User talk:BDJP007301

Archives

• August 2014 - July 2015
• August 2015 - July 2016
• August 2016 - July 2017
• August 2017 - July 2018

Patroller right

Hi! Dinoguy1000 has put you in the patroller user group, which allows you to mark other edits as patrolled and rollback edits. Please take a look at MCW:Patrollers for an explanation of the role, as well as a quick guide. Here's a brief overview of both of the main permissions:

• Marking edits as patrolled. This basically tells other patrollers and administrators that the edit has been reviewed and any problems both content-wise and formatting-wise, have been fixed - e.g., open HTML tags or incorrect information. Since you're a new patroller, if you're unsure about something, it's better to leave it to a more experienced patroller or administrator. Additionally, you can take a look at Special:log/patrol, to get an idea of when other patrollers mark edits as patrolled.
• Rolling back edits. Clicking "rollback" will instantly rollback all of the last contributions to the page by the user without leaving an edit summary, while clicking the pencil button will allow the summary to be edited. The most important thing here, is if there's any chance that the user was trying to be helpful to the wiki or the information might be correct but you haven't tested it, make sure to leave an explanatory edit summary.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to let me know! Additionally, if you don't want this user right, feel free to ask for it to be removed here, and I can ping Dinoguy.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 13:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits

Can you please stop reverting my edits to PlayStation 3 Edition, PlayStation Vita Edition, Xbox 360 Edition, Wii U Edition and Legacy Console Edition version history? They will continue to receive bugfix/non-feature updates, such as the one that came yesterday for PS3 Edition. --Giorgosarv18 (^talk/_contribs) 12:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:PlayStation_3_Edition. -BDJP ^(t|c) 13:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Rollbacking edits

Hi BDJP, and thank you very much for your vandalism fighting - your work here is greatly appreciated! I just wanted to remind you that unless an edit is clear vandalism, you should always leave an edit summary when reverting. Vandalism has a very specific meaning - the act of deliberately trying to destruct the wiki. Many times, an edit will seem like vandalism but it's really not. Not all unconstructive edits are vandalism. Test edits, inserting opinions, and not following the style guide are all examples of edits that might seem obviously unconstructive to you, but are often in fact an honest effort that just is bad style. In these cases, it's better to assume good faith and leave a civil, clear, and explanatory edit summary. Rollbacking good-faith edits without leaving an edit summary is harmful, as it can be confusing and discouraging for new editors.

A few recent examples where you probably should have explained your revert reasoning include this, this this, this, this, this, and this. For comparison: this, this, and this are great examples of where it's perfectly appropriate to rollback without any kind of edit summary, because these edits are clear, obvious, deliberate vandalism. Please don't take this as a warning or anything, but rather as some friendly advice that you might want to keep in mind while you continue your wonderful efforts to improve the Minecraft Wiki. :)-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 01:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC

Thanks. I’ll do my best to improve. :) -BDJP ^(t|c) 02:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to help the wiki and improve your editing; it's much appreciated. Again, your vandalism-fighting efforts are great; keep up the good work, but preferably with the things pointed out in mind. One more thing, though; when marking redirects for deletion, it's generally good practice to put {{delete}} below the redirect rather than replacing the redirect with the template. This way, admins don't have to dig into the history in order to view what the page redirected to, and readers searching for that title will be taken directly to the target page without having to view a random big red box, until an admin considers whether the redirect should be deleted or not. You can see a discussion related to this at MCT:PORTAL#Deletion templates to redirects which you are more than welcome to comment on (even though it is a bit old). Happy editing!-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Programmer Art texture pack

Thanks for finding that source. I really did do a search for it and only found one reference, to 1.5.2 where it had something to do with changing the paintings, I think. And it's odd that just 10 hours ago Jappa said “The original textures will be available for free later. This might be directly in the game or somewhere else. We haven't decided yet.” – @JasperBoerstra (Sorry for the partial post. Hit a wrong key I guess.) – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your welcome. -BDJP ^(t|c) 09:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Private issue description rule

Good day. With regard to this edit you made, it isn't immediately clear which rule is referenced, and the style guide subpage on version articles doesn't seem to specify such an exception to listing bug titles. Could you please link to a rule restricting private issue titles, or a discussion resulting in such a restriction? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit by Dinoguy1000. -BDJP ^(t|c) 14:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be formalized; MCW:Style guide/Versions#Fixes should be the best place for this guideline. — BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) 14:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yes, we should list that in actual rules/guidelines pages (if we decide that's how we act). A single edit isn't a rule. It's more like a precedent. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Needs consensus

How many people need to agree with a proposed edit in order to count as a consensus? an_awsome_person (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1309433

How can such a basic background be copyrighted? I don't understand, and it seems I'm not the only one. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

All it is is just cropped from the website shown in this video. -BDJP ^(t|c) 16:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Still, do the cropped screenshots contain Mojang-copyrighted assets? The skins are likely to have separate copyrights. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The blue background. -BDJP ^(t|c) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly doubt single RGB colors are copyrightable, they are unlikely to meet the threshold of originality. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that a plain color is not copyrighted. If it were a complex pattern, maybe, but this is a completely uniform shade of blue. Nobody owns a color.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 18:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because the background is a certain shade of blue does not mean it's automatically copyrighted by Mojang. For instance, this paragraph is obviously not copyrighted by Mojang even though it uses "its colour". The skin would be copyrighted by its owner so a plain fair use copyright template should be applied. – Nixinova   18:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nixinova: How exactly are plain colors copyrighted at all?-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 18:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The colours aren't copyrighted but they can be trademarked if the colour is associated very much with the brand.^[1] #a0b3de has not been trademarked by Mojang as its not automatic so it definitely has no ownership by Mojang. Even if #a0b3de was trademarked by Mojang they would still not be able to actually do anything against whoever uses "their colour" (using BDJP's argument) as its just a colour. – Nixinova   18:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm not clear on what you're trying to say. I agree that they have not been trademarked by Mojang, it is just a standard RGB color, so why would we need a fair use rational and tag it as copyrighted?-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 18:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We need a fair use tag because the skin is copyrighted. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

tl;dr colors can't be copyrighted but can be trademarked if they're largely associated with one company. I would think the skin itself is probably copyrighted but I'm not completely sure. It's better than a Mojang rationale anyway. – Nixinova   18:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We'll need to do that to other files BDJP batch-edited today then. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, you're talking about the skin, that makes a lot more sense then. Thanks for the explanation and apologies for not realizing that. In that case, because the skin was created by the image's author, they get to decide the license. However, because they've been inactive for 8 years, it's very unlikely that we would be able to contact them about it, so yeah, a fair use/copyright license would probably be the best idea.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 18:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Pocket 0.12.1 Alpha hotbar

I did have 6+inventory button my my Kindle Fire, and 8+inventory button on my iPad (up to Brick Stairs when starting in creative). I would assume most have 5 because phones only allowed for 5. Changing D-pad size can sometimes also allow for one extra inventory slot. 4hrue2kd83f (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Also my Kindle Fire never updated past 0.9.0 so I can send you some screenshots. 4hrue2kd83f (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Q&A

Excuse me, I want to know what does "rvv." means? Louis0921gee (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Rvv is short for “revert vandalism”. -BDJP ^(t|c) 13:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Drowned

I've reverted your reversion of my edit to drowned, but rather than continue down that path, I want to point out that there is no contradiction with the simple statement that a zombie's head must be submerged to convert to a drowned. It is demonstrably incorrect to state that the entire body must be submerged. My edit was an attempt to correct that error. The head can be suffocating in water while the body is in air, if water is being held up by signs or other water-displacing blocks. The drowned farm described in Tutorials/Drowned farming relies on this fact, allowing the player to whack at the exposed legs of zombies drowned because their heads (not bodies) were inside water blocks. If you can clarify it better than I did, please do so, but we shouldn't restore the erroneous statement that the entire body must be submerged. ~ Amatulic (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No idea

It seems someone decided to re-add my post on the Herobrine talk section, though I have no idea why. Do you have any idea? I know you re-removed it, just wondering why it re-appeared. Somethingoriginai (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Somethingoriginal: You'd have to ask the person who restored it, Weixiangbeh123 (talk • contribs • logs • block log). Personally, I appreciated your comment, but I agree with its removal, as that sort of discussion isn't what the talk page is for. ~ Amatulic (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Minecraft_Wiki/editcopy Official links

Hi. I see you reverted my edit removing ThinkGeek. I did so at the advice of Pcj, the wiki manager, on the Gamepedia Slack channel #feedback. I realize that ThinkGeek is licensed to sell Minecraft merch, but so are Target and other places. That does not make them official sites nor endorsed (as opposed to merely authorized) by Mojang. If we want to list sites that sell official merch (seems kind of spammy to me), they should have their own heading such as "Licensed merchandise", not be listed as official links. Comments? – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 15:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I’m pretty sure putting merchandise under “Licensed merchandise” can close that supposed loophole. -BDJP ^(t|c) 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)