User talk:ASDamick

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 16:55, February 16, 2007 by Cat68 (talk | contribs) (Thanks and congrats)
Jump to: navigation, search
Fr. Andrew is currently in semi-retirement from OrthodoxWiki, so he may only be sporadically available and generally fairly inactive. Please remember him in your prayers.


Congratulations to you both! We are expecting our little baby girl in mid-October 2006. We might have to swap tips! {{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}} 23:48, August 5, 2006 (CDT)

Working on Bishop Basil entry

Dear ASDamick,

Thank you for your recent changes to the article on Basil (Osborne) of Amphipolis. I'm glad to see us working on this text together. I would like to see it accurately and dispassionately reflect the full state of affairs surrounding this bishop. I think that most of your revisions to my recent update of the text have been very helpful - again, my many thanks for them.

A few points that I think still need some further consideration:

  • Title: The title 'Bishop of Amphipolis' is contested, and highly controversial. It doesn't seem appropriate for the OrthodoxWiki article on the bishop to take a definitive side one way or the other on this matter. I had altered the text to address this, which you refined nicely. However, I do think it appopriate that the issue is left relatively open, by simply referring to him as 'Bishop Basil' in most cases (e.g. in the caption under the photograph). The title of the article gives him the title 'Bishop of Amphipolis' already, which points things in a certain reading; but I think we need to be wary of giving 'our own blessing' to a matter that is disputed amongst the patriarchates.
  • Nature of the bishop's retirement: I've corrected the paragraph on the nature of the bishop's forced retirement. This was not made because he sought reception in the EP, but because he sought to do so preemptorily, without canonical release and order.
  • Title in summary box: In line with my point above on the bishop's title, I think it is only fair / accurate to return the small footnote qualifier on the title in the summary box at the bottom. Not to do so seems to claim, in the article, that the matter is disputed and open, only to go on in the summary information to present it as a closed/decided issue. I think in fairness to the actual situation, this small flag is warranted and not in itself a bias (cf. for example the summary boxes on autocephalous churches on Wikipedia, where a small asterisk is used next to churches whose autocephaly is disputed by some).

I've made edits to the article this morning to account for the above points; I hope they're in general things you approve of (I've made them as separate edits, so you can see the progression).

--Antonios 07:08, August 6, 2006 (CDT)

Edit count

"I'm currently in the lead and hoping I hit 10,000 first. (There's probably no prize, though.)"

I think we should throw a party. Fr. John
Seen ? Fr. John

Bp Thomas (Joseph) of Oakland

Thanks for responding to the issue on my talk page; I fear that, in the mood I was in, my response would have been somewhat less than an exhibition of perfect charity. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 07:13, August 14, 2006 (CDT)

Byzantine response to OCA autocephaly

The bullet lists in Byzantine response to OCA autocephaly: Are they simply listing every single argument made by the Byzantine churches against OCA autocephaly? Because this one really boggles the mind: " * Moscow's act is an attempt to extend Soviet influence into America. "

This was perhaps tossed out by someone, somewhere, at some time, in an effort to amass as many objections as possible, but it clearly has no bearing whatsoever on the current state of affairs (as the rest of the article appears to). I'm not going to edit it quit yet (since you put it in there), but a footnote or an external link might be appropriate. Otherwise, it's completely spurious except as a historical curiosity which has clearly proven to be laughable. --Basil 16:16, August 14, 2006 (CDT)

I agree that documentation would be helpful. Historical arguments would be useful to keep in, as they do give some perspective on the historical relations between the two jurisdictions. Fr. John


A nice, subtle change that has not gone unnoticed. I look forward to your inactive partication! — FrJohn (talk)

Welcome back, Deacon Andrew. I missed your discipline on keeping a consistent format for the articles. I mean this sincerely as I looked forward to your catching my "typos". It had kept me on the 'ball' but I still needed a good editor. Wsk 13:57, October 9, 2006 (CDT)


I see you signed your last contribution "Father Andrew." Congratulations on your ordination! Gabriela 22:31, October 30, 2006 (CST)

corrupted letters

In editing the page Timeline of Church History with minor edits, the link you added [[bg:Времева лини�? на църковната и�?тори�?]] became corrupted. I would fix it, but the corrupted letters do not display on any of my browsers even if I look at the history. - Andrew 10:04, November 7, 2006 (PST)

AFAIK, this is a known issue with an upgrade to MySQL 5. I'm not enough of a whiz to fix the problem, and the damage is minimal, so we'll have to do it manually... Sorry! — FrJohn (talk)


Hi dear Father, I was leaving off the extra interwiki links for the Mian page until the additional localizations are ready for "Beta" stage, by which I mean that all the necessary documents have been translated... The "release" stage will then be when there are strong enough communities and moderation around these wikis to really launch them - i.e content and spam problems are dealt with quickly. — FrJohn (talk)

Metaxakis entry

Dear Father, Thank you for pointing out the issues of NPOV and MCB with the last edit I had entered. Of course I agree with having those standards for an encylopedic entry and I would like to see a better product along the lines you suggest. However I do have a few comments if i may.

  • I feel that the substance of what was written - about the agenda of the Pan Orthodox Congress of 1923 - actually was accurate and unbiased; after all history is history, and if those were the subjects that were tabled at that congress, it is a matter of history and a very important matter at that, and information which every Orthodox Christian today has a right to be informed and aware of. Im sure you agree that to simply list the items of the agenda as they were, is, I think is a neutral approach (i.e. "here is what what was proposed in 1923: 1, 2, 3, 4,..etc, in fact seven changes in all.) Not sure how else to word that part of it, it is what it is; some subjects such as this particular example, may not be neutral in themselves, and for us to attempt to make them so or omit them risks the error of creating our own modern bias instead, a risk every historian is aware of. The writing of history must be impartial, whether the historical facts in themselves are or arent impartial to us is another matter. I agree that the source timeline that I located the information on would be NPOV/MCB, however as for the information in itself, it is either factual or it is isn't (fabricated) other words there was no editing or personal opinions presented with that list, just the list of proposals in 1923 itself . And I remember seeing a similar list of items (from the 1923 congress) years ago on an OCA site, which I cannot find now. And so for this reason I believe it is necessary and important to have this part included for the complete and unbiased picture.
  • As for the second section I had entered (comparative study), which included a link to a site which detailed things about Metaxakis' early Masonic involvement right down to his troubled death, yes it too did not come from a MCB site, and that will need to be re-worked as you commented, perhaps with more research from other sources; but it too presented disturbing details, which in themselves were by nature * not neutral * (i.e. if he attained 33rd degree in 1909 that's important; if he was buried with Masonic honours in 1935 that fact too is important). It is doubtful how much other written research exists on this subject, at least in English.

At any rate I appreciate the direction. Would be interested in what you think. Cheers, Chris.

Thanks and congrats

Dear Father, thank you for your friendly welcoming and congratulations for your ordination! --Cat68 08:55, February 16, 2007 (PST)