User talk:Fayenatic london

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Fayenatic london, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Powers T 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thank you for help with the DYK

Thank you for your help with the Single-grain experiment article. It earned a DYK on October 12. I really appreciated it. Chris 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Baptist Church of Conyers

I appreciate your comments and I will adjust accordingly. Also, could you please post something on your user page. I am asking this to find out information about other users and in an effort for you to avoid potential vandal issues with other user in the future. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, done! Fayenatic london 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faye "Burnt" Cheek

http://www.wongfaye.org/forum/files/1103451979_117.jpg

couldn't find a photo with another angle, but I remember clearly seeing this makeup during some songs in her 98 concert. I didn't know what else to name it so I just went with my first thought.

OK, thanks! I hadn't seen that look before. Fayenatic london

[edit] Faye Wong discography

I read your message, and to my response, I don't translate Chinese or Japanese very well, but I researched the Japanese song remade into successful Cantonese song a long time ago, and i know that the song in kanji is in Japanese article of Miyuki Nakajima. Hope that helps, right? --Gh87 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaenomeles/japonica: redirect or disambiguate?

Hi Fayenatic! Yes, a "Japonica" redirect (or perhaps a disambiguation) page is a really good idea; the name is still quite commonly used, in my experience, but, because it is such a common specific epithet, searching for it brings up more than 11 pages, and Chaenomeles doesn't appear until the bottom of the fifth page! A redirect would mean that anyone typing japonica and clicking Go would go straight to Chaenomeles. On a disambiguation page you would be able to explain that it is commonly misused as a common name for Chaenomeles species and hybrids, list a few links to other species, and explain that, if they weren't what they were looking for, typing japonica and clicking the Search button will bring up many more options. SiGarb | Talk 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fayenatic. Well done with the Japonica disambig page. I've made a few improvements (I hope!). SiGarb | Talk 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many sections

I think the Faye Wong article has too many subsections, like "1999, secret era". There's too many, there's like one for every single album she's released. Some of them should be merged, it ruins the article. ― Sturr ★彡 Refill/lol 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCC vs. CC

Hello - thanks for your note! What you outline has certainly reflected my own disposition, as an Anglican of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion, and I support any editorial activity which would bring greater specificity to the terms. Nonetheless, I caution you that the usage of the terms Catholic vs. Roman Catholic has occasioned much lengthy and heated debate - most of which can be found in the archives of Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, I will support you in your efforts - and wish you all the best. Cheers! Fishhead64 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Council for National Reconstruction

Hi, thanks for catching that. Those were old footnotes from History of South Korea which became dissociated when I spun the article off from there (something which I somehow failed to notice at the time). I've patched them back in. -- Visviva 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any formal restrictions on {{linktext}}; I and some others have been using it for a while, and so far no one has objected. ;-) It looks like there are a couple hundred articles using it now. I'd say just use common sense; if you think putting the template in will add useful information, put it in. I've tended to avoid using {{linktext}} in Korean given names, since there has been dispute about how much emphasis we should place on hanja in those cases; there are probably some other cases where it would be considered inappropriate. I assume no one would object to using on Chinese given names, though. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably already know it, but if you want to avoid using a template within another template for whatever technical reasons there may be, you can use
[[wikt:first character or word|]][[wikt:second character or word|]], which will probably yield much the same results as {{Linktext}}. Wikipeditor 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese singers up for AfD

Hi there, I noticed that you have contributed to the Chinese singers article and that you have also voiced your opinions on the necessity of the page on the article's talk page. I wanted to let you know that the current article is a proposed Article for Deletion. You may wish to speak on the article in the current discussion. Luke! 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent change to Jews and Judaism in Africa

This change introduces a bunch of grammatical errors. Groups and communities are not "who"s, they're "what"s, so "which" is the appropriate indicator everywhere you changed it. Tomertalk 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. You've done an excellent job there. If you do remove it from your watchlist, consider coming back to it in a week or two just to check up on it. :-) Cheers, Tomertalk 10:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FabulousRain

I'm not really positive if they're the same person. Why don't you try making a request at WP:RFCU? Khoikhoi 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the case you made on this user, you need to explain what the policy violation was in order for the case to be prossesed. Code letter F does not seem to apply. Prodego talk 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at Mackensen's comment, he says, "this seems pretty blatant to me". WP:RFCU states for "obvious, disruptive sock puppet" that "no checkuser is necessary". Therefore, do you want me to block the sock for you? Khoikhoi 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since 165.228.131.12 (talk • contribs) appears to no longer be blocked, I suppose it doesn't matter anymore. However, if the anon gets blocked again, and uses the account to evade the block, I will block it indef. I've just reverted and warned him/her on Keystroke logging—please let me know if he/she persists. Thanks, Khoikhoi 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent request for checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

[edit] Category:British television miniseries

Hello there. I was just wondering about whether this category was really accurate, given that "miniseries" is not a term that's ever really used in the UK for home-grown products; "serial" is generally used, "miniseries" being an Americanism that tends to only be used here in reference to US imports. Therefore I would suggest that the category ought to more accurately be called "British television serials". Angmering 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly copy the discussion to the talk page there if you wish. And I don't see the presence of some British productions in the general miniseries category as evidence of usage here — they could just as easily have been added to the category by Americans. Definitions of the term ma be trickier — the British Academy Television Awards include two-parters in the "Best Drama Serial" category, so basically it's any production of more than one but a finite number of episodes, where one over-arching story is told and concluded in the final instalment. The Forsyte Saga, for example, was a 26-part serial. Angmering 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hey there! Are you the same Fayenatic that's on Lj? Nice meeting you :D Thanks for fixing the userboxes! I got lazy, haha.

My snail mail contribution is a bit too detailed and small for the mail art article, but thanks for the pointer. :)

Take care. Tiara 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguations - learning to be bold!

Yes, it is better to avoid the use of the disambiguation restrictor (e.g. Climate (disambiguation)), as readers will only get there from hand-crafted links. Far better that readers and editors see right away that the term they are linking to is ambiguous. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

Wikipedia:Disambiguation talks about a “well known primary meaning for a term or phrase”, but I think that one should err on the side of generality. For example film buffs think that Chaplin (1992 film) is clearly the primary meaning of Chaplin, but many readers are looking for Charlie Chaplin. So Chaplin should be the disambiguation page. I try to overcome my own prejudices in making that kind of decision.

I will look at Zechariah (disambiguation). We need to be alert to keep disambiguation pages from becoming articles. It may be appropriate before doing any more online editing to put some things together in your sandbox. For example, and I haven’t done more than just glance at Zechariah (disambiguation) so I may be all wet, but you might think about making the commonest spelling an article about the various Zechariahs in the Bible, with a link to the Zechariah (disambiguation) page for all other uses. In order words, violate what I just said in the paragraph above. I am heading off to lunch, so I will say more later. --Bejnar 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I like your scheme, with a little modification. I would make Zachariah or Zechariah the main disambiguation page, but I would consolidate all of the biblical material into a single link to Zachariah (biblical) which would then be its own article, with headings for one paragraph descriptions of Zechariah (prophet), Zechariah (king of Israel), Zachariah (Mary's Guardian).etc. (all those with separate articles) using the template:Main to point to those articles, and then a section, like you have it with all the un-articled biblical references. The value would be that the main disambiguation page would separate out the biblical seekers immediately and they would get the whole story on their own page. The non-biblical seekers would not have to wade through the biblical stuff to find, for example, Pope Zachary (741–752) or Zachary, Louisiana.

It is important to distinguish between a disambiguation page such as Zachary or Tamil, and a content page such as Tamil language. I am suggesting an article format for the [Zachariah (biblical)]] page starting with the entomology of Zachariah.

As to Zachariah as a first name, I would have the last section of the main disambiguation page be entitled ==As a first name== and only include actual Wikipedia article there, no red ink. I hope that this is the kind of review you wanted ? --Bejnar 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed consideration. I'm not convinced about taking the main Biblical Zechariahs off the main Disam page, as most searchers will want either the prophet or the priest. However, the minor characters certainly need to be moved out of the way, so that readers can see the medieval & modern ones who do have articles. Rather than add a further article as you suggest, do you think they could just be moved to a ===Minor Biblical characters=== section at the foot of the Disam page? (*) The advantage of your proposal is that it saves getting a groan from unimpressed readers with no detailed interest in the Bible.
Well done for finding Zachary -- I think that it needs to be combined into the main disam page too.
I now propose Zechariah (Hebrew prophet), Zechariah (king of Israel) and Zechariah (priest) as new titles for existing articles. Zachariah (king) should be copied into Zachariah (Khazar) and the Khazar template amended accordingly. (*)
A new page Zechariah (prophet) could disam to the Hebrew prophet and to the Islamic prophet Zakariya, or it could redirect to the main Disam page. Likewise, Zachariah (king) (existing page) could either disam to the articles for the kings of Israel and of Khazar (*), or redirect to the main Disam page. What would you advise on those? Fayenatic london 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: items marked (*) above have now bene done. Fayenatic london 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please would an administrator now move Zechariah (disambiguation) to Zechariah which is currently a redirect page. I've changed all important incoming links to the new main article Zechariah (Hebrew prophet), and will deal with the remainder later. There is also more for me to do on Zachariah and Zachary, and I will move the minor Biblical characters off the disam page to a new Zechariah (biblical) page as suggested by Bejnar above. Fayenatic london 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded. Perhaps you can take the issue to WP:ANI. Xiner (talk, email) 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting page

Do you know about WP:AIV? If there are blatant vandals out there (such as the linkspammer you reported to KhoiKhoi), and they have been adequately warned, list them on this page and they'll be zapped quicker than you can say "IP block". Thanks for helping out! yandman 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:3-letter acronyms

It seems like Category:3-letter acronyms is a category of PAGES, while Category:Lists of three-character combinations is a category of disambiguations, that would be the only objection I have, but if you want to discuss merging the two then make a listing at WP:CFD. Happy editing! --Daniel Olsen 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer

Alex already blocked him. :-) Khoikhoi 05:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig page

WP:ANI is the page to seek administrators' assistance. When you use {{helpme}}, the message is broadcast to an IRC channel, and will keep doing so until someone responds. Generally someone would get sick of it, but apparently no one bothered to yesterday. It's standard practice to remove a tag when it's stayed on for a long time, and refer users to where they can hopefully get help faster. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 14:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals may have been a better link for you. Xiner (talk, email) 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Sistine Chapel ceiling

Thank you Fayenatic! people like me need people like you. --Amandajm 14:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zacharia

Maybe it's San'Zaccaria... I can't remember... It's one of Venice's greatest churches... This one is the Father of the John the Baptist... --Amandajm 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

You brought up an interesting point on categorization. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a "keyword" categorization system. This would be much better than the current categorization system, at least for people. (Most astronomical objects are categorized in a simplistic way; see NGC 4594, for example.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Dr. Submillimeter 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preachers

Sorry if that was rather brief; I've been working on hundreds of categories for the past few days so that makes it rather easy to use wikishorthand for everything. At any rate, it's not about you personally or the work you did. Rather, it's about a kind of category that we've discussed in the past and that we didn't find practical. The thing about people is that we strive to categorize them by important issues, not by every single trait or action we can attribute to them. For instance, looking at John the Baptist, it's far more important that he's a prophet for several faiths, and when he was born, and when/how he died, than that he gave a mass outdoors. This approach prevents articles from being cluttered by (sometimes literally) 50+ categories. Hope that helps! >Radiant< 12:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, you say that "The category was restricted to those religious teachers who habitually or over a sustained period preached outside formal venues", but this was not clear from the category title. Even spelling it out like that makes it rather unclear. Since it requires an explanation, this is something best left in the article text, e.g. "John the Baptist preached outside formal venues, just like this guy and that guy". Otherwise it's a grouping that it's hard to see the purpose of, a bit like Category:People who have had a new idea that made important changes to the world. >Radiant< 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV report

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. --Majorly (o rly?) 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg London

Hi I can't thank you enough for helping with the page. I was trying to follow the directions as best as I could. Can I put up the additional reviews on a link below? They are all verified and good fun readiing. from the Greg London page. <- The preceding comments were posted on Fayenatic london's User page by Monika London (talk) on 11 Feb 2007.

[edit] Faye Wong

Thanks for adding pages. But I have some question, how Tony Leung can add to this category. It seem that they have no relation bewteen them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astorknlam (talk • contribs) 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I see than. Thanks of telling me. It seems that you are a great Faye fan. I listen to her songs just a few months. And I am a new Faye fan. Astor Lam 08:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pandora

Hey, yeah as it happens I do always make sure I'm not reverting back to another vandal, that one must have slipped through the net. Thanks for letting me know! LibLord 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Links to deleted pages

Hi, I stumbled across Interregnum of Severus recently (probably tracing a vandal's activity), one of six pages deleted per AfD/Civil War of Albany and Cornwall. These deletions left a lot of dead links in articles (e.g. "See also Interregnum of Severus") and broken succession boxes. I've just fixed these, but it made me wonder whether there is already a Wikipedia mopping-up project to clear away nonsense and spam left in Wikipedia after deletions. Is there? - Fayenatic london (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery for starters. Editors generally cleanup articles as they find them, checking for accuracy and sources as per usual. (aeropagitica) 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Civil War of the Five Kings

Do you know whether the other kings inserted here are genuine? They look very doubtful to me - all the same dates. (I've asked the same question of User talk:Nicknack009.) - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't sourced the edits, but I imagine that if they were inserted by the editor who was responsible for the articles that I deleted earlier they can be regarded with a degree of caution if not suspicion. You can tag them using {{fact}} so yourself or another editor can verify/refute the edits accordingly. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be immortal

If a fictional character has immortality, it doesn't always necessarily mean that they can resurrect themselves. That's why I created Category:List of fictional characters who can resurrect themselves because I discovered that no matter how you kill a character like Majin Buu from DBZ, or reduce a character to bits like what happened to Alucard in Hellsing, being an immortal doesn't always mean (in fiction) that you "can't die no matter what". This is why I wanted Category:Fictional characters who can resurrect themselves to not be deleted because of the CFD since there actually are fictional characters who can come back to life by themselves. That's why I created Category:List of fictional characters who can resurrect themselves, actually, it was an administrator that told me to do that instead of bring back the deleted category. See what I mean? Now, I know that there are characters out there that can perform such a feat, its just that I know of three (or four) at the moment. So, ... ... can you start up a new CFD for the category I created to be moved/merged to Category:Fictional characters who can resurrect themselves? I'd do it, but I'm rather busy at the moment. I have this page on my watchlist in case you respond here. By the way, I can't find the deletion log for the former category. Maybe I'm spelling it wrong... Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contractors

Thanks for your edits to Thomas Brassey, Samuel Morton Peto, Thomas Grissell and Edward Betts. However, regarding their categories, they were not engineers, they were rather businessmen who placed tenders to obtain the contract to get the work and then, if successful, did all the organisation to complete the work - a very different role from that of the engineer did the designing and surveys and drew up the plans for the contractor to work from. There does not seem to be a category to include these immensely important people, especially in the early development of the world's railway systems, and I have not yet discovered how to create a category for them. Wiki Help says that the servers do it automatically but when I "suggested" a category of English civil engineering contractors nothing happened. To place them as English civil engineers is actually wrong. Have you any ideas how we can deal with this? Perhaps you know how I can create a new category for them. Any help would be appreciated. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that's just what I intended. And your link led me eventually to the page on categorization which I could not find previously, so I've already used it for creating another sub-cat. I'm finding that Wiki help is not always as helpful as I should like and I need assistance from human experts! Very grateful. Peter I. Vardy 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S-hou

Actually, a bunch of us are trying to redo all the instruction pages for the succession box series. The only problem is it takes so much time to do the code for directions and none of us have that time. Maybe sometime later this week I will work on it. But your suggestions are noted and I will try my best to inform future s-hou...ers how to use that option. Sorry for all the fuss!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tetragrammaton vandalism

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism at Tetragrammaton - I warned the anon ip, but forgot to actually revert the vandalism, which was the important part. ;) DanielC/T+ 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Thanks for your kind words. I try to keep my userpage useful for myself, and hopefully thus for others.

To suggest a template, WP:TT/WARN's talk page would be the best place to discuss it. Good luck. Xiner (talk, email) 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faye Wong

Mainly having the lone years linked and the trivia section. There are also some smaller things like "autumn 1997" should use either early/mid/late or a month since autumn is in different parts of the year depending on hemisphere (but nothing else substantial enough that the article would fail rather then being put on hold). Also, Image:Restless PRC cover.jpg should not be used in the infobox either. Essentially, album covers can illustrate the albums and screenshots can illustrate the video; however, since they're copyrighted they shouldn't be used to illustrate Faye Wong herself. I'll put a photo request on the talk page to see if a free image can hopefully pop up. Also, if you wouldn't mind, would you be willing to review the article I nominated, Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)? (My last nomination stayed on the list for two weeks.) ShadowHalo 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unicorn144

The problem in balancing views on pages with the invitation to do also has the added problem of how to add my references which I am learning how to do. My own opinions are not what I am expressing on wikipedia; I am presenting the facts of my research; which undocumented so far will have it's "day in the sun" as to offer another and hopefully objective point of view. I hope you will also know that I have written a book going towards publication by Monkfish books called "The Revelation of Salvation: the Regeneration of John" in which the sources now are a library in my house of over three hundred titles; and I will extensively refer to these in any additions I make so as to avoid the "personal point of view" onus.

          thank you for your input

Unicorn144 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regulamentul Organic

Hi, and thanks for your interest. The thing is that those articles were never actually created: it seemed very easy for me to link future articles under a likely title to keep the text in that article tidy, but creating the actual articles would have called for as much work as I put into the Regulamentul article, if not more, and, considering the debates in Romanian historiography over the 1848 events, some results were bound to be more controversial. I was going to pay more attention to the topics, but then I got caught up in other articles, and I kept postponing it. Cheers, Dahn 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation Edit Concerning Amzi's father, Zechariah (Nehemiah 11:12)

Thought I'd give you a courtesy heads-up on the Amzi article you edited earlier this week as a means to avoid any possible misunderstandings concerning my recent edit.

First of all, thanks for the attention to that page & for the time spent on it. I am new at Wikipedia & have been learning how to properly edit, but the Amzi article was not benefitting from my efforts.

I do have one comment, however: the link you provided to Zechariah (Hebrew prophet) does not correctly identify the specific biblical character given in the Amzi article. There are in fact many Zechariahs listed in the Bible (as I am sure you are aware from the previous post above). The Hebrew prophet was not the ancestor to Adaiah (Nehemiah 11:12) . I believe a short study on the names of the fathers of the Hebrew prophet, son of Berechiah & grandson of Iddo, & the Zechariah, son of Pashur (mentioned in Nehemiah 11:12), would be enough evidence for my latest edit on the Amzi article. Unfortunately, not much more is available on the Zechariah of (Nehemiah 11:12).

However, I am not really satisfied with the page that I ended up linking to. Though more correct, it is very difficult to specify which of the Zechariahs is the correct biblical character from that particular list of names.

If you would like to discuss this issue further, please let me know. Thank you, again, for all your contributions.

--Edgaredna 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Amzi...

Thanks for your reply & the very useful pointers on editing. I think I will move the Amzi article before deletion occurs, though I hold no real passion for the article (it really is more of a means to practice editing without messing up anyone else's "brainchild"). My interest in Amzi simply arose out of curiosity over biblical names (mostly obscure ones). My wife & I are considering having kids soon, & we want a slightly unusual/different biblical name (though I'm not exactly sold on Amzi). My favorite is Zimri. Even though that name has dubious stories attached because the characters did not live up to their name, the name definitely has a great meaning, "praiseworthy" by the Wikipedic entry, but as "my music" according to a Hebraic Lexicon. Unfortunately, Zimri is already taken in the family. Anyway, thanks again. Edgaredna (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passion bearers versus Christian martyrs

I noticed that you changed a number of the Romanov servant articles to the passion bearer category rather than Christian martyr category. I've switched them back to Christian martyr. The servants were all canonized as martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russian in 1981. However, the Russian Orthodox Church within Russia canonized the Romanov family ONLY as passion bearers, the lowest category of sainthood in Orthodoxy, and did not canonize the servants at all. A passion bearer is NOT a martyr in the Russian Orthodox Church. He is a person who meets his or her death in a Christ-like manner, not one who is specifically killed for his faith. A martyr is a higher category of saint and IS specifically killed because he is a Christian. Both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia have canonized Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna as a martyr, for instance, because they judged that she died for her faith and acted like a saint. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church within Russia are, at present, two separate entities.--Bookworm857158367 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanov servants as martyrs

Your suggestion might work. The problem I see is that Alexei Trupp, though a Catholic, was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and not by the Catholic Church. None of the Romanovs or their servants are technically considered saints in the Roman Catholic Church though. Here is the confusing part: The Catholic Church considers the Russian Orthodox Church service acceptable for Catholics to attend and counts it as meeting the Sunday obligation for a Catholic. The Catholic Church also permits Catholics to receive communion at an Orthodox service, recognizing the validity of an Orthodox sacrament. The same is definitely not true of the Orthodox Church, which does not permit anyone but an Orthodox to receive communion, receive the sacraments, etc. It's curious that the Orthodox Church Outside Russia canonized Trupp as a martyr, but they did. Trupp and the others were all canonized as victims of oppression by the Soviet Union. It was a political move. I tried to get at some of that in the article Romanov sainthood. I'll leave the categorization up to you. Just remember that passion bearer isn't the same thing as "martyr" in the Russian Orthodox Church. --Bookworm857158367 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian martyrs, etc.

Yes, your understanding about the Romanovs and their servants and the two different churches is correct. Your method of categorizing them makes as much sense as anything else. Looks like a major task to put all of them in the right categories! --Bookworm857158367 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TARTA

Thanks for helping out on the TARTA page. Hmwith 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking advice

Thanks for the advice and the links. I'll be sure to re-read the pages. Also, I didn't check the history and that was my fault. I'll be sure to revert in the future if a previous version was right, capatalized, etc. Oh and I forget to sign my sig. I'll be sure to remember a sig in the future. -Domovoi 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/y/User_talk%7EFayenatic_london_c2a4.html"