User talk:Ecksearoh28846

READ THIS BEFORE POSTING HERE: No personal attacks
 * Create a section for a new discussions; use the Add Topic(+) tab at the top.
 * Please observe the date order, and sign comments with ~.
 * I have will remove comments if they appear to be hurtful, baiting, pointless, etc.

Removing red links
On the potion page, I created a red link for Alchemy. In all wikis that I've ever participated in, the redlink signifies that a page with that title should be created at some point. You removed the link later, presumably just because it was red!

Wikipedia's [|red link policy] states that "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."

You have more contributions to this wiki than I, so maybe there is a red link guideline here that trumps standard wiki usage. If so, can you let me know? If not, can we restore this redlink?

Chezzik 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it because it was red. I removed it because we don't know the final name for that skill. And while putting Alchemy in there is fine. Putting in a redlink that makes more work for the Admins or Mods, when they have to move or delete a mistakenly created page didn't make sense. --Ecksearoh 21:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not picky, so I won't bother changing it back. But, I see it as "Hell" and the "Slip", which were given as names for the Nether, before it was released.  Those pages (redirects) had to be made, because Notch officially talked about it using those terms.  Notch has talked enough about "Alchemy" in the past, that a page should already exist with that name.  If it changes name when released, a redirect needs to be made.  The redlink serves as a reminder in both cases. Chezzik 21:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

crafting
umm, could you please use the wikitable class instead of adding css manually to tables?

i had to do this far too much. thanks :) – Flying sheep 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you for doing that. I copied the code I used from the Glass Bottle page because I had no idea there was any alternative. That should have also been your first assumption. Followed by you pointing me to the correct code. Am I right? --Ecksearoh 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * heh, i just checked the new pages, came acroos it, saw that you did add those, changed it, and told you so that you know :D – Flying sheep 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits regarding talk pages
We do not move/redirect talk pages. Only administrators are authorised to archive/delete/move talk pages. --HexZyle 14:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Had no idea, thanks I couldn't figure out what to do with it after I redirected the main page. --Ecksearoh 14:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the stuff on the mainspace is public property, anyone is allowed to vigourously edit that. But the stuff on the talk page pretty much belongs to you, only the admins can touch it. That's why we sign. --HexZyle 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks, already reverted. --Ecksearoh 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Irregular vs. Neutral
There has been much discussion on this issue and I would be happy to hear your point of view but do not change something without even talking about if first because that only leads to edit wars which are horrible. This was not a rash or thoughtless change because I put forth my proposition to change the category months ago and have implemented it accordingly. Please don't respond on here but on the mobs discussion page. Thank you Theesexiestman 03:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied both on that page and on your talk page just to make sure you didn't miss it. Passive, Aggressive, and Neutral are terms used by Notch and Jeb to describe the Mobs. And the rule is that the wiki adheres to Mojang's definitions. --Ecksearoh 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dude...no need to tell me...
A. Already saw it was changed back B. What a wiki is for if not edit wars? ;)--Yurisho 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to try and avoid edit wars, another user explained it in the change comments. And when I checked the talk page for your reasoning, I saw your post with the eid codes. --Ecksearoh 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Try to edit contructively
Hey, you know your edits seem to be of the negative contribution type. If something doesn't sound right, just rewrite it, no need to delete it completely unless already stated in previous lines. - Asterick6 05:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that you are lost and confused. --Ecksearoh 23:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I was basing this assumption from one of your edits (in Mooshroom) which was kinda major and deleted info. - Asterick6 04:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And did you figure out why that info was deleted? Speculation, rambling or fanfic gets deleted. Duplicate matter also gets deleted. If you have a question about an Editor's changes then ask them. Don't make confrontational and groundless accusations. --Ecksearoh 14:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But you could have at least tried to make it "nonspeculative" (if it even was, cause that was a trivia info, not speculation.) Please don't become one of those editors who only delete "badly written" info/commentative details instead of attempting to make it better by rewriting it or making it relevant. Any info written on a page that isn't a duplicate is useful in some way. All the editor has to do is make it relevant and use better diction, details, linking/mentioning, connecting it to other info. This helps link together a lot of aspects to/in/from inside and outside the Minecraft wiki, so that people who don't already know the info will be able to learn about it and see the relation between whatever else it's related to. I'd like to see you start doing that if you haven't already. (and sorry if this became a bit irrelevant to you if you already try to do this.) - Asterick6 21:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

On History sections and adding info
You don't ask for expansion of small or empty sections, you just do it.

Yes I know, but sometimes people need a tag/section already premade (especially IP editors and newbies because they aren't bold enough to such things in themselves). This is used to give a guidance and sort of invitation to contribute to a particular section. Then they will add stuff into it. By doing this, they can just add the info without having to figure out how to do sections and other wiki things. (sometimes you have to think about people who aren't familiar with wikis.) I'm sorry if I seem to be "bossing you around," but I'm just mentioning some advice. - Asterick6 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I ever inferred that you were bossing me around, you came to that conclusion all on your own. I don't think it even occurred to me that a kid one-third or half my age would try "bossing me around". And I was thinking of new readers, that's why I delete speculation and empty sections. Why add an empty section if you aren't going to commit to the build yourself. If you are not willing to do the research and find that material, leave a note on the talk page, don't add an empty section. --Ecksearoh 17:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep your assumptions to yourself. I think you hardly know what my age is, nor what I want to accomplish. - Asterick6 04:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You came at me kid, it was pretty easy to figure out your age by the lack of maturity you displayed. --Ecksearoh 23:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Sorry, but I made the template. And I don't think you have any right to decide what others do or don't do. So jsut keep your comments to yourself and go "contribute" elsewhere. In fact, why don't you just stop editing here? if you like to be counterproductive, negative, and critical of things that others do here. - Asterick6 22:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because you made the template, doesn't mean you get to spam it. Hey kid you need to calm down and get ahold of yourself, never tell another Editor that they should leave the wiki. And personal attacks are just bad form, and will get you reported. --Ecksearoh 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really think your attitude is very helpful here. You seem very stubborn to me. But I don't think you should be telling me what to do anyways. I could just say, "Who the hell do you think you are?" I don't understand why you still reply when you obviously have no interest or agreement with what I have to say. (Btw "never tell another editor" to calm down and get ahold of himself when he is already calm and trying to present his ideas and views). End of flaming. We stop here. - Asterick6 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Potions and Brewing
Posting here because it seems like you're informally moderating the Potions and Brewing pages. Just in case you're looking at my join date, while I'm technically new account-wise, I've been lurking the Minecraft wiki for a few months, but just decided to make an account.

I wanted to discuss how we should handle the potion redirects. I replied to some of your posts on the talk pages, but then I realized that you posted those before the Minecraft 1.0.0 release on November 18. Since the potions system changed quite a bit then, I was wondering if we should reconsider making those potion redirects into individual pages?

You mentioned that the Brewing page should be treated the same way as the Crafting and Smelting pages, but while all the recipes are listed there, each of the items on those pages have their own individual pages (some are just stubs, though). Even dyes and wool have their own pages, although the block/item data values are the same (with different "durability" values).

I suggest that we either add the recipes to the Potions page (refer to Wool or Wool Dyes) or make separate stubs for all the individual potions (like Lime Dye or Magenta Dye), since as of Minecraft 1.0.0 potions are treated as individual items with distinct (but possibly multiple) recipes.

Of course, we might want to wait before changing anything, since the system might still change, but I feel something needs to eventually be done. Additionally, I believe it's better to have redundancy than to make it difficult to find information.

I won't make any major reformatting edits until we come up with a suitable solution (I don't want any edit wars). I've given my thoughts on the subject, but I'm open to other ideas too. Aeviternity 23:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)