User talk:Csernica/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Coffee

Thank you so much for re-writing my amendment in this article. It reads much better your way. 82.145.231.180 09:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Holy Father

WP:NAME governs article naming conventions, not redirect naming conventions -- we redirect anything that an editor might possibly type in (this includes common misspellings). And if the editor refuses to let it be turned into a redirect, shoving the AfD in his face won't do anything to change it. Build consensus through discussion, not repeating the same message over and over again. (Bear in mind AfDs are non-binding when it comes to redirects, etc; AfD is only decides whether to delete or not -- if there's no consensus to delete, then anything can happen. Most admins just follow the majority, but some -- like me -- vacillate depending on their mood.) Johnleemk | Talk 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the conflict between my interpretation and brenneman's. (We tend to agree on these things most of the time.) Yes, brenneman did suggest shoving the AfD result in his face, but I didn't say you couldn't do that -- I just said it wouldn't work. Try talking to the guy before reverting -- only revert if it's clear he won't talk (in which case, you probably wouldn't go wrong filing a WP:RFC, as toothless as the process is). Brenneman was advising you to skip the discussion and go straight to reverting, which might be a good idea if this is a confirmed problem user (won't discuss his actions), but otherwise, it might just be a misunderstanding. Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akathist authorship

I really don't know anything about this. I'm sorry.  :/ —A.S. Damick talk contribs 03:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I recall. Like I said, I don't know anything about it, but the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity notes the debate on p. 10 in its entry on the Akathist. It doesn't mention anything further than that. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I'm afraid I'll have to pass up on this can of worms for the time being. I've got a lot on my plate at the moment.  :/ The sad thing about articles like the one to which you refer is that the folks with the most time to work on them on Wikipedia also seem to be those with the most, ah, idiosyncratic understanding of their subject matter. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 03:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks and congratulations on you excellently reasoned and expressed presentation of the Metousiosis situation. Lima 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule report

Why did you report me and not Conrad, who hit the 3 revert threshold first? You say you want to be neutral in this, but you certainly aren't acting that way. Michael Martinez 02:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Perhaps as a lowly english major I'm misunderstanding the definition of this word. Conversely, it's entirely possible you are unfamilliar with it. I implore you to be more careful before alleging that another user has made a contradictory post. Here is a line from the "DEMOGRAPHICS" section of the New Jersey page: "New Jersey is the tenth most populous state, but the most densely populated, at 1,134.4 residents per square mile, although the population density varies widely across the state. It is also the second wealthiest state in the United States, behind Connecticut." Continued several sections below, "Its median household income is also the highest in the nation with $55,146. It is also ranked 2nd in the nation by the number of places with per capita incomes above national average with 76.4%." I'm looking for a statement that contradicts my assertion that NJ is the second wealthiest state in the nation, but am having difficulty finding one. In fact, it appears as though the article vindicates my claim (as do many other outside sources). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murkywave (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Council of Jerusalem

Why is CoJ not an ecumenical council? Acts 15:6-7 indicates that the hierarchy of the Church was present. With the exception of the Judaizershe council was accepted by all of Christianity. Why is my link to it still red? Why the heck are you a monarchist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.129.221 (talk • contribs) .

The Council of Nicaea is reckoned universally as the first Ecumenical Council because it was the first council summoned by an emperor. "Ecumenical" in this context means the Roman Empire. The meaning as presently interpreted by the RC Church is of later origin, when "Ecumenical Council" had come to connote a body with the authority to speak for the whole Church. The Council of Jerusalem certainly had that authority, but it doesn't need to be called "Ecumenical" to receive it. Rather, its authority comes from its attendees who gathered in the Holy Spirit and in the name of Christ, and from the Scripture that records it.
Why is your link to what still red? There is an article for Council of Jerusalem.
I'm a monarchist for both philosophical and pragmatic reasons. The philosophical I can but touch on at the moment: it's the form of government modelled for us by God, and "democracy" has not proven itself superior. (There's more to it than that, but I'm giving a nutshell version.) Pragmatic is simpler: throughout all of history, all large-scale democracies and republics everywhere have eventually become monarchies. Usually this happens either through conquest or by some "strong man" seizing power either in despite of or through subversion of the Constitutional process. Rome became an empire by the latter way, where it had been a republic. I think there are signs the US is headed down that road already. That being the case, I think it wiser to install a monarchy Constitutionally rather than just allowing it to happen. When it "just happens" there are almost invariably bloodshed and purges. I'd rather do without that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction, cont.

Not to belabor the point too much further, but I believe you are mistaken by maintaining the existence of a contradiction. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_by_income New Jersey is ranked behind Connecticut as the #2 ranked state (#3 if including DC) according to per capita income and personal per capita income. It is ranked #1 according to median household income.

Unless median household income more accurately delineates overall wealth, it would appear as if New Jersey is the "second wealthiest state." Murkywave 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pls remove your warning message

Csernica,

I have added a GNU license to Image:Cephalonia and Ithaca elevation.jpg

Pls remove your warning message there.

I'm working on a reply to your interesting message in Talk on the Paliki page: should have it posted there today or tomorrow.

--Kessler 13:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Please check this message. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Great Schism

Hello, someone recently added section "Excommunications" to the article about Great Schism. With such phrases as "the patriarch was set to open up a Pandora's box", it reads like a Papist propaganda, laying the blame for the rift on the patriarch and whitewashing the papal actions. Can you take a look at the changes? I would like to know your opinion whether the section is so POV as it appears to me. Thanks for your time, Ghirla -трёп- 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict

Yep, I figured as much. No problem! —A.S. Damick talk contribs 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] historically inaccurate?

What exactly do you find historically inaccurate? First off, the beginning of the paragraph is inaccurate simply because there is only one kind of monk; the differences are in the lifestyle. While it is true that in the very beginnings of monasticism there were those who went out into the desert to live a hermit’s lifestyle, the fact is that the difficulties involved and the rate of failure were the very reason coenobitic monasticism was developed. Now, and for at least 1500 years the normal progression is for a monk to live in a coenobium until his spiritual father allows him to become an anchorite. Also, semi eremitic sketes still act exactly like coenobiums but with only a few monks under one roof and provide a much higher and more concentrated asceticism. Even these monks do not become anchorites for many years. Everything I have so far stated is the basic structure of monastic life from those monasteries I have been privileged to visit (i.e Many of the monasteries of the Holy Mountain, St John’s in Patmos, St Gregory Palamas in California, St Kyprian & Justina in Greece, St Catherine’s in Sinai)

As to the seminary question; the fact is that most clergy were trained in monasteries. The western concept of a seminary is fairly recent, coming out of 16th century Kiev. In our jurisdiction all our clergy, married or otherwise, are still trained in monasteries. Technically, from the day of their ordination, we require them to live in the monastery for 40 days doing all the services as part of their training.

So, what exactly do you find historically inaccurate? --Phiddipus 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I express to you the knowledge I have gained through direct contact. Yes it is true that candidates for the priesthood were trained by their bishop, but you forget, sir, that historically most bishops were and are monks and that it is most common for them to live in monasteries. You also imagine that the final step in training the clergy is serving in a cathedral; actually in my experience it is the first step; the reasoning going something like this: how can a person learn to be a priest without actually being a priest, this isn’t make believe we are talking about, its reality. A priest should learn his “priestcraft” after his ordination. This is not meant to mean that he should not be educated prior to his ordination, but there are things you can’t teach a layman, or rather, it is inappropriate to teach a layman as if it were some sort of rehearsal for a dramatic play.
As to the seminary question, you were unclear as to what part of the text you were rejecting, so I covered it as well.
My problem was with the characterization of their being different kinds of monks, this is not true, it is their lifestyles that are different.
As to the amusing “Anime” comparison: No sane person today, or for the last thousand years starts out as an anchorite. To do so would be to invite disaster. Numerous fathers of the desert make this clear. They constantly recommend that one go to a coenobium first, then perhaps after 25 or 30 years, if their spiritual father agrees, they can become an anchorite. Also monks do progress in rank depending on the recognition of their spiritual father. One might say that ranking is thus: Layman doing good works, novice, rassaphore, stavrophore, super saiyan, megaloschemos, saint. Laymen, rassaphores, even stavrophores are never anchorites; most megaloschemos are not anchorites; only the most outstanding, most accomplished, most humble monks become anchorites. Super Saiyans are far too arrogant, they wouldn’t stand a chance against a perfect monk.--Phiddipus 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Easter Vigil and Oriental Orthodoxy

Thank you for your contribution to this portion of the article, but what is the issue with explaining the Aramaic and Arabic meaning of "Qurbana"? Muslim friends of good will are invariably fascinated by this linguistic link with the early cousinship of Christianity and Islam. If you prefer "Syriac" to "Aramaic" that is perfectly acceptable: nowadays, though, in the Indian Orthodox Church the vernacular Malayalam language is used (and to some extent Hindi as Malayali Syrian Orthodox Christians drift northwards in India for employment reasons). At the same time, Malayalis take great pride in the unusual harmony among the three great historic religions of Kerala — Hinduism, Christianity and Islam — and it seems a pity to minimise this. Masalai 14:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The text of the hymn can certainly come out and perhaps other elements to transferred to other articles with links. But as for the matter of imbalance among the four communions in the article, it seems to me that the RC and Eastern Orthodox sections could profitably be expanded; the section on Anglicanism is probably adequate as it is, since the Anglican church simply reproduces the RC version of the Vigil with very minor variations. Masalai 09:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 13:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthologion

I noticed this article Anthologion incorporated from a very old reference book and wondered if the information was still accurate. Plus, the phrasing is a tad arcane Sumergocognito 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archivebox

Thank you. Sorry for the confusion! --Hyphen5 08:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Fire page

Hello, I am somewhat worried about the last 2 edits done on the Holy Fire page, both on April 4, 2006. You seemed to be the only person who knew what he was talking about (and signed his comments) on the talk page there, so I figured I could ask you to take a look at it. Thanks. Npa213 07:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canonization

Let us please maintain civility in this dispute.

My version, a neutral, unskewed statement: "It is incorrect to refer to the Church as "making" someone a saint, since in theory a person's saintliness is independent of the canonization process, which merely seeks to discover a previously untold aspect of theological history"

Your version, which clearly represents one perspective's bias: "It is incorrect to refer to the Church as "making" someone a saint, since in theory a person's saintliness is independent of the canonisation process, which merely seeks to discover a fact"

If you would like to offer another revision that you prefer over mine, so long as it holds no personal bias on the part of your beliefs, [cheerfully edited out in gesture of goodwill]

Ah, thank you. Your revised version is respectful to all potential perspectives of those who will come upon the article. In no way do I mean discourtesy to you as a Monarchistic Catholic, it's just that, in these religeously unpeaceful times, it is most considerate of us to chose our wordings carefully so as not to be unmannerly. --Emotive adamantium 12:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passover (Christian holiday)

I read all the disussion carefully and I had not seen any problems unsolved. Please bring your POV into the article – I think no one will object to it. To insert NPOV template without an attempt to improve the article is not friendly. -- Vít Zvánovec 10:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revoking Baptism and Confirmation

Hi Csernica, thanks for commenting, do you have any further insight? -82.35.13.121 12:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Phiddipus' more explicitly cited comment pretty much said everything else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter greetings

Χριστός ανέστη!! --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Χριστός ανέστη!! --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tikhon and other commentaries

  • Thanks for making that revert! --evrik 03:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding adding headers ... I think we both agree that on some of the pages, the comments exist, from a "time when the current method of demarcating threads was in use." It's not a question of fairness, I was simply trying to clearly demarcate the wikiporject template text from the rest of the article. I'm sure if someone feels strongly about it they will edit the inserted header to better reflect their intent. If you can think of a better way to do it, please let me know. --evrik 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayers

Prayers are POV. I think, for example, a Muslim user could find them as propaganda. They cannot have place in a neutral encyclopedia. Sorry. Attilios 07:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preventing an edit war on the saints

It was the established operation of the WikiProject Saints to have a section in the info box on a sample prayer. Some editors have been recently been attacking this in the individual articles.

It is my belief that prayers in a literary or historic context are NPOV. I can understand that some may consider the inclusion of a prayer to be hagiographic, but freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

There is a 3RR about to happen on a number of these articles. I am trying to be philosophical about this, but don’t want to yield the point when what is happening goes against the consensus and borders on vandalism.

It is my understanding that if an editing disagreement occurs that the status quo, in this case leaving the prayers in place, holds until it is resolved. I encourage you to comment on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints. I have posted my thoughts at the village pump.

--evrik 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the polite opinion. But mine is quite different, sorry. As one user wrote in the Wikiproject talk page, they give me the flavour of a religion instructions book. They hurt me. Anyway, I decided to let them stay. Maybe they add some weirdness to this already bizarre encyclopedia, who can say it? Ciao. Attilios

[edit] Christian Wiki

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know about a christianity wiki that was recently started and has now moved to it's own server. Because you are an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I think you would be a valuable member of our team and I'd love to have your contributions.

We are just about ready to go live!

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please take a look and see if this project is something you would like to get behind. the URL is: ChristWiki

-- nsandwich 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.araldicacivica.it

The authorisation is here:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Stemmi

Bruno Fracasso, manager of the site, states: "The images are freely usable". I will add a link to there in all the images I'll be able to find. Did the same if you want. Attilios 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't upload images from that two other guys so far. Thanks for the rest, I will add the correct tag. Attilios

[edit] EP

I'm sorry but you're wrong. During the middle ages the "Roman" patriarch was the Pope of the catholic faith. Non-Greek peoples called EP the 'Greek patriarch' and the church of Constantinople as the "Greek Church", in order to dab with the Latin equivalents. Of course today the Eastern Orthodox community has changed and the latter term would make no sense, yet the EP remains the head of Greek Orthodoxy, not to mention a Greek himself. It's true that Byzantines Greeks called their nation "Roman" and (some Greeks still do), but the rest of the world referred to them as Greeks (hence my claim "historically known as..."). Any modern translation other than 'Greek' is anachronistic. Furthermore terms such as "Rum millet", or "Rum Chistians" are still in use for ethnic Greeks in Turkey and in official documents are translated as 'Greek'. Britannica and scholarly uses in general point this out (I can cite if you want), so I really don't know why you're objecting to factual information. Miskin 01:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you but I won't insist any further as I don't want to insult anybody. Before the creation of a Greek state, the EP was the only Greek patriarch and was viewed both within and outside his circle as such. If you ever pass by Fanar you'll find that out on your own. Miskin 10:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jegudiel

I just guessed the Hebrew, by translating "Laudation of God" back into Hebrew, which should read Hodael or Yehudael. Eliyyahu 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the "g" in the Greek wasn't pronounced hard. However, there is another possibility - if the "g" is the transcription of the guttural "ayin" (ע), then Ιεγουδιηλ could be a transliteration of יעודיאל Yi'udiel, which would mean "G-d is my goal". That is a possibility, but based on someone else's translation of the name I decided that was not the derivation. However, something to be explored... Eliyyahu 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just googled Jehudiel which produced many results - it seems that this spelling is at least as common for the Eastern Orthodox archangel (although clearly there is no way to write an 'h' in Greek). The names of the angels have to have a Hebrew origin if they have the 'el' suffix. There are recorded names of thousands of angels in Midrashic and Talmudic literature. Berachiel ('blessing of G-d') is certainly an angel that appears in the Jewish tradition. But so does Baraqiel (ברקיאל), which means 'the lightning of G-d'. I have to do a little research on Selaphiel, because at the moment I cannot see how someone translated it 'the prayer of G-d'. Prayer is usually Tephilah in Hebrew. Eliyyahu 15:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salathiel

Well, it appears that the name in Ezra IV is Salathiel, which is makes sense in Aramaic, which means I have asked G-d צלתיאל. This is equivalent to the Hebrew Shealtiel, sometimes transcribed as Sealthiel. For reference, see Davidson, Gustav. "Dictionary of Angels, including the Fallen Angels" (New York: The Free Press, 1967), p. 254. Eliyyahu 18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on my userpage

Thanks for catching that. I suppose that person doesn't enjoy me distrupting his/her vandalism fun :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series?

Greetings, judging by your comments on Template_talk:Christianity I thought you might like to actually read the arguments. You can have a look at Book series and pay particular attention to the text surrounding the Hardy Boys. Thanks. Netscott 03:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I just enjoy the challenge of a good debate. Happily though, you've reluctantly acknowledged the logic of my argument. Thanks for that. I honestly think the word series is totally applicable here. Netscott

[edit] Talk:Roman Catholic Church

Sorry, I didn't mean to exclusively burden you with the responsibility of taking us back into the debate (actually I think it was Dominick who started taking us there); except in the very limited sense that it takes two sides to have a debate, so if no-one had opposed Dominick's points (however unreasonable they were) there would have been no debate. That doesn't mean that I disagree with your points or think you were unjustified in making them; only that I would rather keep out of the point-making, right or wrong, on both sides. TSP 03:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Why have you reversed all the previous edits of the user before you? I have been watching the edits on the Roman Catholic Church entry over the last year and whenever someone comes along to offer a different opinion it is immediately erased. Occasionally an editor will revert back in totality a variety of previous edits which have been erased over time. Some of the work is impressive, scholarly and much is accepted fact. For example what is wrong with:

The term catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός, katholikos, from the phrase "kath' holou," which is from kata "about" + genitive of holos "whole", thus literally meaning about whole, sometimes loosely translated as "universal." Churches that use the word in their name do so with an implicit claim to be the one, whole Church founded by Christ.

This piece keeps coming up and being taken out - why and why are the others being erased without proper debate and consideration on their historical accuracy? WexfordWill 12:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True colors

As to "true colors", Dominick showed his first. If you have a personal problem with me, your animus is misspent on wikipedia. This is not a personal conflict. Dominick (TALK) 16:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion is myth subject

Being myth religion is not included for school children subject. vkvora 06:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on Byzantine rulers' names

Hi Csernica. Thanks for your contribution to the survey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constantine_XI#Discussion. In case votes for the three options are counted separately, you may want to consider indicating a second choice. Best, Imladjov 16:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icons and copyrights

I am not sure how the law would treat it but, in my opinion, Icons are not copyrightable. All icons are copies of (almost always) unsigned works. Photographs of non-copyrightable material is also not copyrightable. Icons do do not have the same qualities as "artwork" especially original artwork. Icons are not created to be owned by the artist nor even ascribed to him (usually). The rare exceptions of famous Icons are much too old to be copyrighted and their creators wouldn't have done such a thing anyway. --Phiddipus 06:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie

I was thinking we should have a wake. But I suppose it's not the best idea. What a wacky story the whole thing is. I wish I knew what to make of it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up

Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altar Servers

Csernica, I am afraid you have me. What I have observed in traditional Greek churches, both here and in Greece is that in order to serve as an altar boy, the boy is “elevated” to this rank (I use the term loosely) by the bishop in a short formal ceremony. The boy is tonsured and vested in a sticharion. It seems to me that the tonsure signifies a promise of dedication and a gift of ones substance and is done anytime a person moves “up in rank” either toward the priesthood or the monastic profession. In any case, a small amount of hair is taken in a cruciform pattern from the head and burned in the flame of a candle. I have seen this also performed by the abbot of a monastery to allow monks to serve in the same capacity, though monks who are servers do not wear sticharions.

Now, as you probably know; I am a moderate old-calendarist Greek, the ones in communion with ROCOR, not the fanatics. I say this so that you understand my perspective. You mentioned above that some altar boys wear oraria. I have never seen this in traditional Greek churches. The only thing our altar boys wear is a sticharion with a cross on their back. This, of course, could be considered simply to be an ornate version of the baptismal garment. I have seen, on the other hand, a few different versions of “oraria-like” additions to the altar boy vestments in various other denominations; since these additions serve no purpose, either symbolically or otherwise, I assume they are affectation and harmless cultural or congregational preferences. --Phiddipus 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Constantinople

Hi, I also know this legend, but do you have a reliable source confirming it? BTW, it was me who initially wrote the caption. Pecher Talk 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked with Europe: A History by Norman Davies: the story originates with Gibbon, but I'm not sure it was on the same day. Pecher Talk 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Spam

Why did you consider Lord of the Rings Shop spam. Could you have moved the link to the apropriat place where it should be and let me know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjeremy (talk • contribs)

[edit] Vestments and Methodists

You expressed a question regarding Methodists wearing Chasubles. Yes, indeed, some United Methodist clergy do wear Chasubles during services of the Holy Eucharist. It is not greatly common -- not as common as just albs and stoles -- but the numbers of UM clergy so-vesting is on the rise. For an example of this, see: First United Methodist Church of Seagoville, Easter 2006 --RevNeal 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is another move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in it. Imladjov 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I was hoping to get some help on the St Athanasius of Alexandria and St Cyril of Alexandria pages. Also on the Vladimir Lossky page. Thanks LoveMonkey 17:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russians

I looked at the 'Russians in the United States' category' and the 'Russian American' category and found little difference in the stated purpose of the categories. I also looked at articles in the categories and could see no particular difference among them. Should there be a category for Russians who were in what is now US territory prior to its being so? Should there be a category for Russian expatriates in the US who never took up being 'American'? These are possibilities, if they do not exist already. Thanks Hmains 04:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not noticed any categories for other countries and peoples other than xxx Americans and xxx expatriates. These are the standardized naming conventions. Are there any? Is there something that requires Russians to be treated differently? Thanks Hmains 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that there is already some repopulation of 'Russian people in the United States'. I will not alter those. We could create a 'Russian Expatiates in the United States' to match other categories for this purpose and put the these and other articles there. Your thoughts? Also a 'Russian-American history' category to include the non-people articles. Your thoughts? Thanks Hmains 04:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "It should be noted"

Thanks for the kind words. It doesn't require a broadband connection as much as it requires time. If you're interested in a similar project, I think the AutoWikiBrowser is pretty easy to install and use for something like this - you might check it out. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please note that Wikipedia prefers internal to external links in articles, and avoid using external links in article text when they're not necessary (i.e. link spam in Narbonic). Thank you. Fagstein 06:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick talk contribs 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John of Shanghai and San Francisco

The title of an article should not reflect alternative names by which a person is known - that is the purpose of redirects. It reflects only the commonest name, as per naming conventions. The use of parentheses in article titles is discouraged unless it is necessary to disambiguate between two people of the same name. It is only necessary to deal with double redirects. There were precisely two of these, covering only a single article, so I think "all the redirects" is overstating it a bit. -- Necrothesp 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And that's my point. Only one name should ever be used for an article title. If there are are alternative names, even if it is difficult to distinguish the commonest, then one should be chosen and the rest created as redirects (the whole point of having redirects). This is Wikipedia policy, not my own point of view (although I definitely agree with it). I don't actually think it is at all necessary to fix redirects, although some people do. Redirects are fine, as far as I'm concerned. They don't detract from Wikipedia at all. -- Necrothesp 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint"". -- Necrothesp 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jp2mozzeta.jpg - fairuse with no source.

After I tagged this image a couple of days ago - I noticed it was you rather than either of the uploaders than provided the fair use rationale for this image - can you provide a source for the image ? Without one it will be deleted. Thanks. Megapixie 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Trinity

Reverend Sir, I reverted the changes made by you on the Holy Trinity article. Even though the text might have not been used by early church fathers, many proponents of the Holy Trinity use this verse to justify belief in the Holy Trinity. To give an NPOV stance, I included "(see Comma Johanneum)" next to the verse. Thank you very much for your understanding. God Bless. + —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdas07 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Menes

Menes isn't a myth or a legend. I've got a copy of an ostrica with his name on it right now in front of me. There's arguement on whether or not he was either Hor-Aha or Narmer, and the latter is not unlikely, but we ought to leave the possible sucession intact and make comments about his possible unity with other kings inside the articles itself. Shaw, Gardiner, and Grimal all say that his being either Narmer or Hor-Aha is tenuous at best. Thanatosimii 02:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturalization

Hello! I stumbled upon a comment of yours, "Japan does indeed have a naturalization process. Foreign rikishi, for example, are expected to become Japanese citizens." ([1]), and I was wondering if maybe you had some more information to give on this interesting subject at Naturalization. Japan is certainly a notable country in respect to such concerns. Thanks very much for your help, Lapaz 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Just wondering... Certainly an important subject though. Regards, Lapaz 16:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
A bit late, but thanks for your link to Foreign-born Japanese. Regards, Lapaz 14:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordination

My ordination is scheduled for October 29, 2006, in Raleigh, NC. —Preost talk contribs 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir.  :) Please remember me in your prayers. —Preost talk contribs 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sfestuarymodern.gif and Image:Sfestuaryhistorical.gif

I responded at Image talk:Sfestuarymodern.gif. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pharaoh and divinity

In your edit comments on Pharaoh: rv. No, but this is over-simplified to the point of incorrectness. The pharaoh was not believed to be divine by nature.

With all due respect, you're in denial. Hatshepsut's recorded titles clearly show otherwise:

  • Hr wsr.t kA.w "Horus, Powerful of Kas" (<- Gee, that's kinda direct proof, don't you think?)
  • wDA.t rnpw.t "Two Ladies Flourishing of Years"
  • Hr nb.w nTrt xa.w "Golden Horus, Goddess of Appearances" (<- Yet again!)
  • nsw-bi.tj (mAa.t-kA-ra) "The King of Upper and Lower Egypt (Maatkare)"
  • sA ra (Xnm.t-imn HA.t-Sps.wt) "the son of Re (Joined with Amun, Hatshepsut)" ("Joined with Amun", but not divine? Tell me another lie)

I just don't get what you're basing this secularist view on at all. I'm reverting for these reasons. --Glengordon01 08:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision to Trisagion article

Thanks for your correction to the scriptural reference in the Trisagion article. However, when you made it, you seem to have done so to an old version of the text, before the contents of the old Agios O Theos article were merged into it -- effectively deleting all the merged text. I've reverted to the version just before your edit, and changed the comment on the sanctus to refer only to Isaiah, as you wished. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 21:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Note on adding full Eastern Orthodox Project to your watchlist

This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: Since the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Saintbox

I expect you will see my comment here, and I recognize that it might come over as a little hostile towards your work on the infobox. Actually I am not at all hostile: I think you have made it distinctly less annoying, both intellectually and aesthetically. But I think that, perhaps, it still has some way to go before becoming as neutral as (say) the infobox on rivers. Indeed I admit that I am a bit against infoboxes in general. At the best I think they provide a checklist of things that editors should try to remember to include in an article. But always there is the downside that, with wikipedia formatting being as limited as currently it is, they tend to grab screenspace that could often be better inhabited by images, maps or or other off-the-cuff boxes. Cheers, —Ian Spackman 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You know the correct size of LotR articles?

You revert my articles saying "keep this encyclopedic and concise instead of expanding it all the time". You imply that (a) you think the current article is concise and (b) it shouldn't expand any futher. In other words, the articles I'm editing are DONE. Well I don't agree. The articles were both vague on how exactly Sauron surrendered to Ar-Pharazon, lost his body in the fall of Numenor and yet was alive and wielding the One Ring 120 years later. Given that Tolkien explained both events (the surrender and the re-appearence with the ring) I think its worth including Tolkien's explaination in the article. Cglassey 03:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk pages, please. This shouldn't be just between you and me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Category:Orthodox vestments

Hi Csernica: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Category:Orthodox vestments where I have nominated that Category:Orthodox vestments be renamed Category:Christian Orthodox vestments in order to differentiate between the Orthodox Christian religion and Orthodox Judaism. In the future, please add the word "Christian" and not just "Orthodox" when writing about the Christian movement to avoid any misunderstandings with Orthodox Judaism or with Jewish editors. Sincerely, IZAK 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Sin

What was wrong with the train of thought that I posted under "Original Sin - discussion?" (This isn't confrontational, I just want to know) --AstoVidatu 02:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I guess that's what I get for coming up with the theory during Stat.

[edit] Ecumenical Patriarch

Concerning the following edit summary:
"rv. He always self-identified (and was identified by the Turkish authorities) as Roman. There's no reason to perpetuate old errors here"
I was born in Turkey as a "Rum" and I can assure you that it does _not_ mean 'Roman' in the way that the ignorant West perceives it. The EP has to be by law an ethnic Greek of Turkish citizenship. If you believe in such naive arguments then you're probably in denial and base your edits on pure POV-pushing and OR. I've added the official name "Greek patriarch of Constantinople" as opposed to "Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople" (you probably didn't know the latter existed), so please don't revert again something factual because it doesn't fit your personal moral values. Miskin 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)