User talk:Amatulic

Drowned 1.14 tridents
Yes, I agree. It should be said in that way ShadowCooper78 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to caves
To be clear, I have no idea how this works or if I'm even remotely doing this right. Feel free to blame me for being an idiot. It happens on the internet, I've gotten used to it. Also to be clear, when I changed the caves page on the 8th of July, it was because it was in such massive disrepair, no disrespect. It was worded poorly and informally. I rarely contribute to things like this, but it bothered me so much, I just had to fix it to the best of my ability. After I had done that, you went on to edit it once again, and you corrected some mistakes that I had missed when I went through it. Without fact checking, I think that the revision that I edited was primarily your product, although I could be wrong. I don't know. I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you on your most recent edit. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.26.0.84 (talk) at 9:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * I thought your edits were fine, and no it wasn't primarily my product, I just happened to make an edit to that article before you did. ~ Amatulic (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your good edits. itsMatyh (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And thanks for yours too. ~ Amatulic (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Tutorials/Turtle farming
Just wondering (because you created this and added most of the content), is there a specific reason why you would need to hunt for turtle eggs that have already been laid? Why couldn't you just breed any turtles you find and use those turtle eggs? At least that's what I did for my turtle farm in the current version. --Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 12:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The first time I set out to build a turtle farm, I found eggs before I found any turtles. In fact I was having trouble finding turtles, so at the time I figured it was easier to look for eggs on land (or mating turtles) than trying to find turtles in the water. That's probably why the tutorial seems biased toward hunting eggs.
 * I clarified the section on obtaining eggs to give more equal emphasis to hunting versus breeding. ~ Amatulic (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Splash
Hello, I'm not sure your latest edit there was useful. That user evaded blocks and filters to keep on pushing their (questionable) point of view on the Splash article proper, which I believe is enough to consider their continued involvement unwanted. I understand you were acting in good faith, so this is not a warning or a moderative notice of any kind. Just sharing my thoughts on this. If you believe I or other admins should have done something differently, please let me or another admin know.

Discord is the platform that hosts the "server" used by editors for real-time text chat coordination. The wiki page about the server is linked from the sidebar. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 01:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't noticed that link. The meaning behind my comment on Talk:Splash was that one shouldn't assume things about others, and I used myself as an example of the anon's faulty assumptions. ~ Amatulic (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about twisting vines
Hey User:Amatulic I noticed that you reverted my edit on Twisting Vines. I have some proof that twisting vines were meant to stop fall damage. Here is a video that shows this and an article to from the minecraft bugs that talks about that twisting vines are supposed to stop fall damage. Here is the pic: Here is the video at this link. https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/hawh11/you_can_place_twisting_vines_under_you_to_negate/ Talk to me back and if you approve I will re-add my edit. --Brenty333 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I don't doubt the fact you were trying to convey. I reverted your edit primarily because mainspace articles are not tutorials, and the purpose of your edit seemed to be giving playing advice as if the article was a tutorial. Also, mainspace articles have a more formal tone than tutorials, so we avoid the pronoun "you" in articles.
 * Looking at the version of the article when you made that edit, I just now noticed that your edit wasn't necessary, because under the Twisting Vines section, the article already said what you wrote: "Twisting vines can also be used similarly to a water bucket, as it can prevent fall damage." So there isn't any need to add your text back in; it's basically already there. Amatulic (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

About the annoyance from 116.882.69
Regarding :

I have seen you have to constantly revert edits from this ip ever since September. Have you ever considered reporting them on the Admin Noticeboard, or warning them on their talk page. It must be hard having to constantly having to undo their poorly attempted edits such as their comparisons with random mobs and their tutorial-like edits all the time. This person has not learned even after i told them on their talk page so i am thinking a block (most likely Permanent) would be necessary. What are your thoughts? James Haydon (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said on the IP's talk page, the fact that some edits are actually pretty good keeps me from requesting a block.
 * I feel that a temporary block to get his attention and get him to start communicating would be helpful.
 * I think the IP can be a good editor, he clearly isn't a vandal, he is acting in good faith. He just needs to listen to guidance and lose the fanboy perspective when editing and pay more attention to grammar and spelling.
 * The address is from Singapore, and having been there numerous times myself (including for my own wedding), I know everyone there is pretty fluent in English although they do have their own peculiar way of using English. Amatulic (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay but them not responding to anything on their talk page and that they never summarize their edits will make it worse of them long term. I recommend they give a reason for this or stop. They could speak English very well as you mentioned so i don't get why they have not yet said anything. James Haydon (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at MCW:AN. Amatulic (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like they were never blocked and that discussion went nowhere so I guess we will have to wait even longer. James Haydon (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That IP address has been quiet for a week. Either that person has taken a break or his ISP has changed his address. Amatulic (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They actually created an account. TheGreatSpring (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Which account?Humiebee (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Their account is User:KieranHafiz. TheGreatSpring (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the same person, he's being unusually communicative in the comment section of his profile page. The IP address never once engaged in conversation on any talk page. Amatulic (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One of my evidence that they are the same person is the videos. TheGreatSpring (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My theory is that they didn't know how to use talk pages and thought that using profile comments are easier. But hey, at least we can finally talk to him. James Haydon (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your undoing my edit to spawner
Opaque blocks block light, spawners don't, thus not blocking light is not a propertry of opaque blocks yet spawners have it, therefore my edit was not a contradiction. – Unsigned comment added by Cool amp (talk • contribs) at 13:42, 18 December 2020‎ (UTC). Sign comments with
 * Hi I didn't object to your addition of the fact that spawners don't block light, I objected to the fact that the sentence you wrote would sound like a contradiction to any casual reader unfamiliar with the Minecraft definition of opacity. I was hasty in reverting you instead of rewriting the sentence, and I apologize for that. I have attempted to reword it so it makes more sense. Amatulic (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Boss Fight Music
I recently saw that you removed links to the boss fight music on all the mini-boss and boss pages for minecraft dungeons. I'm assuming this is because of copyright issues. If that is the case, maybe we can shorten these tacks to 30 seconds and upload them as sounds to the wiki instead. James Haydon (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not link to copyright violations on youtube. And a youtube link is especially inappropriate in the lead paragraph of any article. The purpose of those links smelled like clickbait to me, a means to attract views to someone's personal channel. I have no objection to short sound clips uploaded to this wiki and embedded in the article. Amatulic (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also something similar happened with recently where he added one of his own YouTube videos to the Rampart Captain article in order to show off its health. James Haydon (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Rampart Captain trivia
So on the Rampart Captain page, there is this one ip that keeps adding this trivia saying that it hasn't been confirmed by the devs if this a mini-boss or not. I was going to revert this to your version, but they seem really keen that they are correct. Is there a way to get in contact with the dungeons developers to discuss this? I know it seems stupid to confirm this but the dungeons development team hasn't went into detail why it has so much health. James Haydon (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are an infinite number of speculations that haven't been confirmed by the devs. There is no need to state the obvious about one specific speculation that hasn't been confirmed. One might just as wells say on the rabbit page, for example, "The killer bunny could be added to Bedrock Edition, but that has not been confirmed by the devs" and it would be just as meaningless. Amatulic (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay they just seem to really want that trivia there. If this argument continues and they don't seek the talk page then semi-protection might have to be an option James Haydon (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another anon removed it completely. I just put it back. The trivia can be there, but it doesn't need the speculative qualifier that the IP wants to add. That's the best compromise, in my opinion. Amatulic (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay just make sure of that. James Haydon (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know that they added it back with this reason: "I'm not saying this again, THIS. IS. BIASED. TEXT. You are saying it is not a Mini-boss based on the fact it doesn't have a boss bar. By that logic, I could give a zombie a boss bar without any changes to the zombies stats, and it would still be considered a boss. We don't have any word from the devs if it is a mini-boss or not so it is not fully confirmed if it is a mob or not."
 * I don't think it is a good enough reason but it does surely seem like they know what they're talking about. James Haydon (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with not mentioning a mini-boss at all. Someone just removed that, leaving it saying it's the strongest non-boss in the game, which is true and nobody could argue with it. Amatulic (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That was that did that, the IP's edit got undone but the whole part about it technically not being a mini-boss was removed. I think that will hopefully prevent further speculation and end this silly dispute. James Haydon (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Tutorials/Defeating a Nether fortress
On the Tutorials/Defeating a Nether fortress page there is a section devoted completely to potions. I suggest that we move that whole section on potions to the Potion page. I just wanted to check with you before I did anything. --Brenty333 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Brenty333
 * Hi The section Tutorials/Defeating a Nether fortress contains mostly tutorial instructions. Main space articles like Potion are not tutorials, they are for providing factual information about the game and its mechanics, not "how to" instructions. The only thing I see that would be appropriate for moving over to the potion page is the very first sentence. Amatulic (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert of an ip's edit on Spawner
I noticed that you reverted an edit that removed the dubious tag. Spawners with chicken jockeys do spawn $$ but not in $$. I'm pretty sure that ip meant. When you made that edit summary, I assume that you refer to, right?Humiebee (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replaced the tag with one that specifies Java edition. This sort of thing should be done more widely, in my opinion. While stuff gets developed for Java Edition first, Bedrock Edition has the larger installed base. Readers will more likely be playing Bedrock than Java, so the articles here should be slanted more toward Bedrock by default, specifying Java where there are differences between the two. Amatulic (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Three grammar error
Sorry, I'm russian and don't know english language very well. ;)Maksom4ik (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite all right. Your English is much better than my Russian! Amatulic (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving names
Hello! I reverted your moves at Deepslate Tiles and Deepslate Bricks because those are their in-game names. Look at Stone Bricks for example. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 02:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Woops, you're right. Thanks. Amatulic (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Calcite edit
Rephrased my personal subjective speculation: "* Calcite is the primary mineral in marble." That good, bro? ——24.5.252.198 17:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Better, but unnecessary and irrelevant to the page. Anyone who doesn't know what calcite is can always google it. Amatulic (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edit to mcw:Style guide
In this edit you provided the edit summary "this guide advocates avoiding second person pronouns, so the guide itself should avoid doing so". Don't you think you're being a bit pedantic? The Style Guide is mostly instructions and guidance for writing articles; it's not an article itself. In fact, it's closer to a tutorial, and it makes a specific exemption for tutorials allowing second person pronouns. Your edit does no harm so maybe I shouldn't even have questioned it, but it followed hard upon another edit which you summarized as "grammar" and in which I counted 26 changes, not a single one of which I agree was a grammatical error under any but the most stringent of regimes. I sometimes trend toward the same degree of strictness when I'm feeling vexed or worried, so I'm not ripping on you, but if you're feeling uptight about something maybe it would be a good time to take a walk and relax for a bit. Please forgive me if I'm being too personal. — Auldrick (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Auldrick. Yes, I completely agree I was being pedantic. I also never claimed that my grammar changes were corrections. I consider them improvements. The grammar wasn't strictly wrong to begin with but I felt it could be improved. Style guides themselves are pedantic by nature, or there wouldn't be a point to them. Amatulic (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (As for taking a walk... I truly wish I could. I broke my left big toe yesterday when a heavy object fell on it, and the best I can do today is hobble painfully.) Amatulic (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OOOH, I'm terribly sorry to hear that, hope it heals quickly and completely. Thanks for being so gracious. — Auldrick (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, X-ray confirms a fracture, and the front 1/3 of my toe is turning scary-black, so there's no hope of healing quickly, unfortunately. Because I can't move around much, I have few options other than to sit around and be pedantic. :) Amatulic (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I'm sure your doctor told you what to do, I encourage you to consult them again if it gets terribly painful or the swelling gets worse. Clearly a blood vessel was broken, and if the vein is obstructed it could become serious, especially if the skin was broken. Good luck! – Auldrick (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these sorts of things happen just before or on a weekend! The urgent care doctor referred me to a podiatrist to give a closer examination to the X-ray and advise me; in the meantime I'm trying to keep it immobile, put ice on it, walk (when I must) with a funny shoe that has a sole with only a heel and no toe, and take painkillers. I'll get it sorted out on Monday. The skin isn't broken; the injury is all internal. Amatulic (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Feeling better now, I hope? — Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 00:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Forsen's Law Trivia
Okay someone added trivia about a twitch streamer to the End portal page, I am not a fan of this trivia at all, but they did leave a somewhat valid explanation for their addition. Let me know what you think, I am keeping it temporarily incase its useful for someone, but I don't think its all that necessary. I just came to notify you and see what you think about their reasoning about this. James Haydon (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay I just saw you reverted it and gave a pretty good reason, hopefully they listen to your point and realize their mistake. But I won't be surprised if they revert your edit with the same nonsensical reason. James Haydon (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference (Forsen's own video) is useless because doesn't validate the claim of this being a common joke. The whole thing is about a big speculation, and that has no place on this wiki, even in trivia. The OP is wrong in his edit summary: Trivia isn't "by definition" useless. See MCW:TRIVIA. It's meant for factual information about the topic that doesn't fit into the article. A fact about a fan's speculative experiment doesn't meet any criterion. Three different editors have reverted this trivia now. Amatulic (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay if this trivia keeps getting added again repeatedly, then semi-protection will be necessary. This whole debacle reminds me a lot of the dispute that occurred on the Rampart Captain page, where poorly sourced speculative trivia kept getting added back with an unconcise/ignorant reason. I think I need to handle stuff like this better, but they get really defensive when you revert them. James Haydon (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An admin generally wouldn't protect an article due to one disruptive editor. The solution would be to block that editor. Amatulic (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay but it's just to prevent other ip users from adding that trivia back for some time. Considering on the rampart captain page, there was at least 3 ip addresses that added that speculative trivia there. James Haydon (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And they added it back. Their edit summary being "Nice gatekeeping. The trivia stays, if you have constructive feedback on what an acceptable source is then provide it. Otherwise the page can easily be edited to remove other data without sources that doesn't fit your fast and loose rules." James Haydon (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, this would be considered edit-warring, and result in a block. Three different people have reverted that edit now. It's speculation, it doesn't belong, and the source cited doesn't support the assertion being made. I left a polite message on the IP's talk page, but I don't expect that it will be noticed. Amatulic (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked more closely
I apologize for being overly aggressive while undoing your edit today. I saw that the first instance was a hypothetical conditional, then checked that each of your remaining changes was changing future tense to present, and just assumed they were additional instances of the same. I'll be more careful in the future. (I did notice, incidentally, that you changed Copper to copper and left that one alone.) – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 22:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I wasn't upset or anything. I know we're all here trying to do our best to improve things, particularly the administrators. I have seen few instances in which future tense is necessary. Most of them are factual implications (zero-conditional assertions) describing objective rules, rather than hypothetical conditions.


 * By the way, maybe you can help me with something: I ported Template:Tree list over from Wikipedia, and it works except for the sub-Template:Tree list/branching, which requires Template:Tree list/styles.css (which was changed to the correct content type by another admin), but the tag Wikipedia uses to include a CSS sub-page isn't supported here. Do you know how that might be accomplished? Amatulic (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about it myself, but see this MediaWiki documentation. It sounds like you would need an option to be enabled in MediaWiki, which might be something Dhranios could do or you might have to ask a Gamepedia/Fandom wiki manager for it. You could also copy the CSS code into a personal CSS page defined in your MCW preferences, but of course that would only work for people who take the steps to enable that. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 23:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of that documentation. I knew I could use my own personal CSS page, but that wouldn't help anyone if I used a tree list in an article. I'll ask Dhranios first. Amatulic (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

About the images on your userpage
There's a section on your user page with images you uploaded to the wiki. However, two of the images have been replaced with renders, giving the impression that you can use rendering software. Do you mind if these images are removed, because those renders were uploaded by other users. The images I'm talking about are the Moolip image and the Jack o' lanterns disabling a Blaze spawner image. James Haydon (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Done.


 * I have no idea why anyone would want to create an isometric render of the blaze spawner disabled by jack o' lanterns. My son and I came up with that by experimentation, and I added it to the spawner article as a counterpoint to what I considered needlessly elaborate examples on the page. It subsequently generated a bit of controversy after it was removed and added back, because this method apparently doesn't work in Java Edition, and even in Bedrock Edition it doesn't work in all cases (see Talk:Spawner). So I don't understand why someone would immortalize a rather obscure solution with an isometric view. Amatulic (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's odd. Should it still be removed from the page and deleted, even if it's an isometric render? James Haydon (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)