User talk:BDJP007301

Image size in infobox
If you want to set the image size in an infobox, you have to use the additional parameter. Just adding the size after a pipe causes the template syntax to think its a separate parameter. – KnightMiner  t/c 13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Noticed "not even going to care about bugs anymore"
Burning out? It's a lot of work. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 19:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, its just that I'm not going to put any bugs I reported on my userpage anymore. Some of them were reported just because I forgot to change a stupid setting on the computer or the game. -BDJP (t 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, just the user page, I see. Well then, cheers!  – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of bugs,
I have another idea I wanted to run past you. No this isn't tracker titles.

So it's been bugging me (ha ha, try not to laugh too hard) that on the wiki, some bugs are being listed on pages where the tracker says they were fixed, which is often different from what version of the game they were fixed. I know that on the whole, it's just easier to do it the way we're doing it, and also easier to check against JIRA queries. When I was doing it, I had a workflow, and I'm sure you have your own workflow that you're comfortable with.

So I'm trying to imagine a workflow where we:
 * 1) put bug fixes on the version from the tracker, like we already do,
 * 2) playtesting can be done, optionally or at wiki editors' lesure, to find the "correct" version,
 * 3) the bug can be moved to that version page, marked as "complete" with a template param or something,
 * 4) a category can keep track of what bugs are "complete" and what's not
 * 5) the bug tracker's job doesn't get any harder, with respect to checking for changes in bugs, whether they're open or closed, etc.
 * 1) the bug tracker's job doesn't get any harder, with respect to checking for changes in bugs, whether they're open or closed, etc.

Maybe in imagining this, I'm having a stumbling block because I'm not familiar with the methods you use. I assume from observing what you do, that you reopen and close bugs here on the wiki based on some JIRA query or queries that tell you what things were recently open / closed. That's only because that's now I was doing it. I'm not familiar with how you do it. Can you think it over and let me know whether you think this idea (of moving bugs to more accurate version pages) would be a benign thing to do, for the bug tracker stuff you do, and any examples of how it would change things, or make it harder, etc? I would like to do this, but I wouldn't do it if it were a burden to bug tracker people like yourself. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 20:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh... I'm not really sure about that idea. Like, I'm REALLY not sure. Going to have to think it over for a while. -BDJP (t 03:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd appreciate any well-thought-out feedback you might have. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft: Story Mode
On Minecraft: Story Mode you keep removing "At Minecon 2015 it was revealed that Telltale Games had thought of the idea for Minecraft: Story Mode in 2012 when they where finishing Tales from the Borderlands and looking for another game to make into an episodic game. Telltale started talking about the game with Mojang in 2013 and first discussed the topic at GDC, and then started developing in 2014. The development didn't actually have to do with Mojang being bought by Microsoft, however the game was announced around the same time and some fans assumed that is did have to do with the buyout." and said that "I explained it before, and I'll explain it again. The information is superfluous and is literally already mentioned down below.)"

I believe that you are wrong because Wolffillms (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You didn't explain it before
 * 2) It isn't superfluous as it isn't unessisary information, just information about the development of the game.
 * 3) The information is not anywhere else in the article


 * Wolffillms, you should’ve discussed the controversial edit first, before going to edit war — you’re already under sanctions, if I’m correct. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how adding detail about the development is controversial at all. Wolffillms (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The information about the earlier discussion of the idea in 2013 and development in 2014 already there, but most of the other information (save the part about coming up with the idea in 2012, which needs a source with a timestamp) is not relevant. Specifically, why do you have to debunk a fan theory? We don't care what fans assume, we just care about the actual facts, and thus there is no need to state Mojang being bought by Microsoft had nothing to do with it. If it did have something to do with it, then we would add that fact. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Incorrect
 * None of the information is anywhere else in the article.
 * This is not a fan theory, it was said by Telltale and Mojang at Minecon during the Minecraft: Story Mode panel and later by Job Stauffer Head of creative communications at Telltale.
 * All the information is needed as it is part of the development. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolffillms (talk • contribs) at 21:43, 01 September 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * Before you declare that none it it exists, read this quote from the article: "It was also revealed that Telltale actually began talks with Mojang regarding Story Mode back at GDC 2013, but development didn't start until a year later"
 * As for the fan theory part: was that said in response to a question by a fan by any chance? If so, that qualifies as a debunked fan theory, thus not noteworthy (if not, a timestamp to the exact point in the video could help your case) – KnightMiner  t/c 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok Most of the information is not in the article, and on the panel someone asked how the development began and people from Mojang and Telltale answered, so it is an official source (also on the official live stream and video) Wolffillms (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just decided to go to the part where the questions were being answered. The second question was from a guy who asked how Telltale got the idea and when development started. Job Stauffer responded that they began talks with Mojang at GDC 2013. Clearly, there are some contradicting statements in your argument, Mr. Wolffillms. -BDJP (t 23:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft: Story Mode
On Minecraft: Story Mode you keep adding a link to the Minecraft: Story Mode article on Wikipedia under a "see also" section saying is a "necessary section". Could you please explain why it is you believe this as it is just another wiki with the same information. Wolffillms (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, was the one who added the link in the first place. I'll let him talk to you about it. -BDJP (t 00:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Still, you where the one who re-added it after I removed it saying it was a "necessary section" so it doesn't matter if User:KnightMiner added it in the first place. Wolffillms (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While it may not be "necessary", it is still a useful link. It is the kind of thing you might see on Wikipedia would have under a "further reading" heading. The idea is that wikis are not independent, they can send users to another wiki which might differently cover the topic (eg, we focus mainly on the Minecraft aspect, while Wikipedia's focus is on the video game element).
 * And whether it is needed or not, this seems like an awfully big deal over a link which provides no disbenefit while giving users a "further reading" benefit. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sad that it became such a big deal, but had he used edit summaries and explained, this wouldn't have happened. Wolffillms (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The see also section was coined as useful, so an explanation wasn't even necessary. -BDJP (t 20:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to say, is that instead of just giving a general explamation like "It's Useful" it would been nice, had you actually explained Why it is you believe that it is useful. Wolffillms (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you move a page into my profile?
Why did you move the Blocklauncher page into my profile? It's not a part of my profile! –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Kivitoe (talk • contribs) at 20:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * Pages under your user space do not have to be about your profile, the idea is its a list of pages mostly controlled by you. BDJP moved it under your username as the page was not notable in the main namespace, and he most likely though it needed some expanding before becoming an article under Mods. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that the article is notable, as Blocklauncher is the main way of installing mods in MCPE, and is basically the Pocket Edition version of Forge. As for being mostly controlled by him, he can't control if nobody else is editing the specific article. Wolffillms (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This wiki’s community is slowly getting rid from commenting mods... — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

4J Studios
On the 4J Studios article you re-added the Minecraft template saying "Yes it is. Take it to talk." The template is not needed as it has to do with the actual game Minecraft and not the one of the developers 4J Studios. Also once again PLEASE remember to summarize your edits so people know what your doing as stated here, instead of just saying to go to a talk page. Wolffillms (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 4J Studios is explicitly mentioned on the Minecraft template, and attempting to renew an old discussion is completely unnecessary. -BDJP (t 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The companies involved in developing Minecraft are only mentioned in the template to say that they are the authors of the game. Other than the mention however, the template has nothing to do with the companies that are making the game and is just about the game itself. Also the only reason I am bringing up this discussion is because lately, you have not been using edit summaries. Wolffillms (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On deleting Interwikis
I would venture to say that when people deletes the interwikis, it's never intentional. To my knowledge it only happens when someone uses VisualEditor, either to make a whole-page edit, or to edit the last section of the page. I therefore recommend merely restoring the interwikis when a VisualEditor edit deletes them, and preserving the remainder of the person's edit, that is, provided it was a good-faith edit.

I bring this up for two reasons, one is, I think frustration at people doing this intentionally is mistaken and hopefully people can save their energy, and two is, leaving an editor note is futile, because this particular thing ONLY happens with VisualEditor. The conflict between having VisualEditor on our site, and leaving editor notes is probably going to be an on-going thing. VisualEditor deleting interwikis however is almost surely a bug that can be fixed. Anyway those are my comments on that. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 22:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, didn't know that. -BDJP (t 22:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah.. do you know who we would go to, to report this bug? It was in the back of my mind, but I never asked. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 23:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Either or, AFAIK. -BDJP (t 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever bug causes it was fixed long ago. The problem is that we're using an ancient, barely usable version of VE. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh. Is it the alpha version listed in the databox on this page, as opposed to the release version listed on that page? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 13:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * VE doesn't have a release version, it's still beta software. The latest "version" (they don't really use version numbers, it's been 0.1.0 for almost 2 years now) is only for MW 1.27 (also not released yet). The version we're using was last updated a year and half ago, decades as far as beta software is concerned. In order for VE to be usable, you at least need to be using the latest MW (1.25, soon to be 1.26). To have VE be anywhere near to decent (like what wikimedia is using), you need to be using the latest MW 1.27 alpha WMF releases, which aren't particularly suitable for production use. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 14:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's interesting. So we wait. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Any chance the newer VEs can reveal commented-out HTML? Because VE users can unwittingly go against what comments in pages might say; happens fairly frequently here. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)