User talk:IKJames

I dunno why I wanted a talk page, anyone have any ideas? Here's one: To discuss things otherwise I dunno. IKJames 14:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, someone might want to thank you for something you did, or if you did something wrong they might let you know. -F1racer101 20:55, 23 December 2010 (CST)
 * Agreed. IKJames 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wondering why you keep deleting my article on capes? yes its not specific but i usually look on here to see if anythings new then decide wether to bother going on MC. if you have beta, press f5 and you'll see yourself CLEARLY wearing a cape with a christmas tree on it. please dont delete my article again. Dolmandabean 03:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted due to breaking Wiki Rule #3. IKJames 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation is not allowed?
you deleted my chinese-translated page of "blocks" twice.Could I know why?or how could I join the translation project?Fls81245 03:26,1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no supported translation section for Chinese yet, they might add it in eventually - you'd need to ask citricsquid or WedTM IKJames 03:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you move the article to subpage of that user if you're unsure of the policy? Since there is currently no rule about deletion of translated articles, your deletion is unlawful. If you can delete articles without basis of what is defined by rules, then what's the point of administration by rules? Xfs 03:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I could of done that, but I'm guessing now the user can now simply recreate it under there. IKJames 04:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see.Anyway,I'll keep translating and keep them in my computer.And I'll add them into wiki when it supports.thanks!Fls8124504:02,1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that might make it more likely that they'll support it if the translations happen a lot and not only just a few times. IKJames 04:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete rather than move?
I noticed you deleted an article twice today because you said it should have been in the Tutorials section. Fair enough, but why didn't you just move it there yourself? Would have been a lot quicker than deleting it and typing in your reason for deletion, surely? --DannyF1966 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically there already was a article over the in the Tutorials section for it titled "Beginner's Guide" IKJames 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * just throwing my opinion in here, but if they make a tutorial in the mainspace, that means they haven't read the wiki rules, and the page deserves deletion for that alone. just my personal opinion.--Kizzycocoa 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Trigger happy
I'm amazed. I just spent hours writing 20kb of new material for the Materials page, from scratch, and you just deleted it without question - apparently for the reason the PREVIOUS version was removed. Did you honestly think that was an undelete operation I performed (hint: regular users can't do that), or were you purposely seeking to get a rise out of me? I'm not a happy camper. - Bomb Bloke (Talk/Contribs) 01:26, 26 December 2010 (CST)
 * I went through the history of the last version to see why it was deleted due to this was a new page, I came to conclusion it should of been deleted like the last time since the information seemed to of been contained on other pages - just like what the old delete tag mentioned. I'm sure I could let the other Adminstrators have their say on it too (I'm guessing they'd agree with me) IKJames 01:43, 26 December 2010 (CST)

Opacity deletion
Hello. I just found opacity was deleted with a cause "Breaking Wiki Rule #3". I read this rule before but let me cite it here: "Pages about very simple things, e.g. 'House', 'Deleting', 'Bed' and others, are not allowed. These topics are very unnecessary as they are plain tasks anybody with a tiny bit of intelligence can do." But I don't think opacity is a very simple thing. I wrote the opacity article after explosion because I thought opacity at least controls part of the explosion behavior. Then It took me half a day to read the decompiled source to give a comprehensive description of it. This property is widely referenced in many block definitions, and has sophiscated effect on redstone and water behaviors which I had planned to elaberate on. I hope you can undelete this article and let me finish it. Xfs 19:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Explosion page is now marked as needing to be merged with TNT due to the relationship between Creepers and TNT. Making a page on opacity is like making a page on food digestion, you can put this info on other pages though. IKJames 19:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please. It's necessary and can't be put into other pages. For example, A note mentioned trees have a characteristic:

"Growing leaves will destroy fences and may destroy glass and torches if they attempt to grow horizontally in the same space."


 * This is actually incomplete, and can be corrected as

"Growing leaves will destroy any opaque blocks if they attempt to grow horizontally in the same space."


 * Then we need a definition of what opaque blocks are. If information about opacity must be put into other pages, it will look like this in every page referencing opacity:

"Growing leaves will destroy any sapling, yellow flower, red rose, brown mushroom, red mushroom, crops, reed, water, stationary water, lava, stationary lava, leaves (only when graphics are on fancy), glass, step, mob spawner, wooden and cobblestone stairs, soil, snow, ice, cactus, fence, torch, fire, redstone (wire), sign post, wooden and iron door, ladder, minecart tracks, wall sign, lever, wooden and stone pressure plate, redstone torch off/on, button, portal blocks if they attempt to grow horizontally in the same space."


 * Or it will be inomplete if not lengthy:

"Growing leaves will destroy fences and many other blocks, if they attempt to grow horizontally in the same space."


 * Opacity is a property of blocks on its own sake. OK, I realize I can put it into Blocks. Can you undelete it and merge it with Blocks? Xfs 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please respond to my appeal? What I requested requires little effort to accomplish. Xfs 03:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. IKJames 06:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Brave New World
Hi, I am wonder why you consistently remove the Brave New World page?

Thanks.


 * It breaks Wiki Rule #10, also is using a illegal copy of iCraft IKJames 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Totemquest
So, I just spent about 3 hours tediously perfecting a new article I wrote, giving a guide as to how to play a new ruleset devised by someone on the forum, and this guy on a whim just outright deletes the thing, citing rule 8 which appears to have absolutely nothing to do with my article, assuming this was the rule 8 he was talking about:

"8. Pages that explain strategies/designs or provide guides should be placed as a Tutorial subarticle. (for example, Tutorials/Stockroom design) A. You are free to link to a strategy/design in other articles as long as they are related to the article's topic. B. This includes any navigational features of blocks, items or textures."

My article was not a tutorial but an article on a new ruleset, like that of Spleef, called 'Totemquest'.

Good thing I have the article's raw text saved on my computer, since people like this guy will just go through and ruin someone's work that they spent 3 hours carefully writing. Harsh much?? Wow. What a complete jerk. --Pulseczar 04:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point out Wiki Rule #3 Section a in that case if you compare it to Spleef. IKJames 04:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why aren't ruleset descriptions allowed on Minepedia (other than Spleef?) Hurting that bad for hard drive space? Why was it that imperative that you delete the article without giving any warning whatsoever? Destroying people's work just something you get off on? How are gameplay rulesets not a worth-while topic on the wiki? How dare people come up with their own goals in the game and their own rules to play the game by and then share these new game rulesets with others? --Pulseczar 04:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just enforcing the rules like I'm told to, I'm guessing it'd be okay under Tutorials since those describe various gameplay elements (and rules?). IKJames 04:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you be a little more helpful? Almost all contribution of you is an article introducing a piece of software developed by yourself and innumerable loose deletion of others' contribution. Xfs 04:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They picked me due to I was making useful contributions, the edits I've done haven't only been for my software(s). ;) IKJames 05:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they picked you more for your fantastic bootlicking abilities. Can you please stop immediately deleting information with crap explanations and start moving it to the appropriate space instead or even opening things up for discuession? That'd result in fewer headaches all around. JohnnyMadhouse 09:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Before, I had not gotten around to linking to the Totemquest article from anywhere or putting it into any category because I had just finished writing and creating the page, and had not yet figured out where it should go. I think there should be a new page under the Gameplay category called 'Rulesets'. Spleef would be listed on the Rulesets page and then Totemquest would be listed under that. Your last post indicated that there might be an acceptable way to add the Totemquest article. Can you be clear as to exactly what that would be? Create an article like I did before, titled 'Totemquest', and simply link to it from the Tutorials page? What exactly would I need to do? --Pulseczar 05:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You could put it under the Tutorials section where it'd fit, that's most likely the most acceptable area. Maybe Tutorials/Totemquest - though I'd wait and ask another wiki admin though. IKJames 05:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I'm the creator of Totemquest and first of all, I'd like to thank Pulseczar for all the work he's done at porting my little rules here =). @IKjames: I think you aren't applying the rules correctly. I read rule 3A in detail, and it doesn't apply to our case, because it's nested inside rule 3. As you can see, it starts with "It includes..." And I shall point out that the rule started with "Pages about very simple things, e.g. House, Bed, are not allowed, there are plain tasks anyone with intelligence can do etc etc". Totemquest is neither simple nor anyone with a little intelligence can figure it out. So my point is: If you want rule 3A to be of general application, you should move it away from rule 3 because it's confusing and can lead to people like Pulseczar to lose their hard work. Also, tutorials doesn't seem like the right place to me. Tutorials are to help new people understand game content. Totemquest and any other ruleset people want to do should clearly be in the same cathegory as Spleef, and if that means making a new cathegory for Spleef, well, that would make sense. However, making an arbitrary restriction (only Spleef allowed in the wiki) when rulesets are a reality in the Minecraft community... It's just restricting for the sake of it.

Jerk
Notch fake no longer needed? What about all those submissions to his facts! they need to be avenged!