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)

Leave redirects when moving pages
When moving pages please don't uncheck "Leave redirect", especially when moving user pages. My page just disappeared without my knowledge and left behind a wall of move notices. Even a double redirect is better than no redirect as I can easily follow the page's path. – Nixinova   02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it time to fix your name?
"User-12316399" is so arbitrary, perhaps it's time to re-name yourself back to what it previously was. FVbico (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, change it! :D--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 19:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

important message
SUBSCRIBE TO PEWDIEPIE AND UNSUBSCRIBE FROM T-SERIES Just trying to project the message, pal, T-Series is closing in. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 100.11.86.118 (talk) at 00:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * Thank you, and may YouTube forever remain a tube for You, not Corporations. - User-12316399 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please don’t use religion, and hostile edit summaries, it gives off a VERY hostile feeling to users who edit tjose pages, effectively making them afraid to edit. FVbico (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries (again)
Please don’t contain foul language in your edit summaries again, especially this one, it gives off a VERY hostile feeling to users who view and edit those pages, effectively making them afraid to edit. — Hayden Bob Mutthew ( talk, contribs ) 09:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * How, exactly, is any of that my doing? I'm not the one who created the section. - User-12316399 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You should at least remove the foul language on the summary (that is remove the whole /* … */). You can also censor the title on the talk page. — Hayden Bob Mutthew ( talk, contribs ) 09:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Block renders
Please render some of the images with blender before you upload them. You can use the files from here and here to create them. Magiczocker (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Note for when removing redlinks.
Use escaped redlink as it removes the link but doesn't affect the visual content. – Nixinova   08:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving files from Revision N to something else
Most of the files currently follow the naming of Revision N, which is very intuitive, and you don't need to search for the file name, please don't go and move the pre-texture update revisions to different names, or move away from the naming scheme in general. FVbico (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Revision N system is anything but intuitive and frankly I've come to hate it. It doesn't provide any information as to when the texture was changed, and blocks can have a different amount of texture revisions depending on the edition (pocket edition didn't have classic gold, etc.). That being said, I'm all up for a community portal verdict on this if need be, but the current system just isn't that good. - User-12316399 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a lot easier to find the files though, and making it "(between XX and XX)" is even harder to find, as you may not know the exact versions. For Revision N, you could just browse through the revisions ar ease, and additionally, we could include the versions in the file description instead (which you can also search for with the search page). FVbico (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no consistent way to show version numbers in the parentheses so it makes it impossible to actually find the versions. Did you use a hyphen or dash? Did you include the word "Classic"? It's just way less intuitive that a simple "Revision N". – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 19:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your update to Pillager
Equating Pi Edition with Legacy Console Edition is a strawman argument based on a false analogy. Pi Edition was never on a par with Java, Bedrock, and Legacy Console. It never had any articles beyond its main page and never had a significant number of players to read them if they existed. Contrast that with Legacy Console Edition, which still has many articles devoted to it, is still played by lots of people, and I think it's reasonable to assume is still being taught to and learned by its players' children and younger siblings. The two editions are not remotely similar, and applying the same standards to them is unreasonable. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)