User talk:Mohnzh
From Guild Wars Wiki
Hello, Mohnzh, and welcome to the Official Guild Wars Wiki! If you need help with anything, don't hesitate to add a message to my talk page. I highly recommend that you check out the "Welcome to the wiki" page - it's extremely useful as an initial guide. Best of luck and happy editing! — 卍 Eloc 卍 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Signing your comments
Remember to sign your comments on discussion pages with --~~~~ — ク Eloc 貢 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, fixed. Mohnzh 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disp
I'm not one for drama and prefer to let things slide, but we can't have people breaking policies all the time. Please read GWW:REVERT, if you haven't already. Backsword 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am aware of that policy and do not believe that I in any way broke the policy. I never reverted more than once, never had anyone revert for me, and always discussed any revert I performed. You, on the other hand, did revert more than once. I followed protocol to a T and was very careful to do so. All I want is for the wiki to be as clear and useful as possible. I do not want to make anyone angry, especially an editor such as yourself. You are much more valuable to this wiki than I am, and I am sorry we split hairs. I hope you will come to see the purpose of the change I made (which only you opposed) and that it was an issue regarding more than just one article and the appropriate discussion was held on the quest formatting discussion page. Mohnzh 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- [1] & [2]. And 'valuableness' is unimportant, the rules applies to me as to everyone else. Backsword 12:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- As my understanding of reverting is, the first edit was not a revert. It was a change. It was discussed on the talk page, consensus had been reached, and it was in line with the formatting guide. When you changed it back, I reverted. That was my one revert. If I am misunderstanding something, I am sorry. But I read the policy closely (before I made the change) to make sure that I was not breaking policy and as far as I can tell I did not. Believe me when I say that the last thing I want is to break policy. Anarchy does not make a wiki useful. But is it not also policy not to revert someones edit without discussing it? Mohnzh 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's not really any room for wikilawyering here. People inituativly know what a revert is, and the policy is clear: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.". That said, I don't find this particualry amusing, so this will be my last comment here. Backsword 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't wikilawyering. I stand by the fact that it was never my intention to revert more than once. As far as I can tell, I made an edit in line with consensus. According to the policy on dispute tags, you must take part in discussion to reach a consensus if you add the tag. You refused to take part. I think the several months you were given was sufficient. Consensus was reached without you and you said nothing in opposition. My edit was to reflect that consensus had been reached. This is NOT a revert. You undid that edit, against consensus. I reverted. If you want to get into breaking policy, I can easily point out policy you broke. If you place a disputed tag, you must clearly outline exactly what is being disputed (see the 1RR policy page). I even asked that you do so, and you did not. You also reverted without taking part in discussion, also against policy. So again, I do not see how I broke any policy, but I can list ways you did. And because I can point these out and defend my action you accuse me of wikilawyering? If you were being objective, wouldn't your accusation sound like a scapegoat? I'm not amused either, but what does that have anything to do with anything? Ask yourself, why were you doing this to begin with? You would not take part in the pertinent discussions, you went against consensus, and you never once gave a legitimate reason for doing so. So why did you persist in the first place? I don't think of you as disruptive. As I said before, you contribute to the wiki MUCH more than I do. So why were you disruptive, attempting to stifle useful information, and putting up tacky boxes when consensus didn't go your way? It seems rather petty, but I can't picture you as petty. Over all, you simply confuse me. I find that unfortunate. We actually agree on more than we disagree. Mohnzh say what? 03:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's not really any room for wikilawyering here. People inituativly know what a revert is, and the policy is clear: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.". That said, I don't find this particualry amusing, so this will be my last comment here. Backsword 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- As my understanding of reverting is, the first edit was not a revert. It was a change. It was discussed on the talk page, consensus had been reached, and it was in line with the formatting guide. When you changed it back, I reverted. That was my one revert. If I am misunderstanding something, I am sorry. But I read the policy closely (before I made the change) to make sure that I was not breaking policy and as far as I can tell I did not. Believe me when I say that the last thing I want is to break policy. Anarchy does not make a wiki useful. But is it not also policy not to revert someones edit without discussing it? Mohnzh 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- [1] & [2]. And 'valuableness' is unimportant, the rules applies to me as to everyone else. Backsword 12:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Mohnzh.
Ohhwww..too bad. The bureaucrat election rules are a bit confusing still to me. Thank you for your help though. -- Silverleaf 
18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flux Matrix
My guess is the trivia on that page is closer to correct, as the devs have used many contemporary movie references. Besides, it's trivia...--
Wynthyst 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the context of use, it is unlikely simply from the term matrix. A vector integral will result in a matrix. A flux capacitor has nothing to do with matrices. Flux is also used in a variety of other physics fields as well, and it (roughly described) measures flow of something that cannot technically be described as "flowing", such as electromagnetic fields. If you put it back up on the trivia, I won't revert. I just don't think that it is likely that they were referring to Back to the Future in this case. Not everything has to be a reference, eh? Mohnzh say what? 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the movie however, the Flux Capacitor was the thing that provided the massive surge of power that allowed them to break through the time barrier, so the reference is pertinent. --
Wynthyst 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the movie however, the Flux Capacitor was the thing that provided the massive surge of power that allowed them to break through the time barrier, so the reference is pertinent. --
[edit] Location maps
On locations pages, when putting in maps, can you please set their px size to 196? — ク Eloc 貢 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, no problem. I was just copying what others had done. Mohnzh say what? 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, you were talking about Font of Lyss and Grand Forum of Vabb pages, weren't you? I thought you were talking about something else. Yeah, I had no idea what size to put them as. Thanks for fixing that. I'll make sure they go in at 196 from now on. Mohnzh say what? 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Birthday
Happy Birthday to you Mohnzh! Hope that you live to have another one. |Foul Bane| 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
