Anittas
My talk page
New articles
Aici este o listǎ unde sunt scrise toate articolele noi in ordine cronologicǎ [1], cu adaugiri continue. Mulţumesc pentru Ecaterina. Decius 02:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Lista pare sa fie enorma. Articolul a fost gasit si de tine si de Bogdan; deci voi va uitati pe lista aia zilnic. Cred ca e obositor. Mersi pentru ajutor pentru articol.
--Anittas 04:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Anittas, this page doesn't quite belong to the main namespace. I think you should move the contents to your user space, then list it for speedy deletion. KissL 15:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Why?
--Anittas 23:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Because it is about you and something you wrote, so it's not an encyclopedic topic. See this Wikipedia guideline, esp. the paragraph before the last.
If you move the page to a subpage of yours, everyone interested will still find it (the only real link to it is on your user page anyway - all the rest were intended to point to User:Criztu), and it will be in the right place there. The original article becomes a redirect in such a case, which you can then list for speedy deletion because you are the only contributor; this can be done by adding {{db|moved to user space}} to the beginning of the page.
You could list the redirect on WP:RFD instead, but then it would require the involvement of others. If you just add the above template, an admin will soon find it and remove it without further ado. KissL 07:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Ugh, dude, too much technical talk here. If you really want the page gone, you put it for a delete. I have the poem saved and I'll add it to my user page. Sorry for being a shirk, but you presented too many options to me and I don't want to chose. But tell me: what did you think of the poem? :D --Anittas 17:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I moved it to a subpage of your user page, fixed the link on your user page to point to the right ___location, and listed the redirect (created at the old page) for deletion. To be frank about the poem, I just don't understand it, it seems to refer to events, or style, or other things I don't know about. KissL 11:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, okay, thanks! --Anittas 12:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Posting speeches
Hey, I figured I ought to write the entire speech made by Victor Hugo on Voltaire. It wouldn't break any copyright infringements. The speech was held in 1878. Is this allowed? Where can I read about all Wiki policy on these issues? Thanks! --Anittas 13:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound like there is a copyright issue as that would be in the public ___domain, however the question is whether posting a whole speech is encyclopedic. It sounds more like material for Wikisource. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 13:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I see, now. I forgot about that sub site. I'll check it out. Thanks!
--Anittas 14:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hittite names
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East#Orthography. We can discuss this convention of course, but so far all Hittite names are given in the stem form. This is preferable, since if the name occurs in the oblique (as in "X paid homage to Anitta", it would be awkward: You would either have to use Hittite inflection (which would be quite confusing), or you'd have to use the Nominative incorrectly, "paid homage to Anittas"). Similarly, we have Mitra, not Mitras for the Hindu god. If you want to change this convention, you'd have
- to announce the intention on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East, to see if people object
- move all articles on Hittite kings and gods etc. to their Nominative forms, for consistency.
dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's use Anitta; but then I wonder why Anittas is being used at all. And also, if you know, what's the etymology of the name? I mean, this name, or other forms of the name, is still popular. --Anittas 23:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Anittas is the Nominative form. Check the Anitta text; the name occurs a couple of times in the Nominative, and a couple of time in its stem form. dab (ᛏ) 18:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
map
did you check chariot? dab (ᛏ) 18:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice article. Did you draw that one by yourself? Or did you draw it by following the lines from another picture? I could use someone who knows how to draw for a project of mine... --Anittas 21:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
1.Please use edit summaries. 2.Why did you remove the correct formatting from the date?
I corrected the formate. You don't write 17 May; you write May 17. And you seem to have agreed with this, because you kept it that way. If you want to have it wrong, then change it back as you did with the rest of my edits.
"May 17" is U.S., "17 May" U.K., and there are other conventions; that's not the point — you removed the Wikipedia coding (the square brackets), which make the date show in the format selected by the reader. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
3.Why did you remove the perfectly acceptable description of the Danube as a river?
For starters, if you write a river's name, you use capital letters for the word 'river'. Secondly, Danube is too famous to be called a river. For example, you don't have to say River Rhine; you can say just the Rhine. You don't usually say that Caesar crossed River Rubicon; you usually say that he crossed the Rubicon. You don't usually write their 'title', unless it's a part of their name, like: Mississippi River. If you insist in writing River Danube, at least use capital letters.
- Sometimes you use should a capital (if "River" is part of the name), sometimes not. In this case, the word was descriptive, so didn't need a capital "R". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
4.If you prefer "significant" to "important" then fine, though I don't really see the point of changing it.
Yes, I preferred to use the word 'significant' in this context.
- And the reason? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
5.I've kept the only useful edit ("Valachian" to "Wallachian"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
You kept two edits: the format of the date and the Wallachian correction.
- As I say, you seem not to have noticed the important point about the date. In fact, if you look at the edit screen, you'll see that it's written as: [[17 May]]; you see it as "May 17" because that's how you have your preferences set. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
--- It seems that you reverted another page, too: "13:22, May 25, 2005 Mel Etitis m (Reverted edits by 80.97.4.123 to last version by Everyking)"
Please use edit summaries when reverting. And it seems the info was good, but the writing too casual. You could have fixed the writing, instead. --Anittas 10:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I used administrator's rollback, which automatically produces the edit summary you saw. Until you're more knowledgeable about English and about Wikipedia style, codes, and usage, please be more circumspect when making changes to articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but you don't come here and talk to me using this tone. I know what you did, when you reversed the article. I know the procedure. I asked you for the reason. The guy who wrote that stuff contributed with interesting information -- an interesting information that you could have kept -- and improved. Instead, you reversed the article. Then you reversed my edits. I don't even know what kind of business you have there, in that artcle. You haven't contributed with anything, except deleting other people's material.
Please, don't lecture me again. I don't care if you're an admin or the Pope, or whatever. If you want to correct things, or have your say, do so; but be humble and kind. --Anittas 15:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I left a perfectly civil message here, and you responded by lecturing me rather dogmatically about things concerning which your knowledge is limited (formats of dates, use of capitals when writing about rivers, etc.). Some of that is clearly the result of English not being your native language (though that should make you less, not more confident when lecturing others), but I'm surprised that after some time here you were unaware of how we format dates, and why. I have no idea which other article you're talking about, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Listen, you Oxford wanna-be snobb; what I said about the river name was correct - and you were wrong. If you say River Danube, you always write it with a capital letter. No exceptions. Sure, if you say, for example, that you're going to a river, called Danube, then yes; you don't write it with capital letters.
But when you say River Danube, you must always write it with capital letters. River Danube, River Rhine; the Carphatian Mountains [not Carphatian mountains]; and so on.
Where was I wrong about the date? You asked me this:
"Why did you remove the correct formatting from the date?"
I answered your question. Now you whine. What's your problem? I forgot to add the double brackets. Is that why you're upset? That can't be it, because your problem was the format of the date that I used. And now I see that you're on a crusade, picking on my other articles and being finicky. You could, instead, edify other people by using your so-called intellect. After all, you claim to be a professor of Oxford.
I would really appreciate if you could leave my articles be as they are, imperfect, rather than polluting them with your dry style. Thanks!
- Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You might also read other parts of Wikipedia policy (including the important point that you don't have any articles — editors don't own articles), as well as brushing up on you communication and inter-personal skills.
- Your strictures concerning the use of capitals are incorrect.
- As for the date — you removed the formatting – the double brackets – and I asked you why. You clearly had no idea what they did, nor that there are different systems of writing dates.
- I checked some of the other articles that you'd edited to see if your poor English and grasp of Wikipedia style had crept into them, and found that it had, so I corrected them. That's what editors do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't need to read crap. It's pretty obvious that personal attacks are not allowed; those kind of rules are applied in most forums - or other kind of on-line communities. Now, you go and read the script of Monty Python where they make fun of Oxford snobs. This is my personal page and I feel I have the right to repel rudeness. I have the right to make observations, just as you have the right to make observations. You say my English is bad - and you have the right to say that - and I think you're a snob; and perhaps a retard. I have the right to think that. Isn't that so? Or am I suppose to make polite insults, just like you do? I think not. This is not one of your gay tea parties. I don't have to follow your gentleman etiquette. If you don't like it, begone from here!
I knew full well what those dashes do. You don't have to go to Oxford to learn how to click on links and learn where they lead to.
And actually, Wiki policy says that the author keeps the copyright, but also that the author agrees to release them. That's not the point. I don't want to own anything that I write here and I didn't order you to do anything. I asked you to keep away from me. I don't like you. I don't like snobs. You may want to honour my plead, or be a prick and continue your harassment.
You are incorrect about the 'river' argument, you Oxford snob! Now, I suggest you start articles of your own. I suppose you have limited imagination (based on your monotone posts), so I'll try to help you out:
- Why Cambridge is better than Oxford;
- Why Monthy Python made fun of Oxford;
- Why British snobs enjoy torturing foxes;
- Bucharest street-children -- this should be your speciality, since that's what the British press is best at. You should follow suit.
Love,
--Anittas 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Anittas, you would do well to consider Mel Etitis' objections, Oxford or no Oxford. You would also do well to study Wikipedia:Manual of Style and subpages before embarking on stylistics disputes. Everytime you edit Wikipedia, you are reminded of the following:
- All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details).
- If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.
You do not own any articles, and anyone is free to edit them. If you don't agree with them, you have to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may, of course, argue about the MoS, and about stylistic points. But I wonder where you take the self-assurance to argue in the face of MoS, without, by all appearaces, even being aware of MoS. WP is a collaborative effort. If you do not like to collaborate with people, you will have a difficult time here. Mel Etitis reverted your talk page here. He was re-posting his own message you had removed without comment. While he should not have used the rollback button for that, it was hardly more rude than your own behaviour. dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Dbac, I never said he could not edit anything. Read what I said above. Either way, thanks for your advice. Could you now, please, answer my question? --Anittas 15:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello Anittas. Hey, do you know where I can report abuse committed by an Admin towards me? I'm assuming you're talking about User:Mel Etitis. However, judging by the logs, Mel did not use any of his administrative powers against you, and therefore could not have abused them. However, if you would like to resolve a dispute with another editor (for example, Mel Etitis), please follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, as Dbachmann mentioned. Furthermore, I encourage you to heed Dbachmann's advice. Hope this helps. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Dude, I kindly asked you to reply to me on your OWN talkpage, not on this one. The guy is watching me like a hawk. What's wrong with you people? Yes, he did use his admin tools on me, and he also harassed me. And thank you for the link. And he is wrong on both Suleyman and River Danube. --Anittas 22:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I appologize, I missed that note. However, it did seem like the relevant discussion was here, which is why I left the response here. I fail to see which administrator tool he abused. If he did, would you mind supplying me a link to the edit/action that you are referring to? If you are talking about his reversion of your edit, please be aware that anyone can revert your edit, this is not something that is exclusive to administrators. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. He vandalized my articles - and he continues to do that.
1. He challenged me on citation (see talk:Battle of Vaslui) when he himself has none, while I have, at least, a few good articles that I posted;
2. He reverted my own, personal, talk-page. I like to think that this talk-page should be under my sole authority, and not to be touched by any fool on any given day;
3. He harasses me by following me around (my articles) and insulting my skills of the English language.
Isn't that enough? Because that's all I have on him ,and, I feel that it's more than enough. He didn't kill anyone that I know of, if that's what you're asking. --Anittas 23:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis
He is most certainly here on Wikipedia to terrorize the site and its fellow users. Did you know that he's opposing songwriting regulations? In English, "With" is lower-cased, but in songwriting (due to its awkward appearance as a lower-cased letter), it is capitalized. But he... just does not seem to believe this. So I asked one of my English professors (I'm an English major at a college) to clarify this, and he said that "With" along with four other words are capitalized in songwriting. Mel continues to oppose this. I'm just unsure if I can cope with his behaviour anymore... Winnermario 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This is what happens when kids are spoiled with money and good education, without having to do any honest work, and be 'taught' by their parents to be kind, philanthropic, and humble. It's also shameful that the people who have seen these violations occur, chose to stay quiet, or even worse - take his side. Is it a lack of civil courage, or are they saving their credit points to spend in case they need them for themselves? I don't know the answer, because this Wiki community makes no sense to me, but we shouldn't waste braincells on this nihilistic snob.
However, in case you want to, we could try to collaborate and make a formal complaint. You could email me (see my user-page), in case you want to give it a try. --Anittas 04:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
A caution regarding personal attacks
This discussion constitutes a personal attack. Personal attacks are a violation of the community's policies. I'm cautioning you both against discussions of this sort about fellow wikipedians. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
We have the right to organize our selves and have our say. If I think he's arrogant, then I will state so. --Anittas 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia Moldoveneasca
Bună Anittas. Nu ştiu dacă ai mai fost pe la wikipedia moldovenească sau dacă încă te mai interesează subiectul. După cum se ştie, unicul sysop acolo este Node ue, un românofob convins care în tot timpul când a fost administrator acolo, s-a comportat într-un mod neprofesional şi jignitor la adresa românilor sau a moldovenilor românofoni care aparau interesele româneşti.
Între timp se va organiza un vot pentru că printre altele, Node ue nu a fost nici o dată ales democratic de cineva, deşi este singurul sysop la mo.wiki (pe care o conduce ca un tovarăş prim secretar de partid fără a asculta sau consulta opinile altora). Pentru că ţi-ai mai expus părerea ta despre această wikipedie, ai fost şi tu nominat să votezi.
A apărut un contra-candidat, Jeorjika care nu numai că ştie limba (spre deosebire de Node ue care nu vorbeşte româneşte deşi e sysop acolo), dar pare şi mai deschis şi mai profesional. Mai mult, Jeorjika şi-a expus chiar el problemele legate de această wikipedie şi a promis ca va organiza numaidecât un poll nou pe tema existenţei wikipediei moldoveneşti. Am avea sansa din nou sa ne facem auziti si sa ne expunem parerea si in mod sigur de data asta vom putea discuta cu cineva mai flexibil( decat Node ue).
De aceea te rog, dacă te mai interesează subiectul, să-i acorzi şi acestui Jeorjika o atenţie. Votul este pe data de Oct. 1. Pagina este aceeaşi
http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere
Mulţumesc,
Domnu Goie 02:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Nu am mai fost acolo de mult. Acest Jeo este roman? Noua ne trebuie un moldovean care se considera roman. Am mers la pagina care mi-ai dat-o, dar contextul este enorm. Unde pot vota si unde pot citi propunerele lor? --Anittas 04:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Buna Anittas, Jeorjika nu se considera român, he never said anything about Romanian. In fact, he said "I don't think that the Romanians know what Moldova is like".
- Now, as domnul Goie has said, Jeorjika promised to organise a new vote. However, everybody is always allowed to start a vote on the Moldovan Wikipedia. This means you can start a vote right now on whether it should be deleted. You don't need to be the sysop for that.
- Anyhow, I suspect you will not vote for me. It's fine though, I will be happy as long as many people vote, no matter who they vote for, because that is the goal here.
- Multumesc, Node ue, sisop din Wikipedia "Moldoveneasca" (Romana in alfabetul chirilic)
Re: Enviroknot
Anittas, I saw the comment that you posted on enviroknot's talk page. Please note that enviro and about 30 of his/her other sockpuppets have been blocked permanently from wikipedia. Whatever your personal opinions are about Mel etitis, I don't want to get involved, but please remember that associating with known vandals will not give you a very good reputation in the wikipedia. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I went on to search for people who have been harassed by Mel. That guy is one of them. I found about a dozen of them, who have all been ridiculed and harassed by Mel. One of them was an Asian guy who didn't speak English too well. This is what Mel had to say to him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr_Tan#Re:_Your_English
I left that page in disgust, but I also left a message - a message of hope. I don't know what Envi did, but I doubt it's any worse than what Mel has been doing. As for my reputation in Wiki: I came here to learn and to contribute with the little I know. I didn't expect to be harassed and laughed at. I was hoping that other people would stand up for the injustice that Mel inflicted on me, but none of them did; quite the opposite - they took his side (read above). And these are the people who are supposed to be respectable contributors of Wiki? --Anittas 19:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Annitas, I don't want involvement in this conflict between you and mel and I can not speak on the behalf of those who defended Mel. Please go through the proper stages if you have something against him, but do not gather a group of vandal/abusive editors (who I can tell you are a billion times worse than Mel) to gang up on him. Also if you stop these personal attacks against Mel, this will help your case. Once again gathering people who Mel "harrassed" will not help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
How would I know who is 'abusive' and who isn't? I just left a message on their talk-page. I don't have the time, nor the energy, to research every single member he has abused to see if they are in 'good standing'. And speaking about abusivess, what do you call this?
And he already recruited one member to work against me. That member reverted my user-page two times, while Mel reverted my talk-page one time. I don't want to gather people to gang up on him, but like you said: I should go through the proper channels. Well, if we're more, our voice will be louder, and our credibility stronger.
I will also write an article about Mel and his abusive behaviour on Wiki, and put it on my user-page. Yes, Mel, you may correct my horrible English that you, unfortunatelly, must witness. Life is a bitch, isn't she? All these people who haven't gone to Oxford...oh, "the horror! the horror!" --Anittas 20:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, well for identifying abusive sockpuppet/vandal editors, please see their user page. There is usually a sockpuppet tag (as for enviro) or a "blocked" message on their talk page. a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, whatever, but just so you know: just because someone has been blocked, doesn't mean they are in the wrong about Mel. He and his friend threatened to block me, too, when instead, they should be the ones to be blocked. And you don't need to tell him about me going on a campaign against him. He follows my every step that I take, like the hawk that he is! --Anittas 20:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. I will see you around. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Response to collaboration
I will juggle the thought for now, and I will respond to your question in a matter of few days. :) --Winnermario 23:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Da este. in nici un caz nu e ca asta de acum. votul e pe 1 oct.(deci 1 oct este ultima zi) la un moment dat jeo asta isi spune punctul lui de vedere si agenda lui( intr-o forma mai moderata ca sa'i atraga pe nedumeriti). urmareste pagina
http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere
cred ca pana la urma toti o sa trebuiasca sa'si exprime din nou propunerile ptr. ca node are o tactica f. enervanta de a posta macaroane intregi dupa fiecare mesaj al unui utilizator care are ceva de spus impotriva wikipediei( ceea ce face toata discutia f. lunga si greu de urmarit). Domnu Goie 04:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis
I have seen your message.
Well, I have left wikipedia for a considerable period of time, although I do come back intermittently. As I have said, my leave has more to do with my personal life than this highly-active admin Mel Etitis.
In a way Mel did harass me, but I believe that there must be reasons. Firstly, I must be in the wrong. Note Zanskar? I regretted that I handled User:Moumine too high-handedly, saying that his grammar is atrocious when I actually was the one. I realised my fault some time later, for you must understand that my command of English goes up and down from time to time, especially during the holidays when I have less school books to practice on.
Secondly, I must apologise that I am a person diagnosed with a very mild form of schizophrenia, or some kind of mental fit, which makes me a person being not able to elaborate my feelings very well. I am also a very lazy person, and I do not like to hunt down on "wikipedia court cases", for I prefer to edit than to confront with Mel Etitis. However, perhaps either by my own stupidity or by his sheer ulterior motives, or perhaps even his overworking on wikipedia that might have made him becoming increasingly Antisocial personality disorder in some way or another. Yet, on the other hand, he did get along with many Users very well, most notably User:Fabartus, User:JMBell and a few others. Together with the group, I have heard that they have discussed my behaviour with Jimbo Wales some time ago, in which I will have to type out a long list of explanation to Wales.
Thirdly, if I'm not badly mistaken, Mel have made accusations against other users left and right. I do not understand why, in what way, I am user:ETTan, in which he had posted a message some time ago on my talk page stating that I am ETTan, and saying something else that harbour very stark and nasty. You can acess my talk page history shortly after 30 July 2005, the date he probably posted the message, if I had remembered correctly.
Fourthly, I would like to elaborate something which I was unable to elaborate well by saying something like "stalking on me wherever I go". I would like to take this opportunity to say that, Mel Etitis has been editing validated sets of articles that I have edited. What I mean was, Mel Etitis would edit the same number of articles that I have edited shortly the time before I made the edits. Mel had said that he was editing on articles that I have edited because my "recent" edits contained heaps of gramatical errors. Initially I had repelled him, but I realised my mistake and apologised. This peculair behaviour of his, at the beginning, he did so at the sensitive period when we had a bad confrontation over Zanskar, in which I wrongly claimed that it contained gramatical errors. But why couldn't he do it at a later period of time, rather at that edgy moment? This led to my misunderstanding that he is trying to harass me. And our troubles built on.
Fifthly, I believe that you must have a similar encounter of seeing Mel making comments in his summary when he make reverts, such as "Reverted edits by Anittas to last edition by Mr Tan". While somebody had criticised him of doing this that will make interest disputes worse, he defended it by saying that he finds untangling the edit done by the previous user as bad in someway or another.
I would like to voice out my objections here. The reverts he made are reverts on fairly minor edits. In fact, one of the edits made by me was reverted by Mel as I made an edit adding a fact to Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, he reverted it. When I demanded a proper explanation from him on why he reverted at the expense of some gramatical mistake that I made whlist adding the fact, he claimed that it was too troublesome. I was very angry.
The fact that my edit, which contained a considerably short sentence-long edit to the article, which was then reverted by Mel Etitis by claiming that it was too troublesome to spot out. I was baffled by such an attitude. From this attitude, my negative feelings towards him grew even deeper.
Sizthly, I would like to elaborate further the second time I edited Zanskar. As I had said, I had used Zanskar/temp to make a thorough edit on User:Moumine's gramatical "mistakes", but the second time was that when I wanted to make a design remake by putting up the cleanup tag, in accordance to wikipedia's guidelines on articles. You see, ain't the design and outlook of the article very awkward as compared to other articles? The pictures all aligned in one row, rather than "scattered" around or grouped according to picture content and its respective categories. Also, the big, gigantic paragraphs in the article looks monotonous to many, I even suggested breaking up one big paragraph into two or three smaller, yet reasonably sized paragraphs.
Overall, that was my motive for editing Zanskar--to edit Zanskar by refurbinishing its design, but I just couldn't elaborate it as my brain is quite slow. I had wanted to make some outlook redesigning edits for Zanskar, but in fear of his reverts, I edited in a plan draft. Concerning this issue, you may want to refer to User:Mr Tan/plan draft and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for your own personal information.
Last, but not least, I must say that Mel is a little impatient. As you can see, although he may be a professor of the English language, as he has claimed, that doesn't warrant him to make dash-around-edits without giving other Users some preliminary edits to try to improve their edits, even though in the process they may make some mistakes. Again, Mel is a person who is very inconsiderate of one's brain's reactions to a crisis. I do acknowledge that I'm a bit like Mel in this way, but I never intervene into other's prelimnary edits too much, as one's ideas may differ from another. Mel's behaviour has caused heavy friction between me (Mr Tan), User:OmegaWikipedia, you and User:Winnermario, all in the same group. I don't really know why you are in conflict with Mel, but I do not wish to find out about it.
Mel's behaviour also starkly constrasts to my true intention of wikipedia. To me, wikipedia is meant for me as a favourite pastime, not for such long-term conflicts. Mel himself has exhibited a great deal of contradictions against my own ideas. This has caused emotional stress, deprovement of my school work and peer pressure. Had Mel been more forgiving, less enthusiastic and more willing to help others, such a terrible long-term incident would not have happened. All I have to say that my reputation is gone, partially due to my stupidity and probably his ulterior motives that he might have harboured. Anyway, I wish you good luck in your dealings with Mel Etitis, and do post this to Mr Wales. I have more to say, but real life is catching with me up and I have little to spare over such trival internet matters with Mel Etitis, a person that I hardly know of and of little interest to me even we might meet in person one day. Forgive and forget if you can, and hopefully Mel will lose interest on you and find something else to do, or learn from him if you can, if he is willing to teach English, something that will be beneficiary to my Synthesis and Transformation on sentences in my English exams. Perhaps you can try to engage more of your time in real life rather than wasting your time away on wikipedia with such people who are very to work with. Good luck!
Mr Tan 18:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting to believe that Mel is a Darwinist who believes to have the right showing his supremecy onto others by insulting and harassing them. That's sort of ironic, since the job of a professor, and as he also claims to be - a philosopher, would be to edify others; but then again, as Socrates pointed out, even a dog is a philosopher.
It doesn't matter if your English sucks; he shouldn't harass you for that. We're all good and we're all here to learn. Mel doesn't just edit bad grammar; he also edits information from which he demands citation for. Believe it or not, but I was impressed by the guy. He actually managed to upset Bryan Adams. Yes, the singer and song writer, Bryan Adams. He got into an argument with Bryan's assistant (she confirmed to me by email that she really is Bryan's assistant) and he keeps asking for a source for pseudo information. How can you ask for a source on made-up information? You can, if the rumours are popular and covered by the press, but from what I know, the one to make the claim, should prove it - not the other way around. This guy, no matter what diploma he holds, is a nut - period. He spends so much time on Wiki, that you start wondering on the kind of social life he lives. --Anittas 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Anittas, I haven't followed the details of your conflict with Mel Etitis, but I must warn you that many of the comments you are making are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Comments such as "Listen, you Oxford wanna-be snobb" and such are considered personal attacks, and there is no place for them here. Please discuss your differences with other editors with civility and respect. We may not all agree, but we can disagree in a courteous manner. Also, there are many Wikipedia editors for whom English is not their native language; while we don't expect everyone's writing to be perfect, editors should not take offense if their writing is corrected. Particularly, your claims above that river should always be capitalized when describing a proper noun is not consistent with conventional English usage. Words may be part of a title, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, in which case they are capitalized, or they may be describing the proper noun but not part of it, such as the "space probe Voyager". Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, but please tone down your language. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
River Danube was part of the name; it's like saying Danube Delta - the word delta also being a part of the name. That's what I meant to say: when the word is a part of the name, you capitalize it.
I don't mind people correcting me, as long as their intentions are honourable. That person is not honourable. When I called him a wanna-be snob, I didn't know what he was about. Now when I do know, I regret giving him that compliment. He is nothing but a troublemaker, and he even managed to upset Bryan Adams (the singer). You people value him because he nitpicks on articles, adding a comma here and there; but I would say that the price for his contribution is too high. Perhaps he wants to be viewed as a critic with a very observant eye, but if I were a paper editor, I wouldn't hire him. --Anittas 19:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct that when a word is part of the name, it is capiatlized. However, the Danube is usually referred to by just the single-word name, "Danube", although it can occasionally be the "Danube River". I would say, though, that the name of that river is just "Danube". Now, when one is referring to a proper noun, one may wish to add a descriptor if it may not be obvious what that object is. For instance, I might write "...After the vote was completed, board member Michael Smith suggested that further discussion be..."—in this case, Michael Smith is a board member; however, it is not part of his name. He is not "Board Member Michael Smith"; rather, the writer wishes to convey that he is a board member. Or another example would be "See that bright red point of light near the moon? That's the planet Mars." Again, the planet is not called "Planet Mars"; rather, the name is Mars and the descriptor planet is simply there for clarification. These types of descriptors are used when one feels that the reader/listener may not be familiar with that which is being referenced; as descriptive adjectives, they are not part of the title and should remain in lower case. I must again point out that your comments about Mel Etities are not appropriate. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you further discuss this matter. As its second sentence reads, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please refrain from saying things like "This guy, no matter what diploma he holds, is a nut - period...That person is not honourable...He is nothing but a troublemaker". If you continue in this manner, you will likely find yourself blocked; you have plenty of warning. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't like to be given ultimatums. If you're going to block or ban me, do it, and get on with it. And about the Danube: you're basically making my argument more valid, because that's exactly what I had said, too.
I will prove this to you. See the history of the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rovine&action=history
Click on my edit from 23:45, September 14, 2005 Anittas.
It say: "Then the Romanian cavalry charged and routed the Ottomans, who fled in disorder across the Danube."
Before I made the edit, this is what it said: "Then the Romanian cavalry charged and routed the Ottomans, who fled in disorder across the river Danube."
I, too, argued that it wasn't necessary to say River Danube, because Danube is known; but I also said that if you choose to do it, then capitalize it, because it becomes a part of the name. River Danube, the Carphatian Mountains, etc.
I said all of this (NOTE: ALL OF THIS) in my discussion with that person whom you seem to like. Just scroll up and read. Or allow me to help you.
"For starters, if you write a river's name, you use capital letters for the word 'river'. Secondly, Danube is too famous to be called a river. For example, you don't have to say River Rhine; you can say just the Rhine. You don't usually say that Caesar crossed River Rubicon; you usually say that he crossed the Rubicon. You don't usually write their 'title', unless it's a part of their name, like: Mississippi River. If you insist in writing River Danube, at least use capital letters."
That's what I replied to him. Thats is what you replied to me. We seem to agree. But Mel doesn't agree. He reverted the article (again, see the history) and now it's back with "river Danube".
And this is not this sole mistake. He also went on to terrorize my other article, for which I worked hard for: Battle of Vaslui. I don't claim to own that article, or else I wouldn't have posted it here, but I do care about its context, because I worked for it. Not Mel. He doesn't even care about the subject. --Anittas 20:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)