User talk:Yurisho

Editing templates
I notice you have been editing a few of the widely used navigation templates. Proper process for this is to work up your proposed changes in your userspace, a sandbox perhaps and then once you have the template looking the way you wish, to propose the changes on the template talk page for community discussion and consensus. This would be much preferable than simply implementing these changes and then asking opinions. Also, please refrain from making multiple edits to the actual templates as that forces the server to parse each change to every page the template appears on. Get it looking and working exactly the way you wish prior to making any changes to the actual template, after discussion and consensus is reached. Further editing of widely used templates without prior discussion will be looked upon unfavorably. Thanks! -- Wynthyst  talk  08:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had red the message and will take it into account when I wish to edit something major, thank you for you'r time explaining me the situation.--Yurisho 10:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Seed to my Five Dungeons
I have not revealed the seed yet, for one I just recently found it, and the second reason is I've been accused many times of lying and being a troll, I may reveal the seed and chords at some point, but for now it will remain a mystery. Though I am willing to post pictures of it, in fact I was just uploading some now :P

EDIT: Do you think I should post the one that's lit or unlit on the Dungeon Page?

Joev14 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine, be that way >:<

Joev14 18:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Environment
If everything that has an entity is part of the environment, then environment includes practically everything and is therefor a useless categorization. --JonTheMon 21:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ha....yea...--Yurisho 22:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Experience Orb
Those proofs really aren't part of the article, imo; wouldn't they be better off on the talk page? --JonTheMon 16:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is now about a theory, and it is always a good idea to show how you can debunk a theory, it is not info only for the editors. also, THIS talk should go to the talk page.--Yurisho 16:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings!
I've noticed you've created a category and template on theories, which I've had to mark for deletion. Don't take this as a warning, you're not in trouble! I know it's kinda exciting to speculate on what's upcoming in the adventure update, especially with all the weird clues found on the screenshots, but it simply doesn't fit on the wiki I'm afraid. Writing up all the stuff on these theories and speculation may or may not apply in the end and even then will end up being irrelevant. If it interests you, perhaps a userpage on the matter will do (i.e. User:Yurisho/Theories.

TL;DR: Speculation is not allowed on the wiki; please keep it stuff that's 100% confirmed by Mojang. Cheers! --Gnu32 08:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This are more then wild speculations, thous have a source, and a very good one too.

I don't agree with the 100% confirmed, anything 1% confirmed has a place in the wiki IMO, because they have a source. The only problem I see here is a source for trolling, but with a good enough definition of a good theory it shouldn't be a problem.--Yurisho 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then this means a lot more pages should be created for a lot of the new features that have been speculated and guesstimated from vague twitter updates and the like from before. This creates a lot of content and noise that needs to be constantly checked and weeded out when they turn out false or differently than when we expected. And as you mentioned, it's also the potential for trolling, which may be minor but still an issue to avoid. The wiki is supposed to be a solid, factual reference and 1% confirmation just won't cut it :U --Gnu32 09:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If a 1% confirmation has enough info to write a nice big page on it - then it worth a page, but if not(i.e huge shrooms), then there should be a theories page to list all this little things that we don't know a lot about, much like the suggested "removed features" page so many people want in order to avoid stubs. This alone cuts off 50% of the noise this theories can cause.
 * The second thing that could be done is to forbid linking to theories articles in templates, except of one link to a page of all the theories, and forbid linking to theories in articles about solid information, except for trivia sections.
 * about the need for constant work on the articles: that is correct, but people who care about this theories will do it.
 * Finally I suggest putting editing restrictions on the articles to prevent trolling. –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yurisho (Talk 10:49, 21 June 2011. Please sign your posts with


 * 1% doesn't cut it, full stop. Even then, can it even be classed as confirmation? At the very, very most, it should just be a subsection of Upcoming features or heck, even just a new page called Speculation. The thing we should avoid the most is noise and junk, we don't want to be inundated with information that's presented like it's going to happen, like we should be expecting it. --Gnu32 11:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what i was saying. but the experience orb thou deserves a page of it's own thou.--Yurisho 12:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete vs. move
I noticed you tagged for deletion the "Tectonicus Mac Scripting Tutorial" page since it was not under Tutorials/. May I suggest just moving the page (anyone can move pages; in the current wiki skin it's buried under the down-arrow to the left of the search box) instead of proposing the deletion of good but misplaced content? Or if you don't want to make that change yourself, perhaps we should have a msgbox/category for proposed moves. —KPReid 19:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)