User talk:AdrianCo


 * On a wiki break! AdrianCo (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, nice to see u have a talk page at last lol.
 * Well ,now i do. And who might you be?


 * Lol its me!, Tourskin 22:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you in a less conflictual situation,glad you stoped bye! Oh,bye the way ,do you happen to know in witch year did Greek philosophy reached the Bhagdad Caliphate,and how: by the Greeks themselves or bye secondary parties.I figure out that you might know since you were born there!

Greetings AdrianCo
In the byzantine Empire discussion page you requested the following image deleted because of inaccuracy, well all asia minor and thessalonika were lost by 1430, that's according to a medieval history atlas book. Well, thanks for bringing that up. Bye User:Justinian43 —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Adrian, thanks for the note on my talk page. As to why I don't "get more involved in arguing for my position," well, the Byzantine Empire is just one of many articles I keep my eye on -- all of that above and beyond my own work -- so I can't always devote my entire attention to it. In general I tend to limit my remarks to areas in which I feel I have expertise -- that is, specifically, early Byzantine history through approximately iconoclasm -- although I admittedly often wander outside of that. I haven't quoted Norwich because I don't consider him a serious historian -- he himself admits in the preface to that book that it was written as a popular history, not a scholarly account. I've worked in a number of libraries abroad and can appreciate the difficulty of finding good sources. But you could probably track down copies of Ostrogorsky (Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates -- I know that's been translated into English, French, Italian, Greek, Turkish, and probably Romanian as well!) or maybe Treadgold -- if you read German, Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzanz: das zweite Rom is an excellent recent history. In any case, those are the general accounts I tend to use, and I prefer on specific questions to consult more specialized literature. Best, --Javits2000 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Adrian, thanks for letting me know about the book by Brezeanu. But you may want to have a look at Wikipedia policy on non-English sources here; especially the following: "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Since there is certainly no dearth of English-language histories of Byzantium, I think it would be better to use one of those (e.g. Treadgold or Ostrogorsky). Best, --Javits2000 (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine trade routes
Hey dude, check out my map on the talk page. Thanks, Tourskin (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Progress...?
Lol the progress is currently non-existent. I am sorry but I have no other map than the one used, which is insufficient. If you want, you can take up the challenge - i just use MS Paint to edit the maps. If you can find a good source, let me know or if you want you can work on it, whichever you prefer.

(See my uni started so I wasn't all bothered!)

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My english is poor...
...mi-a scris cu buna dreptate Lacrimosus (never I learn english, j'ai appris le Français), and he delete twice time my mentions about the Eastern romance languages in the Byzantine empire (in loc sa corecteze limba). I wrote : "Simultanely the people's Latin of the danubian provinces became eastern romance languages" in capitolul Languages.

Spiridon Manoliu (see the french Wikipedia) 26.01.2008, 10.40


 * Hm...posibil...daca poti, trimite-mi link-ul la pagina ta de pe wikipedia franceza...ca asa n-am cum sa te contactez. AdrianCo (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo

Adriane, buna ziua
Uite-te pe orice motor de cercetare la Spiridon Manoliu alegand limba franceza, si ajungi pe discussion page. Dar nu astepta sa dai de mine pentru a modifica tu insuti capitolul cu limbile in Imperiu, devreme ce stii bine engleza, mentionand ca doar latina savanta a disparut, latina populara transformandu-se in eastern romance languages. Cu bine, Spiridon Manoliu.

Proto-Aromâna, nu proto-Româna...
...ne tragem oricum din Traci romanizati (Dacii fiind Tracii de nord) si asta pe ambele maluri ale Dunarii, influenta bizantina fiind oricum foarte prezenta si la nord de Dunare (lumea bizantina nu se margineste la stapanirea politica: suntem ortodocsi doar).

Rosler care afirma ca Daco-Romanii se trag din Aromani nu-i mai verosimil decat teoriile bulgaresti sau grecesti care afirma ca Aromanii se trag din Daco-Romani: romanitatea orientala a evoluat simultan pe ambele maluri ale Dunarii sub influenta bizantina, dand Dacoromana si Aromana (plus Istro- si Megleno-...) asa cum romanitatea galica a evoluat simultan in nordul si in sudul Galiei dand limba Oil la nord (Francica) si limba Oc la sud (Occitana).

Dar eu sunt total incapabil sa scriu asta în engleza... Fii bun si fii mai eficient ca mine, fiindca originile noastre trebuie afirmate, dat fiind in toate lucrarile si articolele vezi amanunte despre Slavi, Avari, Bulgari sau Maghiari, si nimic despre noi, de parca n-am aparea pe fata pamantului decat in sec. XIII cel mai devreme !

Cu bine, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

?
Care-i problema? In primul rand, sursa este academica, editata si publicata de universitati din Olanda (nu pot sa-mi imaginez de ce vorbim despre Kosovo). Ea indeplineste toate criteriile cerute de cele mai stricte reguli de la WP:RS. Din motive care o privesc, ea da acest numar, si speculatiile in jurul acuratetei numarului nu trebuie in nici un caz facute de utilizatorii wikipedia, ci sustinute de surse care indeplinesc ele insele criteriile de WP:RS. Informatia este independenta de numarul albanezilor declarati din Romania, si criteriile pe care le-au aplicat nu fac nici ele subiectul speculatiei. Mai mult, fraza pe care o modifici (si sursa insasi) prezinta aceasta informatie ca pe o posibilitate, nu ca pe o certitudine - deci, si daca nu ar exista toate motivele de mai sus, observatiile tale ar fi tot fara obiect.

Personal, observatiile tale despre "cum sunt albanezii" si despre nationalism ma lasa rece - mai bine zis, m-ar lasa rece, daca nu le-as considera drept niste clisee complet irelevante intr-o discutie despre date (si irelevante in general, din punctul meu de vedere). Dar chiar si daca as tine cont de intrebarea "de ce si-ar ascunde identitatea?" (facand abstractie de faptul ca este un sofism), trebuie sa-ti atrag atentia ca problema reala asa cum este prezentata nu de mine, ci de sursa, este detaliata in fraza care urmeaza chiar dupa aia din care stergi ce nu-ti convine. Dahn (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In primul rand, uita-te putin la referinta, si citeste ce scrie acolo. Vezi titlul articolului? Vezi autorul? Deschizi documentul, te uiti putin prin el, si gasesti si articolul: nu este pe 40 de pagini, nu este nici macar pe doua. Este pe una. Spui ca nu vezi indicata pagina? E curios, pentru ca eu o vad indicata destul de clar: "p.34". Poate asta te ajuta sa-ti mai temperezi vituperarile.
 * Nu vreau nici o cearta, vreau sa te conformezi regulilor wikipedia. In primul rand, deschide putin si la WP:RS si citeste. Vei afla nu numai ca nu se cere "unanima recunoastere" - un alt sofism, care presupune o cerinta absurda -, dar si de ce nu sunt permise concluziile personale trase pe marginea sursei. teoria despre Razboiul din Kosovo, care nu are nici in clin, nici in maneca cu nimic, este pura speculatie, si nu se regaseste in tratarea surselor potrivit normelor wiki (sau a oricaror norme). Criteriile care conteaza in evaluarea sursei asa cum indica WP:RS (si nu cum crezi tu ca ar trebui sa fie), sunt legate de cel care publica informatia: in acest caz, poti gasi detalii despre editorii ISIM aici. De exemplu, din meniul din stanga intitulat "Chairs", o sa poti afla ca persoanele care coordoneaza ISIM sunt Prof. Asef Bayat de la Univ. Leiden, Prof. Martin van Bruinessen de la Univ. Utrecht si Prof. Annelies Moors de la Univ. Amsterdam. Tot de acolo, in sectiunea "Board": Prof. P. van der Heijden, Rector la Univ. Leiden, si K. van der Toorn, Presedinte Univ. Amsterdam. Dai la intamplare prin sectiunea "Fellows", si te tot lovesti de oameni care detin catedre, doctorate, sau specializari in studiul Islamului sau in domenii conexe. Mai mult, vei constata ca autorul articolului in cauza este roman (se pare ca avem deja un articol despre el).
 * La final: mesajul tau violeaza regula WP:NPA, mai ales prin amenintarea cu un razboi de reverturi. Acest tip de atitudine se raporteaza la WP:AN/I, o cale pe care o voi urma daca imi oferi ocazia. Iti repet: nu am adaugat informatia ca sa "avantajez" pe cineva, iar criteriile politice imaginare pe baza carora o respingi nu ma intereseaza - este o informatie precisa, sustinuta de o sursa de prima mana, si ca atare serveste articolului. O seara buna. Dahn (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Repet: informatia este atribuita, in raport cu cerinta de la WP:ATTR. Speculatia ta cu privire la felul in care autorul citeaza studiile nu intereseaza acest proiect, de vreme ce sursa in care o face indeplineste criteriile cerute, si de vreme ce informatia (iti spun pentru a treia oara) nu este nici asa prezentata ca certitudine. Daca ai citi politicile wiki referitoare la weasel words, ai vedea ca ele se aplica la opinii strecurate pe marginea surselor, si nu la limbajul pe care il folosesc sursele insele. Nu exista nici o "problema legata de surse", dupa cum am demonstrat, cred, suficient - sursa este de calitate, informatia atribuita, contextul in care informatia este prezentata este neutru. Dahn (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Iar eu nu inteleg de ce vorbim de asta in viitor: argumentele mele sunt convingatoare, pentru cineva familiarizat cu felul in care functioneaza wikipedia, cum iti doresc sa ajungi si tu. Daca vrei sa apelezi la mediere, iti sta la dispozitie WP:3O. Ca o ultima observatie: de vreme ce ai tot invocat WP:V, iti sugerezi sa citesti chiar prima propozitie a regulii, adica "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Toate justificarile tale pentru eliminarea informatiei in cauza au fost speculatii personale despre cum nu ar fi adevarata, in vreme ce lucrul care conteaza aici este daca informatia este citata si daca sursa in sine prezinta incredere (n.b.: increderea se stabileste dupa criterii obiective stabilite de chiar WP:V, nu dupa "said wikipedia user dislikes it"). Dahn (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tot ce postezi pe pagina mea nu are legatura cu ce sunt pregatit sa discut: aplicarea politiclor wikipedia privitoare la surse. Sursa este academica si informatia este atribuita, deci speculatiile tale pe marginea sursei si de unde si-ar fi obtinut informatia initiala chiar nu au de ce sa intervina in vreo discutie. Dahn (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hai sa nu ne jucam, ca suntem amandoi, presupun, oameni mari. Speculatia inseamna deductia pe care ai facut-o tu despre: 1) daca sursele pe care le foloseste sunt bune sau nu; 2) daca aceste informatii se regasesc sau nu in sursele alea; 3) daca informatia se gaseste in acele surse, si nu este in surse care nu au fost citate in acel indrumar de lectura. Tot ce imi scrii in ulimele mesaje este teorie personala pe baza observatiilor personale. Nici unul din criteriile pe baza carora ataci articolele nu are legatura cu faptul punctual: sursa citata (articolul & publicatia) este ireprosabila dpdv al cerintelor wikipedia, si informatia, prezentata ca probabilitate, ii atribuita ei. Mai mult de atat nu am ce discuta. Dahn (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Buna, Adriane
Uite-te la articolul francez Valaques, jos la Bibliografie. Vei gasi deasemenea date interesante (si o harta foarte buna de D. Macrea, pag. 58-59) în Probleme de Lingvistica româna sub întocmirea lui Stefan Poenaru, Bucuresti 1961.

Problema cu transhumanta, care a pastrat contactele intre Daco-Români si Aromani (+ IR si MR) pâna pe la inceputul sec. XX, este ca a fost instrumentalizata politic de istoricii nationalisti care doreau sa demonstreze teze excluziviste (teze iugoslave si bulgare care sterg prezenta romanica intre Iliri si Slavi sau intre Traci si Slavi, si tezele rösssleriene care sterg inceputurile romanitatii nord-dunarene). Exista asadar multe lucrari care vehiculeaza astfel de teze.

In lupta istoriografiei noastre impotriva rösslerienilor, multi de-ai nostri au adoptat tezele iugoslave si bulgare pentru a demostra ca centrul romanitatii orientale (faimoasa vatra straromâna a lui Sextil Puscariu) a fost intitial în Ardeal. In perioada RPR si inceputurile RSR, deasemenea tezele romanesti erau aliniate pe cele bulgare, de altfel Aromanii nici nu erau recunoscuti ca neam autohton din Balcani, in ciuda absentei aproape totale de cuvinte maghiare in limba lor, si de un procent mult mai redus de cuvinte slave decat in Daco-Româna...

Totusi Iorga, Rosetti si Popp recunosc toti ca vatra straromâna era "calare" pe Dunarea de jos, si ca despartirea dintre Daco-Români si Aromâni (+ IR si MR) a intervenit în sec. VIII-X, transhumanta ulterioara mentinand legaturi, dar nu suficiente pentru a impiedica etnogeneze diferite. Ceeace inseamna ca nici rösslerienii, nici cei care afirma ca Aromânii provin din Daco-Romani, n-au dreptate... Dar in stiinta este ca in orice alt domeniu al gandirii omenesti: prejudecatile care ne convin au mult mai mult succes si difuzare, decat cunostintele care nu ne convin...

Pe planul concret eu care sunt Constantean, iti pot garanta ca inteleg mult mai bine Italiana decat Aromana, desi stiu si greceste...

Cu bine, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide
Please do not revert against consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia allows voting, but voting does not overrule or determine consensus. The composition of the editing pool (mostly Greeks) would skew any vote in favor of their POV over the Turks. This is the problem with democratic votes on Wikipedia, particularly if the issues at hand at contentious. IMO, the controversies tied to the title must be more thoroughly addressed within the article before the neutrality tag can be removed. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think more references are needed necessarily, but I think the controversy over the title should be expounded upon further down in the article. Similarly, the article on Northern Cyprus was only allowed to keep that title after the nature of Northern Cyprus and the controversy over the title was better explained in the article. Srebrenica Massacre, another example I provided, also had to compromise. I don't think adding more sources is necessary; we have plenty, but we need to better explain the other side. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, the title can be kept as "Pontic Greek Genocide" since it is sourced (perhaps Anatolian Catastrophe can be listed as an alternate, since that was what it was called before Greece started to demand recognition), but neutrality would still be a problem until we better explain the reasons why the title is controversial. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, thanks for taking the time to go through this dispute. I would like your opinion on what the best course for a resolution would be. As I am new to Wikipedia could you suggest the proper path of dispute resolution and what can be done to prevent things getting to that point? Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, iti voi da munitii
pentru Vatra straromana, te rog doar sa astepti cateva zile, am un articol urgent de predat si un curs de pregatit. Pana atunci, vezi si tu pe internentul romanesc ce iese la Vatra Straromana, vezi di la Alexandru DUB, inst de Istorie Xenopol din Iasi. See you, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Map of the Byzantine Empire
It is necessary another map to exist in that article. The empire after the reign of Heraclius was much different from the Empire of Justinian. The Byzantin Empire until the 7th century has no difference with the Roman Empire. For many historians the Byzantine Empire bigins then. Latin was the dominant language, the people of the empire continued to act and think as the ancient Roman people were doing. Dimboukas (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Roma people
Could you stop please? Naming conventions (identity) specifically says "Roma is preferred over gypsy." How are you going to use other rules to argue your case when there has already been a rule made specifically on this issue? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion is taking place in the article itself...AdrianCo (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

lead
Hey, I have added in my own suggestion for the Byzantine Empire, please take a look at the talk page. Tourskin (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of Byzantine Science debate
Continuing the discussion from the Byzantine Empire article.
 * I would re-add Gibbon as a source, but even thinking of that war I had back then makes me shiver. Well ok, can you tell me if there were any breakthroughs in science in the middle ages. The only ones I could think of, world-wide are: gunpowder(China), the sesonal rotation of crops(all over Europe-not sure if this is the correct translation in english) and windmills(Iran/Northwest Europe). So in the sense of over all concrete reserch no one can be atributed to have such a great impact in reserch. As for Iranian-ERE Concatcts(or Iran-Europe in general)...let me just point out that the Nicene Creed find it`s way to Iran only a hundread years after the First Ecoumenical Council...I think everyone can grasp the extent of communications of the two cultures back then...let`s just say that the middle ages and the rise of islam(and downfall of zoroastroanism) were not factors of improving communication.
 * I think we both understand our point of views, but the current formulation appears to me somewhat flowed. So! Would you agree if we had a formulation such as: "in the Christian cultural-world the ERE had a lead role throughout the middle ages(dispite the slow down during it`s late stages it is was arguable the most advanced) however after the 6/7th century the Islamic world and China got the upper hand". Not sure though...this formulation would be correct, but still I don`t think that we can compare those three worlds. What do you think? AdrianCo (talk)

Well, errr, first I think you underestimate the degree of communication. It is well established that the Eastern Romans, Arabs, Persians, etc. were all part of a vast trade network and that the various nations were regularly exchanging embassies with each other. Granted the Eastern Romans were never as close to the Muslims as the Muslims were to each other and the amount of contact between the Eastern Romans and the Muslims varied over the Middle Ages but contact was substantial. I don't know much about the spread of the Nicene Creed but really this was a "Roman" creed so the fact that this was slow to reach Christians outside of the Empire doesn't seem to be that significant. Arguing that the ERE had limited contact with China or India certainly is a more reasonable argument although, even at that, the contact did exist.

I do think your assertion about the Islamic world and China taking the upper hand after the 6th/7th centuries is right. But I think it is important to point out that there is more to it than that. In principle there was no reason that the ERE had to fall so far behind. But by the turn of the millenium the Romans were playing catch-up in a big way (which they did well; the Academy at Trebizond, for example, became well reputed for its expertise in astronomy). But the point is that while the Romans were learning and applying the scientific knowledge of the Muslims very well they were making few fundamental contributions. Few big inventions, few fundamental scientific theories. If you look historically scientists of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution mostly referenced the classical Greeks and the Muslims. Beyond John Philoponus and a few other early scholars they mostly did not reference Romans of the Middle Ages.

Regarding breakthroughs of the Middle Ages there were a lot (you might want to look at [this article]). Here are a few.
 * Polynomial algebra (al-Khwarizmi) - Primitive algebraic concepts had been developed in antiquity but Khwarizmi and others developed the general theoretical frameworks for analyzing polynomial equations of arbitrarily high order. In essence the Middle Ages turned it from an intellectual exercise to a real science.
 * Latitude-independent astrolabe (Arzachel) - Primitive astrolabes were developed by the Greeks but Arzachel made a general-purpose tool that became key to navigating on the open seas.
 * Compass (China) - Although primitive fixed compasses had been around for some time it was during the Middle Ages that the portable compass, useful for navigation, was developed.
 * Science of Optics (Alhazen) - Euclid, Hero, and Ptolemy had described geometrical principles of optics but it was during the Middle Ages that the physical nature of light was first described and optics developed into a full science enabling the design of lenses and focusing mirrors. Bacon, Newton, and others would later learn from these works by the Muslims and get credited with the "discoveries".
 * Modern surgery (Abulcasis) - Sushruta wrote the first text in antiquity but Medieval researchers, especially Abulcasis, developed the techniques and tools that led to modern surgical practices (e.g. double-edged scalpel, syringe, vaginal speculum, etc.). See this.
 * Controlled flight (Ibn Firnas) - Arguably not a "breakthrough" since it did not lead to any practical applications but interesting since Ibn Firnas did fly a hang glider. His experiment would later inspire Bacon and Da Vinci.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Sorry for the long wait! Lol, I knew at least about the astrolab, algebra and compass, I just forgot about them sorry! However I`m not sure about "Modern" Surgery, as I pointed out anatomy was not totaly unknowned, and gliding isn`t the same to flying!(Otherwise we could have saftly considerd human flying to have comenced millenia ago).


 * Back to communications:


 * ''About China-ERE relations: Are you referring to that hole Daquin thing. Come on! When you can`t call the Name of the Country right how can you assume that there were more then "contact"(and maybe slik road-ish) communications in place? No, there were no active relations with China. There was a mutual acknoledgment of exsistence, but that`s a different story.


 * About ERE-Muslim relations: Back to that Creed, well it`s not about being roman or not, accepted(witch it was) or not...it`s about being accepted or rejected, it`s about the extent of it`s reach and the time it took to reach Persia! Trade, however influencial as it may be can not be cosidered as a method of comunication simply because it`s extent was still limited and it`s purpose economic. The embassies you are talking about; are they the ones established by Harun al-Rashid?! Cos` they were mearly a ceremonial way to pay tribute(by the ERE), if you know about others, then please inform me!


 * But I asked you if you would agree with my version. So? AdrianCo (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question about your version in principle this is valid. Since you only articulated a general direction and not an actual wording I hesitate to say yes or no. What wording exactly are you proposing? In any event, I would say that you should be careful on the POV. That is, saying that the ERE was the scientific leader of Christianity during the Middle Ages is sort of like saying that Liberia is the scientific leader of West Africa (that's being a little unfair but I'm making a point). The Christian world, East and West, had largely ceased to be a driving force in scientific progress during that time. Mind you, the ERE at the turn of the millenium had become a center of excellence in scientific knowledge but still was never a major driving of scientific research or theorization. So if you want to go into those details I have no objection (except that this is a fair amount of detail to get into in this particular article).

Regarding surgery, I'm not saying that there was not surgery before the Middle Ages (Sushruta from Antiquity is considered by many to be the father of surgery). The Middle Ages, though, turned it into a rigorous science and introduced the standard practices (e.g. hygiene) and the basic tools (e.g. the double-edged scalpel) which would characterize the modern practice. As far as the glider I don't think this is an important point. I mentioned it only as an interesting anecdote. I will say, though, that hang gliding is flight (I think you are thinking of "powered flight" which is something different).

Regarding China, I am referring to the Silk Road and all that came with it. Sure, the primary contact with China was the exchange of goods through intermediaries but the nations did have formal communications albeit very sporadically (look at the Fordham East Asian History Sourcebook, China in World History, pg. 95, 104, etc.). It has even been suggested that they sought alliances with China against the Muslims. Regarding relations with the Muslims, first I think you are oversimplifying the economics. It is impossible to have as much trade as they did and not have active communication. Even if you try to suppress communication at an official level with that many ships and people going back and forth there will be a lot of communication. In any event how do you think the ERE got all those Arabic texts that were translated into Greek? But regardless relations between the ERE and Muslim lands was more friendly than I think you believe it was. Yes there were horrible wars but there were also periods of peace and even friendship. Consider that the Academy at Trebizond was largely a place to study Persian astronomy (with due credit to the Greek roots of the science). Where did those texts come from? It was not unknown for scholars (and others) to travel to Muslim lands to learn from their experts (and vice versa; consider the fact that the Byzantine Leo the Mathematician was asked to come to Damascus permanently because of his knowledge).

BTW, on the subject of science in the Middle Ages I made some edits to the Science in the Middle Ages article to explicitly list major accomplishments of the age. You might find it interesting.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI: A few references you might find interesting:
 * The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. It talks about a Christian (Nestorian) mission from Constantinople established a monestary in the Chinese capital staffed for a couple of centuries by foreign monks (point being that such a thing would only have happened between cultures with significant contact).
 * Silk and Religion: An Exploration of Material Life and the Thought of People. It talks about a mosque maintained in Constantinople for the benefit of Muslim traders (point being that Byzantines and Muslims had a much more cordial relationship than some might think).
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Heatsketch
Yeah, he did that before I blocked him. Don't worry, he won't be back for a week. If he keeps screwing around, he'll get an indefinite block. Thanks for being vigilant, though. GlassCobra 07:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!