User talk:AdrianTM/Archive 2

Did you know

On 10 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Goma, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn issue

See WP:ANI --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dahn#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute I need also two users to certify this...--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Banning HIZKIAH as Bonaparte's sockpuppet

I asked User:Jmabel, a quite impartial admin. It looks weird to me, too. Dpotop 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bonny

Confirmed. Khoikhoi 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe there's much sense reverting him now. Khoikhoi will block him when he's back.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm

Hi. I just want to warn you about getting into discussion with Nathan J. Yoder. I spent an extremely frustrating 10 day period replying to "POV" accusations from him across many articles last year, and I'm not the only one who has had such problems. A websearch indicates that amazon.com have also had to remove comments made by him due to some inflamatary nature and he has previously been put on personal attack parole (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Njyoder#Personal_attack_parole). I'm just saying that it would be wise not to be too casual in discussions with him. Gronky 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Economy

Let's discuss. Do you agree GDP is the one from my link? or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.114.71.5 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

No problem. The IP is an open proxy ([1]), so I think that pretty much gives it away. He's also obsessed with that article. I guess the reason why Wikipedia doesn't forbid anon edits is because the community is largely divided on the issue. Some people think that Wikipedia wouldn't be "the free encyclopedia" if we didn't allow anons to edit, and others think that the amount of vandalism would decrease if we semi-protected all pages. Also see Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing and {{User anti-anon}}. Khoikhoi 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Any time. Khoikhoi 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Russia

I have reverted your edit made to Russia. If you think you have a valid reason for reverting my edit, please discuss it with me as I know many people get the USSR and Russia confused. Thank you.
Blindman shady 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexandru Nicolschi

Hi AdrianTM, I did not question that Grunberg was known under that pseudonym (this is why I do not object to the article title). I am only insisting on the following guideline: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym". Icar 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, please look up Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. Icar 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fake name" is what it is - just a fake. Let us mention the true name, as in Stalin and Lenin. Icar 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Please help me prevent trolling on other pages of Romanian communists. Icar 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring

Okay, after I wrote that response to you on my talkpage ([2]), I looked a bit at your contributions. So, you made 11 reverts within just 3 hours just this morning, right? All in tag-team, continuing a months-old sterile edit war. I see:

• Iosif Chişinevschi: 3 reverts within 3 hours [3], [4], [5]
• Alexandru Nicolschi: 3 reverts within 3 hours [6], [7], [8]
• Emil Bodnăraş: 3 reverts within 3 hours [9], [10], [11]
• Valter Roman: 2 reverts [12], [13]

Blocked for 31 hours for revert-warring. And no, I am not going to also block Dahn, don't bother asking. After the history of mobbing and ganging-up that he's been exposed to by Icar and various abusive sockpuppets (see the abusive Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dahn, [14], [15] etc.) I will refuse to take administrative action against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Added this to my talk page, because this block is being now used against me, so at least here's my point. And for the record: I did deserve this, but it's not the entire story, here's my point: There can't be a revert war (as any other war) without the existence of two parties, I find it strange that one side is punished for a revert war (me) and the other gets away scot-free... and you say that this is because the other party was maltreated by somebody else: banned users and User:Icar, what does that has to do with my reverts, it's my reverts against Dahn's reverts, however it's me who gets banned and you justify this because Dahn was attacked by other persons. I'm not sure I follow the logic. I don't ask for Dahn to be banned, I couldn't care less about him, but your actions and especially your reasoning motivating why you can't be bothered to take action against Dahn for similar behavior as mine strikes me as strange -- especially that I didn't ask you to ban Dahn in the first place, being defensive about that (and using some lame logic for it: "he was attacked before by vandals therefore he can do what you can't do") is pretty telling. You ignore blatant personal attacks done by Dahn, you ignore his edit war and you punish me for my part in the edit war claiming that Dahn was attacked by vandals before therefore he gets to do his edit war and his personal attacks without worries. Principles, standards, consistency, logic? Don't bother to respond, I can guess from now that I would not be interested in your response. -- AdrianTM 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. :Dc76 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. See also. "b****" means "f****** b****" in Russian. :Dc76 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No prob

No prob. I didn't see your message right away (it came in a relatively quick succession of posts, and I picked it up from the talk page history). Dahn 12:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

bess

use the talk page man.Anonimu 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the new lines on the talk page, though I never saw you discussing them.--Ursul pacalit de vulpe 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Linus.

As someone that has been on Wikipedia for over a year, you should know our policies on WP:RS and WP:OR very well. Do not violate them again by adding your own opinion or thought on the matter without a very good, direct quote source --L--- 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of WP:3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AdrianTM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked unfairily

Decline reason:

Not blocked unfairly. You reverted the actions of another editor four times in 24 hours, thus violated WP:3RR. — Yamla 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you look at my edits they were not full revert, first I put the sentence where it belonged, then I changed only the part that I thought it demanded to be changed (and I explained why) then I did revert 2 times. However if you notice _I_ supported the original version (that I assume was there by consensus) -- how come I can revert more than 3 times and User:L less than 3 times when he was the one who changed that sentence in the first place... that doesn't make even mathematical sense. I also tried to talk about it in the talk page. BTW, User:L accused me of vandalism, I didn't accuse him of anything, why somebody who doesn't explain his changes, uses personal attacks (and makes more that 3 reverts) gets scot-free and I who I expained my changes and tried to use the talk page get banned. Nice going! -- AdrianTM 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will have to appeal this. I don't care that I've been banned, I actually like the current version of the article, I do care that I was banned for nothing, I reverted 2 times, I thought the rule was WP:3RR... there's a "3" there. I also explained my edits and I've been called vandal for that. I can't even report User:L for his breach of WP:3RR which is even more evident because he was the first to change the consensus-reached sentence not me. I can't report him for calling me vandal either, or for using logic like "he was blocked before for 3RR", if this is something that stains my reputation and I can't open my mouth maybe it's time to leave this place where I have such a bad reputation. -- AdrianTM 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see the report yourself over on WP:AN/3RR. You very clearly reverted four times. In addition, you have been blocked for edit warring previously, which shows a lack of respect for WP:3RR and WP:CIV in general. See the second line of 3RR, which states clearly Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.. Also, you were told not to add WP:OR to articles and to use a WP:RS. Anyway, you should probably apologize to Jossi, calling it unfair is rather childish, not to mention, why in the world would Jossi block you unfairly? As a favor to someone they don't even know? --L--- 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"1st revert" was not revert, as proof you actually kept that sentence (only modified it), "2nd revert" I changed two words in your formulation and I explained why I thought it's better "inspired", I just thought you didn't understand that, that leaves to 2 reverts or 3 at maximum. 3 RR talks about "more than 3 reverts", also you can't claim bad-faith because I explained my edits and I used the talk page, even after you accused me of vandalism. Now please respond to this question: how is possible for a person who modifies the original sentence not to infringe 3RR and the person who supports the original sentence to infinge 3RR, please I'm interested in this new kind of mathematics. -- AdrianTM 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For Jossy: yes, I can see that's hard to count and to interpret what's revert or not, so "unfair" is only from my point of view and doesn't mean that I accuse you of anything. I can understand that it might look that way, but if you take a second look you'll see that my edits were good-faith edits and they were explained and that I used talk page to reach a consensus even after I was called vandal by User:L (which I do consider a personal attack and a breach of WP:AGF), he is probably better versed in WP legalese, and he reported me as fast as he could, however I still don't think is fair to be banned for 2 reverts and 2 normal edits -- and again that sticky point: how come I reverted more than 3 times and User:L didn't when I supported the original version? And how come my "first revert" was a revert when it was actually kept?

Again, I'm actually satisfied with the current version of the page and don't plan to revert, however I'm frustrated by what I see as something unjust (again not an accusation to you, it's how I see that things have been inflicted to me) and I want to be vindicated, because of this ban I will not be even able to open the mouth on WP because people will point to me "look he already got two 3RR bans" -- the same kind of argument that User:L used in his report. -- AdrianTM 05:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly a revert, you added content I had removed intentionally. The reason I didn't debate it there was because I didn't want to start an edit war. I explained very clearly why you were violating policy, so don't try to weasel your way out of that. And let me show you: I make an edit. You make a revert("A revert means undoing the actions of another editor,") of it, (1) and move the content to a different location. I still find the content inappropriate, but I deal with it, and remove the worst parts. You reverted that change again(2). I restore it(F1), and tell you to get WP:RS. You add it again(3), and giving one of the most blunt admissions of WP:OR I've ever seen, say that you think he was inspired based on your personal conclusions. I change it back(F2), and you revert it again(4). In addition, the fact that you are edit warring after you were previously blocked for 3RR, AND warring using your WP:SYNTH claims as your only foundation for doing so makes it far harder to trust that you were doing it in good faith. Anyway, I'd still ask that you apologize to Jossi, they're just doing their job. --L--- 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed content that didn't make sense in the opening and I agree with you, however it did make sense where I added and as proof you kept it. Second, you didn't respond to my question, how is it possible for me to breach 3RR for defending the original sentence, while you, the one who changed it didn't infringe 3RR?' As for my arguments in the talk page, how can I defend them when I'm blocked? And please don't ask me to appologize to other people, that's passive agressive behaviour from your part, if Jossi thinks he deserves apologies he/she will ask himself/herself -- I don't think I owe anybody apology, I'm the one banned. -- AdrianTM 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained three or four times now, I didn't remove it because I was trying to avoid conflict, not because I agreed. Please read what other people write, you're going to make yourself look silly. And like I pointed out, I reverted twice, you reverted four times, it's that simple. As far as your arguments on the talk page go, you were warned on the edit history, the talk page, and even right above this section on your own talk page, IN ADDITION to having ALREADY been blocked for 3RR, so don't act like you don't know policy. And no, it has nothing to do with passive-aggressiveness, it has to do with Jossi just doing what they are supposed to do, and not deserving any crap for doing it. I'm going to be quite frank and tell you that you're acting quite childish now, just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to get angry at other people, this is like getting angry at the law for getting caught with a DUI. I'm hoping you aren't *usually* like this, and that you're normally a reasonable person, but right now you're doing a bad job of showing it. Bit of advice that works for me, if something bugs you on wikipedia, go do something else. --L--- 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm cought drunk and booked for DUI I wouldn't have anything against it, but if I was drunk 1 year ago and that is used against me when the officer thinks that I am dizzy while I'm only tired then I will feel just as revolted as I feel right now especially that this would count as a 2nd DUI and then I could expect to be treated even less fairly from now on. "hey the guy was blocked two times for 3RR... he's a troll" -- AdrianTM 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I'm done arguing about this. If you want to wonder why this happened, ask yourself, I really don't care to explain why tadpoles swim and frogs walk --L--- 05:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"And like I pointed out, I reverted twice, you reverted four times" -- I like that you know how to count and that also makes plenty of mathematical sense. I don't want to discuss with you ever again, I will delete your posts from now on because I don't want to transform my page in "I said, he said, I said". Good bye, when I am unblocked I will report you for personal attack, you called me vandal and you didn't have reasons even if you didn't like my edits. -- AdrianTM 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I felt like my first 2 edits were not reverts, rather collaboration with User:L to make the page better -- anyone can see from edits and their comments, however I was rudelly awaken when I was called "vandal" and soon banned for 3RR -- and yes, I'm still pissed. -- AdrianTM 07:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way I want a response to my request about the block even if my 24 hours will expire by then, it's more about being treated fair. I'm sure from the perspective of the admins this is a minor issue, but it's always minor when you are not the one involved. -- AdrianTM 05:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope the same standard will be upheald against User:L too, he reverted my changes 4 times... if you bother to look, he also changed the original sentence, that makes 5 edits. I will report him officially for 3RR when my ban is lifted. -- AdrianTM 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.. All of your edits were effectively undoing the actions of my edits. My edits were changing the content. The first time, you undid my removal of the content. The second, third, and fourth times, you undid my change to 'based' back to 'inspire', even after you were asked to provide a WP:RS for your statement. In comparison, my first edit after yours was to CHANGE the content of something I disagree with, my second and third were reverts, and after the third time, I added a source to my statement, which you had failed to do. --L-- 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's count

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert

Yes, you changed stuff, I did the same thing, you removed a sentence from where it didn't make sense and I agreed to you, I added were it did make sense, I'm sorry if you and admins see that as a "revert", if you didn't agree with that change you could have reverted that completely, as a proof that was a good change that sentence still stands there, albeit modified. Anyway my point is made you reverted 4 times within minutes. Why are you spared of 3RR rule? Not to forget that you called my edits vandalism after my 2nd or 3rd edit, I didn't call names. You basically bullied me into 3RR. BTW, the difference between us is that I didn't rush to rat you for 3RR, you managed to do that in 7 minutes after my last post, you probably practiced that couple of time, probably bullied other people into reverts by calling them vandals... don't know, I didn't check I'm not interested in your history as you seem to be interested in mine, enough anyway to suggest in your 3RR post that I need to be banned for 1RR. -- AdrianTM 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the first one undoing your edit in ANY sense? I'm merely making the statement more correct. And the fourth one was actually part of the third one, I was looking up sources and saved it. I didn't mean to revert your edit there, just clarify my point, but you had already edited it. Even still, that's only three reverts. Again, a revert is undoing the actions of another editor, not making a change --L-- 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That was actually my point, I didn't revert your edits I made a change at least first 2 times, but as you see admins think otherwise, I am curious how they will see your "changes". Maybe a ban will help you see my point... -- AdrianTM 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you do get a ban for your 3RR infringement (although my trust in admins is at all time low right now) it will be funny to see in the future the same point made about you "hey, he was blocked before for a 3RR, maybe he should be blocked for 1RR" that would be some sweet irony (one can dream...) -- AdrianTM 17:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your first two edits were directly undoing my actions, which is a revert. Anyway, I highly doubt admins will enjoy a childish "I got blocked! Block him too! It's no fair!" act, and if you read my statement, I said putting you on 1RR might be a good idea, not that you should be blocked for violating it. If you haven't been put under 1RR, it obviously wouldn't apply to you. Anyway, I'm not really concerned about it. There have been cases before where I violated 3RR, but people still made an attempt to work together without blocking anyone after it died down. It's your choice to report me to 3RR or not, but I'd recommend you not upset admins any more than you already have. --L-- 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The call for winding this down would have made sense before before you bullied me and before you reported me for 3RR... right now it looks funny, just like after you slap somebody you ask him to calm down. -- AdrianTM 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and about "upsetting mods" if they get upset while doing their jobs maybe they are not quite up-to-the-mark for the job (and seing that they don't act in your 3RR case it's a clear indication) and if I get banned for my opinions so be it, I don't want to be part of a group that can't stand my opinions. -- AdrianTM 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1

I'm not saying wind this down, there's nothing to wind down. Anyway, it has nothing to do with how good they are at their jobs, but how it is annoying to them. It would apply to any admin as much as a police officer or anyone else in authority. If you really want to report me for 3RR, make a valid report from the complaint template on AN/3rr, and I'll file it for you --L-- 19:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No thanks I can wait till the ban expires, I posted the 4 reverts that you made in this page if anyone is interested. In this exercise I'm not interested to get you punished (I already said that I don't care that much about you) the issue that I want to see is fairness if there's no fairness I will just leave, plain and simple -- it's a matter of principle, if an admin can explain me logically why my edits were reverts and your edits were just "edits" and less than "4" then I will give up. -- AdrianTM 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "inspire"

From here one of the meanings: "prompt: serve as the inciting cause of; "She prompted me to call my relatives" " -- that's the meaning that I used the word, even if Linus was "DISGUSTED" by Minix that prompted him to do Linux, if he didn't read the book about Minux of Tanenbaum he might have not done it, he also used Minux file system specification (and for this I have a clear reference) that's a clear inspiration in any sense of the word. (at least from my understanding of English, which is not my first language)

Now, I don't love this word and I was not necessarily set on it, I even looked for a better formulation (actually the present form if perfectly fine) however my trying to find a better variant was cut short with accusations of vandalism and other accusations WP:Blahblah and WP:blahblah which were basically used as a way to bully me, since they didn't even apply to my edits -- and of course I didn't have a chance to explain my point because I was blocked for 3RR (funny how some people know to invoke 3RR that fast (it took the guy 7 minutes to do that neat report form, it took me an hour to realize that I didn't use the "unblock" tag right), that's even more ridiculous when the accusation come from the person who reverted at least 1 more time than me (because I supported the original version, duh!) and used personal attacks (he called me "vandal" at my second good-faith edit) although in his user page he has a big badge "This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks." This leaves me a bad taste.... -- AdrianTM 06:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure if the current version supported by the guy who accused me that I give to much importance to Minux is "perfectly fine" as I said before:

• Current version: "Linus created a kernel based on Minix [...] to develop..."
• Original (and my) version: "Linus was inspired by Minix [...] to develop..."

What does based mean? He didn't use Minux code... I think is better to say that at most he was inspired by Minux, he made a compatible file system, that means that was inspired by Minux, not based on Minux, at least in my view, I don't know what exactly is based on Minux, I know that Linus used POSIX specifications but those are not exclusively Minux specifications that's a standard used by many OS including Windows. So what exactly is based on Minux again? Isn't "based" more powerful word than "inspired" *being puzzled* -- AdrianTM 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hello AdrianTM, you need sources for any translation?--Wallak^Talk 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Citizenships not nationalities are used in introductions, that's WP policy"

Could you please give me a link to the policy you are talking about? - PatrikR 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

here's the info requested -- it's not "policy" as I mistakenly said it's "guideline". -- AdrianTM 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Emil

I was really looking for an explanation, not a deletion. What in the world were they trying to say?! Zephyrad 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but that didn't make sense so I just deleted it, my guess that they were trying to say that there are some other names that sound like "Emil" but they are not etymological related, but that was so botched up that it didn't make any sense -- AdrianTM 01:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you; that is what it sounded like, but wow. We knew an Emil (he pronounced the name like 'EE-mull', in contrast to the pronunciations on the page), and I was curious what the name meant in English. (Another page says it comes from Latin, and means "rival".) Zephyrad 03:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Spanish page it says it means: "el que se esfuerza en el trabajo", and I guess that mean "the one who works hard" -- AdrianTM 03:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Romania

I am still editing it. I want to make the information make sense and provide the gist of what it is actually important. Anyways, the History section is still about 20% shorter than Germany's, whych is a FA article! Nergaal 21:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just finished editing and adding references till the Great wars (1916). If you have time, tell me if you still believe that that segment is too long, and also what do you think of the last part of the history segment (after 1916)? (about the right size, too long?) Nergaal 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess is OK, I don't know what can be removed from that. I think for now is actually more important to find quotes for the unquoted facts. I tried to find some but without much success. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I added most of the tags in the communist section, since to me they really needed referencing :). I hoped ppl would reference them. I will try from now on to add the link myself. Nergaal 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some references to those issues in the SovRom article, but I'm wary of just copying them since I don't know specifically what they contain. -- AdrianTM 03:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you added them, good job! -- AdrianTM 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

That is not in good faith when you remove four photos that have interest from an article, without any further notice. Good faith would be if you add photos, or if you first discuss the removal of such an amount of photos that had been there since a while now.--Danutz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danutz (talk • contribs) 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed crappy content that was messing up the page structure per the GA review. Continuing to accuse me of lack of good faith goes against WP:AGF please keep your opinions about my good faith to yourself and argue only why an edit is good or bad. Have a good day! -- AdrianTM 00:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Romanian flag colors

...have long been a problem at Wikipedia. To me the question is simple: There is no official standard imposed by the Romanian Government for the digital equivalents of the flag colors, so anything that looks approximately like blue, yellow and red is okay. During the years I have seen on Wikipedia several versions of the Romanian flag. The version I uploaded also used the Album des pavillions source, but the conversion from Pantone to RGB was done by CorelDraw (after testing several other options). Now some people would rely more on a certain conversion table than another, and this is the whole issue.

I chose those colors because they seem (to me!) the closest to what can be seen in museums in Romania. Your colors seem better than others I have seen on the internet, but still I feel they are not deep enough, especially the blue. However, if the only reliable source we have for the digital colors of the flag is the Album des pavillions, and if the conversion made by CorelDraw turns out to be unreliable, then I have nothing else to say.

You can also see the talk at Commons. That's where a decision should be made. — AdiJapan ☎ —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you got used to the sick colors most people use on the web (where most of the time red is taken as FF0000, etc.) then yes, „my colors” are a bit dark. But they are not my colors. I took the Pantone codes from Album des pavillions and transformed them into RGB using the CorelDraw software. It is already a widely known fact that transforming Pantone into RGB or CMYK is not as straightforward as it may seem (and I know what I'm talking about, I am specialized in optics). Now it all boils down to which conversion you trust more. You can find on the internet plenty of transformation tables giving you plenty of RGB numbers for one Pantone color. Which will you choose?...

I don't think the flag colors sufered any change during or after the Communist regime. Rather, the indifference of the authorities to such details was then just what it is today. Also, as far as I know, there has been no attempt to make the colors different from Chad's flag.

If you do a Google image search you will find several Romanian flags (drawings but preferably photos from various official bodies) showing a definitely darker shade of blue. See, for example [16] and [17]. — AdiJapan ☎ 08:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey AdrianTM

Hey...what do you think of my new sig ( nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc.} ). Genius eh? nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc.} 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha! -- AdrianTM 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Moldova war

Proposed strategy. Do you agree with my suggestions? Biruitorul 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Moldova

I was reverting to my version because of some troll removing the Romanian reference to the language. If you see them do it again, please act on it. Thx. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

New proposed RfC

Those comments are deeply troubling and may indeed warrant a closer look. However, I myself do want to focus on the Anonimu matter, but should you wish to open another case, I will seriously consider its merits. Biruitorul 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question?

what does this mean?:

multe lectii dar nu am ce sa fac

thanks, nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Multumesc That was exactly what I needed. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)