User talk: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)

Criztu

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)

Battle of Rovine

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)