User talk:Unique user

Russian True Orthodox Church
There was a concern about the copyright on this page. Do you have any affiliation with the http://www.theorthodox.org/ and if so can you have the copyright removed? --Walter Görlitz 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Unique user. I left you a note on Talk:Russian True Orthodox Church. Thanks! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 10:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Unique user. I have left you another note on Talk:Russian True Orthodox Church. Please be assured that I have not called you an idiot, nor have I said that you are too stupid to understand what you are doing. Thanks! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Resolving the situation on Russian True Orthodox Church
Hi Unique user. As the page at Talk:Russian True Orthodox Church has been complicated by an ongoing argument between myself and Walter Görlitz I thought it might be helpful for me to briefly summarise the situation for you here. I apologise if anything I write here involves telling you things you already know, but clarity is important.

Firstly I want to assure you that none of us want to block or exclude this material from Wikipedia. On the contrary, we will be extremely happy to have it if we can license it appropriately. As you know, to be included in Wikipedia text has to be licensed under the GFDL. This gives anyone the right to copy, distribute or modify the text for absolutely any purpose, noncommercial or commercial. This means that for your text to be included in Wikipedia you have two options:
 * 1) License the original on your website under the GFDL. This would mean removing the copyright statements on your site that contradict the terms of the GFDL, specifically those that say that 'reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission from BLAGO is prohibited' and that only OrthodoxWiki and Wikipedia have permission to use the material. (If you licensed it under the GFDL, anyone would have permission to use it.)
 * 2) Alternatively, and equally acceptably as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you can maintain the version on your website under any license that you choose, while releasing a version to Wikipedia under the GFDL. However, currently the copyright statement on your website says that you release the text for use 'through the web site'. Wikipedia is not only distributed through the web (for instance, there are plans to produce DVD and/or paper releases in the future) and this restriction is not compatible with the GFDL.

I hope this clears up any lingering confusion about why the text is still marked as a copyright violation, and what steps we can take to resolve it. Do drop me a message if you have any further questions or concerns. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, just wanted to thank you here for helping to resolve that situation cleanly. I'm sorry that at one point you believed I was questioning your intelligence -- I hope you now realise that wasn't the case. Anyway, I look forward to editing with you in the future. Cheers, --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nick, and I am sorry that this article brought such discussion and took so much time and energy to resolve the issue. --Unique user 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions
Hi and welcome one more time. A couple of things, if I may. Pls don't get too discouraged by someone's removal of several paragraphs from RTOC article. While I don't support the wholesale removal, the idea is that it is usually harmful to have the same stuff in detail repeated in many articles. The general history of Christianity, especially the Old East Slavic period is covered in several articles already, particularly the ROC and the History of Christianity in Ukraine articles. Detailed retelling of the same events in several articles, each edited independently may result in self-contradictions withing Wikipedia, forking and other things better to avoid. As such, while a brief history is in order, the details don't belong to articles about specific churches of Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian Orthodoxy. There is the same mistake in the UGCC article. I placed a tag that pre-Brest material needs moved to the HoCinUA and, I hope, we will eventually order these topics.

The second question I have is at the RTOC's talk about the apostolic succession. Please take a look.

Finally, for the hierarch's articles, we have a yet non-written convention to name their articles with inclusion of their full seculiar name, not just the last name, in parentheses. Such were Patriarch Filaret (Feodor Romanov), Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko), Metropolitan Volodymyr (Viktor Sabodan), see also Metropolitan Vladimir dab) unless there is a numbering disambiguation, like Patriarch Alexius II or similar. So, would you mind movin the Hierarch's articles accordingly. We need their first names for that. Thanks again for your contributions. --Irpen 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

RTOC

 * 1) About cutting off some of the text in Russian Orthodox Church - I did not say a word about it, did I? I agree with you or the person who modified this article, so, no need for apology.
 * 2) Apostolic succession – As an editor, I don’t think it’s your place to discuss who’s apostolic succession is more valid. Just because the Moscow Patriarchate did not recognize the line of apostolic succession that the UAOC bears, doesn’t mean the UAOC doesn’t exist.

For almost a whole century opposing jurisdictions did not recognized each other but later still entered into liturgical communion. 40-60 years ago the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate did not recognize the bishops of the ROCOR. Today, the ROC-MP has asked bishops of the ROCOR to join ROC-MP. About 15 years ago the bishops of both jurisdictions (ROC-MP and ROCOR) were saying that they did not recognize each others holy mysteries. But, what happens now, it’s valid? Who validated it?

In 1996 relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Moscow Patriarchate were broken. Does it mean that the Moscow Patriarchate became schismatic? Does it mean that every church service or mystery they performed was invalid? I don’t think the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate thought so. And this is not the first and will probably not be the last conflict between these jurisdictions.

We know what did take place…apostolic succession, by the blessing of Patriarch Dymytriy (Yarema), by Bishop John and Bishop Mefodiy was passed to the other clergy of the RTOC. It’s a fact, and no matter how much you or hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate don’t like it, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Just think, the UAOC of USA and Canada were under Patriarch Mstyslav. It is the same jurisdiction that is now under the Ecumenical Patriarchate and when the bishops of the UAOC were accepted into the Ecumenical Patriarchate they were not consecrated by Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople but, accepted as valid bishops. Now, “elaborate” it yourself. I know, I know, even after the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepted them the Moscow Patriarchate still did not accept nor recognize this jurisdiction. How arrogant!

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church does exist in Ukraine and abroad. This jurisdiction does have hierarchy and the faithful and no matter what your personal opinion is about this jurisdiction, they have a right for this page in this encyclopedia. Same, also applies to the Russian True Orthodox Church and any other Churches. And you, I or anyone else should respect this right and right of those faithful who want to be heard.

3) Names… “non-written convention” I love these kind of rules. This means today we will do this, and tomorrow – something different. Sounds so disciplinary, so strict, so rule like. As I remember, monks and bishops were never referred to by their civilian first name. This name seized to exist after the person took his monastic vows. Bishops were always referred to by his title, monastic name and the See the bishop held. So,  Metropolitan Volodymyr (Viktor Sabodan) correctly would be: Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) of Kiev and All Ukraine. This is written and accepted by all Orthodox Churches style and rule.

Now, if I could ask you a personal question. Your nick-name suggested to me that you are from Irpen? Is this the case? I’ve been so many times to Irpen and know so many people in this city, that maybe I know you too. Who are you? --Unique user 01:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. First of all, please don't get angry about the questions. Religion is a difficult topic and we should put our personal beleifs aside when talking about it rather than to it. That said, to the issues.

It is not our business to discuss whose claims of the apostolic succession are "more valid" and you are right in that. Note that I take no position on the rights of the UAOC for the Apostolic Succession. Neither I take a position on its being canonical from the view of the canon law. For now, we can only state facts. UAOC is no doubt a real church in Ukraine. It is also a fully legitimate Church as it is properly registered as a religious organization with the country's civil authorities. It is also the third largest orthodox confession in UA and, also, a church with a significant, alas sometimes contoversial, history.

That said, we must also state the facts that the first Bishops of UAOC were ordained not by any previously ordained bishops but in an "Alexandrian" manner using the relics of St. Clement of Rome. In no way this makes the church unreal but it matters for its history and the discussion of its status, where again, we take no position but just state facts. Also, real is that UOCoCA and oUSA entered into Union with Ecumenical Patriarch, which fulfills the neceesary (but not a universally sufficient) condition to their attainment to the status of the fully and unversally recognized churches within the Eastern Orthodox Communion. The fact is that UAOC is no doubt real. The fact also is that it has some yet unresolved issues with its claims to be a fully canonical church whose hierarch's can unquestionably claim an apostolic succession. Same applies then to RTOC, which claims the link to UAOC. As a secular person, those things don't matter to me and I don't decide which church is canonical which is "valid" and which isn't. As a layman I find these issues fascinating and simply want to know facts and want the WP article to state them. Never ever I said that any church isn't entitled to its article. Not only ebery church, but every church building is entitled to the article as well. As a Wikipedia editor, I would like fatcs to be stated in full, that's all and please don't take this personally.

Names: I think we are secular encyclopedia. So, we don't have to abide by rules accepted in the church. The secular first name doesn't seize to exist for the secular matters, it remains in secular records and as a common way to refer to people it should be given. In no way it denies the religios tradition. Churchpeople can and do use what they feel appropriate at the church's wen-sites.

As for me personally, I am not from the Irpen city. I took the name to the river. Feel free to email me if you want to talk about off-Wikipedia things.

Finally, an entire community would benefit from your contributions. Keep them up and don't get discouraged. Cheers, --Irpen 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I went ahead and expanded and moved the Mstyslav's article. If the objections are fierce, we can move it back. --Irpen 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections by me. It's fine and you did a good job by expanding this article. Thank you for help. --Unique user 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Относительно гражданского имени используемого монашествующим духовенством, могу сказать, что такая практика была установлена только в Советском Союзе. Эта традиция была введена после революции 1917 годы потому, как Советское правительство не признавало Церковь и Ея установления. Советское правительство шло наперекор всему, что несло хоть какой-то церковный оттенок или смысл. Если мне не изменяет память, только Митрополит Никодим (Ротов), ну может быть еще пару архиереев или монашествующих, имели смелость изменить свое гражданское имя на монашеское в паспорте в Советском Союзе. Отсюда вопрос: как правильно обратиться к нему, как к Борису Георгиевичу Ротову или Никодиму Георгиевичу Ротову? Какое имя является его собственным именем? И хотя родители дали ему имя Борис, мне кажется, что было бы неуважением к его воле обращаться к нему иначе как Никодим.
 * Во многих странах мiра этот вопрос решается по желанию духовного лица и по установленным традициям. К примеру, в Греции, в паспорте епископа указывается его титул, монашеское имя, фамилия и кафедра, которую он занимает. Эта традиция существовала и до революции в России. Поэтому, ежели лицо принадлежит к духовному реестру, и изменяет свое имя в гражданском порядке, то было бы не правильно указывать то имя, от которого он отказался, и которое, по сути, ему уже не принадлежит. Мне кажется, что не следует подходить к этому вопросу только с бюрократической точки зрения, но следует учитывать также желание духовного лица, и традиции установленные много веков до сегодняшнего дня. Но, это всего лишь мое частное мнение.--Unique user 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Тут надо еще учесть, что Мстислав был ИЗВЕСТНОЙ фигурой и при светской жизни, до принятия монашества. Член парламента и защитник украинцев от полонизации фигура notable enough для Википедии и без последующей замечательной духовной карьеры.

Давай, лучше и остальных двинем. Будет проще и удобнее. Российские императрицы, перерекрещенные из немецких имен в православную веру даны точно так же.

Я попробую забросить статью на WP:DYK

Счастливо, --Irpen 18:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Абсолюно согласен с таким предложением. --Unique_user 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Приветствую Вас!
 * Решил воспользоваться Вашим предложением и написать Вам пару строк. Как я уже говорил, я часто бывал в Ирпене, там, в период 1980-90г.г. было пару приходов Российской Истинно-Православной Церкви, и я познакомился и подружился со многими жителями города Ирпень. Также были и другие приходы в этой части Киевской области.

Как Вы уже наверно заметили, я живу сейчас в США. Особо рассказывать о себе нечего. Закончил Одесскую Духовную Семинарию в 1990х годах. Состою на службе при Архiепископе Алексее, несу послушание в церкви, просфорне, канцелярии, клиросе… короче – куда пошлют. Знаком со многими архиереями МП (по известным причинам не буду указывать имена), и большим количеством духовенства Украины и России. Хотя, ни они, ни мы не афишируем подобные встречи. Мы научились не только любить друг-друга по Слову Спасителя, но также и уважать друг-друга. Уважение, это то, что порой так не хватает некоторым религиозным деятелям. Я объясню. К примеру, при всей моей личной неприязни к Патриарху Филарету (Денисенко), не смотря на то что он пытался при помощи милиции оказать давление на меня, я не перестал уважать его как церковного политика, церковного лидера, мудрого богослова, замечательного знатока церковной истории и церковного права, автора ряда богословских работ и книг, человека, который посетил около 80 стран мiра, духовного лидера награжденного как церковными орденами и медалями разных юрисдикций, так и светскими наградами разных государств, удивительно эрудированного проповедника, человека, с которым просто интересно разговаривать. Но, очень часто, люди не хотят видеть другие, положительные черты того или иного человека, приклеив к нему ярлык «раскольник» или «самосвят». На мой взгляд, это ошибочно. Нам следует научиться уважать друг-друга, уважать право и выбор других не имеет значения как бы нам не нравился этот выбор. Новомученик архиепископ. Андрей Уфимский, сказал однажды: «Я остаюсь Епископом для тех, кто меня признает своим Епископом». Более лаконично не скажешь. Вот пожалуй и все на этот раз. Удачи Вам! --Unique_user 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am out of time now. You may be interested in expanding of Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko) article. Feel free to email me for any reason. --Irpen 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

dyk
Congratulations! And with that see below!

categories
Please be a little careful with categories. The cats listed inside the cat you edit are "supercats" rather than subcats. To include a subcat into a supercat, one just needs to add a supercat to a subcat window and not vic versa.

One more thing. I think we should be very careful with metropolitans and patriarch's cats. The reason is that they are all bishops and perhaps that would be enough. You see, certain figure is a Patriarch in view of some while a "Patriarch" in view of the others. Unless the claims of one of the groups are totally frivolous, listing someone as a patriarch isn't a NPOV because it endorces one POV of the two (of the particular church and its adherents). Let's just call them all category:Ukrainian Orthodox bishops. There aren't that many and this should be enough. What do you say? --Irpen 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I thought about it too, but was little confused. I look at all the categories in WP and there are a lot of 'em. But, I think you're right about metropolitans, archbishops and bishops. They're all bishops and after that its awards or administrative titles. I agree with you that they should be kept under category of bishops with the indication of the rank.

Thank you for the AWARD. :) --Unique_user 22:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohh, now I see why I got confused… There is the category for Orthodox Easter archbishops but no category for metropolitans. I just feel sorry for them... :))) --Unique_user 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing, what do you think about the Ukrainian Patriarchs? --Unique_user 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JosephPetrovikh.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JosephPetrovikh.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:VolodymyrRomanyuk.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:VolodymyrRomanyuk.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:VasylLypkivsky2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:VasylLypkivsky2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:VasylLypkivsly.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:VasylLypkivsly.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:IoannBodnarchuk.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IoannBodnarchuk.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MefodyKudryakov.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MefodyKudryakov.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MstyslavI.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MstyslavI.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Metropolitan Alexy (Bondarenko).jpg


The file File:Metropolitan Alexy (Bondarenko).jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:First Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church has been nominated for renaming
Category:First Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)