User talk:Funkyd3000

Chill
I'm fully aware how to properly undo something. I just made a mistake. No need to patronize. --Moxxy 23:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, there was stuff left. I see too many undos that fail. Sorry if I sounded rude last edit but I really don't like seeing it. It's one of those things where I like to see something done all at once, I'm a little OCD with some things. Once again, sorry. Funky3000 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Mobs
This is what I was following. Anyways It's not that I 100% disagree with your edit at the moment but something that will be controversial should be on the talk page first. I've started the discussion and you can make your case for adding players as mobs there. --Moxxy 02:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant the "entities" box, not "environment" box. Sorry. Funky3000 12:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Lava Bucket disappearing when smelting
You reverted my edit that moved "lava bucket now leaves an empty bucke when smelting" out of the "bugfixes" section, I thought it was intentional... Any proof? C ali nou - talk × contribs » 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can try reverting the snapshot installation, and try smelting with lava? :P But either way, the furnaces using the bucket too was just wrong, and even if it was intentional, it was a BUG and its FIXed. Bug, and fixed, so logic means its a bug fix. :P If you mean something else though, I would like a bit more expansion on "thought it was intentional", I THINK I know what you mean, but not TOTALLY sure. Funky3000 02:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Renewable resources
I see you've misunderstood my edit--I wasn't forgetting about trading. However, since there is a section devoted entirely to resources which are only available via trade, it seemed bad form to list those same resources in the section that was for other resources. I'm well aware that all of those were available via trade. Darkid 16:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Renewable Resources page has had the philosophy of showing all products in all places possible for quite a while. If something uses gold, even if the gold is in another section, things like golden swords are a renewable product of wood, because sticks are used in gold swords. Just as one example. But even then, in your edit you stated that potions required nonrenewable glass. You told me that you were aware of trading making glass renewable, however, your edit said otherwise. Not trying to be rude here, btw, just making some points and a reply. :) Funky3000 19:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For future reference, try to keep talk page comments collated--i.e. on one page. Moved to your talk page.
 * I was not saying that (for example) blaze rods did not produce splash potions of fire resistance. I was saying that they did not produce them renewable without trading. Splash potions of fire resistance were still (would have been still) listed on the page, in the trade-ably renewable section. Thus, there would have been a differentiation between trading-involved and non-trading-involved. Darkid 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I'm inclined to change this back--do you understand my reasoning? Darkid 16:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, but no. The page should stay as is. To back up some reasoning behind this philosophy, its been the way you're trying to make it in the past. The amount of people with my belief (to an extreme), from what I've seen statistically, outweighs people with your belief. Before trading, nether portals were only semi-renewable. For that reasoning, gold was in the "renewable but requires nonrenewable" section, and any products of gold were not to be added in the fully renewable. Take for example gold tools. Their gold was in the semi-renewable section, the wood was fully renewable, and the people reading the page knew gold was technically renewable. They thought that gold tools were just missing from the wood, so they added them to wood many many times and it kept getting reverted many many times. It eventually got annoying to the frequent editors of that page, and we came to the agreement of having all products in all places, for the better of all people. Funky3000 00:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember that discussion, and I thought it went the other way. Ho hum...
 * We have, at present, "Renewable with or without trading" (as the top section) and "Renewable only with trading" (as the bottom section). Seems that we've got a conflict here. I'm going to go review the talk page.
 * Reviewed. I read your argument--seems fair. I'll leave it as-is, although I'm not that happy, it makes sense. Darkid 01:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)