User talk:User-12316399/Archive 2

Reason for reverting Talk:Removed features
I reverted your edit because you blanked the page. Blanking a page is a no-no. If the content of a page isn't needed, the page should be deleted. A new version can always be created later when it's needed. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 00:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you also blanked Talk:Alpha version history. I have reverted that as well. Please do not blank pages (except temporarily, if you must, and as you did on Zombie Horse). – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 13:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you insisting on making them redirect to Java-specific pages, though, when the corresponding page in the mainspace clearly regards more than just one edition? - User-12316399 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not insisting on anything except not leaving pages blank. I don't know why you're doing what you're doing (although I'm pretty sure it's justified) and I don't feel like it's my responsibility to research it to find out and then decide how it should have been done. Also, reverting it has given you the chance to learn that blanking pages is not allowed. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 13:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Markus Persson/Crapversion archive
Making a page like this is completely unnecessary. There is no redirect on the talk page as you claimed, and it can be edited by everyone. -BDJP (t 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk:Markus Persson/Crapversion archive redirects to Talk:Markus Persson/Archive 1 and neither page can be edited. – Nixinova Nixinova sig image 1.png Nixinova sig image 2.png 21:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. The latter page can’t be edited because it’s an archive. -BDJP (t 21:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In(f)dev in Template:History
Shortening it to YYYY-MM-DD is not necessary as Beta 1.9 Prerelease X is wider than both variations. It also affects readability both visually and in the wikicode with random links and s-links. – Nixinova   22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary on Fire Charge
You were seconds ahead of me rolling back this edit to Fire Charge. When I checked the history to see who raced me, I noticed that you had set the edit summary to "vandal". It's possible this was just someone experimenting with editing the wiki and not having malicious intentions. Please resist identifying such edits as vandalism unless you're very sure. Otherwise you could push away somebody who might have become a very helpful editor. In case you haven't seen it, the MCW:Patrollers page lists criteria for calling somebody a vandal. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)