User talk:Preost/Archive 1

Plotinus
Hello deacon I really need your help and input on this page. Please help. It is bogged down in an edit revert war.

Thanks. LoveMonkey 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Marcion
Thanks for catching my typos. At a certain point I've reread the text so much I just can't see any of them! --Wetman 18:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Orthowiki invite
Dear AS,

Thank you for the invitation to join the editorial team of Orthowiki. I am honored that you consider my work worthy of inclusion. However, for the time being, I must decline. I fear that devoting any time to another project would be the drop that breaks the dam, and I personally feel that my own role is to help integrate the Orthodox POV into Wikipedia.

On the other hand, if there is a particular subject or article with which you would especially like my help (goodness knows why you would, but there you are), don't hesitate to give me a shout.

Best of luck, and stay in touch.

In Christ,

JHCC 13:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church
Just a quick note to let you know that the second of your two recent edits to this article was (unintentionally I'm sure) rather catastrophic and left the article very jumbled. It looks like you copied and pasted a revised article into the middle of the old article instead of over the top of it. Anyway, I reverted to the earlier version edited by you. In doing so your last changes might have been lost, so you might like to have a look. Kind regards --Etimbo | Talk 16:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What is orthowiki? How can I contribute? --Notquiteauden 01:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Panagia
This article has been listed on vfd. Your thoughts on this and/or your help expanding the article to more than a dictionary definition would be appreciated. In XC, JHCC 13:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help; take a look now. JHCC 14:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Klobuk
Saw your edit in panagia re: klobuk. Could you take a minute and flesh out the articles for klobuk, kamilavka, clerical clothing, etc? Perhaps a separate article for epanokameloukion and a note in klobuk that it is a combination of kamilavka and epanokameloukion / koukoullion and skoupho. Also, redirects for the various different names and inclusion of them in the articles with the original spellings would be great.

Thanks for the help. In XC, JHCC 15:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Apostolic Council and Council of Jerusalem These pages sure could use some help, perhaps you're interested?

Apocrypha
I noticed you improvements to the Apocrypha. As I understand it, virtually all editions of the KJ included the Apocrypha up to 1832. Even now some continue to print it (e.g.Oxford Unicersity press) -  btw why have the dates of Jamina been changed from AD to CE? --ClemMcGann 03:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arios
Was Arios of Alexandria really a priest? I asked my priest this question and he stated that Arios was a Deacon. I looked in Catholic Encyclopedia: Arius which calls him a Deacon, not a priest. I admit to not knowing anything about this, but as I read it in the Filioque clause article, I found it odd considering it was contrary to what I have both heard and read. Could you send me a link or citation of some sort which could answer my question? Thanks -- Michael Karazim 00:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arios #2
So when it says priest is it referring to Presbyter or to the Priesthood in general?

Hi, Reader Andrew
Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. And, um, all those useful links. *grin* —Magda 19:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antiochian Orthodox Church etc
Heavens! At last a scholar in the field is at work, thanks!

Nevertheless I have a small editorial suggestion: Shouldn't the (amazing) number of different Patriarchs of Antiocha, and the reasons for that, be presented in Patriarch of Antioch only, whereas Antiochian Orthodox Church, and the four other church articles, can simply refer to that article?

Pjacobi July 4, 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Good News!
There is now a stub template for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related articles in need of expansion. Please add to articles. You can also go to the Category page for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related stubs and click the "watch this page" link in the sidebar, so that you can see new stub articles as they appear. Spread the word! JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Your user page
Thought you'd appreciate the link to the new STOTS article (and it might inspire you to expand it!). In XC, JHCC (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic Communion"
There is no body with the title "Catholic Communion" as there is the Anglican Communion. The proper term is the Catholic Church (note: not *just* the Roman Catholic Church) when discussing all of the rites united with the pope. There should be a second page added for Catholic Church to clarify this, if you wish to do so, go ahead. You're making the inaccurate edits.

Chanter template
Sorry, I didn't mean to mess with it. I was just trying to base template:user_chazan off of your creation. I went into edit page to get the source text and forgot to edit the address bar to change "byz" to "chazan". I hope you're not upset at me. Daykart 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I notice that you're using my creation, template:user_en-L-0. I'm having some trouble with setting up the categories for it. Do you think you can have a look and debug it? Daykart 22:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it is working. Never mind. Daykart 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
I just ripped off your userbox for my own user page, and of course adjusted the categories for myself. Yours was the first page that I encountered the syntax; figured I owed you a thank you. So, thanks! :) Wesley 18:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fisheaters
Could you weigh in on the Fish Eaters "linkspam" thing here? I am trying to get clarification on all this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#.22linkspam.22_request_for_clarification_of_policy Look at the links there, if you would, and help us come to a solution. This is frustrating for everyone. Malachias111 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats
A trifle belated, but congratulations on the ordination. JHCC (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A little help, please
In your Copious Spare Time, I wonder if you could please have a look at an article I just put up, Canon (hymnography)? I can't locate some of my notes from years ago and am not an expert in Byzantine music, so I feel as if I'm working without a net here and have probably made a stupid mistake somewhere. I'm also very sleepy right now and may have missed some typos or mangled prose. Any corrections or expansions would be most welcome.

In another matter, you might want to have a look at what User:Nrgdocadams is doing in Trinity if you haven't noticed it yet. I've reverted him for the second time tonight, but he might replace his changes again. Did you know that there were two hypostases in Christ? TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Miaphysitism
You know, your reversions and edits of my work, which is based on clearing up errors in what you have written (based, I assume, on bad or lack of knowledge -- and I have a Doctorate in Divinity), are becomming annoying. You state as fact things which are contrary to fact. You have now asked me for citations about my changes to the miaphysitism article, which were chiefly to do with the Anglicans and with Eastern Orthodox (those in communion with Constantinople, anyway) having come to Substantial Agreement on Christology with the Oriental Orthodox, and about true monophysites being Gnostic. Anyone who has followed these issues has a clue about this, but apparently you are not one of them.

Here is a link which is a thorough scholarly discussion both of miaphysis and of the use of PROSOPON, not HYPOSTASIS, in the Trinitarian and Chalcedonian formulations.

Here is the link to the Anglican agreement with the Oriental Orthodox and.

Here is the link to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople's agreement with them (signed by the Patriarch of the Greek Antiochian Church and the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch)  and here is an informative article about it, and the official documents are called Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite: Toward a Convergence in Orthodox Christology, and were signed in Egypt in 1989 and Geneva in 1990, and are available from the World Council of Churches.

Here is a link to a scholarly discussion of Gnostic monophysitism, which you will note is embraced by the (dense) catechism of the Gnostic Church (Ecclasia Gnostica, l'Eglise Gnostique Catholique Apostolique, Coptic Gnostic Church, etc. ).

NOW, will you please allow me to correct your erros on thes epages and stop redacting the corrections?!

Nrgdocadams 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Hi
Glad to see you here! I am just getting my feet wet, and will take you up on your invitation to contribute to Orthodox Wiki when I feel a little more proficient at this. But when I saw the entry on the RCC here, I felt I just had to step in, ready or not. I hope to work on it again tomorrow. All the best to you and yours.

Frank Purcell

Four Tildas
Let me try to get this right: Frank 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Category: Antisemitism (People)
It has been proposed that the category Category:Antisemitism_(People) be deleted. Since it has been proposed to add John Chrysostom to that category, please consider voting on it at: Categories for deletion. JHCC (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

keep this - do not delete
This information on the former exharchate of Alexandria and Archbishop Dionysios is obviously credible and extremely important for the study of orthodoxy in America. To delete would be a major tragedy. This information SHOULD NOT

George S.

Denomination
With all due reverence to your position and education, you seem to misunderstand the term denomination. According to websters dictionary: A denomination is "A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." I think that applies to every Christian Group including Orthodoxy. It also make the statement in question more correct as "protestant" is not a denomination. See notes in the Talk section.--Phiddipus 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * However, the history of the word is exclusively traceable to Protestantism. It implies differences between groups that are mainly administrative and not dogmatic, and used mainly where the word "Church" is being avoided so as to avoid the implication of any exclusive claims. (I believe this to be the case; I'll check to see what the OED says later to be sure if there are any questions.) IOW, if a Protestant sees "denomination" he will take the Orthodox Church to which it refers to be simply one more communion among many, which is how they use the word among themselves. Even if the formal definition might apply, it is therefore best avoided. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as funny. Until protestants came into being there was hardly a need for such a word to exist, though its concept may, in fact, be older. Before protestantism we had the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Copts, the Monothelites, the Arminians, and various minor heretical groups. We could use the term to define these also as denominations of early chrisitans, even if the term wasnt invented until recently. Denomination - should be considered to be a non-POV word without any philosophical baggage. Money has various denominations, its all money and none of the denominations are of the same value. Orthodoxy is in no way a group any more that RC is a group. Protestants are a group and you shouldnt compare a group to a non-group.--Phiddipus 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

clarification
Your misplaced reactions to the term “denomination” are based on your opinion (POV) that Orthodoxy is true and all others are false. Concerning my understanding of the English language: it would seem that a simple perusal of a dictionary would confirm for you that you are, in fact, mistaken. The usage of the word “denomination” in this case makes no reference to any philosophical concept of equality (denominalationalism). I am surprised that anyone with an education doesn’t know the difference. Money is available in various denominations none of which are equal but all of which are currency. Even denominalationalism is a rather silly concept since none of the Christian denominations consider the others to be True. Even the twist that is to say they are all equally wrong would also not likely be misunderstood by anyone to be what we are implying. No. Equality is not in any way expressed in the term denomination, rather the opposite. In the case of the term denomination implying legitimacy on the part of all Christian religions, well, it may be your opinion (and mine too) that Orthodoxy is the only true Christian religion, but it would be ridiculous to deny that other Christian denominations exist. And if they exist as we exist then we are all legitimate, even if only one of us is “true”. The term “group” is a completely misleading term in this case as it implies the Orthodox Church is made up of differing parts of a group, which is in fact not true – the church is One. “Communion” as you choose to use it may be correct but it is an affectation to use this term when for clarities sake denomination is more universal.--Phiddipus 21:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of what you say is correct, but it doesn't change anything. I gave you the common Protestant understanding of the word; I know this as a former Protestant. Many converts to Orthodoxy from Protestantism avoid "denomination" for that reason.  Similarly, Roman Catholics who are aware of how the word has been applied avoid describing their own church that way.  "Group" is a far more general and less loaded term. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

regarding changes at "independent catholic churches"
Dear Deacon Damick,

You seem to have restored changes I wrote for the article "independent catholic churches." I request you read the changes again and consider whether they're accurate, compassionate and gramatical Thank you.

Spiritual Mothers
Why remove the referrence to women as confessors? It's a fairly common practice in the Orthodox World to have Spiritual Mothers. As to the capitalization, it is considered a "Title". The referrence is not to mom's who are religious. --Phiddipus 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual Mothers
I tend to capitalize a lot for emphasis, its from doing advertising media, I apologize

As to spiritual mothers you are quite wrong in this instance. First of all, Priests do not have the power to grant forgiveness of sins, God does that. All a priest is required for is to read the prayer of repentance over someone about to commune. He does not have to hear the confession if that person confesses to someone else male or female. This happens every day in hundreds of convents around the world. The article is not really speaking about the Mystery of confession at all, but rather the approach that one usually consults ones spiritual advisor, and that advisor can be female. I realize that you, being in an American and modernist jurisdiction love to use RC words like Sacrament and imagine that women have their place, but I, being a traditionalist and not given to innovative ideas cannot count the number of women, nuns, hegoumeni that hear confession, give spiritual counsel, have authority that cannot be overruled by the patriarch himself (or any other bishop), and guide the lives not only of other women, but men as well. I know a bishop who confesses to an elderly woman. This is the very Mystery of Confession itself: that God speaks to the one who confesses through the spiritual guide, male or female. Furthermore I know of numerous men who also hear confession, but are not members of the clergy. Nothing is required to hear confessions but a Bishop’s Blessing.--Phiddipus 02:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please help on the Plotinus entry
Hello Deason Damick. I would like to humbly request your assistance. I need help on the Plotinus Neoplatonist entry. A small group of Gnostics are stating church history and christian history and individuals incorrectly.

Thank You LoveMonkey 19:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Akathist controversy
I wonder if you could point me to a reference or two. I was thinking of expanding kontakion, but in so doing I could hardly fail to mention the Akathist as the only example still sung in its entirety. I see from the article that there is debate over its authorship. I have only one source myself, a collection of the kontakia of Romanos, and it includes the Akathist -- the editor is clear herself about its authorship, although of course she understands the first strophe to be a later composition, as well as the chaire  lines. Where might I find something of the opposing POV? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm. I was asking you because you're the one who added "though this attribution is hotly debated" to the article in the first place. Was this bit from lecture notes then? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. (By the way, if your stress levels and workload permit, could you possibly look in on Talk:Metousiosis?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that myself. I suspect the list of people we have in mind is roughly identical. Worms being what they are, I only involved myself as an avoidance behavior anyway; there are definitely other things I should be doing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Whazzup Gatsund
Do you guys need any baby clothes yet? Have many. Will send. Our #4 is on the way.

WikiP question on your RVYoung entry: where did you get the idea he converted to the RCC? It may be true, but I thought I recall him talking about being educated by Jesuits as a kid. He has the look of a cradle papist. Dan Knauss 02:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha, OK. I wonder how Hester likes the ECUSA these days. Too bad I never had a class with him. I recollect him mainly advising several of us grad student males to get drunk together.

"Let's keep it NPOV please?"
Can you please explain to me what was NPOV about my latest edits? All I see here is a badly written article which hides crucial information on the history of Orthodoxy. Miskin 11:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to my edits which are pretty much copy-edit from Britannica and other reliable sources. The article in Eastern Orthodoxy is hiding the fact that all modern Orthodox bodies (Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian churches etc) have all gained authocephalus status by the Greek Orthodox Church, i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarch. Furthermore the article hides the fact that the term "Greek Orthodox Church" has been in use for over 1000 years to refer to the patriarch of Constantinople. It just implies that all Orthodox bodies emerged together from some mysterious, non-ethnic "Eastern Orthodox Church", which is historically ludicrous. It is stated nowhere that prior to the recognition of other autocephalus churches, terms "Eastern Orthodoxy" and "Greek Orthodoxy" were synonyms. I don't see how can someone call himself an Orthodox Christian if he's not in position to recognise the history of his own religion. Miskin 11:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the term "Rum Orthodox" (Roman Orthodox) in the Islamic countries is synonym to "Greek Orthodox". This goes back to Byzantium where the "Byzantines" (a term unknown to them), were referred by the Slavs and the Latins as "Greeks" and by the Arabs as "Romans". In medieval texts "Eastern Orthodoxy" is invariably referred as "Greek Church" in Europe, and "Rum Church" in Islam. An ethnic Rum in Constantinople today is an ethnic Greek, by Turkish law. The patriarch of Constantinople has by law to be an ethnic Greek of Turkish citizenship. This is something I recently sourced and included in the article of EP. It's silly not to recognise that the EP is the actual patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Balkan countries are still hostile to the Greeks, as during Ottoman times, the EP was the Ethnarch of the "Greek millet". Maybe this article I found at random is more enlightening than my own word Miskin 11:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Britannica article provides a clear, precise history of Eastern Orthodoxy. I really don't know what has gone wrong in wikipedia, people are either unaware or in denial of the facts. Miskin

Apologies
I didn't mean to revert you at Eastern Orthodox Church, but Phiddipus. At least some of his edit contradicted history I've learned elsewhere, and I didn't think it worth the effort to make corrections since there would have been very little left of it by the time I was done anyway. There was plainly an edit conflict there, but for some reason Wikipedia didn't flag it. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that my edit summary was intended to characterize Phiddipus' edit, not yours. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Glossolalia
Ha who knew the orthodox spoke in tongues. Hey maybe Father Seraphim was just wrong in the book future religions. LoveMonkey 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Deacon the article is written poorly implying that orthodox speak in gibberish tongues.. LoveMonkey 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK deacon Damick.. LoveMonkey 21:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism Template
I am the first to admit, that I am not an authority on Gnosticism.

However in editing the Gospel of Judas article, I noted that no such template existed. I thought it would be a useful template to have to help distinguish 'Gnostic' articles from 'Christian' ones and to provide a common box for articles with a Gnostic theme. I was hoping that this would reduce the number of dogma based battles that occur over edits on the articles about early Christian texts that never became canonized.

I noted that you contributed significantly to that template in your edits, and I wanted to thank you and let you know that I encourage you to continue for the template has already taken on a better form because of your contribution. I'm going to leave this same not on the user page of a few of the others have also improved the template.
 * LinuxDude 14:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a "significant" contribution? If you say so... &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 21:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian Wiki
Hi Andrew,

Just wanted to let you know about a christianity wiki that was recently started and has now moved to it's own server. Because of your interest in Orthodox Christianity, I think you would be a valuable member of our team and I'd love to have your contributions. In fact, we have imported many of the articles over from OrthodoxWiki already (with appropriate attribution of course)

We are just about ready to go live!

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please take a look and see if this project is something you would like to get behind. the URL is: ChristWiki

-- nsandwich 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Monophysitism
I read your profile and see that you are a deletionist. I understand. I also wish to encourage you to reconsider throwing out the edits of "8 June 2006 Tupetewalker" to the page on Monophysitism. I thought the additions were valuable and informative.

Is there any chance you could work with Tupetewalker on either reformatting or editing for brevity? It would be nice to get at least some of the additional information online.

Thank you for considering,

Brother Bruce :)

Brotherbruce 03:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not ASDamick, but I happen to have his talk page on my watchlist.


 * Tupetewalker's edit was not only very badly formatted to the point of systematic syntactical incorrectness, but they were off-topic for the article. Monophysitism came to an end at Chalcedon, regardless of whether various local Churches accepted that council or not. His edit would lead one to believe that the Churches whose subsequent history he traced were themselves monophysite. They are not, as one could discover from Oriental Orthodoxy and Miaphysitism, and they consider monophysitism to be as heretical as the Chalcedonian Churches do. Since they are not, this history has only marginal relevance to Monophysitism and takes on undue emphasis when material of such great length is added to such a brief article. True, the article needs some development, but not in the wrong direction.


 * By the way, deletionism has to do with criteria for article inclusion, not article content. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ephrem Syrus
Dear Andrew,

I've noticed you edited article on Ephraim the Syrian in Wikipedia and OrthodoxWiki. I need to find authentic enough English translation of his work: "Exhortation to brothers" (http://lib.eparhia-saratov.ru/books/06e/efrem/talking1/88.html, if you read Russian). After spending couple hours searching Google I found no Englsih translation for this particular work, so I start feeling that it may just not exist. Do you have any information on this particular work?

NB: I'm Russian myself, so feel free to reply in either Russian or English.

Thanks a lot, Nikolay

Father Athanasius the great
Athanasius of Alexandria article accuses him of organized criminal activities and does not mention his exile imposed by Constantine. This article makes some heavy duty claims against christianity. LoveMonkey

PS It does this base on a scholar names Timothy Barnes who wrote another book after the one used in the quote specifically about Athanasius which the editor here does not quote from since it appears to be pro Athanasius. LoveMonkey 12:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV against
An editor is making POV to this article about the church in Russia and the Czar Peter. Please help. LoveMonkey 12:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Difference between Speculative Interpretation and Logical Inference
In light of your recent allegations on the Diocese of Sourozh page, I request you view http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm which should provide you with sufficient background to distinguish between logical inference and speculative interpretation. If you familiarise yourself with this, then we shall be able to discuss more harmoniously in the future. With good will, Maxim662 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish also to make clear that to add a 'new user' tag to my talk-page, when I have been editing wikipedia pages for quite a while now, is clearly an inflammatory act.

However, I retain my good will for resolution of your qualms re the Sourozh page. Maxim662 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RE your posting on my page. Actually, when someone is not a new user, but you add the new user material on the grounds that I familiarise myself with Wikipedia policy, the implication is that I have hitherto failed to thus familiarise myself, which is inflammatory, as it implies a lack of responsibility in my Wikipedia-participation before now.

But, as ever, I retain my good will towards the resolution of your qualms re the Sourozh page. Maxim662 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot be bothered with this nonsense. The reason I wrote that long passage yesterday in the Sourozh discussion was precusely to avoid this sort of rubbish. It was intended as a means of moving forward in the discussion.

If you are not prepared to move forward in discussion positively, then please indicate this. But until then, please stop all this silly citation-tagging. I am happy to agree the paragraph needs rewriting, and that its content needs reviewed. But the way to work this out is on the discussion page. Shall we agree to discuss the matter constructively on the discussion page? Maxim662 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy Project and trivia
===>Hello! Thanks for the invitation. To be honest, I'll probably need some motivation (collaborations, notes on my talk page, etc.) to get me to edit, but I'm enthused to give what little knowledge I have. On a tangential matter, do you personally have strong feelings about OCA's autocephaly? Also mostly unrelated: I would like to see more coverage of the Oriental faith on Wikipedia, and I'd like to know more about reconciliatory efforts between the two and the prospects for reunification. Do you see that happening in our lifetimes? Ever? What would become of the two Syrian and Egyptian patriarches? And reunion with Rome is an interesting prospect, but too large to be in the scope of this message; let me know on my talk page if you're so inclined. Thanks again. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Thanks again I ask precisely because I've seen the Orthodox Unity site. But on the Internet, you can never tell if this information represents a lone, dedicated individual's point of view, or a legitimate proposition. Are the Antiochians as a body doing anything to dialogue with Oriental Christians? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation as well! However, my edits to those articles were a result of random wandering rather than a focused effort. I also do not consider myself to be sufficiently knowledgeable in the area to edit but the most obvious things. Still, thanks anyway. Sincerely, Illythr 19:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

wikiProject:Eastern Orthodoxy
I am afraid I will be of no help in this topic. My contribution to the subject was chaotic filling of white spots. `'mikka (t) 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Patriarchy/Patriarchate
I just wanted to let you know about the issue with the Church in UA that you may be not aware of. I have no objection to your Patriarchy/Patriarchate substitution. There is nothing else in that but the issue of which word is a better Enlgish. However, change of the UOC (MP) to UOC-MP is a more controversial issue that you might not have been aware of,

The organization's official name is just "UOC". However, it is canonically under MP, true enough, and adding (MP) in parentheses to dab it from UOC-KP is useful. But, it is important that the Church itself rejects the phrasing "UOC-MP" to be used as its name, both formally or informally. It calls itself "UOC" admitting, at the same time, its canonical link to MP. On the other hand, the Church opponents do use "UOC-MP" as the church namein derrogatory way to emphasize their POV that this church is not Ukrainian but the Muscovite. Taking no position in the debate ourselves, but taking the position of the church's opponents in choosing the name is not NPOV.

On a separate, though related issue, UOC-KP is indeed the full name of the other large OC in UA.

Sorry, if this all sounds confusing. It is so only because the religious life in UA is confusing too.

Finally, please do not move pages without raising the issue at the talk page, at least informally, and giving the interested parties time to comment. The reason is that page moves are more difficult to undo and they affect more of the WP a great deal, while the edits themselves are much easier to discuss, compromise and (hopefully not) revert. Cheers, --Irpen 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Dear Dn Damick, I have no wish to trade insults or ad hominem with you. My time is better spent elsewhere; as, I am sure, is yours.

As regards the Diocese of Sourozh article, I would welcome the contribution of many more people.

Can we agree to either discuss it rationally, or cease from discussing it? If the latter, I would be happy for us to draw an agreed line underneath our disagreement (literally, in the discussion page).

When I say I have good will, my intention in saying that is solely to assure you that I do not have bad will or malicious motives.

With genuine good will, Maxim662 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Church of Constantinople
===>If you have the energy Take a look at the edit I just made to this page to make sure that I didn't mispresent anything as best as you are aware. Thanks. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 05:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)