User talk:Buzzer1790

Hi, did you receive my mail about skill codes ? Hattor 07:01, 2 December 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah sorry I've been busy. I'll have a look at it :) --Buzzer 07:02, 2 December 2006 (CST)
 * I answered you in my user talk. :) Hattor 18:52, 3 December 2006 (CST)

Paragon Anomalies
I noticed you removed most of the anomalies regarding paragon shouts/chants that did not effect pet attacks. Have you experienced a change that it does effect them now? I didn't see any notes on the talk page of the skills or the anomalies page. Thanks. --  Vallen Frostweaver  15:04, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well the skills I removed say they affect 'party members'. Pets arent party members right? --Buzzer 04:47, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, good point. I forgot they were changed.  Thanks for explaining. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:43, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * No worries :) Buzzer 08:07, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The pet isn't a party member, but the ranger is. The descriptions of Anthem of Fury and Zealous Anthem say they trigger by the next attack skill, and pet attacks trigger them. I concede that Defensive Anthem is not anomalous, as its specifies the party member must hit with the attack. Anthem of Envy's description says it affects "the next attack skill used by each ally within earshot", and the descriptions for Anthem of Flame, Anthem of Guidance and Crippling Anthem all say they affect "the next attack skill used by each party member within earshot" rather than saying "the next non-pet attack skill" or "the next each ally / party member hits with an attack skill". -- Gordon Ecker 22:17, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * OK fair enough. Thanks :) --Buzzer 23:52, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Black Lotus Strike
Did you test this? -Ezekiel 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No - Buzzer 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. If you had tested you'd see that it's doing exactly what was stated in the bug note. Crimsonhandhiro 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SoM
About your last edit on SoM: when someone reverts your edit, do not edit it back to what you think is correct. This is a breach of GW:1RV, even if your second edit is different (in this case, you also removed another note). Rather, discuss it on the article's talk page. --- -- (s)talkpage 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)