User talk:Ohff

Orthodox Churches
Please see Talk:Orthodox Churches. ---John C. (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about your comment! Ohff (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

EOC map
I have great difficulty in distinguishing the different shades of blue in your EOC map. Would it be better to use different colours, now that red is no longer reserved for a different communion? I am unsure, for instance, about the shade you have assigned to Albania, which certainly seems too dark. The EOC article's "around 25% out of a 40% Christian population" surely means about 10% of the total population. To be more exact, the article Religion in Albania says that the 2011 census put the Albanian Orthodox at 6.75%. How inaccurate are the other figures? Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For all countries other than Egypt, Turkey and the Czech Republic (which belong to the new category I invented, tiny-but-autocephalous), I took the colours directly from the old pan-Orthodox map and did not check the numbers. Thus, any mistakes in my map are simply carried over from the old map, so we should correct them on both maps when we find them (I don't seem to be able to edit SVG files, though, so I can't edit the old map).


 * I suppose we could use another colour instead of blue. Which one would you suggest? Red, or something else? Ohff (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You could use all the colours of the rainbow if necessary, but half should be more than enough. For instance, you could have red, perhaps in clearly distinct shades, as the most intense, followed by orange, followed by yellow, ... You can doubtless yourself find better examples than these: 1, 2 and, for gradations, 3 or, simpler, 4.  Esoglou (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pioneer movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Togliatti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note
this discussion: en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21.Axxxion (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm not sure I have an opinion on it, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. Ohff (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits in the Ecumenical Patriarch articles.
Ohff, just wanted to thank you for your edits in both of the articles. They are alot better now :) --SilentResident (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could help! I love fixing details that usually get overlooked in the rush to edit. Ohff (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Patriarch Stephen I of Antioch
I saw your edit on Patriarch Stephen I of Antioch as an Arian bishop. There are a number of bishops like Stephen, who I planned to label as part of the Great Church even though they were theologically Arian. They were people who seemed to be working with in the Great Church as an organisation and not part of separate all-Arian group. Most of these Great Church Arians (I expect) would be bishops serving before the Great Church made a definative stand against Arianism (as Stephen was). tahc chat 05:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I didn't know you were labeling bishops based on their membership (or lack thereof) in the Great Church, as opposed to their theological stance. I changed the designation for Stephen I of Antioch in particular because he is known exclusively for his support of Arianism (that is to say, everything that makes him notable is directly related to his Arianism). But the same could probably be said of many other Great Church bishops of that period. With a few exceptions, most Arians in the 4th century remained part of the Great Church and tried to make it Arian, rather than separating themselves from it. So, as long as we're designating people based on organizational membership, you're right. Stephen I of Antioch should be designated as "Great Church". I'll go change it back. Ohff (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What we need to do ...
Is bother historians until they come up with a phrase they all agree on to cover the stupid thing. I admire your desire for standardization but ... it's going to be impossible to find. (I'm also serious about the Baptist problem - there are not formal Baptist offices like bishops/deacons/etc. But ya'll can figure that one out later... I don't have a horse in that race.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect the reason we don't already have a name for it is ecclesiastical POV: Catholics insist on referring to the entire pre-1054 Church as Catholic, while the Eastern Orthodox insist on referring to it as Orthodox. And since the Catholic perspective dominates sources about medieval Christianity in the West and the Orthodox perspective dominates sources talking about the East, what you get is that authors basically extend the two labels anachronistically back in time, with medieval Anglo-Saxon bishops becoming "Catholic" and medieval Bulgarian bishops becoming "Eastern Orthodox" (for example). Present-day divisions have created an imaginary division in the way we talk about the past. Ohff (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I agree with you about the Baptist problem too... But I'm not worried about it, since this is just a succession box parameter we're talking about. What will happen is simply that the Baptist parameter will go unused, and then eventually someone will remove it. Ohff (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Christianity in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kholm Governorate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox Church side bar in Malankara Church article
Dear Ohff, Today there are many churches which are different shares the Malankara Church tradition They are:
 * Jacobite Syrian Christian Church: an autonomous orthodox church which is an integral part of Syriac Orthodox Church
 * Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church: an autonomous and autocephalous Oriental orthodox church
 * Malabar Independent Syrian Church: an autonomous and autocephalous church follows Oriental Orthodox tradition but officially not part of OO communion
 * Mar Thoma Syrian Church: an autonomous Oriental Syrian church - a reformative church
 * Syro-Malankara Catholic Church: an Eastern Catholic church

Since these churches are part of different communions, adding OO side bar in Malankara Church article will not be right thing. Hope this clarifies.Thanks -122.171.208.46 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but Kokkarani seems to think otherwise. I am neutral in this matter. However, when Kokkarani changed the template so that the "Malankara" link pointed to the Malankara Church article, it was logical that this article should have the template on it. I won't re-add the template now, but you need to talk to Kokkarani in order to resolve the dispute, I think. Ohff (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. I corrected the template. Looks like many places Kokkarani deliberately adding confusions. That's very unfortunate. As you know there are only "SIX" churches in Oriental orthodox Communion, and they are: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Malankara Jacobite Church in India is a part of Syriac Orthodox church which is also another OO church and part of the template. Malabar Independent Syrian Church follows OO faith but NOT recognized as a member church of OO family. - --122.171.208.46 (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see you are just placing Oriental Orthodox side bar here and there with out under standing what the importance is. Please just stop this. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not placing it "here and there", I am placing it on articles that are included in the sidebar or that have a strong connection to something included in the sidebar. Ohff (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do understand that for all Indian churches, Indian Christianity side bar and for Saint Thomas Christians the St.Thomas Christian side bar should come first place in importance. What you are doing is placing Oriental Orthodox side bar above it. This is not advisable or we may think that you have some special interest in that case. Also I appreciate your intention to reach a consensus in disputes we had. I will certainly have a look into the diagram you cited will tell you my opinion. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * About the diagram, If it couldn't encompass all the Miaphysite Churches, We could rewrite Oriental Orthodoxy PORTAL as Oriental Orthodox churches (Miaphysite). This is because Oriental Orthodoxy communuion is a subset of Miaphysite churches(Oriental Orthodox Churches). ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also I felt that you or some of your well wishers have vested interest in promoting Oriental Orthodox side bar over Indian Christianity and St.Thomas Christianity. This is NOT advisable. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks ; I appreciate your suggestion. I have no objection in keeping the Oriental Orthodox side bars after Indian Christianity and St.Thomas Christianity side bars. Also I appreciate your endeavor in making and refining some diagrams.ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oriental Orthodox side bar is not appropriate in St.Thomas Christian article. Hence I removed it. Hope you understand. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact User:Kokkarani is having vested interest especially when he edits the page Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. If you go through the talk page of that article you can see what kind of silly arguments he is making there. And coming to the side bars order, Oriental orthodox Side Bar should come first as this the side bar connects the Oriental Orthodox churches together. I will discuss more on this topic in article's talk page. Ohff, I appreciate your contribution towards Oriental Orthodox churches articles. I have a request, please do not take any immediate decisions based on Kokkarani's arguments, please validate by yourself or provide time for me to comment on the same. Thanks - --171.48.21.9 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please refer this :
 * orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox
 * to see whether Oriental Orthodox is a communion or churches  that follows Miaphysite christology. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The Oriental Orthodox side bar is better now.Thanks.Thanks for including Malabar Independent church. How ever my suggestion is- Instead of the notation Thozhiyoor (which is not a formal name of this church) we could use Malabar.
 * Thanks.Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds good! I will do that. Ohff (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohff, Please see the changes I made in Oriental Orthodox side bar template and my comments in template's talk page. If you think of any of those changes are not proper, you can revert it and but let me know the reason in discussion thread in template talk page. Will discuss further there. - 122.166.183.164 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Western Christianity
Hi! You recently left an edit summary, following someone's edit: "should Western Rite Orthodoxy really be included? I will bring up the topic on the Talk page"

My answer would be, no, it shouldn't be included. Furthermore, an "Orthodox Church" that uses Latin Rite isn't an Eastern Church (Orthodox). What it could have meant was that Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome but maintain a Byzantine or Eastern Rite. Its the liturgy that makes one Eastern or Western. The user who made the edits, has been editing a number of Christianity-related articles, but without citing sources. Either murkying the meaning of preexisting statements, or rearranging lead sections in a way that are simply not productive or using language which sounds unencyclopedic and WP:OR. Since you're an active user in these articles, I hope you keep WP:PATROL. Cheers. DA1 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Anti-union violence in the United States into Anti-union violence. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orthodoxy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)