User talk:User-7769161

Hello everyone. This is my talk page. Say hello or give a thumbs up or poke me if you want. Have a good day -Asterick6 04:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk/Conversation
Ahaha, I didn't notice that error :P I copy pasted the line and then just replaced the names. Lol ur probs like "WTF why am i on there twice?" --HexZyle 05:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea I noticed and got confused.. lol now it's correct tho - Asterick6 05:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a tip
I`ve seen that Glass panes page, I added that deletion request. You can do that yourself, just type: Swpe 08:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the tip! I'll do that next time - Asterick6 05:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization
There seems to be a lot of irritating edit warring over the capitalization of the names of mobs and items. I brought up the issue here. Write your opinion there on the matter, if you would like. --HexZyle 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been nominated...
You have been nominated as a candidate to be possibly placed on the semi-serious Top Contributors to the wiki list. Please do not cry if you don't, however :P --HexZyle 16:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok that's great! :D ..although I might not edit much during the weekdays, but I'll try to help out when possible. - Asterick6 17:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Every little bit helps. I noticed you have been doing A LOT of grammar and spelling corrections. Just because they are little edits means they are no less important. A lot of "bigger" editers think grammar is a minor problem and assume it's not worth their time. Thanks for picking up the slack. --HexZyle 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem! I'm happy to help! - Asterick6 04:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Comment
Just a heads up but you might want to calm down and not curse at other editors. Doing this only leads to warring and possible banning. - Asterick6 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So where exactly did I curse at a user? Sure I use profanity when someone does a stupid edit, but I don't curse at them directly.  The last time I did that was this edit and I used "fucking" as an adjective for "posts". --Saphireking65 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, I never intended for my comment^ to mean cursing directly at them. If you didn't understand, I was talking about your comments on their edits. FYI I was talking about this post here. If you already forgot, I see an angry guy moment right there. Sorry, but I'm not getting personal with you, so go push your "annoyance" somewhere else. I was just giving u a heads up cause you were starting to show the signs of "ranting" and "angry person", if you know what I mean. Why cuss in the comments? If you want to do that, then just go directly to the talk page(IPs too) and diss them off. (whatever you did was fail anyways)hehe lawl. - Asterick6 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * and after reading your previous comments, I just realized how easy it is to troll you and get your worked up (not that I have any intention of doing so). LawL - Asterick6 23:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Try to edit contructively
Hey, you know your edits seem to be of the negative contribution type. If something doesn't sound right, just rewrite it, no need to delete it completely unless already stated in previous lines. - Asterick6 05:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there kid, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you posted this on the wrong page. Next time check my contribution history. --Ecksearoh 22:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I was basing this assumption from one of your edits (in Mooshroom) which was kinda major and deleted info. - Asterick6 04:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And did you figure out why that info was deleted? Speculation, rambling or fanfic gets deleted. Duplicate matter also gets deleted. If you have a question about an Editor's changes then ask them. Don't make confrontational and groundless accusations. --Ecksearoh 14:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But you could have at least tried to make it "nonspeculative" (if it even was, cause that was a trivia info, not speculation.) Please don't become one of those editors who only delete "badly written" info/commentative details instead of attempting to make it better by rewriting it or making it relevant. Any info written on a page that isn't a duplicate is useful in some way. All the editor has to do is make it relevant and use better diction, details, linking/mentioning, connecting it to other info. This helps link together a lot of aspects to/in/from inside and outside the Minecraft wiki, so that people who don't already know the info will be able to learn about it and see the relation between whatever else it's related to. I'd like to see you start doing that if you haven't already. (and sorry if this became a bit irrelevant to you if you already try to do this.) - Asterick6 21:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no room for speculation on the Wiki, And please don't lecture me on editing, I've been working on wikis and with wikicode for years. --Ecksearoh 17:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On citing Player encounters or game fixes
@User_talk:Enderdude Hey, just a helpful advice, but you don't need citations for player encounters or changes in the game (unless Notch specifically mentioned them of which you can now cite it). If you think about it logically, players who add this type of info into the wiki have encountered it in the game; there is no need to cite it since they would not have added this in if they didn't encounter these events. Since info such as this was not already in the wiki, they felt the need to add it in after encountering it. - Asterick6 22:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

On Enderdragon eggs

 * Um Creative mode is not a mod. Therefore it was relevant. You should know this. - Asterick6 22:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For Dragon Eggs, the only way to obtain one is through the indirect method of pushing with a piston. Then you'd use Creative Mode to spawn more. That's obviously unintended, and furthermore, so what if they can spawn over each other? Endermen can spawn anywhere, too, but we don't write about that. It's irrelevant. If there was some specific reason why they normally wouldn't, then it'd be noteworthy. I just spawned one on top of another by placing two blocks towered next to an egg, and placing an egg on the side. It's not preventing me from doing that, either. MegaScience 23:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that this counts as "unintended modifications" or of that sort? Minecraft players can do whatever they want. (Hell, its a sandbox game!) This is an example of Emergent gameplay. (Note Article name links to a wikipedia article). Just because you have to use pistons or use Creative mode doesn't mean that it's not vanilla. Now I hope you understand that just because it's "not intended" doesn't mean that it's not relevant or vanilla. - Asterick6 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now you're simply talking down to me. Read what the trivia actually says. What does it matter if one can teleport over another? Is there something saying that shouldn't be possible specifically? All they do is teleport randomly. I've clicked one earlier today right after it was made, and it spawned above where it was and landed back on the tower. You seem to only have a problem with the fact I presented that the only way you can do this in the unmodified game currently is by bringing a piston and pushing it, which in itself is an indirect and unconventional method, and then using Creative Mode to duplicate it. If you really have a problem with that part, throw it out, but you can't deny that trivia didn't matter. Compare to observing a pig get too close to lava and catching fire, then making a trivia "Sometimes, pigs get too close to lava and catch fire."
 * I wasn't meaning to "look down" on you. Sorry if that's how you saw my reply. And I think you misunderstood because you seem to be contradicting yourself? And what I meant was that the info:

Dragon Eggs can teleport on top of another when pushed by pistons in Creative mode
 * should NOT be taken out. Not that I didn't want it in the text. I was addressing the fact that you removed the info because you said:

Since you can only do it with modifications, it isn't worth listing.
 * I hope this clarifies? And I'm still not exactly sure what your stance is on this. (I don't even know if we're talking about the same thing!) - Asterick6 08:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes reference this wiki for information, and find people bashing it for information, such as trivia, like that. The facts get jumbled, things that aren't important come up. I removed a large amount of triva from the Gold Block page for a more extreme variation of this. It was mentioning how much Gold Blocks would weigh in real world units, with another trivia listing how many blocks of Gold the human race in real life had found using game units. Virtual and Real World Units are not that interchangeable, nor does it matter so much as to write an entire trivial about it. As a wiki, I'm sure this site must at least follow basic Trivia Policy, and those were far past the line on that account. But I digress:

I apologize for all this drama. Before I discontinue, I just wish to note that I've known about the Wikipedia linking for years now, as well as other coding tricks that can be done. MegaScience 08:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, well then that solves a lot of answering/problems. And yea I agree about that type of Trivia - it's ok if the info is somewhat notable cause we can just incorporate it into the main text, but that type of Trivia is too far.


 * Btw are you making the template? - Asterick6 08:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Helpful advice on citing
I've already commented this to other, but I thought you should know as well:

You don't need citations for player encounters with things/bugs/events or changes in the game (unless Notch specifically mentioned them of which you can now cite it). If you think about it logically, players who add this type of info into the wiki have encountered it in the game; there is no need to cite it since they would not have added this in if they didn't encounter these events. Since info such as this was not already in the wiki, they felt the need to add it in after encountering it. - Asterick6 22:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For citations, I was simply saying that most everything written on the Enderdragon page can now be observed, so most of the old speculation and prediction is unrequired. THere was also a lot of outdated information, which people continuously contradicted using parentheses. I am a seasoned wiki editor, a top editor at BioShock Wiki, so I've dealt with things like this before... That sort of disappoints me. I understand it's disorganized in some places because of just how popular the game is, all the excited people editing, but it disappoints me how bad it can get because that can be so hard to manage. I wanted to tag a on the Enderdragon page so someone else could do a better cleanup of it, but I couldn't find one fitting that right. Did I miss it? MegaScience 23:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh for that aspect, you can move all that previous info to the history section, or create a history section (which I have been trying to do) instead of outright deleting them. (A LOT of these pages here don't have history sections, and the previous info gets lost in the edits).


 * In regards to the cleanup tagging, you can create the template yourself. (I was gonna make it since MC wiki doesn't have one yet). And we can just copy Wikipedia's templates. I've already made a template for expanding sections: , which shows as this:


 * I sorta ripped this off from Wikipedia but whatever. - Asterick6 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On History sections and adding info
You don't ask for expansion of small or empty sections, you just do it.

Yes I know, but sometimes people need a tag/section already premade (especially IP editors and newbies because they aren't bold enough to such things in themselves). This is used to give a guidance and sort of invitation to contribute to a particular section. Then they will add stuff into it. By doing this, they can just add the info without having to figure out how to do sections and other wiki things. (sometimes you have to think about people who aren't familiar with wikis.) I'm sorry if I seem to be "bossing you around," but I'm just mentioning some advice. - Asterick6 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I ever inferred that you were bossing me around, you came to that conclusion all on your own. I don't think it even occurred to me that a kid one-third or half my age would try "bossing me around". And I was thinking of new readers, that's why I delete speculation and empty sections. Why add an empty section if you aren't going to commit to the build yourself. If you are not willing to do the research and find that material, leave a note on the talk page, don't add an empty section. --Ecksearoh 17:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep your assumptions to yourself. I think you hardly know what my age is, nor what I want to accomplish. - Asterick6 04:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You came at me kid, it was pretty easy to figure out your age by the lack of maturity you displayed. --Ecksearoh 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

On removing outdated info/images
Fishrock, I saw your edit on the Biomes page and you had removed the section because it was outdated. But next time, starting from now, will you start moving the info or images to the History section? Or make a history section if it's not there, so that we don't just delete the info. (I'm trying to do this cause infos getting overwritten every day). For example on the Biome page, you removed the images, but you should have just moved it to the history page, Pre-Adventure_Update_Biomes, instead of removing it altogether. I hope you understand. - Asterick6 03:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

On deleting previous info
You posted this about a month ago, but I want to comment on this. This is my stance and belief on preserving the previous info and history:

I agree with Ultradude, but I also want to say that an editor should not remove comments/words/work done by other people if the words don't violate the wiki rules (spam/etc). It is common courtesy and wiki "etiquette" to leave the previous discussions alone and let the bots archive them after some time has passed. So you don't need to delete them because they'll be archived into the archive sub-pages of that page. A comparison would be: you don't throw away people's belongings just because they aren't there; and what makes you think you have the right to remove their words? (Note: this is just something to think about, not a personal attack).

Also, by preserving previous discussions, comments, words as archives; and not deleting them, allows anyone (user or IP) to follow the course of whatever happened in order to understand whatever the topic's about. They can just read the info like a forum thread to be informed on things or to understand why the editors edited or did what they did or asked. And as Ultradude said, this helps reduce the number of questions asked by people, and retains the info for documentation. See since Ultradude didn't delete this previous discussion, I was able to see it and let you know more about it and why info should never be deleted, but can be archived (unless spam, violates rules, etc. -it's all common sense.) (Sorry if this seems a bit "creepy". I just saw this when I was talking to Ultradude). You can read my other comments on what I feel on History, content deleting, citing, etc. and comment on them if you wish. - Asterick6 09:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Sorry, but I made the template. And I don't think you have any right to decide what others do or don't do. So jsut keep your comments to yourself and go "contribute" elsewhere. In fact, why don't you just stop editing here? if you like to be counterproductive, negative, and critical of things that others do here. - Asterick6 22:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because you made the template, doesn't mean you get to spam it. Hey kid you need to calm down and get ahold of yourself, never tell another Editor that they should leave the wiki. And personal attacks are just bad form, and will get you reported. --Ecksearoh 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)