User talk:Agnes Nitt

Welcome!

Hello, Agnes Nitt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to your version of a page

See Wikipedia:Edit war for the various ways this can go. Beware of reverting a page yourself more than three times in the same day for any reason, this can be used to ban you (temporarily). One of the best ways is to bring up your concerns on the article's talk page and get agreement from some others before instituting your changes. Perhaps you were reverted because you were mistaken for a vandal (this especially happens on high-vandalism pages). Also, try adding citations and footnotes when you add changes. If the other version was full of hearsay and your version is properly cited, then your version will tend to prevail. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes, I count four instances (within 24 hours) where you've re-applied your edit about the Children's Crusade. Technically, that's a violation of the Three Revert Rule, but Wikipedia's servers are running too slowly right now for me to check, identify,and list the exact four edits so I'm gong to give you a break and not block you. But please take Mermaid from the Baltic Sea's words to heart; on Wikipedia, consensus rules the day rather than merely being the most-persistent in applying a given edit. Please take a step back from editing the article and discuss your proposed changes onthe article's talk page.

Atlant 17:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havent reverted 4 times, I'v only reverted once. The other times were just regular editting; copying and pasting my versions back again. Its not fair really, because it seems to me that there are a handful of 'acquaintances' who are so hell bent to bring it back to the older, more innaccurate version, which is wholly one sided, biasd, heroising the crusaders when history testifies that they were brutal murderers fighting in a land not theres. All I did was cut out the clutter; the drama, the 'holier than thou' attitude, the legend, and inserted key facts which have been ommitted to give the crusaders a better name. That is NOT an academic attitude, and defiately not the kind of behaviour I would expect on wiki. No one bothered to communicate with me and discuss their issues and opinions (like I would expect from any civilised human-not these catholic zealots-which they quite obviously are). I would be very grateful if you co-operate with me and advise me on the best thing to do. And with regards to the spelling mistakes, theyr just typing errors, and whoever sees them should correct them rather than complain. And it is NOT very 'point of view', the other version was totally point of vue, only difference ws that people liked what they heared. People dont like to know it was a massacre; thats not my fault, we cant fabricate history Agnes Nitt 17:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to read WP:3RR. It doesn't matter whether you're reapplying the same edits or doing an actual reversion; they each count towards your tally. And the way to handle this is to discuss things on the article's talk page.

Atlant 17:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've been unblocked

Please take some time to review our policies, make sure you sign your posts to talk pages, and do watch out for reverting... best to calmly discuss your issues on the talk page, and provide sources for things. If you need help, ask. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make the same point as Lar; it's always preferable if you keep calm and don't take discussions on talk pages personally, even if it's a contentious point. It's more effective and more collegial to make arguments calmly if possible, and if you do get emotional make sure that the other people involved don't feel threatened or attacked by the comments. Good luck and let me know if you need help. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes: This post is, in my view, the sort of thing that people have concerns about. It is long, appears argumentative, and casts aspersions on fellow editors. PLEASE, try to be more collegial. Try to tackle one small issue at a time, try to do so without saying things about your fellow editors. Assume good faith please. If you can't take this advice on board you may find yourself blocked again. If you're not clear what we mean, please ask. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Lar, The Bryce has directly insulted me by calling me a fool and an idiot, but I have not insulted him back. He has broken the rules and ought to be banned for abuse, not me, I am defending my academic view fiercely, that shouldn't offend anyone. I will however, try to be less critical in the future of ridiculous opinions, however, please be aware that many of my not quite so friendly comments (however not abusive) are due to the same methods being used against me by some of the editors, and this entire buisiness of ganging up on me which i encountered at the begining is what really triggered it Agnes Nitt 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the best thing to do is as you say, to be less critical and to not "defend fiercely". Excessively long posts also may get overlooked. For example, this post is so long that it may get overlooked. Encyclopedic writing is succinct and cogent, and many editors tend to expect that from each other in their talk as well. Hope that helps. If you would like some further advice let me know. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Lar, Agnes Nitt 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Nitt, I'm on The Bryce's side. You have a problem with some articles and go on and on and on. Stop your pathetic mewling! Many people are taking offence to you and unless you stop it will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Windows9 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm..suspicious..you sound almost exactly the same as thebryce himself, you might even be thebryce under a different account name, it's not hard, even for thebryce. I don't think anyone in a normal sense of mind would take the bryce's side;for starters, he clearly shows that he has no idea whatsoever about the crusades and has had no formal education on the subject (he mentions university and teaching frequently and 'the first thing you learn...' which shows that he probably hasn't even set foot in a university before, because what he says is NOT what you learn in university-you do find imposters on wikipedia; it came on the news a few weeks ago I think: someone was pretending that they were a professor of some sort, but turned out to be a fraud. I think the bryce is doing likewise - he can't have gone to university- and if he hasn't then why does he talk about the kind of things that are taught there!!) secondly he doesn't understand a thing of what is being said to him, finally (amongst numerous other things), he has no manners whatsoever (and that is enough to get HIM blocked as he HAS insulted me directly, as have many others, and I think before I get blocked, everyone who has insulted me ought to get banned forst- after all, challenging peoples POV is not an offence on wikipedia, however, insulting people IS!! so get your facts right)The only people who take offence are those who are closed minded, and don't like to hear certain things. I, and many others, are not from that category, as we think about what is being said to us and honestly consider it, and if we don't agree we politely either leave the converstaion and definately don't take offence- i mean I've just been insulted and called a terrorist because I'm against the crusaders (who were terrorists)and I've had angry people insulting me outright and openly on wikipedia (who haven't been banned by the way) yet I don't take offence; I sympathise with them because of their inability to admit their mistakes and failiure at anger management. But i don't take offence (i just laugh it off sometimes- and if there is anyone who should be offended, it should be me, not people who are unhappy that I am revealing the truth about the things they love, after all this is supposed to be a factual website, with academic facts, not a tribute to our loved ones). And to sum up: quite frankly, I don't care who's side you're on, or which BASKETBALL team you support. Thankyou. Goodbye. Agnes Agnes Nitt 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, what was that fake professor talking about and where was he from?--Clock2 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm you'll find out about it here. Typical (tut tut-I shake my head in dismay). Anyway, I hope that helps you (lucky for you I still remembered where it was-to be honest it wasn't that hard, i just put 'wikipedia professor' in the BBC search engine and it popped up :) so you weren't any trouble!!)

Agnes Nitt

I think you could do with some sort of education, I will presume you meant to say first not forst. Anyone what the hell are you talking about, basketball? And stop complaining about being insulted, this is an encyclopedia not and agony aunt page. Good day to you sir. P.S I am not thebryce and do have some knowledge on history, I just don't agree with the way you rip into people because they do something you don't agree with, that is probably why you are hated.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

You're hillarious, first you tell me to get 'some sort of education' because I made a typing error and put 'forst' instead of 'first' (look how close the 'o' and the 'i' are on the keyboard Mr.Educated)and then you yourself do something worse than a typing error and put: 'Anyone what the hell are you talking about' what are you on about?? 'Anyone' does not make sense in that sentence!!! You also put: 'not AND agony aunt page' !!!! Now that is WORSE than a typing error, you definately must be the bryce because he has that kind of ignorance lol.

May I remind you Mr. Attentive that it was YOU who started complaining about people taking offence !! You're the one who turned it into an 'agony aunt page'!! Again, you're just like thebryce; you start complaining, or talking about basketball, and then when I reply to you regarding what you were talking about you start saying I'm turning it into a basketball conversation or an 'agony aunt page'!!! Ridiculous lol(you're not doing a very good job of hiding the fact that you're thebryce-you act just like him)!!!

And if you had understood a thing of what I had said (as usual thebryce doesn't understand anything)you would have noticed that I was not complaining, infact I was just trying to (obviously unsucessfully!!)convey to you the fact that I couldn't possibly get banned untill all those who insulted me before got banned. As I clearly stated I don't give a dam what offence I take from rude arrogant ignorant people; it weigh's nothing on my scales. I have taken much more offence on that talk page, and I have offended no one, so keeep your trap shut.

I would also like to remind you that THIS is NOT an encyclopedia page, this is my TALK PAGE, so get that right (or does everyone have an opinion as to whether it's my talk page, or an encyclopedia, or even a bar of soap??!!!)

And it's madam to you(not 'sir', just like thebryce you don't know how to address a woman-shameful)

What you consider as 'some' knowledge is what I consider as: not very much, memorised innaccurate mythical woffle, and definately not enough.

And again I don't care what you agree with or what you don't agree with

G-O-O-D B-Y-E (I really don't want to repeat myself)

Agnes Agnes Nitt 14:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I'm not thebryce, I just enjoy winding people up. You seem pretty angry. Toodlepip.--Windows9 09:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ye right, ye right, whatever!!! Im sure you're not the bryce (i'm being sarcastic by the way just in case you didn't realise-which wouldn't be a surprise) . And yes you are the bryce, because again you've given yourself away: one moment your mr prim & proper, who abides by the law and wags a finger at any one who might cause 'offence', warning me that I will get myself 'blocked from editing Wikipedia', but whenever you're proven wrong you start pretending that you 'cant be bovvered' & now you're mr cool who suddenly becomes a rebel who just enjoys 'winding people up'. The person laughing here is me, and the sore loosers are all the crusader hugging wierdos like yourself, thebryce: who has multiple split personalities and invisible friends and supporters, and who's motives change like the wind in a split second!! All you angry violent drunkards ganging up on a woman (tut tut tut,bloomin heck what has the world come to?) Enjoy life, and take good care of each of your multiple personalities.

Gooooooood Byyyyyyyye (it's the polite way of saying, get the hell outta here, and stop 'trespassing' on my 'land') Agnes Agnes Nitt 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No really I'm not thebryce, I'm actually the one who asked for help on the crusades article, what were Pope Urban II's motives for calling the crusades. I was studying that for my A-level coursework. I was just annoyed when you gave a lecture on use of wikipedia discussion pages.--Windows9 09:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey windows9 why don't you just leave people alone and do something useful yourself? I suggests cutting your hands off so you can never type on wikipedia agaoin. --Clock2 09:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still convinced that you are thebryce, however I am British, and as you are doing A levels that means you must be in England aswel. What subject are you taking that involves Pope Urban?? And I am sure you will find that you are wrong when you claim that I 'gave a lecture on use of wikipedia discussion pages' . The 'lecture you are refferring to is this (the only comment I made under that section): Yes I am sorry but i do sort of agree. Besides, you wouldn't find that kind of information in this article; you're best off doing you're own unbiased academic research, that way you'll learn alot more :) . Sorry I couldn't help you (I can't remember any references at the moment) good luck any way. Agnes Nitt 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Now that was hardly a 'lecture', and would never be the cause to get annoyed (however, the message above it IS particularly harsh, and for no good reason either - but I don't know what kind of person you are to take offence at MY comment, infact I felt really sorry for you because of that harsh reply (that is if you really are the student who asked for help)and so decided to be a bit more sweet and wish you good luck, and apologise for not being able to help you- that could never cause offence) . If you really are who you claim to be you'll have understood what I have just said (unlike thebryce), and if you really are that student, then my word of advice to you is that when you come to evaluate your references and mention Wikipedia, you have to explain that the reliability of Wikipedia is unlike that of other sources as there is no control over who writes and edits articles. That is a valuable point that will gain you extra marks on your coursework (if you really are the person i tried to help but couldn't )And if you are, then I hope you did well on it. Agnes Nitt 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am in England too, in Dorset. I was doing my coursework on Pope Urban II in History coursework where we can do it on anything from 800AD to 1986. My annoyance wasn't just with you but with everyone who complained everytime I did something on wikipedia which is what led to my vandalism of certian pages, creation of nonsense pages such as Terjinia and my vendetta's against certain people, not just you, Gillyweed recieved quite a bit of grief. Anyway how are you involved in history and the crusades. Windows9 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have informed me who you were from the begining, had I kown you weren't thebryce I wouldn't have been so harsh on you lol. Don't worry about it,if anyone gives you grief on wikipedia then tell me and I'll sort them out!! I thought your enquiery about Urban was quite relevant, however I couldn't remember which references I had relied on to get my information from: the books(have to be academic and unbiased with no motives except to reveal historical facts), thesis etc. I had read way back, so I didn't think I would be of any help to you, as you would need references for your coursework. I only decided to reply when you got that particularly nasty and hostile comment (which I believe is due to people's anger and fear that you might start up a discussion about Pope Urban-and like what I did- prove something they might not want to hear. Because as you can see they don't like anyone to challenge their views and beliefs - quite frankly: they don't expect anyone to do so, because they think that because they are moderators and have some 'authority' (which as I explained isn't worth peanuts to any academics) people will take what they say, but when the rare few (such as myself ) can actually be bothered to put an end to their biased and uneducated statements, they find themselves in a predicament- so I think from past experience of the crusades discussion page, they didn't want anything else to be discussed and revealed; to them, you were a threat, hence the hostile behaviour (which I also experienced- you're not alone.)). I studied medicine at university, and not history or the likes of it, however, I have some friends who studied comparing religions and theologians and historians (not any big names-just people who did PhD’s etc) and what with my Unitarian background (I am not the typical Unitarian though) I know the hell of alot of stuff about Christian history (not all branches of it-only the relevant ones; it begins to get pretty irrelevant in my eyes at certain points, because after the first christians (and the true ones who were following jesus) were eliminated, you would be studying about Pagan Romans effectively) I have studied our heavily altered Bible and as everyone knows it has issues!! But there are also some reminants of the Unitarian teachings and other shocking and-usually-kept-low-key- kind of facts. I have of course read about the crusades (not from novels etc, I like to read academic works and papers, unbiased books (the ones that don't have a particular agenda in mind), and i have read the odd few biased books to see what the two sides think and I would then compare it with the academic unbiased accounts, and I wil tell you this: the more accurate accounts are those of the Muslims-the victims- which don't have as much in the way of bias, because what happened was so historically horrific that you couldn't really have made it look any worse!! And besides, because the Muslims of the time were more educated and scientifically advanced, lying and giving biased accounts was largely out of place, however in Europe people would make up myths about anything and believe them: the orient was more rational and sensible. Like nowadays, you don't really find many heavily biased accounts of WW2 do you?? That is because we are now much more educated, as the Saracens were). To summarise, my journey in search of knowledge is pretty long and mostly independent, and is the reason behind why me and my friends and acquaintances who are theologians and historians can find common ground in conversations now. It may sound surprising, but ever since you posted that section regarding Pope Urban I have always thought somewhat highly of you, as you seem to be more open minded and ready to accept the truth no matter how sour it is than the rest of those on the crusades discussion page: you stuck out like a sore thumb- but in a good way!! Terjinia lol what a scream!!! How did you do in that coursework by the way?? Agnes Agnes Nitt 19:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Agnes, I have noticed people on wikipedia seem a bit cautious of debate. I am studying Philosophy also at A-level although have not come across Unitarianism of which I know very little except a belief in oneness of God. As for the coursework I don't find out my results until July.--Windows9 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing windows9?? . I hope you’re ok and everything.I can't believe it!! Perhaps I have actually found an open minded educated person on Wikipedia, It seems that we both have similarites. Yes, you’re right about people being wary of challenge; but it’s not the case for me: people have always challenged me for my beliefs and I have always been able to prove my point to them at the end, and shed some light on things they were ignorant about, so I’m quite used to being challenged (I mostly end up challenging them!!). I myself have had to challenge, study, and analyse my own beliefs which has led to me knowing the truth. I think people are afraid to be challenged (by someone educated) because they are quite often arrogant and think themselves superior to what is challenging them, and don’t want to admit that they are wrong, and take up the truth, which their ‘fore fathers’ didn’t follow.

I’ll introduce you a bit to Unitarianism: Unitarians, like you said, are a sect of Christianity (I really shouldn’t us the term Christian, because it was given to the followers of Christ by their enemies as an insult). They are the true ‘Christians’ and followers of Jesus (unlike the Trinitarians, which is certain elements and names from Christianity merged with the Pagan Roman religion- in order to keep the roman empire strong, because many people were converting to the true Christianity (Emperor Constantine – I think that was his name – later reverted back to Unitarianism himself!!). The Unitarians followed and lived by the teachings of Jesus as much as they could from what was taught to them. They didn’t tailor the bible to suit their worldly whims and desires, and were therefore persecuted all over the globe by the Romans (Trinitarian Christians) because they wouldn’t leave their faith. They had in their bible (and there are still remnants in our current Bile which the church seem to have forgotten to rub out!!) the coming of a prophet after prophet Jesus. This Prophet would be the seal of the prophets, and Unitarian scholars had his descriptions in their scriptures (all deemed as heretical by the council of nicea I think, and destroyed by the Romans) That is why countries in north Africa-such as Egypt, and communities in Spain who were Unitarian (and were suffering persecution under the hands of the Romans) converted to Islam as soon as they knew that their prophet had come. All were liberated from the Romans by Muslims, and those who wished to stay Trinitarian form the roman inhabitants of Egypt etc were free to do so (hence the 10% strong population of roman Christians in Egypt today- who still look significantly different from indigenous Egyptians because of their roman origins) The Trinitarians on the other hand, were preventing the Unitarians from practicing their faith and were persecuting them and they didn’t dare speak out. Unitarianism in essence is Islam if you study the entire history of Christianity, so I call myself both, because it’s the same thing, even the names are similar: being a Muslim, is to submit to the will of the one god, and a Unitarian is someone who believes and follows the will if the one god aswel. I have a friend who is an R.E teacher and she did a PhD on something to do with Christianity and the bible and Judaism I think, and she sort of calls herself a Muslim aswel lol. It sounds funny when you think about it, but it’s true!! Sorry I’ve been ranting on as usual.

Talk about slack teachers!! Aren’t you supposed to get the coursework marked asap?? Bloomin heck what’s the world coming to? I hope you do really well in it, again I’m sorry I couldn’t help you. What’s A level philosophy like? Take care.

Agnes Agnes Nitt 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was nothing really, I would have nominated you for the wikipedia mum of the year if there were such a thing lol!! Agnes Agnes Nitt 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]