address to be reset -- but even so that's only 50 opportunities (only counting up to the time of the block). But in fact, it's also necessary for rpeh to make an edit during the time between two of Calliope's edits. So there are only 5 opportunities total for a double-IP-switch to happen. And out of those 5 opportunities, we had 2 matches. Best case comparison is a 2 in 5 occurrence rate, compared to a 1 in 10¹⁴ probability.

Since those numbers are so huge as to be meaningless to most people, let me put them in context. The chance of DNA profiling matching the wrong person is roughly in 1 in a billion, or 1 in ~10⁹. So a single Calliope-rpeh-Calliope IP match is far more reliable than DNA. Having it happen twice is analogous to having a suspect match both the DNA and fingerprints found at the scene; if we add in the other supporting evidence, we've got means and motive, too.

Finally, we can take a look at the information that we already have on rpeh's IP usage to confirm some of the key points:

• In the last three months, rpeh and Calliope have used 218 different Tiscali IP addresses.
• The only other accounts to use those IPs at any time in that three month period are RoBoT and "Maiq teh lair". The latter is a test account created by rpeh on June 28th, when we were testing a new Blacklist feature. So, as previously stated, there aren't too many UESP editors using Tiscali IP addresses.
• During that entire period, rpeh has never had a repeat IP address from Tiscali -- after his edits switch to a new IP, the previous IP never reappears (of course, his work IP address repeats regularly, but that's because it's a static, not random, IP).
  • That works out to >23,000 (216+215+214+....+1) opportunities for rpeh to have been reassigned the same IP (taking into account all of the possible combinations). In other words, the observed chance of getting the same IP twice in a row is, to first order of approximation, less than 1 in 23,000 -- consistent with the original assumption of 1 in 130,000.
  • So, even though the more likely (1 in 130,000 chance; 23,000 opportunities) single-IP match never happened any time during the last 3 months, somehow the far less likely double-IP match (1 in 10¹⁰; 5 opportunities) event supposedly happened twice?

In other words, the very same CheckUser data that reveals the shared IP addresses also confirms that the chance of such an event happening for two unrelated users is mind-numbingly small. --Nephele^Talk 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's Up, And Don't Worry, Im Not Part Of The War

Hello. How R U today. And Man, A Lot Of People Sure Do Pick On You. That's Not Right Lord Jeerus 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Lord Jeerus