User talk:CristianChirita/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You're putting some great images on Convento de Cristo, thanks! However, you don't mention where you got them. Can you please add their source to their image description pages? If you have any questions, you can send me a message. Foobaz·✐ 23:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much. You did label all of them except Image:Kitchen.jpg. I just saw that one wasn't, and i didn't even check the others! I copied your info to that one. Sorry for the inconvenience. Foobaz·✐ 03:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cristian, I haven't noticed you Sign your name in yet in your contributions on Talk Pages, and this might be because you don't know the code (as I didn't know it for my first few months of Wikipedia usage). To Sign (of course not in articles), press ```` (four times) while holding down Shift. On my keyboard ` is located before the key for the number 1. Alexander 007 12:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) CristianChirita 13:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Salutari Cristian de la Wikipedea în limba română. Poate ai din când în când timp să treci pe acolo. Gangleri | Th | T 09:00, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Te rog sa treci si pe la Talk:Geography of Romania. Mersi anticipat Gangleri | Th | T 19:45, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

I have found the graphic. A fellow truth seeker? This is good. In this era of darkness let truth and the search for honesty guide you on your life's journey Time For Honesty 00:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the article Codex Aureus of Lorsch. I;m always excited to see a new article on an illuminated manuscript. I've made a few changes, I hope you don't mind. I removed a few of the external links because they didn't seem particuarly useful. I recatagorized the article to be in "Illuminated manuscripts" rather than as simply "Manuscripts". I removed the "Books" category because "Illuminated manuscripts" is a subcategory of "Manuscripts" which is a subcategory of "Books". I also uploaded one of the images to which you provided a link. I see from your edit history that you are interested in Balkan history. If you have a great deal of interest in the medieval end of it, you might want to join us at the Wikiproject for the Middle Ages. Dsmdgold 12:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what your intention was with Templars List. Is it supposed to be a list of every Templar who ever lived? That seems like a rather overambitious task...we already have a list of grand masters on Knights Templar, and there's no way to know the names of every other Templar, aside from a few who happen to be mentioned for whatever reason. So I was just curious what the purpose of it was. Adam Bishop 21:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you added a 5th century Syriac Gospels at the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence to List of Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance illuminated manuscripts. So, far as I remember the only early illuminated Syriac Gospel Book in Florence is the Rabula Gospels, which is from the 6th century, and is on the list. Is this the one you meant or is my memory wrong? I won't be able to get to the library until next Tuesday to check. Dsmdgold 22:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, merge it to the list is fine too. Or wherever. I just marked it for merge because I came across it as a new article and it was at least partly duplicated elsewhere--it didn't seem like we needed a new a different list. --Tabor 18:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On this week's Article Improvement Drive voting, an article you supported was selected. This week we focus on improving Abortion to featured article status. Hope you can help. -- the wub (talk) 12:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You expressed some interest in the copyright status of Image:Manuscript loki.jpg on WP:CP, I have left a response on User:Haukurth's page if you'd like to check out my interpretation of the situation. --nixie 11:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image you posted is not an "Artistic Representation" it's a "cleansed" representation, with all Muslim elements removed. This is the very definition of POV, akin to Photoshopping the Dome of the Rock from Jerusalem, or NYC from Manhattan. I also wonder about its copyright status. I saw that image somewhere once, and I did not have the impression if was GLFD. Lectiodifficilior 22:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:Hagia Sophia BW.jpg

• 1.Yes indeed the image I've posted is an "Artistic Representation" with a "cleansed" representation, with all Muslim elements removed. Please consider that the "cleansed" was not made from religious pov but from historical point of view.I don't consider the umage as POV because was a time when the image of church was looking in this way. It is not something fantastic but an artistic representation of the church before the muslim coquest. I don't think that a recostruction of an image hurt someones feelings.Considering the history of the church I don't think taht the reconstruction will hurt muslim feeling, because they must be very proud that the church was preserved almoust 100%.
• I also wonder about its copyright status:
  • the image is declared PD on orthodoxwiki , the the link is on the image page.
  • Q: How can you picture a former Orthodox Greek church? Or this is forbiden?

please reconsider the POV, is interesting from historic point of view, and remember that the church was protected and preserved when the Constantinopole fall by the muslims. CristianChirita 07:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm moving the discussion of that image to the talk page for Hagia Sophia. I hope that's okay. Lectiodifficilior

On two articles (dual-use technology and ECCN) you seem to have just pasted in text from a government website and put an image copyright tag on it. This is not how articles are written on Wikipedia. Links to other sites are appropriate, but making entries based on pasted text is generally not encouraged (there are a few exceptions). And image tags such as Template:PD-USGov are for use on images only, not text. Thanks. --Fastfission 02:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cristian, do You speak (write) Hungarian? Best regards, --Marcuspater 29 June 2005 10:43 (UTC) Marcus pater Sorry but i don't speak hungarian, but who knows ... :-)CristianChirita 29 June 2005 11:20 (UTC) (regarding Kalt illustrated chronicle the best sources are in hungarian)

I added this photo to Category:Romanian history but please correct me if that is wrong. Thuresson 03:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC) The Telegram is about Russo_Turkish war in 1877, and is a telegram of russian duke Nicolae calling help from romanian king.

Hi, I've converted the Order of Christ Cross image Image:Orderofcriststeagalb.jpg to SVG (Image:Order of Christ Cross.svg). I've listed the JPEG for deletion – hope this is OK. Also, do you still have the vector version of Image:CrossPatheeDome.jpg? It would be great if you could export it as SVG and re-upload it. –Mysid (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia = Encyclopedia with text and media files for commented illustration
• Wikimedia Commons = image archiv of Wikimedia projects with image galleries

--Saperaud 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You have in the past commented on Image Galleries nominated for deletion. Most galleries are nominated because the nominators feels that galleries violate WP:NOT. The William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion (here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

La Multi Ani Cristian! Bonaparte talk 11:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Te rog sa citesti Apelul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board -- Bonaparte talk 11:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ma bucur ca ai pus o pagina acolo. Ne vom uita. -- Bonaparte talk 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Constantin,

I've seen your note on the Romanian Noticeboard concerning "Dictionarul Enciclopedic Romin aparut la editura politica Bucuresti 1962-1967".

Are you a specialist in copyright law? If yes, I would like to know whether "Enciclopedia Romaniei" edited by D. Gusti in the late 1930s and beginning of 1940s is now in public domain. I have it, I have a scanner and OCR software, and I think that it contains loads of meaningful info. I just don't know whether it's OK to publish it. Sorry, I',m not a specialist in law. Still the law mentioned

The law applied for this enciclopedia should be "Legea asupra proprietatii literare si artistice, din 28 iunie 1923"

One difference between the 1956 law and 1923(28.06.1923) law in that the right for heritage of the work is preseved during all his life and 30 years for their heirs, the 1956 law specified 50 years for heirs. With the exception of the enciclopedia authors and heirs wich have the intelectual rights only 20 years.(http://poezie.ro/index.php/essay/65223/ La articolul 6, privind transmiterea drepturilor prin mostenire, se prevede: "Sotul si ascendentii autorului beneficiaza de aceste drepturi tot timpul vietii lor; descendentii - timp de 50 de ani (fata de 30 de ani cât era prevazut în vechea lege) So from my point of view the enciclopedia intelectual right have expired either using the 1923 law or either the 1956 law. Bu t remember I'm not an authorithy is my understanding of the law. CristianChirita

Yours,Dpotop 13:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to publish some stuff from there. Dpotop 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, the Romanian building is quite ordinary for the former Warsaw Pact countries. There are lots of such buildings in Kiev, Riga, and many Russian cities. I see no direct relation to the Moscow State University. Check the article on Stalinist architecture to learn more about similar structures. --Ghirla | talk 12:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add your links on Talk:Casa Presei Libere. There is no need to clutter my talk page, OK? --Ghirla | talk 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In this way we will have two articles with divergent informations,proving that you have no interest in finding the right information, but only achieving a high number of edits.

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sealtemplarsbarrech2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. gren グレン ^? 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The "chronicles" you mention are very late (16th and 17th century) Ruthenian compilations replete with most weird fantasies. They need to be treated very cautiously, especially in everything that concerns genealogies and early Middle Ages. --Ghirla | talk 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The text of the Byhovets Chronicle is available here, while the text of the Hustynska Chronicle you'll find here. --—Ghirla | talk 16:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Be careful on what you do. You're not allowed to create another user account and redirect it from here. Alexander did this and he was blocked and accused of sockpuppetry. I suggest you ask an admin to delete ORCA, explaining to him that you didn't know about the rule, etc. If you want to change your username, go to your account and do it from there. Only your signature will then change. I see that you haven't used your ORCA account at all, which is good, because no-one can really accuse you of sockpuppetry. --Candide, or Optimism 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC) I want to delete the old account. I don't seehow I can modify my username.

Salut, poti sa-mi dai un email la wizzard_bane la yahoo.com? E despre Enciclopedia României vol. I. Multumesc. --Candide, or Optimism 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Templarschurchintomar.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. nixie 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) ==IT IS MY SECOND IMAGED CREATED BY MY AND UPLOADED BY ME, AND THAR WILL BE DELETET,, BECAUSE NO MATTER IF THE COMMENT OR THE TAG WILL BE ADDED, THERE IS 90% CHANCE TO BE DELETETED, WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE ASK BEFORE ADD THE IMAGE ON THE LISTCristianChirita 07:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! You've made the following addition to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_in_Bucharest&diff=40598947&oldid=31556014 The info about beggars' branch being subordinated to the Romanian Orthodox Church does it originate from the same source you're citing? Thanks! --Vlad 17:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC) You can find the quote and the references in Neagu Djuvara Orient and Occident bookCristianChirita 20:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Roundchurchoftemplarsoftomar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you active? --Moldo 13:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) standing by :)CristianChirita 10:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And just why are we to include him in cat:Romanian military leaders? Dahn 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of categorization, not definition (no encyclopaedia but this one would have to deal with that topic). Hunyadi was not a suldier of Romania or of a Romanian polity. At best, he was a Hungarian soldier of Romanian lineage. I believe this is a general and acceptable guideline: for example, Washington features in "English Americans", but would never feature in "English soldiers" or "English politicians". At the same time, a category for "Romanian Hungarians", if created, could lead to countless absurdities (which you could get a glimpse of by looking through Category:Natives of Transylvania). This is a very problematic issue, and its inclusion in that category is absurd on several levels - please see the discussion on John Hunyadi on user talk:Telex. Dahn 19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we agree on these topics? Dahn 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you use double measures? As he was "not a soldier of Romania or of a Romanian polity", he was neither a "Hungarian soldier". "Hungarian" means (nowadays) an ethnic Hungarian. And this contravenes with the sources which call him a Vlach. And you asked "wich Romanians did he lead". How about the Transylvanian Romanians, which made up the bulk of his army. If it was enough for the croatian sources to call the army of the "Roman colony of Dacia", why isn`t that enough for you? greier 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has been deleted as it contained no information on the subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Romania nuts l2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wroclaw University Press would like to reproduce a Dragon Order Texitile insignia drawing in the book by Anna Gemra entitled 'Od gnostycyzmu do horroru. Literacka i filmowa kariera'. We would like you to ask for one-time reproduction permission of that photo. Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Katarzyna Berbas Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego Sp. z o.o. pl. Uniwersytecki 15 50-137 Wroclaw/ Poland tel.:0048 71 375 24 74 fax:0048 71 375 27 35 e-mail: [email protected]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Transylvanian History Museum, by RichardColgate (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Transylvanian History Museum is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Transylvanian History Museum, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see that you recreated Transylvanian History Museum after it was deleted, and placed a "Hangon" tag on it. You may not have been aware that a hangon tag itself places a page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. It is only intended to be used when a page has a db-tag already in place. If you are working on the page, and want to be sure that editors are aware of this and don't delete it (or tag it for deletion) without being aware, may I suggest the {{underconstruction}} tag, or the {{inuse}} tag if you are actively editing and expect to be done in an hour or so. In future, you might want to create articles in a user sub page, and move them into the main article space only when they are complete enough not to be speedy deleted. You could, for example, have created User:CristianChirita/Transylvanian History Museum. Such user sub-pages are not held to the same standards as articles, provided that they are reasonably temporary. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I came across several images uploaded by you on Commons, falling in commons:Category:Templars Seal, that are tagged with {{PD-Seal}}. Well, since being a seal doesn't put them on public domain, that tag has been deprecated and I've been going through files tagged with it. Many of the files you uploaded are stated by you as having being made on Gimp; however, you must have based your work somewhere, and that would be the real source for those images. Would you be so kind to go through your uploads belonging to that category and retag them appropriately? Otherwise, I may have to set up a deletion request for them and let the community decide what to do. Cheers, PatríciaR ^msg 14:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cristian, I'm very sorry you think this request is a witch hunt and that you feel bad about this issue, wanting therefore to stop contributing to Wikimedia projects. It was certainly not my intention to make that happen. I don't know what was this talk about turning your work from GFDL to PD, but if it's the conversation you had further up on your Commons talk page with Duesentrieb, then I understood that you agreed to make the seals public domain because there was no significant transformation. The question is, transformation from what. All we'd like to know is the original source for your work on GIMP and such, where you took the original images from... it's not just a matter of knowing how old these insignias really are (because I have no doubt that they are really old, and should probably be PD-old) but also to present a source from which people can be sure the information is reliable; this is a standard principle on Wikipedia, and images are not excluded from such principle... Please do not take this request personally; I'd hate to see your work go, I'm really trying to save these images, I don't want to delete them. Thank you for your patience. PatríciaR ^msg 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see some examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#2D_reproduction_of_3D_Medieval_seal tanks for your understanding.CristianChirita (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Limes Moesiae, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. CultureDrone (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing #Copyright law above (yes, I've also seen that this comment is two years old! :-), I wonder if you could check that I got the summary at commons:Commons:Licensing#Romania correct, especially concerning the 1956 law. I have a general understanding of Roman languages, but I can't really read or speak Romanian... Is the 1923 law also online somewhere? Lupo 08:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Note that the reprotection that occurred with the 1996 law also would have made these encyclopedia articles mentioned above copyrighted again. Lupo 08:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S I'm Not a law wxpert but at the moment of the 1996 law the enciclopedia articles were in Public domain considerig 1956 law, so if you are right anyone who has perform copies before 1996 shoul be punshed, which I belive is not quite a right, from my point of view once something is in public domain it should remain in public domain, but it is just an opinion. you coul find some resorces about:http://facultate.regielive.ro/cursuri/drept/dreptul_proprietatii_intelectuale-11134.html?in=all&s=denaturare

No. The 1996 law says clearly that acts done before the new law entered in force were governed by the previous law (article 149(1)). So someone who made a copy before 1996 is not criminalised now. But acts done after that June 25, 1996 were governed by the 1996 law, which had re-copyrighted these old encyclopedias.

New laws re-copyrighting public domain works is nothing unusual (though it is very annoying). The Russians did it in 1993 and again in 2008 (see Copyright law of the Russian Federation), the EU did it in 1995 (Directive 93/98/EEC), the U.S. did it in 1996 (URAA), and Romania did it in 1996, too (but luckily for us, a few months later than the U.S.) Lupo 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Laws regarding the copyright: Legea asupra proprietatii literare si artistice, din 28 iunie 1923, , Decretul nr.19 din 16 februarie 1951, Decretul nr.428 din 13 noiembrie 1952, art. 5 si 7 din Decretul nr.591 din 24 decembrie 1955, Unfortunately i can't find the law on the http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.frame

Salut! I nominated this image for valued image, and it might pass. However it would be great if we could include the camera location coordinates. Can you please make an X on this image where you were when you took this picture? I approximated that this should have been the direction you were facing. Please tell me if I got that right too. Thanks!

P.S.: You can upload the image with the X at http://upload.worldofplayers.de
P.P.S.: You don't happen to have a higher res version of the photo, do you? diego_pmc (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks a lot for that. If you're interested, here's the nomination of the image. Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not very sure, huh? :) I don't think it's going to be much use, I was rather looking forward to one with a bigger resolution, but would you mind if I uploaded this on Commons, under the same license as the cropped one? Or upload it yourself, as you want. But rotate it first. Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC) The camera was at that time Canon A40, it is the maximum resolution, i;m not having time to make the upload my easy edit software is loosing information, and i've not ime gor GIMP, fell free to upload the imageCristianChirita (talk)

I want to congratulate you for your work on this article. If I can be of any assistance, please ask me any time. Dc76\^talk 11:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I will look at it a little later, because now I am somewhat busy in real life, and have some loose ends to tie on WP. I would wonder if you would be interested in the following. I sent the following to a number of people interested in categories in the history of Romania:

To simplify matters (not to rush anything, but to set aside things that were already clarified or those that could wait longer), I would like to modify my proposal to fit better with the minimalistic approach of Dahn. I would appreciate your troubleshooting. Feel free to edit/comment within the proposal itself, e.g. add a cat that you think I missed, or comment after an unnecessary cat. Allow me to request (from everybody) that we allow everyone interested time to think about it. Thank you very much for consideration of my proposal. Dc76\^talk 12:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian, I had a question about the photo image File:CucuteniHornsilexrazor.JPG that you included in the Cucuteni-Trypillian article. According to everything I can find, the word "Silex" refers to a modern industrial powder made from ground silica, and is used in the manufacture of paints. Is the word Silex refering to the flint bits that fit into the deer antler? Or does it refer to the deer antler holder? Thanks. ~ Saukkomies 02:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, In romanian it is called "silex", a word imported from french language terminology referring to some "silcolites" , it can be translated as flint. Of course it refer to the flint bits. Thanks for your support.CristianChirita (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! ~ Saukkomies 13:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cristian, I was looking through the photographs you posted to WikiCommons, and I have to say that they give me an overwhelming desire to visit Romania! This is weird, because, until I started editing the Cucuteni-Trypillian article, I would never have considered that I would want to visit your country - it just never would have crossed my mind as a place I'd want to visit. I suppose a lot of that is due to the common American media image of Romania as being the country of Ceauşescu and all the neglected children in cold, industrial orphanages, and that anyone who can afford to do it (like Nadia Comăneci), flees the country to live in western Europe or America. So, I was very surprised to find that there is SO MUCH HISTORY in Romania, and that it looks like such a beautiful country, and that they have electricity, paved roads, and people don't live with goats and pigs in their homes. I know - this sounds horrible, but I'm being honest, and I'm just using this to explain what an effect looking at those photos you uploaded had on me - it's greatly changed my perceptions of Romania. Thanks. And if you ever have a mind, feel free to contact me via email at saukkomies at yahoo.com. Saukkomies 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since history is only a hobby, I've a a crazy end of the year, I've very little time,after the new year I'll contact you.CristianChirita (talk)

I look forward to corresponding with you. I've a million questions to ask about your beautiful country. Hopefully, I'll have gotten through the end of reworking the Cucuteni-Trypillian article by the end of the year... --Saukkomies ^talk 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cristian! Hey - we did it buddy! Check this out:

On January 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Economy of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

This was all done on the part of Materialscientist, who took it upon himself with no prompting from me to nominate the article for DYK inclusion. I'm very excited about seeing the results of our hard work on this project finally begin to achieve a very high recognition - we still have a lot more work to do though, but isn't this fantastic!?! --Saukkomies ^talk 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is largely due to your efforts - and you deserve some of the credit for this. High fives! --Saukkomies ^talk 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Cristian, I found the information you were asking about. You can see the full details on my talk page. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Theory of Sonics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. E Wing (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Theory of Sonics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. E Wing (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Cristian. Please let me know me if I got the edition right in my copyedits (it is a 2009 edition, isn't it?). The reason I'm asking is that, unless we mention at least the basic publication data for our sources, we risk making the refs irretrievable - for instance, the page number refs will most likely be obsolete if a book has/will go through another edition. I also took the liberty of adapting to Borsoka's existing citation format, for uniformity and consistency, and of correcting the errors that came here and there in your rendition of the text (not having the original text to translate, I assumed I got the intended meaning right, so please let me know if I made a mistake). Personally, I consider the large quote a bit overkill, since it's about a relatively minor detail in this detail, and since the reference at the end of the sentence would get the meaning through. In any case, it was burdening the text, as one of a select few blockquotes, so I decided to move it to the note. I hope this is right by you, but I'm open to any criticism. Regards, Dahn (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I could find mentions of the 2009 edition, published by Cetatea de Scaun of Suceava, but none of a 2008 one. Could you perhaps revisit the copy you consulted and check the publisher, year, and (since it's the standard in that article) the ISBN as well? In another edition, the citation may be on an entirely different page, not to mention that the whole thing would be anomalous. Thanks. Dahn (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. I presume that the Museum is the publisher, right? Incidentally, their English translation is quite dubious, so my advise would be to paraphrase it in other citations from the same edition (like the one in Goths). Thank you for clarifying that, and sorry for the inconvenience. Dahn (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there we go: you had missed replying to one of the main issues of my post - who the publisher (publishing house) was. Your link indicates that it was, after all, Cetatea de Scaun, so the details in the ref as I added them were accurate, and the difference between years probably has to do with the fact that they published the online version before the paper one. So it's all clear now. But please remember checking up on such detail in the future: it makes a world of difference, because many times these details may be essential and hard to retrieve. Regards, Dahn (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cristian. Hey buddy! I thought you might be interested in the discussion going on about the possibility of merging two articles - the Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture, and the Vinča symbols. The discussion is taking place here. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated on this. --Saukkomies ^talk 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your support! I created the 1st draft of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia. I used Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome as an example since it is similar in purpose and scope, with a nice layout. Please feel free to provide any feedback. Looking forward to collaborate! And Happy Holidays!--Codrinb (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining WikiProject Dacia! Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or if there are certain areas where you have expertise and want to participate. The project pages, categories and templates are almost done and functional, although there is plenty of room for improvement. Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Are Limigantes (redirects here) the same as Antes people? More specifically, are they really (or just only) Slavic-Iranian? The Free Dacians article says ... a serf-population called the Limigantes, who were probably an indigenous Dacian people (see the name of their ruler, Ziais, a Dacian name). This possibility should at least mentioned on the Antes page or the two should articles should be separated if the tribes are different.

 Codrinb (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! You may want to contribute to Talk:Getica#Goths_and_Getae and take a look at Talk:Getica/to do, Getica (Dio) and Getica (disambiguation).--Codrin.B (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish, please provide input. Thanks and best regards. Codrin.B (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! Long time, no talk. How are things? Not sure if you noticed, but we got a WP:DYK for Dacian Draco on April 7, 2011. It would be great to continue the trend and get it to WP:GOOD now! ;-) If you have time and willing, it would be great to get a neutral review on it. A great start would be checking it against the criteria for B-Class status and update the findings in the WP Dacia tag on Dacian Draco's talk page (b1 through b5 items). Alternatively, there are a few other articles under WP Dacia tasks for which we also need a review. Thanks a lot and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! How are you? I am working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/List of castra in Romania and though I should let you know if you want to contribute. I am very grateful to you that you uploaded so many pictures related to Romans and Dacians. Especially for castra, I found so many of your pictures in Commons and I am using them for corresponding item in the list. In case you have more pictures or information, I would love to get them as there is so much more needed. Thanks a lot and best regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the pictures! Codrin.B (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so very much for Dacian art pictures. They are so great Boldwin (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Identifying the helmets Codrin.B (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey there Cristian. I'm sorry I took the pic back off that quickly - I didn't mean to be rude, and I think the helmet is a really great artefact. I know, quite a lot of later La Tène art has been found in Romania, and you see it a lot that Dacian artefacts are subsumed under a "La Tène" header. The reason why I would rather not include this helmet in the La Tène culture article is that it is not typical of La Tène art; it lacks the more plant-like motifs that would be expected in 4th c. BC La Tène art. The square "hair line" and the eyes actually struck me as a distinctly eastern feature. When was it found? And were there accompaning finds? I have only seen it online so far. Trigaranus (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My first reaction to the Peretu helmet was: boah, what a cool object! These Getan/Dacian helmets have style. Now as far as the La Tène-ness of helmet finds from Romania and neighbouring countries is concerned, the only one that is unequivocally listed as "Celtic" is the famous Ciumesti helmet, of which there is only a very bad, blurry picture on WP in the Celts in Transylvania article. It does not seem to have a lot of ornamentation besides the bird of prey on top of it, but at least its shape is typical of the Celtic "jockey-style" helmets. There are also hybrid forms, for example in the same article under the header "Other Celtic art objects" there is a drawing of a Dacian carnyx surrounded by two helmets. While both helmets seem largely "Dacian" in shape, the one on the right La Tène type ornaments. Trigaranus (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture of the Dacian's carnyx from article Celts in Transylvania is surrounded by two Dacian helmets as seen on the Trajan's Column, or at least helmets used by Dacians. Maybe there is a need for clarifying this aspect on that picture's description. The reason that image is there it is the striking resemblance that historians attribute it to the Celtic's carnyx. But, there are no better pictures of the Dacian trumpet, at least not-copyrighted Boldwin (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey there Boldwin, and sorry Cristian for not responding any sooner. I think Boldwin's point is very important, namely that those helmets were used by Dacians. The stylistic provenance does not say much about the culture, and nothing about the language group of its bearers. We must assume that expensive and comparatively prestigious pieces of armour such as helmets were more likely to travel than humble household pottery. A helmet made by a Celt could well have been worn by a member of the Dacian elite, and vice versa. However, there are some types considered "typically" Celtic, others typically Hellenic or Dacian. The two pictures you put on my talk page seem to be identified correctly. The one on the left is of a standard "jockey-cap" type, which was one of the most common if not the most common type of La Tène helmet, probably to its simplicity and, one must assume, relative affordability. The one on the right seems to derive from a common early Greek type, several examples of which have been found at Olympia (though the ledge above the forehead is a bit unusual: crests in Greek specimens were fixed between elevated ridges that did not have as deep an indentation as that one, for all I know). But as I am no specialist on Dacian helmets, I can't tell you how typical or not this is among Dacian finds. Trigaranus (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a desperate call. Do you have any detail that would help to identify this bracelet? File:MNIR Dacian Bracelet 2011. Detail.JPG? Do you have any picture of the ring from Magura? [1] and [2] Thank you so muchBoldwin (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll check, it will take a lot of time, right now I have no business in Alexandria, maybe a fellow wikipedian from Alexandria can help. Still it is to new the material, for the exemple the gepid artefacts from Potaissa are held by Turda Museum, still there are kept in storage due to the lack of space and funds. The same situation is for some cucuteni artefacts. For exaple Cucuteni museum from Piatra neamt is in a tour since 2010. Again i'll try to check, but the easiest way is to find someone from Alexandria.CristianChirita (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I've seen your Tropaeum Traiani picture in the July/August 2011 issue of Minerva (archaeology journal). Congrats! --Codrin.B (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Thaks for the info :)193.230.195.1 (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.