Talk:Main Page

New: Reader Andrew, would you please identify yourself or at least which church you belong to. I understand your desire to express your opinions on the internet, but in fairness you really have a duty to say so up front that you are expressing "OPINION". To claim to represent the Orthodox Church while writing about a Roman Catholic church disguised as a phony Orthodox church is untruthful. This is precicely why there has always been conflict between Orthodox Slavs and Rome's determination to convert Orthodox by any means available, including outright lying.

The Roman church broke away from the Orthodox Church in 1054. Get used to it.

Reader Michael (OCA)

Personal notes belong on User talk pages, but I'll answer this here, since you haven't created a talk page (since you haven't registered). If you like, you can continue your screed against us (or me) on my talk page, which is also accessible from my user page: User:ASDamick.

As it states on my user page, I am a communicant in the Church of Antioch. The claim you make that Western Rite Orthodox are "Roman Catholics" is simply inaccurate. They are not in communion with the Vatican, and most of them have never been (since most are former Anglicans). (I've more fully engaged your ideas in Talk:Western Rite.)

I'm glad you've finally decided to engage in discussion here, rather than simply continuing to vandalize articles. --Rdr. Andrew 06:12, 21 Feb 2005 (CST)

Just wanted to make clear that dissenting opinions are welcome here if they are expressed in the right way. An article's talk page is the proper place for disputes about a particular issue (personal issues, when appropriate, should be handled though the user talk pages). What does right way mean? I can think of a few things: 1) A humble tone,, 2) A clear articulation of the argument rather than simple assertions of 'fact' 3) Sources and would be helpful - site authorities if available. If we all follow these guidelines, I trust we can have a good dialogue in a spirit of charity motivated by love for the Holy Church.

Finally, I'd like to thank Rdr. Andrew for his work on the article and say that I recognize his view indeed as the "Orthodox" one rather than merely his opinion. Fr. John

Old Stuff

Hmm... Special:UserList doesn't seem to exist yet.

---

Oops, try Special:Listusers

---

Ah. That's better.

Hmm... I notice you haven't deleted my old Frjustin account yet. And it looks like you need a home/user page of your own yet!

---

Haven't found a way to delete it yet, except by going into the database. :-(. That's ok though, not a big deal. FrJohn

---

Nice logo - same one I have on my business card... but perhaps a bit more colour would be nice? Something like this?

Also, why is it blinking intermittently? FrJustin

---

Don't know about the blinking! Yep, the color definitely looks better -- does it have a transparent background or just white? I think transparent would be best, but I'm not skilled enough with Photoshop to make it happen. Thanks for your work!
64.36.221.45

---

The background is indeed transparent. And, hmm... It's not blinking anymore! FrJustin

---

The Wikipedia discussion has been moved to Meta Reflections.

Bottom section

I moved the bottom section to OrthodoxWiki:Welcome and expanded it a bit there. Visually and conceptually, it seemed like it shouldn't be right in front like that, mainly because it gives the impression of something a little less polished than what we actually have. (And polish helps to attract more folks to read and edit.)

Should we have something else at the bottom? Perhaps another menu, but including what?

Rdr. Andrew 18:53, 13 Feb 2005 (CST)

That's a good call. I think it's fine for now, too. Maybe we could add one or two self-descriptive starting points...

You wrote: "polish helps to attract more folks to read and edit"

I'm not sure how many folks speak polish. It might not attract that many people, but russian or greek might help. This brings up a slightly related, but inverse point, which is that we could simplify the top sentence and take out the "English" part. OTOH, we could leave it in to emphasize our willingness to branch out into other languages. Fr. John

Polish has approximately 46 million speakers in the world. Are we up to that many visitors yet?

I'm ambivalent on the "English version" wording. I was "shamelessly modelling" us after Wikipedia.  :) --Rdr. Andrew 17:56, 14 Feb 2005 (CST)