User talk:Anittas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is banned from editing Wikipedia. Please review the banning policy before commenting or unblocking.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

I had previously warned this user here. His continued disruptions make it clear that he is not interested in good behavior. The edit that torqued me was this one: homophobic stalking and he's become disruptive again. So, I'm done. --Jimbo Wales 03:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I guess you didn't like the kangaroo photo. Fair enough. I'm not sure why you're dragging up the past (see above), especially since I removed that stuff myself after being asked to, but for a guy in your position, you have a good memory. If you think that what I had placed on my userpage was harmful, then you wouldn't want people to see it. And I'm not sure why someone on your talkpage said that the photo involved animal grabbing...there was no animal grabbing! To me, the photo resembles the hierarchy on Wiki, just like the one of the French revolution, where the working class feed the elite. Anyway, one thing I don't understand is why you had to blank my contributions on my userpage. One thing is to be blocked, but to hide history is not fair play. --Candide, or Optimism 04:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As documented here - "Policies are often applied to critics retroactively. Critics are punished, and then a policy is stuck on or invented later." - Xed 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping this page protected. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask other administrators: please do not blank this page. See below. - Jmabel | Talk 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unblock Anittas

He should be unblocked now. By no means this is not good. Anittas should be unblocked. --165.229.47.125 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about a Jimbo Wales block, those don't get reverted by anyone but Jimbo. Sorry but nobody around here will unblock and risk a de-sysopping -- Tawker 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, if you are here for editing as you claim, you should have edited more and spread about hatred less. I was among the first to point out the disruptiveness of your homophobic attacks and your persistent stalking of Node, see here, for example. Yet I believe you should be given a second chance. Your behaviour improved significantly after your former friend, User:Bonaparte, was permabanned. Yet Node's return to Wikipedia seems to have triggered a relapse into your former ways. I hope that you will rethink your activities and be allowed to return to editing after a month or so. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I made no homophobic attacks on Node this season. I was banned for posting a photo of two kangaroos making love. For more info, see the history of my userpage or Jimbo's talkpage. --Candide, or Optimism 07:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You know that I'm not an admin and my contacts with admins have been routinely unpleasant. Our frustration with some of the admins is no reason, however, to bring the entire project into disrepute by posting offensive nonsense on external websites. If you cared about Wikipedia, you would have thought twice before posting that pic. Probably you should be given some time to grow up. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I care for the editors, not for the admins that abuse their tools; or those who let them slide away. Unless they ban me from editing my talkpage, I can still contribute to articles, etc. Then one of you can paste my new edits and so on. --Candide, or Optimism 08:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghir, I see that you invited Node to speak his opinion on my talkpage. I guess it isn't enough that I was banned...lol --Candide, or Optimism 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Anittas, I was shocked to see that you are banned indefinitely. I don't understand. It's hard for me to see what's going on here. why did Jimmy block you? Metrocat 11:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Same, I would really like to know why Anittas got blocked. I'm the first one to say that he has acted inappropriately in the past, but in the past months he hasn't done anything inappropriate. Maybe I'm overlooking something. But something that warrants an indefinite block? Dismiss me as "mad hatter liberal", but he didn't upload the kangaroo photo to Wikipedia, and he was really only stating a free opinion. Things like that shouldn't be punished in this way. At least, there should've been more dialogue and warning, particularly considering that Anittas has made some useful contributions. Ronline ✉ 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This recent ban emphasizes some troubling trends that have developed since the inception of Wikipedia. Jim Wales established Wikipedia thus acquiring the legal and moral leadership of the project. Other users in their respect for the creator of the encyclopedia have regularly acquisced to his views, even when they have gone against more popular theories, developed through a democratic process. Nevertheless, the fact that Wales continues to rule the encyclopedia in an autocratic way, making some decisions on a whim without consulting the existing administrative structures that have been established and defying official policies will force every user to analyze what Wikipedia and the ideals behind it mean for them. The recent blocking of Anittas is only one, albeit a shockingly disturbing event, in the recent past. Although Anittas did engage in an inappropriate conflict with Node, especially in the past, the insults where by no means unilateral, and usually could be defined as harmless banter. Considering Anittas's long history of performing productive work on Wikipedia, it is unfathomable that he could have been blocked for an indefinite period for a matter as trivial as this incident virtually with no immediate prior warning. And if the main force of Wales's fury stemms from Anittas's excercising of free speech and criticizing Wales, then the situation is only that much more ominous. Vox Populi (TSO) 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a very good summary. Also, this talk page was protected by Tony Sidaway, which is very wrong, but very predictable (and the atmosphere is such that I dare not unprotect this page myself). Add my voice to those of the "trolls" requesting that Anittas be unbanned. Everyking 08:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Anittas is a good man and I wholeheartedly support his unbanning. Godspeed, my bruddah !! --Voievod 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not the only one

I checked on the talkpage of User:Xed and this is what got him blocked by one of the admins:

Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter. (note: this got me blocked by one of Jimbos minions for making personal attacks. Seriously.) - Xed 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, Wales is impressed by Anne Coulter, the woman who called Arabs for ""ragheads, camel jockeys, and jihad monkeys." I guess those attacks are okay. Wales, you own the servers, but you don't 0wn our will; nor our mind. The only way you can block me is by killing me. But then someone else will take my place. I know your kind. You're a southern boy from Alabama and you like to kick ass. You, George Bush and John Ashcroft. --Candide, or Optimism 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This should at least be taken to arbitration. Is there any way that can happen. The reason I'm asking is because the Xed case went through arbitration (it's a case I was also involved in, since Xed asked for my help). Jimmy - don't think that we're being disruptive here or trying to purposely nag you just for fun or for trolling purposes. I, for one, am making a good-faith attempt to find out why Anittas' actions really warranted such an indefinite block, which I believe that in this case in unwarranted. As I have said before, Wikipedia works best when there is a sense of justice in the project, and that is what I am interested in. I think dialogue in this case would be good (as in all cases). Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm more or less with Ronline here. I've had major run-ins with Anittas, even started an RFC on him once and was not entirely satisfied with the result, but I've also collaborated with him on articles. An indefinite block seems excessive to me, although some arbitration would be in order. And why on earth is this talk page protected? Not only administrators should be able to comment on what is doubtless going to be a controversial action? (And when I say "controversial", I mean exactly that: some will agree, others will disagree.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm one of those who disagrees with you and support's Jimbo's block of Anittas. He's been a constant source of personal attacks, strife and disruption who's had many, many chances to reform; his ultimate banning is not surprising in the least. In fact, it was all too predictable. Considering Anittas consistently has not played well with others, making many enemies along the way, the only controversy over this be a contrived one. FeloniousMonk 18:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As much as anything, my issue is about process. Personal attacks? Yes, my biggest problem with him. Strife? Always hard to say. Disruption? I'm really not so sure. Neither Ronline nor I have particularly gotten along well with him, and as I remark above I even started an RFC against him, backing off mainly because Xed and others chose to use the occasion to attack me. But my immediate questions are about process:
  1. Why is this talk page protected (an unusual measure, as far as I know). There ought to be a place to discuss this matter, and I can't see why that should be confined to administrators.
  2. Anittas has sometimes been a problem, other times a good contributor, sometimes both within a single edit. Within the last month, I've had occasion both to collaborate with him on articles and to email him suggesting that he "play nicer" with others. But his conduct the last few months had certainly improved from earlier. It seems really weird that we couldn't get so much as a consensus to censure him half a year ago when his conduct was really egregious, and now, when it is somewhat improved, an indefinite block is imposed from on high. As far as I can tell, Anittas has been willing to work through the arbitration process. Don't we usually let that run its course? I would have presumed that Jimbo's intervention without due process would be invoked where the usually system seems broken, not where people are engaged with it. Or am I missing something on this front?
If there is a better place to have this discussion, preferably on a page that non-admins can edit, could someone please tell me where? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that Jimbo has the final word here on process. Feel free to lecture him on the benefits of following it though if you feel the need. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks the same to me. Who said Wikipedia is a democracy or meritocracy? Only a complete geek may have had this impression. :) Dpotop 06:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I'm not "lecturing" anyone. I'm asking questions. Has that now become an objectionable act? - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Anittas made uncouth remarks at people. He pressed people's buttons. He made an anti-semitic comment about someone being a "Jewwwwwwwwwwwwww". And then he decided to insult Jimmy in the face! How would you expect Jim to react, all sugar and spice? That being said, this b7 probably should've been a matter for ArbCom. OTOH, I fail to see why Jimbo doesn't invoke his power to ban User:Willy on Wheels, a known, very infamous, and notorious vandal. (Yes, I know, he's community banned, but wouldn't a Jimbo ban be a bigger standard of dishonor?) — Rickyrab | Talk 05:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't spread misinformation. I've made no anti-semetic comments. --Candide, or Optimism 05:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that the prospect of Anittas commenting on his ban frightens me greatly. Thank God this page is protected. I mean, if he was allowed to discuss it, he might actually argue against it, and make good points—I can't go on, thinking about such a thing is just too terrifying. Everyking 07:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de:Benutzer:Juliana da Costa José/Schönheitengalerie

Anneke answered you here. Sarazyn • TALK • DE 07:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. Too bad I can't vote against Jimbo, but ah well. ;))) --Candide, or Optimism 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to vote against him? I think he doesn't look that bad... Maybe you think he's got credit the lot. Is that your point? Sarazyn • TALK • DE 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not all about looks; it's also about character. In some photos, he looks cool. In this photo, for instance, he looks cool. The photo is showing a professional gentleman who knows what he wants in life - emotionally intelligent and stable, and with a spark of kindness in his eyes. All good. In this photo, however, he is being funny. That's good, too, since he's showing that he's human. But because Wales is not such a nice guy as he likes to advertise himself as, and because he's being unfair to some people, I find him unappealing. Well, that and because I'm a guy and not gay (unlike others...wink to you-know-who). If Wales starts acting like a man and starts judging things with a sense of fairness and reason, I may change my opinion. --Candide, or Optimism 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
A hint, Anittas: if you really want to be unbanned, bringing to mind the kind of behaviour that got you banned in the first place isn't really smart. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to appeal?

Does anyone know where one can appeal against a block? I checked this page, but it doesn't seem to have that info included. That's strange, because I got to that page from my block notice page, where it said I could appeal for my block to be removed. --Candide, or Optimism 08:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, I don't know the formal process, but I'd suggest that there are two separate issues here: the block (technical prevention from editing pages) and the ban (that Jimbo has effectively decided that you are unwelcome). I'd suggest that you contact Ronline, since he is on the mediation committee, has, like me, expressed the view that this is excessive, and would presumably know how to proceed, or whom to ask. I would also suggest that, if those involved are amenable, that you acknowledge the ban and agree for now not to edit on matters than your own case; ask for a forum in which to discuss the ban; and ask that the technical block be removed so that you can access that forum. (You can keep emailing me when you want to pass along substantive comments to other contributors who choose not to receive email; as you know, I will pass these along as best I can). - Jmabel | Talk 02:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a collision with Annitas in my very early days of editing. He came pretty hard on me, but after a couple of exchanges we cooperated prety much normally. So I would say he is not fundamentally evil. However IMO whatever appeal rules are, the first and foremost precondition of even a consideration of the appeal is an apology. An insult is an insult is an insult. If you vouch for free speech, prepare to get your ass kicked for your speech. Mukadderat 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My view

Perhaps the indef block was too harsh. However, posting that picture on Jimbo's talk page was anything but gross. Anittas, you must learn that having a point about things is not enough, you also need to to know how to state it.

People are not perfect, and Wikipedia is not perfect, so some of your criticisms may have had a point. But making a nuisance of yourself achives nothing and annoys others. Hope this will be a lesson. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What was gross? Two kangaroos making love. Make love, not war. --Candide, or Optimism 07:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess you did not learn the lesson then. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Moldavia

Make note of the fact that the text of the article already covered the fact that Roman reached the Black Sea. I cannot find proof of any border on the Dnestr north of that until Alexandru cel Bun (not to say that it wasn't, not to say that it was).

I still can read several different things into the reference about Podolia. As such, the text may indicate direction (as in "passing through... to get to...") and is rather obscure on its own.

I'll nuance the reference to indicate Polish vassalge rather than assistance for Stephen.

I remember your sentence about Olaha, and my reason for deleting it: it is speculation (as founded as speculation may get, but still speculation), and it contradicts the very source it borrows from (I am amazed that Romanian comments tend to believe every questionable reference to some guy's disputed lineage - as long as it is explicit - but then deny merit when the source indicates an unconfortoble one).

I'll add a short note for Moldo-Wallachia, Alxa Moldaowicz, and for Dragos et al being Vlachs. Dahn 05:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but just so you know: in history, you'll find many speculations and many theories. We are allowed to cover them, if they are sourced and if they are presented in their realistic nature. You do not need to have absolute proof of something. You are not Hans Blix looking for WMDs. You are allowed to mention — as it is with this case — what the Moldavian prince, Roman I, claimed to have ruled over. Thanks for adding that other stuff. --Candide, or Optimism 08:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Romanians

Someone changed the headline from Contemporary sources to Mediaval sources. See his argument. That headline should be changed back. For starters, the first source that I had included in the article is from the 6th century, which is not a Medieval timeperiod. Secondly, even if not all sources are contemporary to the exact year in question, they are contemporary to the historical age. They didn't have CNN back then, so maybe some writers wrote about events that had happened some century back. Either way, the title as it is now, is wrong. --Candide, or Optimism 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) —Khoikhoi 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thx...and if someone finds a better suitable title for the headline, go for it. Just make it good and make it sound right. :) --Candide, or Optimism 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
However, the epithet "contemporary" is simply misleading. Leaving aside that excerpt from Procopius, all the others are dated between 9th and 14th century. You also admit it: "writers wrote about events that had happened some century back", hence they are not contemporary. The CNN comment is simply inappropriate and betrays a deep misunderstanding.
I will change the title into "Ancient and Medieval sources". Daizus 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not understand, so I will repeat myself. Contemporary to the time period. If someone in 2006 writes about the 9/11, it's contemporary to this age, but not to the event itself. Either way, I have no problem with the new title and I had no reason to mislead anything. --Candide, or Optimism 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand very well. A 14th century written document is by no means contemporary with the events of the 1st millenium when the alleged ethnogenesis happened. Your analogy is flawed: here you have a difference of centuries, while between 9/11 and 2006 barely 5 years had passed. Daizus 08:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's the trick: I didn't say what the contemporary was related to. Contemporary to what? To the origin of the Romanians. Well, what exactly does that mean? Anyway, I said that I'm in agreement with the new title. I hope you found the sources valueble. --Candide, or Optimism 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the Origin of Romanians. All the arguments from the article address the first millenium. Therefore the term contemporary has a precise reference from article's context.
As for utility, I am not impressed by anachronisms and uncritical usage of sources and/or interpretations, but vox populi, vox dei ;) Daizus 12:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the article doesn't address only the first millenium. The article is to cover the rise of the Romanians until their foundation of the two states. The article should compromise a timeperiod from the 7th century (or even earlier) to the 13th century. --Candide, or Optimism 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There are mentions of Vlachs (both south and north of Danube) before the foundation of the two medieval states of Wallachia and Moldavia. The article covers the time period since the abandon of Dacia (3rd century) and the arguments end around 10-11th century (which is also a time where the chronicles already attest Vlachs north of Danube) while a large part of the arguments addresses the possible links between proto-Romanians and Dacians and Roman colonists adding a supplementary load on the first half of this interval. Moreover, the formation of Romanian language, the Christianisation and other cultural coordinates defining the ethnogenesis of Romanians are dated also in the same first millenium. Most of the scholar opinions - be them "continuist" or "migrational" - converge claiming the ethnic identity of Romanians was well defined at the end of this millenium. Hence, except for some anachronic testimonies (most being added by you) the article does address only the first millenium. You have absolutely no arguments for your erroneous position. Daizus 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. The article is about the origin of the Romanians. That also covers the controversary of the theory on the Daco-Romanian continuity. That is where my sources come in. If you look at the article, before I added those sources, there was a section that dealt with that theory, with arguments for and against it. I added my sources in that section, in support of the argument for the continuity. That's how the article was constructed, with a section that argued on the theory. How are they being anachronic? Some of the people that are against the theory of the Daco-Romanian continuity say that Romanians migrated north of Danube as late as 11th century. Those sources were added there to show that if the Romanians indeed have migrated north of Danube, it must have been earlier than that. The article does not address only the first millenium. It never has. Check the history. See here, for instance. The headline "Migrations from the south" addresses the Daco-Romanian theory and a couple of months later, in 2004, the section grew to this. I added my sources later, in 2006, and they are all in context of that section. --Candide, or Optimism 15:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Even the old version of the article focuses on the first millenium. The first version covers the Romanization or the assimilation of the Dacians, the "Migration from the south" paragraph invoking some linguistic arguments (which they are all included in this period). The second version keeps the same trend (linguistic arguments), the only argument which specifically is outside this interval (though not by much) is an alleged (I say alleged, because there's no 11th century Hungarian chronicle!) 11th century Magyar chronicle, which even would be a factual information, still would be anachronic, as the article fails to point out how that source is relevant or trustworthy regarding the events happening at least a century before. Daizus 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Origin of Romanians," not "Origin of Romanians in the First Millenium. There is nothing that says that we only have to cover the first millenium. The origin should explain where we come from. Since there are not many sources that cover our origin from the first millenium, except one source that I had included, I added other sources from the second millenium. There is nothing anachronistic about any of the sources included, because they all try to explain our origin before the creation of our state, which is exactly what the article is here for. --Candide, or Optimism 17:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You're losing the point. The 'Origin of Romanians', both scholarly and as content of the Wikipedia article are placed within the first millenium. Therefore the word contemporary is simply misfitted for 13-14th century sources. You also have no clue what "anachronic" means. However, given your stubborness, nationalistic drive and the fact you have already a ban, I suspect there's little value in debating further with you. Daizus 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, scholarly, it is not placed in the first millenium. Just because you say so doesn't make it so, and this has nothing to do with nationalism, being banned, or any of the other things you mentioned. Whatever book you will read, if the subject is on the Origin of Romanians, the sources that will be provided will mostly cover the second millenium. That's logical, since there are very few sources that mention Vlachs north of Danube before the first millenium. --Candide, or Optimism 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not blank this page

I ask other administrators: please do not blank this page. I continue to be in touch with Anittas. As far as I can tell, he is being very conscientious about not editing Wikipedia in any illicit manner to evade his block. Intermittently, he has emailed me with (quite constructive) comments on various articles, which I have usually placed on the relevant talk page, the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, etc.

There was never a problem with Anittas intellectual honesty or his basic ability to add useful material. The issue was entirely about his tendency to insult other editors and to do some rather trollish pranks around matters of sexuality. He seems to be accepting that when he wants to contribute, I get to filter it, and he's usually been willing to take it under advisement when I suggest that a particular point of his is not worth pursuing. I think this amounts to an effective modus operandi for him to continue to contribute usefully to Wikipedia without being at all disruptive.

Note that I am one of the people who ended up sponsoring an RFC about Anittas some time back. Even before Jimbo saw fit to ban Anittas, I had been in correspondence with him, urging him on the one hand to continue making useful contributions and on the other to stop insulting other contributors. He doesn't currently seem to be willing to promise to do that if unbanned, so I don't see any way to advocate for unbanning him at this time, but as long as I am effectively functioning as a filter, I certainly won't be passing through insults and pranks. It is useful to have a talk page here as a means for other contributors to communicate with him. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 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 is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone, please create a new article on Sirac Dilber?

Sirac Dilber is a Turkish scientist and coordinator of the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at the Swedish Karolinska Institute. Dilber discovered that cancer patients often lack enough NK cells. The cells are needed to fight against bacteria and cancerous tumours; but even when they are present, they cannot fight the disease effectively. Dilber and his team managed to increase the number of cells by 200, which showed in various experiments to be effective in cancer treatment. In an experiment on humans that lasted for six months, the tumour of one patient with liver cancer had completely dissapeared.

[edit] References

Thanks to User:Margana for creating the article. I had asked two other persons and only one replied, saying that he doesn't want to create the article because he fears some admins might get mad at him. Isn't it funny what Wiki has turned to? A place to fear for spreading what should be, free information? --Candide, or Optimism 20:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just spotted this now. Folks: Anittas is banned from editing, but not from communicating with editors, and quite a few of us (including myself, and I'm an admin) are in touch with him. He continues to have many worthwhile ideas, and I, for one, encourage people to intermediate for him. I wish he would apologize for intemperate comments (some of them ad hominem) that he's made in the past, and promise to refrain from doing so in the future, but apparently he won't, so he's going to remain banned from editing. Unlike a lot of other people who've been banned from editing, he appears not to be getting around it in illicit ways (like editing anonymously). There is certainly no rule against people being in touch with Anittas or making use of his good ideas. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that Khoikkhoik changed the spelling of the name and moved it to another article. Look, we don't know how the guy spells his name, okay? Maybe the Turkish version of the name is like Khoikhoioi wrote it, but that's irrelevant. We should use the version that is on his ID card and that Turkish version of the name is not the one he is using. The guy is living in Sweden and is most likely a Swedish citizen; thus, we should use the version that we know of: and that is Sirac Dilber. If we go to the the Swedish Society of Gen terepy, it says the same. The article should be moved back. Also, in my opinion, users who are chicken and fear of upsetting the clique by posting articles that comes from banned users, should not try to improve that same article by doing stuff to it. My 2 cents. --Candide, or Optimism 00:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's my source. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how good that source is, but whatever. I will contact the professor and ask him. --Candide, or Optimism 00:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Malmöpark2.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Malmöpark2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Malmöpark3.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Malmöpark3.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gay, I don't mind if you delete the images, but how is my ban relevant to your judgement on having the images deleted? --Candide, or Optimism 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Battle of Vaslui

Lysandros added the CN tag in two areas of the article, requesting for the claims to be sourced. The request in question is sourced in source number 44 and 46. I added the sources for the whole fragment. If I were to source every number and date, we would have too many sources of the same page from the same book, but if you guys want, you can use that same source where the citation request was added. Also, I don't think one should put a question mark in the box for military strength. In the box it said "Up to 120,000." When it was changed, it looked like "Up to 120,000?" You don't need to add the question mark to point out the uncertainty in the numbers. In fact, it's a bit misleading, because it looks as if the reader is asked whether the numbers were really up to 120,000. Well, according to some sources, they were.

The second part of the conflict took place in 1476 at the Battle of Valea Albă. The article in unfortunatelly a stub and I was planning to extend it to look like the Vaslui article, but some people put a stop to that. That conflict is a lot more complicated, since Corvinus, Dracula, the Tatars and Laiota were actively involved in it, while the Poles were on a stand-by. If someone feels like it, they could paste the article here and I could work on it on my talkpage.

I tried to email Lysandros, but his Wiki email is not activated. If someone could direct him here, I would be pleased. --Candide, or Optimism 12:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anittas. I didn't know that these claims were sourced. I removed the CN tags. Note that the source number 46 is in romanian and sorry but i can't read romanian. I equally removed the question mark.

For the battle of Valea Alba, i only added the sections and 'references' template, that's all. Lysandros 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; and thanks for fixing the TOC box. I didn't know it could've been moved to the left. Maybe you coud fix it in these two article as well: here and here. --Candide, or Optimism 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, someone else added in the Aftermath section info about the Night Attack, which occured some 13 years earlier. That info is mentioned in the Background section. His edits should be reverted. --Candide, or Optimism 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/i/User_talk%7EAnittas_d652.html"