User talk:MinecraftPhotos4U

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
MinecraftPhotos4U is inactive.
MinecraftPhotos4U hasn't edited since July 19, 2018, so he will probably not receive any messages left here. Please keep this in mind before leaving a message.

Screenshot categories[edit]

Why are you removing Category:Screenshots with mods from screenshots taken to demonstrate features of the Aether mod? -- Orthotope talk 09:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the whole point of those screenshots are to demonstrate a mod, so having mods in them isn't a problem? ultradude25Talk
02:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
"Place this category on any files that are using mods, unless they are demonstrating the mod.

Also that this category is part of the screenshot fixing project, and I assume that they are meant to be removing mods from screenshots (however if this is not the case, I do apologise). - MinecraftPhotos4U 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Please Not Change one You Made Tree Image to SquareMan Images,REALLY IS FAKE!FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR I CALL YOU A NOOB JohnHOne (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

0.9.0 Pocket Edition Features[edit]

Please don't add any features from 0.9.0 to the history tables until they have appeared in a development version. GoandgooTalk
05:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

pocket edition upcoming features[edit]

I deleted the pocket edition upcoming features of 0.9.0 because the update is soon and the developers don't have enough time to add those things herobrine3701–Preceding unsigned comment was added by herobrine3701 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Endermen picking up blocks[edit]

Re this revert, no. Your edit claims that any newly-added "solid gravity-affected block" will automatically be able to be picked up by Endermen by virtue of it being a "solid gravity-affected block". The actual case is that the current members of "solid gravity-affected block" (which is what, only sand and gravel? And maybe TNT, depending on your definition of "solid"?) just by chance are all on the list of blocks able to be picked up by Endermen. Anomie x (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In-game description[edit]

Please follow the style guide and do not add empty subsections for the console edition. See also my edits. —F‌enhl 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously though. If you're going to mass-edit articles, at least get your header spacing right so that I won't have to clean up after you. —F‌enhl 11:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm terrible with spacing, but I'll try - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC).
Please leave spaces between the equal signs and the title of a section header. —F‌enhl 11:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are you adding these sections? They contain no useful information, and if they should be on the page at all, they certainly shouldn't be their own section. MattTalk
⎜ 13:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It only really seems appropriate to document what it says in-game. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I could see it possibly working as a small caption under the image in the infobox, but certainly not as a dedicated section in the article. It's not actually useful information. MattTalk
⎜ 15:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a better idea. Or we could position it somewhere else like the bottom of the page? Or possibly a seperate RespectiveBlockOrItem/description page. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how these sections are at all useful. None of them say anything that isn't already in the article, many are meaningless fluff, and the ones on the armor pages are outright confusing for everyone who isn't playing PE. -- Orthotopetalk 16:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the others are as well.But the descriptions are in-game, and I found it appropriate to take note of them on the wiki, especially as most are getting removed over 0.9.0. Possibly we could put it near the bottom? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, these are being removed? Why not just add them to the History section then? —F‌enhl 20:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rotateable blocks[edit]

Your rotateable logs photo had quartz and hay besides logs, whereas only logs are expected. That's why I reverted it to a previous edition (so sorry). See also File talk:Rotatedlogblocks.png. –Regards, Naista2002Talk
11:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

1.8 fences[edit]

Can you please remove the Nether fence from File:New Fences.png? --Naista2002Talk
14:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I mainly put it there for comparison, but I'll remove it eventually. Wish they would add a nether rock fence gate though... - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, and thanks for your edit on Sheep, but please note that this wiki uses American English, not British English and so "centre" must be written as "center", "behaviour" → "behavior", "colour" → "color" etc. Once again, thanks, but keep that in mind. --Naista2002Talk
11:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please help me download forge so I can put mods on minecraft? and explain it step by step.[edit]

Ive tried everything and I don't know how to download forge and I really want to have mods like biomes o plenty. - –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Dylanyork1 (talkcontribs) at 07:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I can't remember too well, but you have to download the Forge of the specific mod you want to use, run it in your .minecraft folder, then it should create a mods folder which you put mod .jars into. Not entirely sure though - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Signing comments[edit]

Please review the documentation of Template:Unsigned; to use it properly, you need to provide the username and timestamp of the unsigned comment – just typing {{Unsigned}} doesn't work. Template:AutoUnsigned will add these automatically, but note that it uses the timestamp and author of the last revision of the page; for older comments, you need to get that information from the page history. -- Orthotopetalk 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And you should be substituting these templates (add a suffix subst: just after {{’s, before the template name). — Agent Nick the Red37 (talk · contribs) f.k.a. Naista2002 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, if you want to help sign unsigned comments, please learn to use the template correctly. -- Orthotopetalk 20:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Quartz is a mineral, not a rock[edit]

You're the one who added quartz to the list of rocks and you also reverted my edit saying quartz is indeed a rock. Wikipedia says it's a mineral and makes up igneous and metamorphic rocks. The list of minerals also includes iron, gold, diamond and coal, so, if we're going to include Quartz to the Rock page, I think we should include all the ores and block forms of minerals (or just remove quartz from there). What do you think? --Mine4017 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft ≠ real life. –LauraFi - talk 22:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I know Minecraft is not real life, but the Block of Quartz article says it's a mineral block, and I don't know of any source calling it a rock or stone. --Mine4017 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


The link to the Herobrine page was the speculative part. White eyes, yes of course. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 02:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


Message for you on the community portal – Sealbudsman talk/contr 17:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop marking redirects for deletion[edit]

We haven't decided what redirects to delete, so stop marking them. There's already potentially loads of links you've broken. MajrTalk
09:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I check WhatLinksHere on every page before marking them, and the very vast majority have no links whatsoever.. The only links I ever break are on foreign language pages (and why, exactly, would these link to an English redirect?), user pages (if the user cares enough, they can fix it, because editing another user's page is kind of frowned upon) and talk pages. -MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
WhatLinksHere doesn't take into account external websites. It's not uncommon for external sites to link to a wiki, and up until a recent MW version, opening a redirect would leave the redirect title in the address bar, meaning many external links will be to redirects.
Additionally, an unused redirect doesn't mean it isn't useful. People may still wish to search for it. MajrTalk
10:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
In reply to this, just because something has an S at the end doesn't exclude it from being something that a user may search or be linked to. Please stop marking these redirects for deletion. GoandgooTalk
11:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
They are completely pointless. A link to [[zombies]] could easily be replaced with a link to the functionally identical [[zombie]]s, and chances are people would be more likely to search for "Zombie" than "Zombies" anyway. See Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Redirect cleanup. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
There hasn't been a definitive outcome of the proposal yet. GoandgooTalk
12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Unknown version history[edit]

Adding unknown history using a comment is not necessary. It makes the history less likely to appear because it will only be seen in the recent changes. Instead, add the version history and set the version to ?. This will make it visible to readers who potentially know the answer, and it will put the page into Category:Unknown version history. The BlobsPaper.png 03:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File description headers[edit]

Generally, the section should be named "Summary" rather than "description". I have fixed a few of these by looking through your contributions. The BlobsPaper.png 03:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Are you intending to fix this? MajrTalk
03:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's mildly worrying. Hooray for google images though, that should be it sorted. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


The purpose of capitalization redirects is to avoid links like [[Spider Eye|spider eye]]. Disambiguation pages should never have links to them, except in dablinks. Therefore, the capitalization redirect is unnecessary and should be deleted. The BlobsPaper.png 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Useless file redirects"[edit]

Please do not mark a file redirect as useless until no pages are linking it. This includes translations and user pages. If a file is used on those pages, update the link or leave the redirect. KnightMiner t/c 20:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't abuse moves to delete pages[edit]

Those pages weren't deleted because there has yet to be an agreement on what redirects should be kept. They should've never been marked for deletion to begin with (although I agree that most are likely useless and should go once there is an agreement), additionally the saturation of the deletion category has resulted in actual deletion requests being ignored, so I have cleared all the redirect deletion requests. MajrTalk
04:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You're still abusing excessive moves to delete or "hide" redirects (moving them to subpages), as well as making controversial moves without discussion such as moving Book (disambiguation) and Map (disambiguation) to plural titles. Until you're ready to actually discuss all the changes and deletions you want to make, I'm requesting that you no longer move pages. Further abuse of the move tool will result in a block. MajrTalk
03:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Having mainspace pages that redirect to pages about servers/mods doesn't feel right to me though. Wouldn't that be a violation of Rule #2? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
In which case they should be marked for deletion rather than pointlessly moving them, and existing uses edited instead of creating a load of broken links on prominent pages... MajrTalk
12:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
...hence why I had removed every link to the redirects I was moving from "prominent" pages before going ahead with moving them? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Then why am I still having to go through and fix all the links you broke? MajrTalk
10:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
There were no links at all to those version history pages aside from ancient outdated userpages, inactive and redundant translation projects, and the odd talk page, none of which qualify as of any encyclopedic value to me. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about the edits I've been making for the past 5 hours fixing broken links, many of which were created by you. If they're useless, they should be deleted, not moved. You're just hiding the problem, and you were specifically warned to not abuse the move tool to delete pages. MajrTalk
12:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Why I reverted your edit to Bedrock Edition 1.2[edit]

I wanted to explain this reversion in a little more detail. First, since the bug wasn't listed in the change log, it's kind of speculative whether it was fixed in this release as opposed to having been fixed incidentally and unintentionally by another change, or even by a combination of changes in different releases. The fix release on Mojira isn't necessarily reliable in such cases, because there was no actual patch made to the code for it. So saying something was fixed in a particular release should always be based ultimately on the change logs, which are authoritative for bug fixes. Second, we don't document bugs because active bugs require too much editing and cross referencing with Mojira for us to keep up with, while fixed bugs would only describe how it used to work, which violates MCW:UPTODATE. So bugs should really only be mentioned on version history pages, and then only because those pages document what was in the change logs. (It's kind of redundant that we essentially duplicate the change logs — users could simply look there — but I guess we do it for completeness and to make the info searchable on the wiki.) I hope this clarifies things for you. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the article creations[edit]

I thought they were actual updates, as the Java version history page doesn't say they are unreleased or anything (which should probably be changed). – Nixinova via mobile 08:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Was going to remove them from the page in the first place, but I became reluctant after seeing the actually released 0.26 wasn't there. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving over redirects[edit]

In order to move a page over a redirect, two conditions must be met: the redirect must have only one line in its page history, and the redirect must point to the page you're trying to move. This lets users revert inappropriate page moves, but keeps people from breaking things too much by moving pages over unrelated redirects. -- Orthotopetalk 21:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Clay (block) rename[edit]

Please don't rename pages just to delete redirects to them, as you did with Clay (block) to delete the redirect at Clay (Block); this clutters the edit history with useless entries. Tag redirects you think should be deleted with {{Delete}}, as you would have to do with any other page. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to recreate that one. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to achieve? It's also pointless to recreate the redirect with a deletion tag once it's been deleted. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And in this particular case, note that there are a number of pages which link to Clay (Block); these links should probably be updated to avoid pointing at the redlink. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
In that case, you'll probably have to unprotect the affected Issues subpages (whyever they're admin only in the first place, anyway), as well as the community portal archive.
Also, is there truly any benefit in updating the redlinks in other people's userspaces? It's their responsibility to take care of them, and if they don't/aren't here to update them, chances are they're harbouring outdated information and shouldn't be trusted anyway. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The Issues pages were originally protected to ensure people would stop using them to report bugs; it's probably been long enough that that protection could be reconsidered now.
I've never had a solid opinion on whether it's worth the effort to update userpages for stuff like this or not. If I'm running AWB I generally do so just because it's not really any extra effort, but when I'm editing manually it's much more hit-or-miss. That being said, it doesn't hurt to at least look over these pages quickly to see if someone's just made a copy of an old version of some article, since there's no reason for these to be kept (in such cases, though, I prefer to blank rather than deleting). ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
On the topic of seemingly unneccesary page protections, why are /video subpages also admins-only? There's some that should be marked for deletion that I'm not able to. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Because historically we had problems with people adding non-Curse videos for blocks and items and whatnot (possibly there were also cases of people replacing Curse videos with non-Curse videos as well). ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Proof of existence"[edit]

Hi, the preferred method to linking to these proofs is using references, to please include them as a reference and not as their own section :). – Nixinova Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png Grid Map.png 20:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we need a discussion here – how do you think these should be laid out? I don't think a "Proof of existance" section works, but there could possibly be a "Gallery" section. – Nixinova Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png Grid Map.png 20:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That would definitely make more sense. I want the proofs to be both easily accessible (some sites may be blocked), but also verifiable (so the proofs are credible). - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


What's wrong with it? – Nixinova Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png Grid Map.png 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Extremely inconsistent with the dates on META-INF in the .jar file. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Unreleased builds[edit]

I'm not sure of the use of these pages; all the content in them was (most likely) added in the actual releases – why wouldn't they have been? – Nixinova Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png Grid Map.png 07:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The builds shown in the blog posts themselves weren't, they were basically progress updates.


The redirect you renamed "February 1, 2010, 1" was released on January 31. Notch even said which weekday it was released; Sunday. February 1 was a Monday. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 14:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that so? Timezone differences would imply it was released on February 1st, since Tumblr uses UTC-5. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm only going off the literal word of Notch and a calendar. While viewing, I'm only getting the date, not the timestamp. And I have absolutely no idea how to get the complete timestamps. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 14:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, are you taking daylight savings into account? In November-March, Sweden is UTC+1. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 15:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, figured it out, and yeah, technically Feb 1. I guess he must've used "Sunday night" in the more inclusive (though inaccurate) sense, to refer to the early hours of Monday. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 15:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat related; you're using {{History}}'s link parameter incorrectly. You're supposed to put link=LINK, not link=DISPLAYNAME - that's the whole reason it's called "link". Note that the target page must be written in full.




{{History||0.31 (January 11, 2010)|link=Indev (January 11, 2010)}}


0.31 (January 11, 2010)

- Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 17:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Either that, or I just don't get what on Earth you're trying to do with the mass-pagemoves and link changes, with no apparent reason behind it. You should really start a discussion before performing such drastic changes. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 17:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be working fine for me though? Unless it's nested underneath a 0.31 section. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you're doing now. Although, this could have been avoided if you had made people aware of what you were doing beforehand, or if you had simply created new redirects, rather than moving the existing ones. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 19:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Re: "if you're going to do this, can you at least make sure they're pointing to the right page, not to a redirect to a page that will itself soon become a redirect?"
I didn't even change the links, just applied them to the dates (overriding the existing redlinks to "Indev Januray 29, 2010", or whichever other version). I have no idea what you're planning with those redirects/pages/whatever, since you don't really talk about it, you just do whatever. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 14:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
BTW, there are a few more pages with redlinks to "Indev January 29, 2010" that I didn't edit, because their history sections feature other links to bad page names. You may want to take a look at those: Gold Ore, Iron Ore, Torch, Sand. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 15:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Cleaned up. Apologies for the outburst. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by MinecraftPhotos4U (talkcontribs) at 15:28, 02 May 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Edit explanation[edit]

Hi there! Could you explain to me why you made this edit? You added a sentence that was either inappropriate sarcasm or humor, and linked to versions that obviously do not exist or have an article on the wiki for editions that are clearly not what the article is about. I don't think you're doing it out of bad faith though. It would be really helpful to me if I could understand why you made that edit. Thanks so much, and happy editing!-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You made yet another edit like that to the same article(admittedly, this one wasn't quite as bad). Could you please explain the reasoning behind these edits? And what's this "connection here that I'm not quite making?"-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Look at the title of the article. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I see the article title, and I do realize that the tree part mentions stuff about the Pocket Edition. However, the solution to that would be to remove redundant information completely, instead of linking to non-existent versions and adding sarcasm to the article.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Your editing efficiency is too shocking[edit]

Will you make your eyes get an entirely rest? You have occupied the recent changes for too many times! --Lxazl5770 zh.admin) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving pages without leaving redirects[edit]

Stop unchecking the "Leave a redirect behind" option when moving pages. The vast majority of these redirects should be left in place; preventing them from being created only serves to break links (importantly, including links from outside the wiki, which cannot be updated in the course of normal editing activity) and make navigation more difficult. If you continue doing this, you will be blocked again. Instead, if you feel a page move should not leave a redirect, tag the redirect for deletion after moving the page. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also see my comment on Talk:Beta 1.8 Pre-release about your apparent belief that creation of redirects should be discussed with you first. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to continue to move pages without leaving a redirect, at least make sure to fix the pages that link to it to avoid a ton of broken links. --Pcj (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
In the future, definitely do not move any pages without leaving a redirect if there are ANY pages in the main namespace that link to them, unless you fix the links very soon, regardless of any confusion this will cause or how likely of search terms the pages are. See here and here. If this continues, you may have to stop moving pages without leaving redirects altogether, regardless of the circumstances. I understand that mistakes happen, but this has happened repeatedly and if you can't remember to check what links here, just don't move pages without leaving redirects altogether. Thanks, and happy editing!-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 23:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding deletion templates[edit]

When you mark a page for deletion (especially redirects), can you please leave the content on the page below {{delete}}? Otherwise I have to check the history every time to see why you are claiming the page needs to be deleted. Of course spam is an exception and can be removed, but for something like a redirect or an article it is nice to not have to view the history to see what it used to contain. KnightMiner t/c 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Making mischievous little edits[edit]

Could you refrain from making edits like these? Special:Diff/1194700 (two months ago), Special:Diff/1216649 (just now). This is a thing I've seen you do a handful of other times, you introduce some nonsense and leave it there indefinitely. We shouldn't have to be in this position with a fellow editor, where we feel they are untrustworthy enough that we have to double check every single one of their edits for vandalism. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 12:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd noticed the same thing on Java Edition removed features, on Special:Diff/1206415. You added links to a page that you knew didn't exist for Java Edition, and you added sarcasm - "which totally existed." In the future, it's much better to just either remove false information, or reword it so that it's true. In the first diff that Sealbudsman showed you, you could have just as easily reworded it to "Partially added in 1.9 with end cities and in 1.11 with woodland mansions." For the one I showed you, you could have just removed it completely. If you're not sure of something, discuss on the talk page. But adding sarcasm to an article is not going to make it any better than it was before - it just adds work and cleanup for others, and is confusing to readers. Thank you! :)-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 12:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
MinecraftPhotos4U, you're still doing it. See Special:Diff/1222381 and Special:Diff/1226246. Could you please stop doing this? It's really getting annoying trying to find all the places you've made edits like these and fix them. Thankfully Nicolereneew was able to find them this time, but there's probably a lot of this remaining from the wiki that it's going to take a long time for us to find and clean up. Thanks! :)-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 16:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


In this edit to barrier, you added that the blast resistance value was changed from 18000003 to 18000004, and didn't leave an edit summary. Could you please explain how you know this? I didn't find anything on the 1.13 page or any of the snapshot pages about this, so I'm wondering how you found this out. Thanks.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 21:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It was already on the blast resistances list or some other page, so it made sense to acknowledge it. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Could you please point me to the page where you found it?-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 21:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Module:Blast resistance values - 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright! Thanks for replying. :)-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 21:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecating sprites[edit]

Hello! I noticed you're last edit summary when you edited the sprite for {{InvSprite}}, you asked how to deprecate sprites. Whenever you're editing a sprite using the sprite editor, you should see an option called "Tools" directly to the right of the "New image" and "New section" options. When you click that, it will reveal the words "Deprecate." So you click that, and then click on the sprite that you want to deprecate, and it will highlight it in yellow. Then, any pages using that sprite will be added to Category:Pages using deprecated sprite names. This will alert editors that the sprites should be changed to undeprecated names, but it won't actually break the sprites, unlike just deleting the name altogether. Hope this helps!-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


"A version of this without the particles uploaded under a different filename could be useful for the History section." The {{reupload}} template is not exactly for requesting that a separate file be created - a better place would be to add a new entry to the "Wanted pages" section on the community portal. :)-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 12:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


Stop adding spaces to articles. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 10:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Versions no longer in the launcher:[edit]

Launcher versions being edited does not need to be verified, because it is proved that they were edited because their meta-inf's were renewed when they were added to the launcher in 2013. Therefore, there needs to be no verification. -VersionHistorianJerry

Where you add {{delete}}[edit]

When you add deletion templates to redirects, please add them BELOW the redirect, rather than above. This makes the redirect actually function correctly until an admin can come and decide whether it should be deleted or not. This was also discussed and seemed to be supported here. Thanks!-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 12:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Despite this, you continue to add deletion templates to redirects above rather than below. Please stop this.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 17:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand I'm a disgusting subhuman piece of junk, but can you at least try and understand that people forget about stuff sometimes? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh gosh, you are certainly not that - and I apologize if I offended you in any way. Of course I understand - I just thought you might be ignoring the message or something. So I just wanted to remind you, and I'm sorry if you took it so personally.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 17:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


I have blocked you for a week because of your continued actions in abusing pagemoves to delete redirects. This is not optional, you were warned and there are consequences. If this behavior continues after the current block expires, you will be reblocked for longer, and if you continue long enough it will be an indefinite block. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely fail to see how moving pages to their name circa 1.13's release exactly counts as abusing page moves for the sole purpose of deleting redirects. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Renaming pages to their correct 1.13 name is not bad at all, though it's a bad practice to not leave redirects behind when you rename pages - especially with pages to which many other pages link to. This causes unnecessary red links and a giant workload for others who are basically forced to clean up after you to not cause other users to create unnecessary pages.
If you had left the redirects, though, the current outcome would've been completely different. We could've gradually cleaned up the links to not link to redirects, but to the correct page instead and afterwards we could've either deleted those redirects or kept them because of historic purposes (as in, users might not know about the recent rename of blocks and search for the pre-1.13 name instead). I may also add it's likely you wouldn't have been blocked either.
Mainly not leaving redirects behind where you should've left redirects (and therefore the occurrance of red link havoc) is the reason for your current block. You've been warned multiple times, and every time you've either ignored these warnings or pretended to not 'know' about what's wrong with this practice. —DarkShadowTNT (t ♦ c) 15:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I had quite clearly left redirects for basically every single page that I moved. The only exceptions were for blocks/items which inherited the name of another block, which I then promptly filled in, leaving redirects as neccessary. Literally the only exception to this was Snow, which I was going to move Snow (layer) over, but couldn't due to move protection. I then requested on Discord that the move protection be removed from the page in order to fill in the redlink, but to absolutely no response, hence the redlink.

But apparently I'm in the wrong, as always. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)