User talk:MarcelTheHippie

07:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for improving Minecraft Wiki, but please know that there is a manual of style that is recommended to abide.

More specifically, I've reverted your edits on Clock circuit because it is unnecessary to make a piped link where linking to a redirect can be more convenient and useful. Compare Comparator and Comparator that lead to the same article (via a redirect in case of latter);. The latter is shorter, isn't it?

Once again, thanks, but keep that in mind. --  Naista2002 ᐸ Talk Contribs  07:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

File categories
Please check the file usage before putting a category. If it is only used on user pages, put Category:User images. The BlobsPaper.png 01:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Meta question
This is actually an honest, serious question, born out of curiosity: When you revert a page to a vandalized state, what, in your view, justifies you doing that? Is there something that I am misunderstanding about all this? Do you reserve the right to make vandalism edits? Are all these actually just mistaken reverts? Is there something else? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fully against vandalism, but to be honest, it actually bothers me very much when it is reverted with absolutely no explanation. What really concerns me is that newcomers to the wiki might have no idea as to why the edit was undone. VeenM64 (talk • contribs • [ logs]) 🐷🥕☮️ 21:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The incorrect response to that is adding back that vandalism, which disrupts the wiki and can cause both a poor editing experience (because we then have to revert your re-inserted vandalism) and a poor reading experience (because a reader may be interrupted by vandalism that may not be fixed until later due to your revert).


 * For reference, here's some of Wikipedia's conduct for editors (which we are not necessarily beholden to because this site isn't Wikipedia, so take them with a grain of salt):


 * wp:Disruptive editing, which is actually rule 2 on this site, so this one you do not take with a grain of salt.
 * In relation to this: wp:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 * wp:Revert only when necessary, particularly:
 * "No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson"
 * "Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the Edit summary."


 * But it is understandable that, for new users looking in on this particular site (not new users vandalizing for the purpose of vandalizing and thus are unlikely to need to be told they're vandalizing), they may not know that we generally don't bother with an edit summary for vandalism. Wikipedia does cover this on their vandalism cleanup guide, stating "Use an edit summary such as 'rvv' or 'reverted vandalism'".


 * While we don't explicitly list that in the rules of this site, there are avenues for getting that in there. For example, use the Minecraft Wiki rules Talk page to discuss requiring edit summaries for reverting vandalism. But do not create your own personal rule and re-vandalize the wiki as a result. I can't speak for everybody on this wiki, but from observation we generally don't bother with summaries for obvious vandalism. You may find that you are in a minority on this issue just based on that, but that does not mean you shouldn't try to use the proper avenues, as you might find instead that the majority of people agree with you. But you need to go through that discussion rather than skipping it, taking matters into your own hands, and ending up with rule 2 being broken.


 * As a side-note, keep in mind that we are nowhere near as active or broad as Wikipedia itself; not all of their rules and guidelines are relevant, feasible, or even necessary for smaller/specialized wikis. I personally do not agree with needing it as a rule for this site, but I do agree with the sentiment that it helps new users understand the flow of edits. As such, I will try to remember to add an edit summary when I revert vandalism in the future. Skylinerw (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize deeply for not starting a proper discussion on this issue. VeenM64 (talk • contribs • [ logs]) 🐷🥕☮️ 18:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Meta statement
I highly suggest you read WP:EDITCONSENSUS before you make an edit on the talk page guidelines page again. -BDJP (t 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why do keep on reverting? I explained the removal, didn't I? Isn't that why you undid it in the first place? VeenM64 (talk • contribs • [ logs]) 🐷🥕☮️ 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)