If you want to "talk" you can email me via this link Special:Emailuser/Ixthis888.
Vasiliki, thank you for your kind note. I tend to be history buff - so I like to look behind the fluff of tradition (small t) get a picture of what "really" happened. Bill/Basil/Vasily. Wsk 20:31, January 20, 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed you've recently made a huge number of edits all marked as "minor." Please remember that "minor" edits are things like fixing spelling, minor formatting issues, fixing links, etc. Adding content is almost never minor. This may seem pedantic, but it's actually pretty important, since many folks filter what they see in edit histories so that they don't see minor edits.
Hi, I kinda thought that but the fact that I modify every 30 seconds I thought on the other hand people would be annoyed with me if the same article came up a zillion times in the Recent Changes list ..its not a problem ..I can do it the (pedantic) way :-) Vasiliki 21:47, May 12, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps you might also want to consider proofreading and incorporating all your intended edits before you hit "save." :) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:11, May 13, 2009 (UTC)
- With all respect (and I know you are cheeky enough to get it), when people give up their personal time to contribute and help it would be nice if their was a *tiny* amount of gratitude and courtesy for their assistance rather than this continual "nit-pick" at things that really are not that important! "proof reading" is valid in context of article (agree and I should do it more often! :P) however in context of a "timeline" its too hard ... I am amazed Angellight888 does so well but he is used to that whole --- pages of text in front of his face and probably can handle it much better than me. I also have to contend with "timing out" after a certain amount of time ... and losing anything in my edit altogether ... so, fair go Father - yesterday there was no such thing as Timeline of History for Britain and today there is) so I will be more obedient to the best of my abilities!! <-- aussie slang. Vasiliki 23:13, May 13, 2009 (UTC)
- THANK YOU. There's some gratitude for you.
- ROFL/LOL (NO! No nit-picking while there is an InProgress tag) besides since this site works off "charity" then each editor makes up for the weakness and deficiencies of the other (group hug) ... some of us have the time ... the others (who have the smarts) can do the vacuuming ... Vasiliki 03:22, May 14, 2009 (UTC)
Timeline in Britain
Hi again, I replied to your response on my talkpage; I suggest we both use the talkpage for the article itself to make it easier from now on. Cheers, Angellight 888 00:04, May 26, 2009 (UTC)
- Vassiliki I revised the proposed outline for the eras; please have a look on the discussion page of the article. You were absolutely correct, the titles for the eras should reflect the history of the Church as much as possible. I think I have done this successfully for the eras up to 1485 AD - (have a look). After that time it is difficult to place a name on any period of British history as it relates to the Church, so we will have to go with the secular headings I think. Again, for the 20th century, if you can determine when each of the dioceses for the various Orthodox jurisdictions were established, we could create a sub-category with those dates. I think for now, we are good to go with the suggested outline. :) Angellight 888 03:53, May 26, 2009 (UTC)
I'm using the new calendar dates.
This is a problem. In the site i gived to you, http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/index.php?year=2009&today=8&month=2&trp=0 , ex: Sunday, February 8, 2009 / January 26, 2009 (Church Calendar). January 26, 2009 is the now calendar date. The second date is good. No problem, I'm nervious too, :) Maraamu 12:08, May 28, 2009 (UTC). Same thing with http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/index.php?year=2009&today=7&month=1&trp=0 . Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / December 25, 2008 (Church Calendar). Is mention the Nativity feast and the 25 dec is the new date. 7 jan is the old date.