User talk:Ixthis888

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 01:43, April 21, 2008 by Koavf (talk | contribs) (You're looking for help?: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to OrthodoxWiki!

Hello, Ixthis888, and welcome to OrthodoxWiki!

Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Please note that OrthodoxWiki is always in development, so not everything works quite right yet. You can help, though!

OrthodoxWiki is a community-edited encyclopedia of Orthodox Christianity. Articles are created and edited by our members, and so everything that we do here is subject to review and revision. The result is a true consensus product, with every interested editor contributing his own knowledge and writing skills. As such, when you feel that criticism of an article is warranted, we encourage you to join in and fix it! Don't worry about breaking anything or doing something wrong—the other editors here are happy to jump in and help you learn.

For newcomers For editors Important notes
About OrthodoxWiki
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
User guidelines
Community Portal
User list
Admin list
OrthodoxWiki News
Help files
How to edit a page
How to create a new page
How to write a great article
Copyright policy
Image licenses
Style Manual
Disciplinary policy
PLEASE read carefully the section of the Style Manual titled OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Point of View).

Also please note that other editors will assume that you have read the Style Manual (our official editing guidelines). If you're wondering why an edit was reverted, an article renamed, or any other unexpected changes were made by another editor, check there.

Please also take a few moments to edit your user page by clicking on your name here, so that we can know a bit about you: User:Ixthis888. Feel free also to add your picture to the OrthodoxWiki:User gallery.

If you are uploading images, be sure you're doing so legally and according to OrthodoxWiki policy. Failure to abide by policy may result in your images getting deleted without warning.

If you would like to experiment with the wiki, please feel free to do so in the Sandbox.

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and other discussion pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Please sign your comments on Talk pages, so everyone will easily be able to see who left them.

You'll have to verify your email address before editing any pages. This helps us prevent spam. Don't worry, your email won't be viewable to anyone but the sysops. We respect your privacy.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Questions page, or ask me on my Talk page.

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a part of our community! —magda (talk) 15:30, August 30, 2007 (PDT)

Brevity and "Name" sections

Hello! Thanks for all the contributions you've recently been making. I have a concern about the "Name" sections you've been adding to various saints' articles -- they're often being put right at the beginning, before the "Life" sections, which indicates that the meaning of the saint's name is of more encyclopedic importance than his life. Additionally, they're often moderately extensive sections, a paragraph or more.

I think if you'll take a look at encyclopedias such as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church or the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, or any other encyclopedia, you'll find that etymology usually only takes up perhaps a few words in parentheses after the initial name of the entry, e.g., Stephen the Protomartyr (Gk. stephanos, "crown").

I'd strongly recommend that you take a look at these stylistically standard sources when editing articles to get a sense of the standards that we've been using on OrthodoxWiki for the past few years. Thanks! —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 10:40, January 17, 2008 (PST)

Hello, thanks for the entry on the Taxiarchis icon; I read a longer account of this once but cannot locate it at present; regarding the title of the Mantamados article, as far as I am aware the name of the icon is primarily “Taxiarchis” (Archangel) Michael" but the main entry here is listed as that of the village; and you have included two titles for this entry; if the name of the village is commonly associated with the icon, then I suggest perhaps the title be moved to "Archangel Michael of Mantamados (Taxiarchis)". Just a suggestion for clarity. This would put the title more in line with other entries for key icons, such as those of the Theotokos, and also include the other common reference to this icon, the Taxiarchis. Cheers. —Chris talk 9:10, January 20, 2008 (EST)
Hi Chris, yes the area is Mantammados but most Greek people actually name the icon as "Mantammados" as a stand alone nickname or pet reference ... We do not usually refer to the entire phrase Archangel Michael Taxiarchis of Mantammados ... its a 'nickname'. Just like the "Panormitis" icon (my article tomorrow) ... we dont call the icon ..the Taxiarchis of Symi the Panormitis, he is more commonly referred to as 'Panormitis' and known this way. Since I am not here on Orthodwiki long enough, do you still suggest that the article be moved anyway? Also, I dont know how to move the article ... I am happy either way, as long as the information is available for people to learn ... -- Vasiliki 18:35, January 20, 2008 (PST)

Australian monasteries

Vasiliki, feel free to send me an e-mail with them if you want, but I make no claim to being the editor-in-chief of Australasian articles - that's just my major interest and, well, where I live. As an aside, I'm fairly sure I met the sister you're talking about at last year's National Youth Conference in Brisbane.

The biggest thing missing from the Gorgoepikoos article is a history of its formation, closely followed by future plans for development, and perhaps a personal history of Mother Kallistheni - the Pantanassa Monastery article and the article on Elder Stephanos is the best example for what I would look for if I was doing it - but, the beauty of Orthodox Wiki (and all wiki encyclopedias) is that collectively we make better articles. BTW, even if a complete botch is made, it's not hard to look at the page history - feel free and encouraged to edit profusely! :D — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 17:04, January 20, 2008 (PST)

Hi Pistevo, I believe you have met his sister then, since she was at the Brisbane conference :-) As for the Geelong Monastery, when next I visit, I will plan to sit down with Mother Kalistheni and get her blessing for this information. I know the story but I dont want to upload it without her blessing. BTW, how do I email you? Vasiliki 17:12, January 20, 2008 (PST)
Go to my user page, and down the left (under toolbox), there should be an 'e-mail this user' line - just click on that. But, the best way is to just upload them onto OW and put them straight on the page. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints

Image permission

Do we have permission to use this icon of St. Phanourious? It appears to be taken from here, where it is used in this article. —magda (talk) 11:31, January 31, 2008 (PST)

Hi, I thought copyright is attributed to an image taken by someones own camera ... so, you need their permission. This image of the saint is taken from but it does not belong to them since its been around for a very long time on the web. I thought if an image has been around for a while on the web its ok to use... another thing, most of my other images are scans of my own personal pictures at home. Should we take this image off the page then? -- Vasiliki 13:44, January 31, 2008 (PST)
If you did not take this picture with your own camera and put it online, or did not specifically get permission to use the image you found online, OrthodoxWiki does not have permission to use it. If you have obtained permission to use this image from the original website, you can add that information to the image page on OrthodoxWiki. See Help:Image licenses for more information. —magda (talk) 14:27, January 31, 2008 (PST)
Hi, I read through the Wikipedia article on Fair Use. It says that you may use copyrighted images of the Intranet provided they are reporduced as Thumbnails at 80 x 200 pixels. -- 14:47, January 31, 2008 (PST)
The Wikipedia article on fair use does mention the use of thumbnails, but the linked article on thumbnails indicates that the court case was specific to Internet search engines. The current use of the image is larger than 80x200 pixels. The beginning of the OrthodoxWiki Help:Image licenses page states: "All images should be tagged with information about their copyright/licensing status and source. It is illegal for us to use images on OrthodoxWiki for which we do not have permission or which are not usable under the fair use provisions of United States copyright law.Images which do not conform to policy are subject to immediate deletion. Merely noting the image's source is not enough. There must be verifiable permission given for OrthodoxWiki's use of the image. It is your responsibility as the uploader to ensure that the image may be used and is tagged as properly licensed." I know it's a huge pain, but if we keep track of these things as we upload images, it's much better for OrthodoxWiki to be as correct as we can. Thank you for your help in taking responsibility for the files you upload. —magda (talk) 15:49, January 31, 2008 (PST)

External links

I am very much enjoying reading your contributions. I did want to point out that when you add an external link, I find that there is an extra / added to the end, which doesn't let the link work. Copying the URL directly from the browser is often the best way to get a link and make sure it works. —magda (talk) 20:17, February 11, 2008 (PST)

Hi, its nice to get some positive feedback cause sometimes I feel like I have been a nuisance rather than a help ... I tend to upload lots of little articles and then complete them later. When I take time I can put together a reasonable article, I think, but I am still not very aware of all the editing tricks so its really good having you guys go in and proof read - it is such an amazing experience to revisit an article after someone has added various links, reworded etc ... it makes an article look real! Thanks. -- Vasiliki 20:22, February 11, 2008 (PST)
As long as you're genuinely willing to learn, adapt and work here, you don't have to worry about being a nuisance. If folks comment on your editing, they're just trying to save you (and themselves!) work, to raise the quality of editing being done here. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 11:43, February 12, 2008 (PST)

"Quick to Hear" icon

I don't know much about the icon other than that it originally came from Mt. Athos. Perhaps you may wish to contact St. Tikhon's to ask them. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 04:18, February 13, 2008 (PST)


So what tipped you off? — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 17:59, February 17, 2008 (PST)

I was bored and clicked on a link on your User page ... I feel bad because I sorta have been replying to you as if you were female, like ... sorry! (ouch) ... oh, there was one comment I was going to make last week to refer to you, me and Magda as 'sisters' - as a joke. Thank God i didnt! LOL -- Vasiliki 18:03, February 17, 2008 (PST)

Helpful links

Before I head out for the night, I thought I would pass along some links I find helpful:

And I wanted to remind you that usually we don't include contact information on the OrthodoxWiki articles, especially if that information is included in an external link. That way, we don't have to worry about updating or mistyping the information: the link does all the work for us. Have fun! —magda (talk) 21:53, February 18, 2008 (PST)

Thanks for that, I already have used the OrthodoxResearchInstitute for these Metropolis regions ...but the honourific I wasnt aware of. -- Vasiliki 22:01, February 18, 2008 (PST)

Edit summaries

You can include edit summaries in the space directly above the "Save page" button at the bottom of an article you're editing. It's labeled "Summary:" followed by a horizontal box. For more information, see Help:Editing. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 16:48, February 19, 2008 (PST)

Hi! I've noticed a couple times that you've used the "Summary:" box to leave a note for everyone. You may find it more useful to leave such notes on the Talk pages of articles. The edit summaries should really be that—a summary of the edit you are making.
In answer to your question "Does anyone have the biblical text to John 19?", you can find it here. I recommend The Bible Gateway highly. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 04:30, March 26, 2008 (PDT)

Panagia Evangelistria - Tinos

Hi Vasiliki! Geia sou. Since you have done so many pages on Panagia, I was wondering if you had heard of the wonderworking icon of Panagia Evangelistria on Tinos island, if so, it would be great to have any information on that very famous icon. I learned recently that at some point in the recent past, the Roman Catholic priests on the island would join in the yearly procession of the icon along with the Orthodox (not nowadays however). Anyhow just thought I would ask and suggest the idea to you. Cheers, Chris 22:38, February 20, 2008 (EST)

Hi Chris, Yes I HAVE heard of the Panagia of Tinos and yes I was considering doing an article on her at some point. I was adding more common icons first then the more famous ones in Greece ... the story behind that article is amazing and the monastery itself has the most absolutely amazing mosaic paving ... there is also a tradition that exists to this very day if you do a day trip. You will see hundreds of people climbing the hill up to the church on their hands and knees (and if you see how long this is you will truly be amazed! the other thing is, the icon is TINY! When u go in to the church to look at it get SO lost in all the gold ...that you can easily miss this 20xm x 20cm icon ...its teeeeny! -- Vasiliki 19:47, February 20, 2008 (PST)

Bishops' article names

Regarding your question to Magda, this is already covered and set in the official Style Manual: OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (People).

If a bishop's see changes, then the article is moved to the new title, which not only correctly then uses the new title but provides a redirect from the old one, which is useful for those doing research who may not know about the change. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 17:43, February 21, 2008 (PST)

Inprogress template

I'm not sure whether you're aware that there's a Template:Inprogress. You could put that on the articles you are actively developing, which would (1) let others know that you're working on it, and (2) when you click the "What links here" link on the lower left menu, you can more easily keep track of articles you are working on. For more information on how it should be used, check out the talk page. Oh, and another thing: I find it helpful to separate "Sources" from which one gets paraphrased information, "References" or "Notes" which cite specific quotations within an article, and "External links" which allow readers to get even more information which may not be included. The term "External sources" confuses me a little, since all sources have to be external. —magda (talk) 07:51, February 25, 2008 (PST)

The key word here is, of course, actively. Generally, you should only use Template:Inprogress on no more than one or two articles at a time that you're in the process of changing significantly. The idea of the template is to mark an article you're working on right now so that major edit conflicts don't occur when multiple editors try to work on an article simultaneously.
All these one-liner articles—are they really about to expand significantly? My suggestion is that if all there is to say about "Metropolis of Wherever" is that it is a diocese of a particular church, then it should simply remain in a list in the main article about that church. It's disappointing to find an article supposedly about a particular subject and discover it's no more than a single line. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 18:55, March 4, 2008 (PST)
Hi, yes they are. I am working on these ...the only reason I have been quiet last 2 days is bc I have been bombarded at work (Budget report due). Give me a chance :-) I would love it if others added information in to these articles also because the only thing that OrthWiki manages really well is orthodox information pertaining to America and not the rest of the world ... I cant help with Russia or Serbia or other places but Greece is easy since I can translate from the greek, want me to hold off on these articles? Vasiliki 19:00, March 4, 2008 (PST)
There's no need to "hold off." Just please don't pepper the wiki with one-liner articles. Remember that it's an encyclopedia. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 04:30, March 5, 2008 (PST)
I have an Encyclopedia at home and there are many cases where the Encyclopedia has one liner entries ... I am really confused by various ideas of what is encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I can appreciate your 'pepper' remark although pepper adds flavour to food AND can open your sinuses if inhaled! LOL ... seriously now, acknowledging a Metropolis with one line is not all that bad ...especially if the intention is to build up the article!! You shouldnt overstress tooooo much Father! Patience and time will bring many blessings ... Vasiliki 14:39, March 6, 2008 (PST)
Patience and time, indeed! My concern is that such articles really present no real information. Perhaps time and patience might be better spent developing a few good articles rather than a series of hoped-for articles. Why not try to fill out existing stubs rather than keep creating new ones?
In any event, it doesn't stress me at all. I'm just offering counsel so that we can continue to run a tight ship and not dilute what has been accomplished here over the years. Quality is more important than quantity. Please try to make that your focus. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 18:34, March 6, 2008 (PST)

Familytree template

Vasiliki, Hi, I noticed a request for help in the change comments, for a update to the sandbox. It looked like you were using templates that ORTHODOX WIKI does not have. (Template:familytree, Template:Familytree/start, Template:Familytree/start, Template:Familytree/end, and Template:Familytree/step2). I figured that the templates were on other WIKI’s so I checked WIKIPEDIA (w:Template:familytree, w:Template:Familytree/start, w:Template:Familytree/start, w:Template:Familytree/end, and w:Template:Familytree/step2). . Since they were there, I copied your sandbox entry into a sandbox over there, it worked fine (sort of). So I copied the templates here to see if they will work here, and found out that they do not work the same here. They will produce all the HTML table commands that will make the table, but it does not execute the commands. (although if you cut and past the commands, they do work here.) That’s as far as I researched this, it may be that I am missing something. - Andrew 07:49, February 28, 2008 (PST)

I was looking up something Medical on Wiki and I saw them use this template and I thought the concept was great so I thought I would test it out on OrthodoxWiki but I dont have experience with this and especially with Templates. So, I was hoping that someone who has experience with Template could advise how to set that 'family Tree' diagram template up into OrthodoxWiki! Its not a super urgent thing so I hope no one puts it as a high priority. I was just testing it out for curiosity more than anything. Vasiliki 13:49, February 28, 2008 (PST)

A few notes

In response to your comments on my talk page:

My remarks are not meant in any sense to be offensive, just to be helpful in terms of keeping things in line with OrthodoxWiki's high standards. Criticism is meant to be constructive. Of course your contributions are appreciated, and I'd hope you'd also appreciate the contributions others have made in terms of streamlining your (and others'!) contributions to be in keeping with OrthodoxWiki's quality and mission.

If I've been persistent in criticism, it's because you don't seem to want to contribute in what has generally been found to be the best manner—solidly content-filled articles. I know you're capable of it, because you've done it many times. That's why I've offered admonition rather than simply deleting the dozens of stubs (which is really more of a standard practice). As a sysop, it's part of my duty to help keep things running smoothly. I'd much rather use persuasion than deletion.

I am genuinely concerned about the creation of multiple, low-content articles, because they downgrade OrthodoxWiki's usefulness. Remember that people are visiting those articles now and seeing what OrthodoxWiki has on it now. If you present a one-liner article, that may be all that they ever see, and it may also give a visitor the impression that that's all OrthodoxWiki has to offer. Presentation really is everything.

It's far, far better for us to have fewer content-rich articles, than to have many low-content ones. When creating new articles, please try to focus on just a few at a time, filling them with information, then moving on to create new ones. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 08:04, March 7, 2008 (PST)

"Topical" saints

I am unfamiliar with the "topical" saint designation. When I would go to stamp shows with my father when I was little, "topical" meant collections based on a topic (like dogs or airplanes) rather than collections based on location. Would a better way to denote these saints be "local" or "regional" or "native"? I don't want to give the idea that they are "only" local saints, but I do understand that they are specifically beloved by the people in their hometowns and it is good to recognize them as such. I'm just not sure whether "topical" does the job the best. —magda (talk) 12:51, March 7, 2008 (PST)

Hi, when I was visiting Greece last year, I went to a number of the islands and they had "topical" saints ...I thought the use of the word was clever but never thought twice about it until I started in here recently. I have cut a definition from Macquarie if it helps to confirm that the use is appropriate although you can delete it if you are not happy, see definition "3.".
// (say 'topikuhl)
adjective 1. relating to or dealing with matters of current or local interest.
2. relating to the subject of a discourse, composition, or the like.
3. of a place; local.
4. Medicine relating or applied to a particular part of the body.
Topos being "place" in Greek, it probably makes total sense in Greek. In English, the best word is probably local. Topical in English generally means, as Magda notes, having to do with a particular subject or concept. Here, it would seem the intention is to refer to a place, so local would seem to make the most sense. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 17:36, March 9, 2008 (PDT)

Style Manual

Please make sure you're familiar with the OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (People). I find it helpful to review it every so often, and find myself going to the Saint commemorations page quite a bit. Also, when you are using an article as a source, please be clear about what you are quoting and what you are paraphrasing. Direct quotations need to be clearly marked with quotation marks; when whole paragraphs are quoted, they should be indented. In terms of getting information about a saint, what I usually do is check my three main sources of saints' lives (OCA, GOARCH, and the Prologue of Ohrid, all linked from my page), and, since so many saints are already included in our calendar pages, I often find a commemoration by searching OrthodoxWiki itself (often using google, adding ""); although the OCA pages are also good at that. I hope these hints help you as you continue to add so much to OrthodoxWiki. —magda (talk) 08:22, March 20, 2008 (PDT)

AusGreekNet and Parishes in Victoria

I've seen the AusGreekNet site before, and I had a look at it just then, but I had difficulty extracting anything more than links from it - was there anything in particular that you saw there?

With the Parishes in Victoria thing from the sandbox, it could probably just be copied and pasted wholesale (aside from the introduction) once the final 10 or so parishes are sorted. Just a comment: one of the consistant features of these articles in other states is that there has been a clear delineation between in the capital and out of the capital - Victoria may not lend itself to this dichotomy, considering the size of the city compared to the rest of the state; but it's something that you may like to consider. Thanks for sorting this, btw - much appreciated! — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 18:00, March 20, 2008 (PDT)

The AusGreekNet site has a lot of links - a lot of the Australian ones actually don't exist anymore (the ones for the GOA in Qld and PNG, couple of Antiochian parish websites)...but they've updated to the new GOA website, so maybe they're just not checking their links thoroughly.
I'm not sure how the council system works in Melbourne, or anywhere south of Queensland - Brisbane amalgamated all of their councils to form a Brisbane City Council, and the council amalgamations everywhere else have continued that trend. It would really depend, I think, on what people think of - in a Melbourne resident's mind, do they belong to a council or to a suburb? You'll know the answer to that better than I will; whichever you think is more accepted is fine. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 18:16, March 20, 2008 (PDT)



Thank you for the note about my article on Rasputin. As to the question should an article about Rasputin be on OrthodoxWiki, I believe yes. He is part of the history of the Church of Russia particularly during the time that the Church was trying over throw the organization that Peter I placed on the Church, a church that was made a department of the Tsar's government. I attempted to include in the article information on how he affected the church and its government. There is a lot of "popular" books and writings about him and the Royal Couple, but little of the details of the appointments of clergy he engineered and affect this had on the Church.

The wiki should include the bad as well as good history of our Church. It already includes many articles about heretics, iconoclasts, and other unsavory parts of the Church history,

I welcome the addition of any other information about his evil affects on the Church. That is what the wiki is about. Please note the two articles on Metr. Vladimir and Abp. Andronik who were two hierarchs who had tried to oppose him to the Tsar. Also, note that after the February Revolution, when the Church became free of the Tsar, All but one of the Holy Synod was replaced and many friends and "cohorts" of Rasputin resigned or retired, a significant change in direction!! Wsk 13:28, March 25, 2008 (PDT)

(transfered from User page by User:Pistevo)


Ixthis888, I believe that templates that contain math or if statements that work on other Wiki's, don't work here. It would be nice if they did, but for some reason, they don't. - Andrew 07:20, March 28, 2008 (PDT)

Western versus Orthodox information

Vasiliki, I definitely understand. Discernment is one of the major tasks we are called to as Christians. That's why I wish it were so easy! — FrJohn (talk) 21:55, April 3, 2008 (PDT)

John the Russian

I have removed the copyrighted information from this article. If you have explicit permission to use this information, please note that on the article's talk page. As I have told you before, however, "please be clear about what you are quoting and what you are paraphrasing. Direct quotations need to be clearly marked with quotation marks; when whole paragraphs are quoted, they should be indented." On each page, there is a clear copyright section, stating both that you must "not submit copyrighted work without permission," and "[b]y submitting your work you promise that you wrote it yourself, obtained explicit permission, or copied it from public domain or similar free resources — this does not include most web pages!" —magda (talk) 21:29, April 9, 2008 (UTC)

That controversial cleanup tag not meant in any sense to be degrading. It's meant to be used simply as it says, that the article needs further work. It doesn't mean anything is "THAT BAD" or the like—its use is, in itself, entirely impersonal. I do agree that it helps if detailed comments are included, but often when one is tagging large numbers of articles that need the tag, one may not always have the time or energy to give detailed comments.

That your writing doesn't tend to conform to academic standards is nothing to be ashamed of—it simply means that someone else needs to contribute that element to the articles you work on. The cleanup tag is nothing but a notice that there needs to be some collaboration on an article. It's also secondarily there to notify visitors to the site that the article is still "under construction" and not yet in a polished state.

None of this is a comment on your intelligence or ability. Your dedication is certainly also not in any question. Your fellow editors are simply trying to help. That there are multiple of us who have tried to help in the same way should, I hope, be an indication that there is work that needs to be done. As far as I know, no one here has behaved toward you with the antagonism which seems to be apparent in some of your messages. I'd recommend adopting a less adversarial tone and an effort not to take what is routine maintenance in a personal way. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:20, April 11, 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a question of "wrong" as "not finished yet." The cleanup tag is not a "delete" tag. It's just an indication that there's more that needs to be done. Please try not to take such things as personal affronts or a ruling that you're "wrong." —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 02:43, April 11, 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Dear Vasiliki, God bless you.

Please take a look at the cleanup I've been doing of some the disambiguation articles you've worked on. The idea of a disambig page is not to give all sorts of information about the name, the various feasts of saints, etc. It's not really even an article. It's simply a navigational aid meant to take the reader to the article they're looking for.

I hope this helps in terms of understanding why so many of those articles got tagged. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 20:56, April 14, 2008 (UTC)

I am learned in Upakoi so it doesnt matter. It is a shame to see a lot of hard work just disappear because the vision was more long term than merely listing a few names ... for your own information, I referred to the way WIKIPEDIA has laid out their disambiguation pages, see: Basil (disambiguation) on Wikipedia for a really good example. Then you can understand what I mean. Vasiliki 22:07, April 14, 2008 (UTC)
That article is on the name Basil. This is Wikipedia's disambiguation page to redirect people to the Basil article they're looking for. They're not the same thing at all. (Wikipedia also has a guideline and a Manual of Style entry on how to do disambiguation pages.)
A disambig page really is only supposed to be "listing a few names." It's not an article. It is a shame that you spent a lot of time on developing them into articles, but I do hope that perhaps that work might be channeled more usefully. I am glad for your enthusiasm and hard work, but I also hope that you'll be better able to direct it.
In any event, we're not a clone of Wikipedia, but we do model ourselves on it somewhat. I think you modeled many disambig pages based on a misunderstanding—copying something that isn't a disambig page.—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:03, April 15, 2008 (UTC)
I am trying the best I can to create well researched and meaningful entries, if I get the grammar wrong I just hope that someone can step in and fix that up; if i put in well researched information but its not in the right spot, I hope that someone is smart enough to cut and paste the information into a more appropriate area, otherwise it will just be forgotten about forever. I can guarantee you, I DONT copy Wikipedia ... no matter how similar the information might look ... its not my source, its only used as a final comparison. I might just stick to updating the Church Timeline for a few weeks Vasiliki 00:56, April 15, 2008 (UTC)
I honestly wasn't sure where to transplant that information. In any event, nothing is ever lost or forgotten forever. It still exists in the article histories and can always be retrieved.
I wasn't suggesting that you're copying Wikipedia, just that you were modeling your work on something there—in this case, though, I think you mistook a regular article for being a disambiguation page. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 01:09, April 15, 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, I know you werent suggesting I copied ... I just cant find ways to express myself with typing (it gives no suggestion of a person's mood) - I will add a smiley face this time to make sure I get the point across that I am not being defensive! LOL :-) Vasiliki 01:19, April 15, 2008 (UTC)

Google search

I just go to Google and search for each, and look at the words on the top right:

Results 1 - 10 of about [such-a-number] for [this search].

Then I do searches for whatever I want to compare, and look at the "such-a-number"s to see which is more prevalent. That's not to say that it's "correct," or more prevalent everywhere, just a general guide. If one search gives you a million, and another gives you ten, then you get a good idea of which one is more common. If one search gives you 1,940 and another gives you 1,950, it's more difficult. Best wishes! —magda (talk) 04:55, April 17, 2008 (UTC)


Is that ok, Vasiliki? - Template:VasilikiCopy
--Inistea 23:45, April 17, 2008 (UTC)

Ask Fr John to delete one of the two templates - Template:VasilikiCopy or Template:Ixthis888Copy - and add the one you keep to this page: OrthodoxWiki:Templates#Personal. The template must work fine on the images, because I already use it for... :-) --Inistea 00:26, April 18, 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for help?

Sorry I don't know that I have much to offer on Christ The Bridegroom (O Nymphios), but it doesn't appear that you've posted to OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza; that might be handy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:43, April 21, 2008 (UTC)