User talk:Pistevo/Archive 06
I fixed the picture...it should be ok to repost it now to her page. --Patriarchanthony 01:01, January 8, 2006 (CST) BTW...You are restoring the spammers pages. Not the real ones. Look at the recent changes for yesterday and see that the FR. John and MAgda pages are uneffected by your edits... --Patriarchanthony 01:03, January 8, 2006 (CST)
- I guess not! Sad, really Sad! --Patriarchanthony 01:15, January 8, 2006 (CST)
(1) I strenuously object to false information being again re-posted to this article. Bishop Germain was not deposed by Romania. I was in Paris when the news came from Romania. I received a copy of the official letter to the clergy and faithful of the Church of France. He was not put on trial and he was not deposed. Merely asserting something doesn't make it true. I at least have the advantage of having been there and of having read the official communications. (2) This article repeats the misinformation that Alexis van der Mensbrugghe belonged to the French Church but then returned to the Church of Russia. This is not true. He simply remained when the Russian Church after the French left in order to maintain their Western character. (3) The use of the term "canonical limbo" is not appropriate. Being canonical has to do with living in accordance with the canons. It is not a matter of being recognized by someone else. A useful article on this is the classic one by Fr Alexander Schmemann. --Fr Lev 20:56, March 2, 2006 (CST)
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that use of logos and publicity photos constitute fair use. Wikipedia has special templates for these, which we've adopted -- see OrthodoxWiki:Templates for options. Thanks, Fr. John
I noticed the 'Orthodox code' on the template portion of your user page - where does one find that? Ari 23:31, March 26, 2006 (CST)
BTW, for future reference, you can do a move onto an existing redirect without deleting the target article first. (I just tested this to make sure I remembered correctly.) —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 15:15, May 31, 2006 (CDT)
- I got the email now. (My email was down yesterday.) It doesn't make much sense to me, though. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 07:47, June 7, 2006 (CDT)
Serbian Bishops in Australia
I'm not quite sure what needs to be changed in these succession boxes. Would you mind?
Yes, I am almost positive that the history books were written before he became Orthodox. I believe the last book was published in 1989 and he converted in 1998. Joe 2006-06-14
- Yep, this is right. The vast majority of his works were written before he came into the Church. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 20:20, June 14, 2006 (CDT)
featured article template
Good subject for the featured article, but the featured article template article should link to the genuine article. (The Ladder of Divine Ascent). I'd do it but I can't. Andrew 09:09, July 7, 2006 (CDT)
Your additions to the Lossky article seemed to suggest you had a source -- would you tell me what that source is? Thanks! --Fr Lev 14:13, August 3, 2006 (CDT)
No complaint -- just curious.--Fr Lev 20:51, August 3, 2006 (CDT)
The page for the Right Reverend Bishop Thomas of Oakland and the East was edited by SBambakidis at the direct request of the Bishop. Could you please revert that page to the one preferred by the Bisop. Thank you—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianpartridge (talk • contribs) .
- This issue was adequately addressed by Dcn Andrew on Talk:Brianpartridge. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 07:15, August 14, 2006 (CDT)
Hey where's the sources of the criticisms on the Lossky page. The contridict his writings which state specifically that the Roman Catholic church was the one who confused essence, hypostasis and person. Where's your sources? LoveMonkey 13:23, August 28, 2006 (CDT)
- This question has already been put forward by Fr Lev, and answered on his talk page. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 06:40, August 29, 2006 (CDT)
You have not answered anything. Your comments amount to stating that someone else posted the comments you provided no source. I have looked into the article history and you added the criticisms section and content. You are a sysop please source your content. I would like to know where these inaccurate comments are coming from. Lossky very clear did not confuse anything and very clearly stated in the book that his comments WHERE that the word persona and Ousia where misunderstood and misused. LoveMonkey 15:05, August 29, 2006 (CDT)
I am still at odds with the article. Lossky was never but negative about many ideas within the church in Mystical theology those including ideas and people expressed here as if he endorsed them. Lossky was critical of sophiology, new age, ecumenism in his works. I will look up the page numbers since if I am not mistaken Lossky mentions Florovsky by name and states that his teachings are wrong. Lossky most definitely does the same with Nikolai Berdyaev. LoveMonkey 10:07, September 4, 2006 (CDT)
Oh, I see. He copied the model copyright notice -- complete with name. These are the things that make intellectual property lawyers (like me) chuckle.
Thanks for reinstating and fixing.
Hello, I'm sorry I wasnt able to do more to stop/slow/reverse the damage. I didnt really know what I could do. Hopefully the vandalism wasnt too extensive. Hellenica 21:52, September 9, 2006 (CDT)
Yeah, you're absolutely right about that, sysop attribs help a great deal. I am quite glad I had the image source epiphany. It was a lot easier to revert 2 images than trying to stem a tide of countless vandalized articles. Whew. =) Hellenica 22:06, September 9, 2006 (CDT)
Hi Pistevo, Hmm... this was happening to me for a little while yesterday and I thought I fixed it :-(. I don't get this anymore. Can you do a "hard refresh" (usually shift-refresh) and let me know if the problem persists, and which browser you're using? For me, Firefox and Safari aren't doing this anymore... Thanks! — FrJohn (talk)
Not sure I can offer any suggests re: a picture. In my judgment, this shouldn't really be a featured article. It's not very complete or developed for one thing, but also the controversial nature of the article might leave a bad taste in some people's mouths. Thanks, — FrJohn (talk)