Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_Anittas.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 of your conduct and comments such as [1], [2], [3] and [4], I have reimposed the indefinite block on your account. This takes into account the fact you have been indefinitely blocked for your actions in the past by Jimmy Wales, and only recieved a let off after 9 months with a pledge of good behaviour. It is clear this pledge has not been adhered to. Racism and hatespeech are not tolerated on Wikipedia - I suggest you find another forum for your views. Neil ☎ 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely crazy. We all agree that Anittas had some racist comments, but we also knew that he was an effective editor (have a look at his user page to see what actually he did for Romania and its history here on wikipedia). I mean, what the heck, we don't block extremely disruptive users such as User:Anonimu, but we block Anittas, because he had he's own bad moments. As links 1,2,3 and 4 stated by User:Neil do not represent vandalism, this block was made abusively. So, to be clear, I do not support racism at all, but we should always give a second chance to such effective/experienced users. --Eurocopter tigre 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas has had numerous chances, let alone second ones. The block was not for vandalism. Anittas has been indefinitely blocked before, and was only let off following a pledge of good behaviour. Racism is not tolerated. It does not matter how many good contributions one makes - it is not a case of building up credit so you can say what you like. Neil ☎ 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but links 1,2,3 and 4 do not represent racism. I suggest undoing your actions and make other ones based on something true. An affirmation such as "All muntenians are mammals" doesn't merit an indef block, but an medium-length one would be addequate (2 weeks/one month or something similar). --Eurocopter tigre 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Nat have been manipulated into thinking that I've made racist remarks based on what one person said. How can one be racist against his own ethnicity? Adrian and another user went to the RfC which was supposed to be about Anonimu and started to provoke me, because I suggested that the parties should try to find a compromise. He specifically said that he wants to gather proof for my misconduct; and so he got one. After that, he started misquoting me and make claims that I made racist remarks. For example, he said that I made racist remarks when mentioning that a large population of Bucharest is of Asian origin, but that was not meant as a racist remark and the context was entirely different from what he made it to be; moreover, the comment was based on a source which I have read in a book. See here. If you had read the entire discussion at the RfC, you would have noticed when I said that "we are the same people" when referring to Muntenians. The next time you consider blocking someone, I suggest you make a deeper research into the matter to better understand the context, instead of taking everything at face-value. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eurocopter, I don't believe such drastic action should have been undertaker. I have expressed my own views on the AN. TSO1D 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian now accuses me of continuing being uncivil because I removed his comments from my talkpage. Other than doing that, I said nothing to him, except for asking him not to post on my talkpage--a request I have made in the past. He reverted me once and that's against some Wiki rule, but it's okay. Adrian also finds it offensive to call people by their nationalities or for the region that they hail from, so it's no wonder that he finds many things as being offensive and uncivil. Quote: "I find [it] abusive to call people by nationalities or [for the] region where they come from, please restrain from doing this" --Thus Spake Anittas 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. Dahn 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Muntenian number two, a.k.a. Turgidson 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_Anittas.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 of your conduct and comments such as [1], [2], [3] and [4],". Let me quote the "[1,2,3,4]" in question:

Man, you've been repeating that for a thousand time and still, no-one gives a damn to what you say. Just don't start working for the Hague. You will bring it to ruin. Your arguments are laughable. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article misses a few important things, such as the subject on straydogs; orphans and streetchildren; gangs, organized crime and corruption; poor infrastructure; arrogance of the city's inhabitans; and lastly, the Asian influence of the city: in both culture and genetics. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biru...err, I mean, Turgidson. Sorry, I made a copy-and-paste. Turgidson, see my reply to Adrian. My comment is sourced. I don't understand why he thinks it's a racist thing to say that Bucharestneans have Asian influence. Is he implying that it would be a bad thing? In that case, he's being racist. Perhaps we should start a RfC on him. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it utterly ridiculous to impose an infinite block for the above. Indefinite blocking of an established editor without reasonable hearing is inadmissible. Arguments ad Jimbonem are invalid.

I myself had some encounters of animosity with this editor (in fact many Romaninan POV pushers just hate my guts) but I am going to unblock the account unless someone presents solid arguments why not. `'Míkka>t 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikka, as you have seen from my replies to that AN topic, I agree with you, this action seems to me to have been extremely excessive. The decision to block a user indefinitely cannot simply be made based on arguments such as: "yes, this infraction is minor, but it breaks the camel's back", or "Jimbo blocked him once, so if Anittas as much as one wrong step, his head must come off." I actually considered lifting the block myself as I did not consider that anything close to enough evidence or arguments had been provided to justify this ban, however my lack of impartiality had already been brought up and in the face of those heated debates I did not wish to get into a wheel war. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I agree with your position here. TSO1D (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should bring this up at WP:ANI rather than doing it unilaterally, lest you provoke a wheel war. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a notice at the blocker's talk page I am going to wait for his answer until after holidays. `'Míkka>t 06:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a banned episode of Sesame Street. :p Mikkalai, I'm flattered by your attention of goodwill, but there's no need to join the quicksand that I'm stuck in. The ways of Wikipedia have grown from the root and what you see here is just the fruit. It's time to let it go and cherish whatever good memories there are to be cherished. I would also like to thank User:Eurocopter tigre, User:TSO1D, User:Dpotop, and even User:Dc76 for their support. --Thus Spake Anittas (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A side view: I had my share of conflict wit Annitas in the very beginning of my editing history, in the Battle of Vaslui. However despite his attitude I noticed he is a knowledgeable and enthusiastic editor, and after a couple of biting exchanges in the talk page we parted without much grudge. I don't think that indefinite block without open community discussion is an appropriate approach, especially in view of Durova scandal, which also involved some mysterious consensus of admins behind the curtains. Mukadderat (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I nominated for deletion a non-free non-commercial image which was used in Battle of Vaslui. Then I noticed it was you who contacted the autrof of the picture. Can you ask him to release under wikipedia-compatible license (GFDL or creative commons of suitable number)? Mukadderat (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read the summary of the disclaimer. --Thus Spake Anittas (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipediatroll.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:438px-Kallerupstenen 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to user:biruitorul who said, "probably does have an agenda, indeed could be a sockpuppet of User:Anittas) comes in and degrades an well-written article, of course we need to either fix or remove that material", I'd like to point out that 'degrading' well-written articles is inconsistent with my user persona. Apart from the article on "protochronism" (which I still count as nonsense), I've enjoyed reading several of "Dahn's" article. When it comes to the article on Tismaneanu, which I believe the disagreement where my username was mentioned pertains to, I'd like to underscore that the article was met with stiff opposition from several sources, but not once from me. Even on the Romanian Wikipedia I pretty much stayed out from editing the article and my greatest offense was on the article's talkpage where I called it boring (I still find it boring). Moreover, I don't remember "Dahn" having accused me of being a part of the circle that opposed the content of the article, so it comes as a bit of surprise that several years since my ban, my username is still circulating around whenever someone takes a poke on "Dahn" or his articles. In order to further clarify things, I'd like to say that I (no longer) find it stimulating in 'teasing' "Dahn" (there's a reason for that and it's enough that "Dahn" knows the reason), or anyone else for that reason. Happy Holidays! --Thus Spake Anittas (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Award of Anittas.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anittas,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Civil courage should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil courage .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Edaham (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Iasi 17th century.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to File:Gabriel Bodenehr - Iassi - 1686.jpg which is hosted on Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]