User talk:ASDamick/Archive 3
- 1 Featured article
- 2 On Egypt, Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc.
- 3 e-vangelism
- 4 New Martyr circle
- 5 Eve
- 6 Redundancies
- 7 Bishop v. Hierarch, Patriarch v. Primate
- 8 Iakovos correspondence
- 9 St. Tikhon's Photo
- 10 Capping of headings and sub-headings
- 11 Alternate flag/cross image
- 12 A question
- 13 Thanks for the Reminder
- 14 Picture
- 15 Macedonians
- 16 HOCNA
- 17 I appreciate the welcome.
- 18 Photos
- 19 Image question
- 20 Standard characters for titles
- 21 Pilgrimage
- 22 Bp. Orestes
- 23 Hermas/Hermes
- 24 Moving over redirs
- 25 Deletes
- 26 Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Zealand
- 27 Axios
- 28 Priesthood
- 29 1917/1918 Council
- 30 Xenophontos image
- 31 On Misunderstanding
- 32 Various
- 33 Slapdash
- 34 Feature 7 Jul 06
- 35 An article on Scientology?
- 36 whooops...sorry
Dn., I was thinking it would be nice to do something of a Nativity theme through January 7 or so. However, it doesn't look like we have enough information on OrthodoxWiki for that yet. I'll let St. Gregory Palamas take a turn for now, but I would like your feedback about the Nativity-theme idea. —magda (talk) 11:13, December 23, 2005 (CST)
- Well, of course I was hoping you'd provide that. :) I don't have as much knowledge and understanding as I would like to do what I want with this; still more questions than answers.
- There's already Nativity and Nativity Icon, and Incarnation, but these need more expansion before I would want them to be featured. However, there could be other aspects as well, maybe a Hymns of the Nativity which talks about the theological importance; an article on the Magi; and the geneology or forefathers of Christ; I'd love to see one which talks about Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies; Herod and Holy Innocents might be a good idea, talking about the world's reaction to the birth. You know, because everyone will have plenty of free time to get this up for this year... —magda (talk) 14:48, December 23, 2005 (CST)
On Egypt, Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc.
You are right. I guess you need a "disambiguiation page" here. Same applies to Jerusalem (as a city/place of importance in Christendom and not just a patriarchal see). ER
Hey. For the e-vangelism page hte entry is not refering to the evangelical church movement. It is making reference to the literal meaning of the word. Message to DcnDavid I have made a new format for the entry if you want to view it. (This probably meets the style and content better). An e-vangelist is a person who uses the Internet to present the Christian gospel message to the world. == Biblical Role == The role of an evangelist or e-vangelist in conjunction with the [[apostles]], [[prophets]], [[pastors]] and [[teachers]] is described in '''[[Ephesians]] 4:11-13''' "''11He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. 12Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ, 13until we come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God's Son that we will be mature and full grown in the Lord, measuring up to the full stature of Christ.'' '''"Ephesians 4:11-13''' '''SEE ALSO''' ---- *[[Evangelism]] *[[internet evangelism]] '''EXTERNAL LINKS''' ---- *[http://www.e-vangelist.true.ws E-vangelism.official.ws] --Ari 22:45, January 2, 2006 (CST)
New Martyr circle
Saint titles has a link to New-martyr which redirects to New Martyrs which redirects to Saint titles. New-Martyr is the main redirect (in all the calendric pages) to Saint titles. Perhaps I should have changed the link on the OrthodoxWiki:Articles from the DEC page so it would be to New-Martyr insteada of creating New Martyrs as another redirect. —magda (talk) 15:34, January 3, 2006 (CST)
- I suspected as much; hence my comment, rather than trying to "fix" things. :) —magda (talk) 15:36, January 3, 2006 (CST)
Dn. Andrew, when I search for "Eve" I am redirected to Adam and Eve, but when I get to the search page (as opposed to using the search in the nav-bar), I get no hits at all. Any suggestions? (My preferences are set such that all of the namespaces are selected as a range, and I don't have a problem with searching for "Adam.") —magda (talk) 08:34, January 4, 2006 (CST)
Dn. Andrew: Thanks for the heads up. It struck me after I added the Japan banner. Your comment confirmed it. I must say your are quick on the editting. I don't mind it as I keep finding I left something out or missed somewhere and I find it nice having yours and Magda's editting help.Wsk 10:07, January 5, 2006 (CST)
Bishop v. Hierarch, Patriarch v. Primate
When creating categories and lists, do you think it would be better to use the current title of a see, e.g. bishop, or a more general title, e.g., hierarch? I'm looking at Category:Bishops.
To take an example, List of Patriarchs of Constantinople has bishops of Byzantium, bishops of Constantinople, archbishops of Constantinople, and then patriarchs of Constantinople. The listings, i.e., each bishop, would potentially be included in a similar category: Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople. However, those falling under "bishops of Byzantium" might not be included in this category (cf. Apostle Andrew). That's why I am trying to think of a better way to organize.
The options as I see them:
- If the see is now a (bishopric/archbishopric/patriarchate), all the hierarchs of that see will be included in a list and category of (bishops/archbishops/patriarchs) of that see.
- For any given see, the hierarch would be included in the list and category of hierarchs of that see; any see which is now a patriarchate will have its primates included instead in the list and category of primates of that patriarchate.
- Each category and list will be its own individual entity.
- Your patent answers (which I never seem to think of) are why I keep asking you questions. Thank you. —magda (talk) 10:47, January 6, 2006 (CST)
The only other place I can find this information is the Wikipedia page. Currently, the website of the Department of Pastoral and Social Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki is down. —magda (talk) 20:29, January 7, 2006 (CST)
St. Tikhon's Photo
Would you mind if I reuploaded your St. Tikhon's photo, with the power lines Photoshopped out? -HiFiGuy 11:47, February 2, 2006 (CST)
- Only because I think that the power lines are distracting; if you look for photos of The Alamo, you'll frequently find a giant sign for the Crockett Hotel in the background... unless they've been Photoshopped out--and it frequently has been. Imagine if you could get a ladder and take a photo of the church from right at the power lines (so they wouldn't appear in the photo). Failing that, it's much easier to just make a little tweak. On the other hand, maybe a photo with the power lines in will encourage a donor to help pay to bury them. This is merely a suggestion; I thought I'd ask here, first. -HiFiGuy 12:56, February 2, 2006 (CST)
Capping of headings and sub-headings
I noticed that you edited a recent editing of mine which capitalized "External links" in the article on his emminence Dmitri. I'm curious why some headings get title case and others get sentence case. Even in the style guide, which doesn't mention them specifically, there appears to be inconsistency. --Basil 23:44, March 11, 2006 (CST)
- Thanks for the reply. I figured something along those lines was up. Also, I totally agree with your assessment of the misuse of title case in much English-speaking Orthodoxy. --Basil 18:14, March 13, 2006 (CST)
Alternate flag/cross image
I've whipped up an alternative. It's clearly inspired by your original image --- even to the point of using the original pectoral cross --- but uses a photo of a US flag flying in the wind (actually taken on Liberty Island). Since your original image is in the PD, and the image of the flag was taken from stock.xchng and has no restrictions, I've attached a CC license. --Basil 22:02, March 13, 2006 (CST)
- I'm glad you like it. Thanks for the info on the cross. I seem to remember seeing it as a wall cross, now that you mention it, and I'm sure I own one that is in the possession of someone else right now. (Military life and all.) --Basil 06:13, March 15, 2006 (CST)
See my question on the Theotokos TALK page. If you could find the time to explain that to me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.
Acedaroflebanon 12:32, March 19, 2006 (CST)
Thanks for the Reminder
Thank you for reminding me about obtaining proper permission. All of the images have now been confirmed by OCA. Pkdimarco 15:55, April 12, 2006 (CDT)
I tried to restore your picture (Image:Andrew Stephen Damick.jpg) after it had been deleted after a vandal attack, but (it seems) failed; sorry. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 20:54, April 17, 2006 (CDT), edited 07:03, Apr 18, 2006.
- No question. Something that I've done that I think should be a matter of course - sysop and important images (like icons) should be protected. It's just too easy to vandalise. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 22:32, April 17, 2006 (CDT)
Would appreciate your opinions on Talk:Orthodoxy in Australasia regarding whether the Macedonian metropolitanate should be listed as another Orthodox structure. (also posted on Fr John's talk page) --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 17:55, April 30, 2006 (CDT)
I appreciate the welcome.
Trying to figure out the text codes and graphics situation has been an interesting challenge, but I think I'm getting the hang of it (the very basics, at least.) I just noticed that you'd replied to my query about the witan, as well.
Out of personal interest, were you pretty much assured of your first choice seminary once you were accepted as a seminarian? You see, my boyfriend (we're Antiochian, too) would love to go to St. Vlad's, but every now and then he has a panic attack that he could be sent off to, say, the hinterlands of Alaska. In any case, he's planning on speaking to Bishop Basil in September when the Bishop comes to Texas, so we'll see. Gabriela 15:14, May 9, 2006 (CST)
Thank you, Father Deacon. Your point is well taken - the fine point of the Law! I'll change the attribution as you recommend. Also. in up loading the photos, I first titled the files and then uploaded them without taking in account the warning of not using an '&' in the file name. I tried to figure out how to remove the offending file but couldn't. I would appreciate if you could make the correction - removing the offending file.
This looks to be the source of Image:416px-Abouna_Matta_El_Meskeen.jpg. Would this qualify as public domain, or would it still fall under GFDL? The wikipedia language states that "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License," but fails to convince me of the status of the image there. —magda (talk) 14:38, May 16, 2006 (CDT)
Standard characters for titles
Dn. Andrew, I remembered something about using standard characters for article titles. After poking around for a while, I found the following useful: Talk:Daniel the Hermit and []. Would you mind writing something up in the OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual to address this? I tried a search for "Jaaskelainen" and did not get to Ambrose (Jääskeläinen) of Helsinki. If we do want to have the article titles with special characters, should we have a standard-character redirect? —magda (talk) 10:08, May 26, 2006 (CDT)
It looks like I'll be attending the pilgrimage again this year (thanks be to God). I'd love to meet you.
Also, I know the timing is rather late, but if you have a spare patch of floor/couch/bed where a pilgrim could take shelter Sunday night, that would be the bomb. :D No pressure; just wondering. --Basil 14:24, May 27, 2006 (CDT)
Thanks, Dn Andrew, for the change in the title for Bp. Orestes. I was not sure of all the potential titles for Bp. Orestes which one would be correct. So, you came to my rescue again! To change the subject, I notice some time ago that on the Calendar we have an 'Edward of England', September 3 I think, but in a search of the net, I have found only an 'Edward the Martyr' or an 'Edward the Confessor'. So, we have an anomoly. which Edward is 'Edward of England'? I haven't found a third! Perhaps you and/or Magda came clear up the inconsistence. Keep up the excellent work. wsk Wsk 11:58, May 28, 2006 (CDT)
Should we have Apostle Hermes as a disambiguation page, to distinguish between Apostle Hermas and Apostle Hermes (bishop)? Currently on the Apostles page it may be confusing. —magda (talk) 11:30, May 31, 2006 (CDT)
Moving over redirs
I actually just moved the article over the existing redirect, but I selected the 'delete page first' button - perhaps that's what did it. Thanks for looking out for me :). — Pιsτévο, at 20:32, May 31, 2006 (CDT)
Yeah.. the thing is the legitimate history was already deleted. I am thinking it would be better to restore the initial delete anyway. Let me try that out instead. I just didn't want that stuff in the article history... — FrJohn (talk)
- Basic summary (as far as I can make out) - take down the article because it is false, until the "Holy Archdiocese of New Zealand, Exarchate of Oceania" (sic) gives permission for a article written by someone with the Metropolitan's blessing. A takedown hasn't occured because there's no cause for such - everything on the article is a matter of public record. — edited by Pιsτévο.
Thank you, Dcn. Andrew. Dn. Virgil
I see now how you really feel. I just joined you into the diaconate and you're already making plans to leave me behind :) Congratulations! Axios! Dn. Virgil
Dcn. Andrew. I'm asking your opinion. I have been working on an article about the 1917/1918 All Russian Local Council that is based upon recent scholarship, a Phd dissertation, that researched the Russian archives. It is a substantial article, at least seven pages. The dissertation is some 230 pages. I noticed the recent article on the same subject marked <stub>. I am torn on how to handle it as there is not much I'd use out of the posted article, but I've been reluctant to just overwrite it. I could post mine with a different title or make it available for your review - on the sandbox or a direct e-mail. Or, if your think it proper I can just overwrite!
Your opinion please. Wsk 15:57, June 11, 2006 (CDT)
Thanks. Will do. Wsk 17:36, June 11, 2006 (CDT)
Dear Dcn. Andrew, Look - I'm not misunderstanding you deliberately!!! But I do sometimes find you shading just ever so slightly towards a disingenuous pedantry - which can rouse me to vexation, irony or hyperbole (depending on my mood). (That said, the only time you ever really annoyed me that time with the unexplained POV tag on wikipedia.) I also have something of an antisyzygy about me which rebels against punctuation-correction. Of course, I was being more than a little rhetorical with the Scotland thing. But the underlying point is genuine. (BTW, Scotland is, technically, not part of a state - it is a stateles nation; the state is the UK.) And I do appreciate it when you pull back something I've said carelessly or with an air of flippancy on POV grounds.
The thing that does worry me - and what got me into all this wiki stuff - is the Sourozh business. The pro-Basil people are going around blatantly misrepresenting the situation, pretending its an indigenous V Russifying clash, a poor local bishop V evil Patriarchate, etc. Which, in fact, is just not true. There are far more shades of grey. Now, I'm sure that certain of the Russians are doing exactly the same thing on Russian sites - but I don't read Russian. All I can see is what is wrong with the stuff I do read. But what is being hidden is (a) the 'ambiguities' about the canonical aspects; and (b) the snobbish exclusivity of the 'English' Basil/Oxford-group that is a LARGE factor in the history of the problems. And, of course, this schism is doing and going to do a huge amount of damage to the Church in Britain. E.g. probably now we're going to have a Bishop and possibly several priests defrocked by Moscow, whilst serving for Constantinople. This is going to be very painful, and will split the faithful. But, all I see from the Basil-group is a hero-mentality ('we are the saviours of British orthodoxy'), propaganda, gloating - web-pages with titles like 'Sourozh destroyed' - and question-begging 'justifications' of why they are totally spotless and right, etc. etc. And then they spread this misinformation, and it becomes the received truth, and then appears on sites like wikipedia, etc. And they call this Orthodoxy! That's what gets my wick.
Anyway, that tells you a bit about where I'm coming from. We share lots of interests in common, and so I'm sure we'd have lots to talk about, and if I keep editing things, then I'm sure we'll keep on bumping into each other! And if I'm bombastic, I'm most likely not entirely serious..., Regards,Maxim 01:44, June 29, 2006 (CDT)
Dear Dcn. Andrew, Thanks for your comments. It is a difficult situation re Sourozh/Exarchate. In fact, I'm not as opposed to Bishop Basil's actions as it probably seems from the edits. For what it's worth, part of me has a great sympathy for the situation of the English wing of Sourozh. And certainly I am deeply unsure of medium-term DECR politics (DECR, after all, was set up by the Communists to eliminate the Russian Churches outside Soviet territory). No part of me supports any Russification of Sourozh, etc.
I have already expressed my worries about the effects of Bishop Basil's actions upon UK Orthodoxy, and I wonder whether it is really worth the pain and division it is causing and will cause. This said, my real problem with the Oxford-London wing is the deep ambiguities that surround Basil's actions and the attitudes of his followers. To take one example - which I've never tried to put on an encyclopedia article - I once asked Bp Basil why he could not provide Sourozh priests for the Russian Orthodox in the major cities in Scotland. His answer was that the diocese has no money/people to do this. In fact, one of the things that has emerged from this controversy (indeed, from Basil's own first letter to Patriarch Alexei) is that this is not true - he DID have money & people, but these were only available on condition that the priests/churches would follow the standard Russian typikon. Now my problem is this: there are hundreds of people who cut off from the Russian Church because preserving the 'Sourozh ethos' is more important than meeting the spiritual needs of these Russian Orthodox Christians. And why is this so important? Because the interests of the Oxford-London group must take priority. It's like saying: you have can't have communion, because we don't want to wear headscarves. It's like saying: only we matter, and if you don't fit into what we want, then we'll just pretend you don't exist. Of course, no-one in Sourozh will say that to the face of these Orthodox Christians; they will just avoid them and pretend they are not there. When Bp Hilarion came to the Diocese of Sourozh in 2002, one of the first things he found was that there was a parish (outside the Oxford-London corridor) which had not had an episcopal visit for EIGHT years. Imagine that! When there are three bishops and less than 30 parishes and communities combined! (Needless to say, that parish was not Oxford...)
A great deal of this tension within Sourozh diocese has arisen from these issues. And of course, the Oxford-Sourozh group (who, after all, write most of the English-language internet material on the subject) want to pretend that these issues don't exist. But they do, and they have a great deal to do with socio-cultural and ecclesial attitudes which are common within the English part of the Diocese of Sourozh.
And these matters don't just affect Russian Orthodox. They are also some of the main reasons why so many of the English converts who don't come from the 'right' social background have ended up becoming Antiochean. If you ever speak to these Antiocheans, the story is always the same: at first they looked to Sourozh; but their face didn't fit; Sourozh didn't want to know; after despairing for a while, they found their home in Antioch. The most clear divide between English converts in the Antiocheans and Sourozh have been their social class and their geographical origin. And, although it's not something you can ever put in an encyclopedia article, you just need to hear the jokes that the upper middle-class English converts tell about the Antiocheans to become fully aware that their issues with the Antiocheans are mainly to do with social background.
Now, my problem then when it comes to encyclopedia articles is that (a) material which ignores these issues, and which presents the matter as if it were just an ethnic divide, or a plot by the 'evil Russian DECR' is unacceptably skewed; but that (b) full-scale academic research on the history of UK Orthodoxy has not yet been undertaken, which means that one must either undertake fresh research oneself (which is not then suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article), or one must footnote informal sources which present opinions (e.g. Andrew Phillips' site).
RE my edits, you're certainly right that sometimes I let the possibilities of hyperbole get the better of me. Partly its because writing something here is a slapdash quickfire affair - far more like public speaking than scholarship - and sometimes I just stick something up without perhaps toning it correctly. This, of course, is why it is so good that there is a community of people all correcting each other, &c. E.g. What was very good for me was your major edit on the stuff I'd written on Sourozh on wikipedia. That showed me how someone else reads what I wrote, etc. and actually helped me express myself better on the matter (not just in wikipedia, but generally). It should be clear that I don't have a problem being corrected, and am perfectly happy to hold my hand up when I'm mistaken. (But the other side of that is that I'm not so wary to express myself hyperbolically - but that's perhaps a celtic thing...) Also, I haven't said anything I don't firmly believe to be true.
RE Bishop Basil's comments on the suspension of Fr Andrei, I'm actually not aware of anything in print regarding his personal motivations for the suspension of Fr Andrei. If you know of something, by all means, put it up - please! The one thing I would add though is that his motivations are a subject of controversy. (Indeed, for many, they are rather typical of the customary Sourozh mode-of-behaviour, which, particularly in the latter years of Metropolitan Anthony, was arbitrary and despotic, and which refused to make clear its motivations for action (Cf. Gill Crow's book for explicit recognition of this).) Proof is needed to avoid POV issues.
Above all, my concern is that what is true be put up and made public. Unfortunately, this in-and-of-itself brings me into conflict with certain strands within the Oxford faction who, history will show, prefer that as much as possible be hidden behind closed doors.
Lastly, I've enjoyed working/sparring with you over the last wee while. Certainly for me it is constructive to interact with an American who clearly thinks in a very different way from me. It interests me how we do misunderstand each other regularly. It's not so much language that divides us as differing forms of thinking. And of course, it's not disagreeing or misunderstanding that are the problems, so much as being able to resolve and work through disagreements and misunderstandings.
Oh, and BTW, I rather like T.S. Eliot as well!
Best wishes, Maxim 16:56, June 29, 2006 (CDT)
Possibly 'slapdash' wasn't the best word. What I mean is that one is in a different frame of mind - and in my case, a freer one - when one is writing knowing that what one writes may be modified/removed at any point by someone else. But I take your point. As ever, Maxim 18:19, June 29, 2006 (CDT)
Feature 7 Jul 06
An article on Scientology?
I know, I know. You might be asking, "has it really come to this?" I was wondering if I could write an article on Scientology for Orthodoxwiki's Non-Orthodox section. My intent is to expose the "church" as not the theraputic self-help organization it portrays itself to be. However, there is a problem. There is some copyright snafu that I've heard they invoke when mentioning anything about Xenu, the bombs in the volcanoes, and the Operating Thetan III course. Obviously, I won't go into much detail (I'd have to write a book on it). What do think? Advice? Suggestions?Mike 11:07, July 14, 2006 (CDT)
Hi, I'm an idiot. I was looking at what the vandals had done to the wiki in the past day and managed to accidentally press the revert button on the Rublev Trinity image...after which I scrambled frantically to try to reverse my mistake, which I'm also apparently too incompetent to have done correctly. Sorry about that. I'm sure you can fix it pronto. Gabriela 22:41, July 31, 2006 (CDT)
Ok, the weird thing was that after reverting to the vandal image, I tried that (reverting to your previous revert). The problem was that it kept showing up on my screen as the vandalized version. I even left the page and came back (though only a few seconds later) to see if I needed to refresh it. But no matter what I hit, I got the bad image. Hence the mad scramble in which I pressed different revert links about twenty times to make sure I just hadn't picked the wrong one. I was confused, lol. At least now it all looks hunky-dory. Gabriela 22:36, August 2, 2006 (CDT)