User talk:Wolffillms

You removed enchantment tables from planned versions
Your edit summary says that it isn't true. Look at the last comment. A mojang developer said something about enchantment tables. ~From Contrapple 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops. I realize I looked at a response. Comments on Twitter can be confusing. ~From Contrapple Empty Map.png 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Contractors"
BDJP (t 13:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 4J Studios falls under the contractor category as they develop the console editions of Minecraft. They also didn't develop Banjo-Koozie, but remade it for the Xbox 360.
 * 2) Microsoft Studios does not fall under any category as they own Mojang, and Mojang is a subsidiary of Microsoft Studios.
 * 3) Sony Computer Entertainmant does not fall under any category. They just publish the PS editions of Minecraft.


 * Like you just said


 * Microsoft Studios is a contacter because they are a "company that undertakes a contract to provide materials or labor to perform a service or do a job." They publish the X-box versions and windows phone version for Mojang. I am aware Mojang is a substidary of Microsft Studios, but that dosn't have to do with anything.
 * Sony computer entertainment is a contacter because they are a "company that undertakes a contract to provide materials or labor to perform a service or do a job." They publish the Playstation versions for Mojang.
 * my bad about Banjo-Koozie
 * Wolffillms (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it makes sense to list contracted companies, though PlayStation and Microsoft are no more contracted then Apple is. They may all publish a version of the game, but they are hardly involved in anything other then that (it is like saying a record label or iTunes is contracted to make the CD, or youtube is contracted by youtubers). They don't provide materials nor labor, just a place to post the game. So I would suggest leaving those two out or making a new section for people who publish the games. 4J Studios I agree is contracted though. – KnightMiner  t/c 00:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally think Apple wouldn't be a contracter as Mojang technoloy publishes Minecraft: Pocket edition. However Sony and Microsoft do publish the console editions.
 * Wolffillms (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain why Apple does not publish the games, yet Sony and Microsoft do? They both are part of the system's virtual store, so I cannot see much of a difference. – KnightMiner  t/c 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Minecraft: Pocket edition may be on an apple devise but it is still published by Mojang, While Minecraft: Console edition is on microsoft/Sony devises and are published by microsoft/Sony. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolffillms (talk • contribs) at 02:31, 16 June 2015‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with

PE 0.12.0
You have been restoring info on the page that I find irrelevant, as Illdicia had better, simplified text rather then the long, hard-to-read text you added. --MarioProtIV (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * there was no info on sneaking or sprinting so I added it. Someone may have undone the previous way to was written, but i don't know who. Also there is no edit warring going on.Wolffillms (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have been as per some diff pages., can you explain? The BlobsPaper.png 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing/behavioral restrictions
Please take note of the editing/behavioral restrictions outlined at Talk:Pocket Edition Alpha 0.12.0 and Project:Admin noticeboard, and in particular that they apply to all edits you perform on the wiki, not just those to Pocket Edition Alpha 0.12.0. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 05:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft: Story Mode
Really?

Well, I thought you were fine with my revision of the page (here), but you seem to be adding useless information and information already mentioned once more. We don't need a description for the OotS members as its already mentioned in the plot. We don't need useless grammar. We don't need to mention the history behind it and say "the companies got serious".

Pardon my rudeness, but the information you are "adding and changing" is complete BS. -BDJP (t 21:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * all information I am adding was shown in the livestream and is useful and not mentioned. Also clean language please. Wolffillms (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Signature
You should fix your sig; it's not parsing the HTML, as seen on the admin noticeboard. -- Orthotopetalk 16:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that you forgot to uncheck the Treat signature as wikitext (without an automatic link) box, which is turning your entire signature into one giant link to your username instead of parsing it. (That is a mistake that I've also made in the past :) ) - Sonicwave ( talk &#124; c )  17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * oops my bad, thanks :). Wolffillms (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories
When you create a user page, including as an article proposal or redesign proposal, you must remove all namespace categories. Those categories are made to help users find related articles, not to find random projects by users. – KnightMiner  t/c 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. Thanks! Wolffillms (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's just drop it.
What do ya say? Friends from here on out? -BDJP (t 01:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. :) Wolffillms (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Move proposals
If you are going to make a move proposal, wait a few days for a response, not a few hours. Most of the ones you made recently did not really need a proposal (you could have just moved them directly), but it still feels off to have something proposed then done before anyone has a chance to comment.

Also, if you are moving a heavily linked article (such as griefing), leave a redirect. There is no reason the mainspace shouldn't redirect to a tutorial if the term is does not have an article but has a tutorial. – KnightMiner  t/c 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have actually waited a day each time before moving a page, which gives plenty of time for a comment. Also I believe that I did need to use a proposal as it is getting consensus, and if I didn't, I know people would complain or revert it. As for the redirect I figured it didn't make sense to have a redirect from the mainspace to a tutorial, however I guess it is ok. Wolffillms (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A day is not enough if you actually want opinions, as it requires people to be online every day at the exact time between when you were online, which a lot of users actually aren't (for example, I was not online long enough to form an opinion when the original proposal was made, thus giving me no time to comment before the action took place. And I am one of the few who actually is online frequently every day). Also, if you did believe it needed consensus in this case, you should have waited for someone to agree or given people a bit more time to disagree. As an example, whenever I make a similar proposal, I usually wait 3 to 4 days after the last comment (or a week if no comments are made) before taking action. – KnightMiner  t/c 00:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Due to the fact that this is a Wiki and is constantly evelvong and changing, I personally believe 24 hours is plenty of time for active editors to leave there comments and opinions on the change. Also as no one had commented and therefor disagreed, this is thaving consensus. Wolffillms (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I will step in and say that 24 hours is definitely not enough to gauge a consensus, not all active people are on within an 24 hour period. You should allow around a week or more for others to leave their opinions. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 02:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the definition of an active user means active every day, than 24 hours would be fine. Also if users should wait for about a week for other users to leave their comments and opinions, could you add this to MCW:TALK to avoid further confusion with any users. Wolffillms (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The definition of active is actually "any action within the last 30 days", see Special:ActiveUsers (though note that the actual list there is a bit broken due to a MediaWiki bug); otherwise a couple of our active admins would not be considered active. I'll propose adding a line about proposals to the talk page guidelines about this. – KnightMiner  t/c 17:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The page actually clearly says that "This is a list of users who have had some kind of activity within the last 30 days." This means that the pages definition of being active on the Wiki is preforming at least just one edit a month (the page is really keeping track of users that simply do anything). This means that if a user only does one edit in a month they are according to the page still "active". Most active users on the Wiki however, would consider "active" as performing edits daily or still multiple times weekly. Also other than User:Dinoguy1000, User:Majr, User:Goandgoo, and User:Orthotope all the Bureaucrats and Administrators are completely inactive. Wolffillms (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the activity of admins/bureaucrats has to do with this. Renaming pages is an editorial area, not an administrative one, and the opinions of admins should therefore not be given any more weight than those of any other editors. And I will agree that a day is not long enough to guage consensus in a discussion, unless the current response shows a foregone conclusion. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The only reason I was talking about the activity of admins/bureaucrats is because User:KnightMiner was saying above that "...otherwise a couple of our active admins would not be considered active." Also I have absolutely never said anything here about renaming pages being an administrative area or that the opinions of admins should be given more weight than those of any other editors. Wolffillms (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Do not revert any of BDJP007301's edits, on any page, for any reason. This disruptive edit warring has gone on for far too long, and you've both received several warnings about it. -- Orthotopetalk 19:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how I am to be blamed for his constant reverting all my edIts for no apparent reason and making up excuses for doing so. Also there has been no warnings about edit warring between us or any warning about an interaction ban. Wolffillms (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Because you revert his reverts, which keeps the edit war going. It doesn't matter who started it, edit warring is disruptive behavior. After the first revert, you should discuss the edits you're trying to make on a talk page instead of performing them again. Given the warnings about this sort of behavior from July and October, I could have issued blocks over what happened earlier today. I decided to give both of you one more chance to behave like responsible editors instead. -- Orthotopetalk 23:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Tutorial
I disagree with that article being a disambiguation page, for several reasons:
 * 1) Firstly, when a user types in "Tutorial", their goal is more likely tutorials about the game then and article describing a tutorial.
 * 2) Secondly, the Console Edition tutorial is exclusive to the Console Edition, which statistically (by sales) is only a small fraction of Minecraft's user base and based on the wikis main focus shouldn't be the main focus
 * 3) Thirdly, Tutorial has redirected to Tutorials for years, that alone qualifies it as more commonly used target as we are currently using it! It requires way more effort than it is worth to fix that problem.
 * 4) Fourth, tutorial a singular alternative to tutorials, the two terms should be treated as the same. Removing that not only adds confusion that removing an "S" means a completely different meaning, but removes a very useful convince for linking, as the plural link feature does not work in reverse.
 * 5) Lastly, disambiguation articles containing only two articles are generally useless. Just redirecting to one of the pages which is the more likely target is much more useful to the user, and saves effort on linking as links to disambig articles are usually best avoided.

I added a note on the top of Tutorials which links Console Edition tutorial, which I think is quite enough for the fewer number of people and few links wanting that page from "Tutorial", so what good reason is there for it being a disambiguation page? – KnightMiner  t/c 21:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be better for it to be a disambig page as:


 * There is an equal chane of a user trying to navigate to one article or another.
 * The Minecraft Wiki is clearly dedicated to having information about All versions of the game and does not have preferences to one platform or another.
 * Simply because the redirect has been like this for years and is currently used, does not mean there is not a better alternative. Also it doesn't require much effort to fix this and change it from a redirect to a disambig (I already did it).
 * As in Console Edition is is simply called "Tutorial" and not "Console Edition tutorial" (no clue why the page is called differently now that I think about it but whatever.) both articles have an equal claim to have it as a redirection page to the article, therefor naturally a disambig makes sense.
 * Normally this would be the case, however as there is an equal chance a user would wan't either page (as said in #1) and as both articles have an equal claim to the page (as said in #4) this is not the case.

Wolffillms (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please explain why. I stated several reasons there is not an equal chance, you cannot just ignore them saying "because I said so" and expect me to agree. My main point here is if I went to a wiki and typed "tutorial", I couldn't care less about every detail of the tutorial world on a single edition I may or may not play, I would want to know the basics of the game. Since the world itself does not require a guide and is edition specific (unlike the tutorials), a user is better benefited by the tutorials for all editions.
 * We cover all editions, but our main focus is the computer edition as it was the first and most feature filled. Notice most articles are written like "this feature exists, but is this way in the Pocket and Console editions". I recall this idea being mentioned here most recently.
 * Replacing a redirect does not solve the problem that we now have many links that need to be redirected, as every link to tutorial on this wiki currently means tutorials. Every single one, I have not found one exception. I don't see the point of changing all of them just so we can tell users "it is possible that the page you want is not the one you want". The hat note solves this problem, why remove the useful link
 * Its proper name might be simply "Tutorial", but that does not remove the fact that having two separate articles under a singular and plural case is just confusing and makes linking so much more difficult. Take brick and bricks as examples. If you think Tutorial should be the name for the article, propose moving the entire Tutorials name to a different location, but don't separate the one word into two meanings just because of equal claim, that is what hat notes are for, as seen on equal claim titles such as Nether Bricks, Snow, or Clay.
 * Again, what proof do you have of equal chance? I stated above that past links, wiki convention, and more likely mindset of users (including myself) would want actual tutorials (not documentation of a tutorial), so as stated in #4, why make a confusing article name split when a hat note very adequately covers it?
 * – KnightMiner  t/c 00:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit on Wii U Edition.
Can you provide a source from Mojang explicitly stating that the game is more expensive due to DLC? iDigitalTimes is not a reliable source. -BDJP (t 00:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Articles not from Mojang are frequently used as sources, as long as they are able to reference the statement that is being said, which in this case it does. Also you are linking to a page about official sources (from Mojang or related to) not what makes a source reliable (being able to reference the statement being said). If however you would like an official statement for I can get one for you. Wolffillms (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, it references Mojang's original article, but the point is that, again, Mojang does not say in the original article that the game is more expensive due to DLC. -BDJP (t 17:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if the source is not stated by Mojang if it backs up the claim being said (also not even talking about a article from Mojang). Wolffillms (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Any response? It's been two weeks. -BDJP (t 05:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Been busy lately, relied above. Also it does not matter when a user response and there is no point to bringing up the time of a response or lack of. Wolffillms (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)