User talk:SirDaddicus

It's easy. Look in the left sidebar of any page. You'll see a link "upload file" under "Tools". Just be sure to set the "Licensing" drop-down as a Minecraft screenshot (it's one of the first selections). Amatulic (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I found that, but what I don't know is how to put it onto the talk page. I'm going over there now to see how you did it. :) SirDaddicus () 21:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In this edit from Jan 2021 you added redstone ore to the Ore part of the Fortune page. You had earlier inquired on the Talk page why it wasn't already present, but got no response, so you edited it to include redstone ore with the summary "After testing whether the table or the text was correct, I determined that redstone is modified by Fortune". But redstone ore was already described in the Usage section in the next paragraph, presumably because unlike the other ores, Fortune applies a uniform distribution to it. The result of your edit is that the effect of Fortune is described in two conflicting ways. I assume you overlooked that it was already described in the second paragraph, so I'm reverting your edit. However, if in fact you did the math and determined that Fortune doesn't apply a uniform distribution, I invite you to undo my edit and instead delete it from the list in the second paragraph. Auldrick (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Going throgh your edits I found several examples of you adding blatantly incorrect information. Some of the examples were so egregiously wrong yet simultaneously eazy to verify that I initially suspected you of vandalism but given you have a wealth of healthy edits I think you just made some mistakes.

The edits in question are
- https://minecraft.wiki/w/Ancient_Debris?diff=prev&oldid=2972365
- https://minecraft.wiki/w/Bee?diff=prev&oldid=2740903
- https://minecraft.wiki/w/Cat?diff=prev&oldid=2277873
- https://minecraft.wiki/w/Zombified_Piglin?diff=prev&oldid=2092710
- https://minecraft.wiki/w/Enderman?diff=prev&oldid=1997699
- https://minecraft.wiki/w/Ruined_Portal?diff=prev&oldid=2600403
DjmrFunnyMan (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you instead try to falsify my claim, since I documented it (at least the first one)? Someone just reverted my change, without documentation. I provided documentation. SirDaddicus () 14:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Your claim is trivial to falsify (and someone did). That's why I'm asking you to be more throughout in your testing before you make a claim.

Making unsubstantiated claims then expecting others to test them for you is not good etiquette DjmrFunnyMan (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't unsubstantiated. I cleared an entire chunk. I just didn't think that it might have been a bad chunk to choose.

Someone did AFTER they reverted it. Reverts should include a valid reason for the revert, not just a statement.

I checked your second reference, and found that I was right after all. But I'm not going to change it in such a hostile environment as you're creating. But at least it shows that your "so eggregiously wrong" comment was without merit.

Finally, and most importantly, I've tried asking people to secondarily verify claims in the past. They get ignored. But one time (and one time only), someone said I should just post the change and see if someone objects. So that's what I do now. That person may have been wrong, but since nobody else bothered to respond, I'll go with it. (Especially since that seems to be the expected path people take on wikis.) SirDaddicus () 16:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

> It wasn't unsubstantiated. I cleared an entire chunk.

You cleared one chunk. That's the issue. You don't rush to conclusions with a sample size of 1

> I just didn't think that it might have been a bad chunk to choose.

And I'm saying that you should think about that. My top post was asking you to be more throughout. You've admitted you've made a mistake here.

> Someone did AFTER they reverted it. Reverts should include a valid reason for the revert, not just a statement.

Idk what your point is. Your intial edit also contained just a statement with no documentation backing it up. Anyhow the revert did contain a valid reason.

> I checked your second reference, and found that I was right after all.

The bees not getting aggrod during rain? You must be doing something wrong because I triple checked that your claim was wrong.

And for your last point I never asked you to ask for secondary verification. I'm asking you to run your own tests better. DjmrFunnyMan (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless someone OFFICIAL tells me that I'm following the wrong rule, I'm going to continue as I have been. I have made 283 contributions (thought not all actual changes), and you only found six errors. I consider that pretty darned good odds.

My point is that I documented that I had checked a full chunk and found no debris. The person who reverted it simply said I was wrong. If s/he had said "I checked some chunks and found debris", THAT would be a valid reason for a revert. Alternately, they could ask me on the talk page how I did it, and I would have provided the seed and chunk coordinates. Then they might have shown how I made my error.

To simply revert without documentation invites "revert wars", something most wikis try to avoid. I try to avoid them, too, which is why I don't just undo the revert. I ask questions (as I did). SirDaddicus () 16:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)