I apologize for reverting your edit to Element. I saw the thumbnail, but it wasn't big enough for me to see that it was made of the Minecraft images, and I didn't click through to see the image itself. I only learned of the existence of the left-step table a few days ago. I think in my mind, the image of it I saw then was the only picture of it that exists, and I presume your picture was intentionally made to look as much like it as possible. Of course, that means at thumbnail size (and with my failing eyesight) it's easy to mistake it for the original. I'm suitably embarrassed now. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 02:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Hmm. One thing the left-step table makes obvious that the standard table doesn't is that we'll soon need to add another orbital to all the atoms in the universe. Time for a new WikiProject! – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 02:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
“Nautilus core” redirect
Could you please explain why you reverted my mark for deletion? I don’t see why any reader would search “Nautilus core”, and there are no links.02:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Table in "Sounds" section
About my recent edits
Im in the process of adding references to the 0.0.14a_01 page, but Im doing this on mobile so it will take a while
Block articles and section structure
Please note that I have opened a discussion on the talk page of the style guide for features: see here. Since you were involved in the revert war regarding those changes, I ask you to explain your point of view on that page. Thank you! 🐱 --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think the Luigi2600's fake client screenshot is better than mine? That iron block texture didn't even exist and the gold block texture was already replaced with newer one. The resolution is also not correct. Sorry but my screenshot is better solution to all of this. Lassebq Talk | Contributions 18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wait, so the screenshot is fake anyway? Where's the proof of this? I've been told that this was a custom texture pack. - User-12316399 (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not fake, Lassebq has been told about this (and should know this). Luigi2600 didn't even have a 0.28 up for download. It's a screenshot taken in 2009 of the real client, albeit with a texture pack enabled. Sure, screenshots with texture packs are generally not allowed here but this should be an exception as it's the only real screenshot of the version that can be found. Tolerabledruid6 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean "custom texture pack?". Your only can use official Minecraft texture for pages, etc. unless you're showcasing a mod/texture pack. Btw why are you typing 0.28 snapshot? There is no 0.28 snapshot, this only goes to 1.0 or to the beta and alpha versions. ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) Andrew36903690 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not difficult to dig into a jar file and replace image files to apply a texture pack. Also, when did anyone at all in this entire conversation say anything about snapshots? - User-12316399 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Here's the direct proof that this is modified client and not just textures. YOU COULDN'T CHANGE WINDOW AND GUI RESOLUTIONS BACK THAN. You could actually but it would not affect the playable area it would still be 854x480px.
- EDIT: And I gave up trying to upload the image that would look identical to the one with the original client.
- Lassebq Talk |
Contributions 16:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- And your point is? It's still the real 0.28, just modified. It's the only existing screenshot of any form of 0.28, so there is an exception for that. If there were no real screenshots, we would simply not put any screenshot on the page at all. We do not appreciate your photoshopped and fake screenshots - please do not continue to do this. Tolerabledruid6 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Block Overview Image
Hi! I saw your concerns about the block overview image. As for organization- I made way too many arbitrary decisions when putting the new image together for 1.14 and basically stayed in that spirit. Honey blocks do have an obvious association with slime blocks, but if I were to move the honey block next to the slime block, the rest of the 1.15 blocks might have to go with it given their association (well, the slime block could move, but then that column has to be changed... and Beehives/Bee Nests both could be associated with the utility blocks, or Beehives with nature-type blocks... and all of these placements would require reshuffling of plenty else... basically, rational organization is hard so I chose laziness instead. As for the blocks currently rendered in 2D- I know it's wiki policy now for the individual renders to make them 3D, but I view that as a bit odd. The thing is that those sorts of blocks are rotated 45 degrees relative to the rest. In game, their profile is an "X", not a "+". If they were to be rendered in the standard perspective, only one face would be visible, the other being perpendicular to the view plane, but the whole thing would look weird and "squashed". My point is wiki perspective and flat are both arbitrary, but flat is closer to standard perspective. Redstone wire, rails, ladders, etc. are exceptions to this reasoning and could be changed to standard perspective (but might not look as clear). Bedrock Edition blocks are a good idea and almost certainly should be added at some point, though I will admit I'm a bit of a Java snob. I have no clue why it's called Template1. It's been like that since the original uploader put the first version up and I guess nobody's bothered to look into it Wilfred maplewood (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm Sorry :(
I accidentally edited your talk page. I already reverted it to a blank page, I was meant to edit my page and I was confused that why I didn't see my edit's on my talk page. I'm sorry that I edited your talk page.