Welcome!

Hello, InfernoXV, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --WikiCats 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: SinceIt's co the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy - The main Project page
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Intro - The introduction to the Project text, in the top box
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Scope - Goals of the project text
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Subsections - Listing of Project sub-areas
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Tasks - Main listing of pages, etc., needing work
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Templates - Listing of Project templates
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Participants - Listing of members
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Related - Listing of areas related to Project
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Notes - Notes on Project

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. Welcome to the project! —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, call him "the Pope, Patriarch of Alexandria." If I speak of "Charles I, King of England", I am not denying the existence of other "Charles I"s. Lima 15:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

能不能幫我翻譯User grc這個模板的內容？謝謝！Cyon 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just went by the main English translation in the article you linked. In any case, lavra should either be explained there or not explained at all (if the linked article does not explain it, then the word usage is simply confusing to the reader; if it is explained there, it is still connected with that topic, and not with Mohyla directly). We should try to make the text explicit. Dahn 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, you can find us in these pages:

• SGpedians' notice board
• Singapore portal
• List of Singapore-related topics

Do leave your name at the notice board, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or post it on the notice board. Thanks again for your contribution in wikipedia! ;)

Thanks for your attention to List of people by name: Joa-Jog, even tho i reverted your edit there:

1. Please look for this name (search or near 1500) on the list of Const. Ptr'chs, & figure out if you were confusing 2 pairs of people with similar names.
2. Even if you were right, the proper response would have been to leave the obscure names on the LoPbN tree in their current positions (and consider whether it's worth your time to create rdrs from the obscure names to the articles &/or byp the lks on LoPbN & other places lk'g the obscure names -- that being what someone will hopefully eventually do, even tho IMO no one should tell any editor that they should take on a fix just bcz they are aware it's the right direction for the article develop).

Hope you'll keep up the good work.
--Jerzy•t 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words - you were quite correct, I'd mixed up the names. Your encouragement is much appreciated. --InfernoXV 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I have been hoping that someone learned in Eastern Christianity would come along and improve that section of the article. There are other articles that could use similar attention. What would be most helpful is if you had references through which to build up the sections in question. Lostcaesar 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me to what article you are referring to?

Hi. Sure i can explain. I know that at that time it was Archibishops and not Patriarchs, but it is anachronistic to call them 'bishops' or 'archibishops'... In the same way that all the articles concerning the Popes, call each of them 'Pope', no matter the century he was the leader of the catholic church. in the first centuries, there were 'Bishops of Rome', not Popes... Bartholomew I is the 271st Ecumenical Patriarch, thus, there have been 270 Ecumenical Patriarchs before him, Nestorius being one of them. Hectorian 18:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit summary on serving with Bishop Hlib Lonchyna I take it you're not in the US. I wonder if the usage described in the article isn't peculiar to the American emigration. Here, Ruthenian and Ukranian Catholic bishops use an omophor that's sewn into shape; they simply drop it over their shoulders. That's why they just keep it on for the whole Liturgy, not even removing it when the rubrics call for it. No doubt the editor who wrote that section (I don't think it was me) has never seen anything else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiho! Yes, you're right - I'm not in the US. I'm actually in Singapore right now, not a notable centre of the Byzantine liturgical tradition. I have served for Kyr Hlib and Kyr Petro (of Melbourne) in Dublin, but the parish in question is Russian-Catholic, and the priest there is a noted liturgical expert who insists visiting bishops follow the typicon. The usage of the large white ready-formed omophor is an imitation of the western pallium, and vostochniki such as myself refer to those hideous things as bibs. Very often, Catholics of the Ruthenian recension will ignore the typicon on these matters (don't get me started on those who don't wear the cuffs), and it seems particularly bad in Northo America, but things are getting better in general. --InfernoXV 06:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That priest is to be congratulated for successfully insisting on anything with a bishop, let alone on matters of tradition.

I had ascribed the "bib" to liturgical laziness, but I suppose Latinization could easily have had much to do with it. In the US they happened at about the same time so its hard to tell what caused what. For example, the Liturgies got cut down to one hour by omitting parts, the New Calendar was adopted, and all other services such as Vespers were dropped (at least for public celebrations) with the exception of some of the Holy Week services. At about the same time my grandparents' parish, which has a beatutiful 18th century floor-to-ceiling iconostasis that was removed from a church in Europe, ripped out the bottom tier and installed a communion rail and statues. (It has since been replaced, with icons of a completely different style. The originals were lost.) Churches constructed from the 50s until the late 70s were built without an iconostasis of any kind, and didn't even plan for one.

The only time I ever saw a Ruthenian priest serve without cuffs it was perhaps excusable. It was the middle of the summer in a modern-style church that had mostly glass walls but no windows you could open, and the air conditioner had broken down. It was a hothouse in there. He naturally wore his lightest vestments and left off the cuffs.

Of course, now that the Pope has taken to using a pallium in its ancient form that looks much more like an omophor, maybe the traditional one will become fashionable again. And as you say, things seem to be improving. (Or so I hear; I haven't attended a Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy in many years.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bit of a special case. The bishop may have been a Studite monk, but the priest in question was a reknowned liturgical scholar of impeccable pedigree, so in this case, mitred archimandrite trumps young bishop.

The 'bib' is attributable both to Latinisation and liturgical laziness - I tend to think the second tendency is directly a result of the first. As for churches without an iconostas, blame Bp Elko - that man did irreparable harm to the Ruthenian Church in the States.

Serving without cuffs is commonplace with Basilians, I find. Over my period of time as occasion acolyte at the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in London, the more Latinised Basilians would frequently leave off the cuffs. The explanation I got was 'the real Catholics don't use the maniple anymore so...', which naturally I found an entirely specious argument, not to mention the idea that Easterns were any less 'Catholic'. Personally, I've never attended a service celebrated according to the Ruthenian recension outside of the Ukrainian jurisdictions, so I don't really know how things are done in the Ruthenian jurisdiction in the States. The small omofor is coming back - Patriarch Lyubomir uses them, and the Eastward looking bishops (steadily increasing in number) imitate him. --InfernoXV 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You've caught my interest. Perhaps you could contact me at my email? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you adding your name to the first meetup page. There is a meet this Friday, so if you are able to join, please do come. Confirm yourself at the above link, thanks. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Hi InfernoXV, I was hoping you could help me with Latin question. Is "Kraków Calendar for the Year 1474" a good translation of Almanach Cracoviense ad annum 1474? Thanks, Appleseed (Talk) 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appleseed - absolutely! I'd prefer 'Cracovian' or 'Krakówian', but aside from that, it's spot on. :) InfernoXV 15:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually meant to say "Kraków (or Cracovian, as you suggest) Almanac for the year 1474". Calendarium Cracoviense, which is another name for the print, would be "Cracovian Calendar". Do you agree? Appleseed (Talk) 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works for me :)InfernoXV 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Appleseed (Talk) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Cyril and Methodius are saints in the Slavic Orthodox Churches but not in the Greek. What you say (being a saint in one means being a saint in all) used to to be true in the middle ages where all Orthodox power was centered in one Church, but it is not the case today. Furthermore Byzantium was as much as the Roman Empire as was the Holy Roman Empire, saying "and hence the end of the Roman Empire" is a POV. Miskin 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing liturgical commemoration with recognition of sainthood. A case in question - St John (Maximovitch) the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco. He was glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, but he is received as a saint by all of the Orthodox Churches, not only by the Russian Church.

Incidentally, Ss Cyril and Methodius appear in my Greek edition of the Menaion for the month of May, published by the Apostoliki Diakonia in Athens. True, they don't appear in all Greek Menaia, but that doesn't make them any less saints of the Greek Church.

The general rule of sainthood in the Orthodox Churches is that if one church makes a formal glorification or adds a saint to its calendar, the other Orthodox Churches are free to venerate the said saint. Examples are: St Seraphim of Sarov, St John of Kronstadt & the Royal Martyrs of Russia, glorified by the Russian Church; St Nicholas Planas & St Nektarios of Aegina, glorified by the Greek Church; St Raphael Hawaweeny glorified by the Antiochian Church. These are all saints of the worldwide Orthodox Church.

St Constantine the Ethnomartyr appears in the Menaia published by the Greek, Serbian and Russian Churches - which makes him a Saint of the Orthodox Church in general, certainly not merely of the Greek Church. I suggest you consult a knowledgeable Orthodox priest on the matter. InfernoXV 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they have a typical status of saints but they're not nearly as important in one church as they are in the other, which is the case of Constantine and the rest of the Orthodox bodies. In any case I'm not concerned about it that much, although I generally disagree with the usage of Eastern Orthodox Church in wikipedia, for the simple reason that it's used anachronistically. The article on the Eastern Orthodox Church speaks about many independent Orthodox bodies that didn't exist in the middle ages. The body that was known as "Eastern Orthodox" in the middle ages is the one known today as the "Greek Orthodox". But as I said, I'm not concerned about this. I'm more concerned about the misleading and POV usage of "Roman Empire", for reasons explained in the article's Talk page. Miskin 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! :) Incidentally, do you think the Latin Pronunciation article could do with a section on the various Mediaeval pronunciations of Latin in the Middle Ages? InfernoXV 18:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think that would fall more under the scope of Latin regional pronunciation, Vulgar Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, or perhaps Medieval Latin. FilipeS 18:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Ong 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the encouragement. Majoreditor 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I moved the articles because this is the Patriarchal title. It has been in use since the First Council of Constantinople, and is still held by the current Ecumenical Patriarch. Naming them simply as "Patriarchs of Constantinople" wouldn't be completely wrong (and as a matter of fact, even in Greece there are called that sometimes-for the sake of been laconic), but since the official title includes the term "Ecumenical", the world's media, the academics, the Pope and almost all the other Christian Churches refer to them with this term (even if not solely), this title is not disputed by anyone (apart from Turkey) and the articles Ecumenical Patriarch and Ecumenical Patriarchate (also, the list of them) are under that name, I think there is no problem about my moves. Note that the Bishops of Rome, in the early centuries, did not hold the title of Pope; however, their articles in Wikipedia are under the name "Pope X"... For the time being, I thought it would not be a good idea to move the Bishops of Byzantium as well. Let me know what u think about all these. Regards Hectorian 03:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hectorian, your reasoning makes good sense. I tend to be laconic, referring to them as simply 'Patriarch of Constantinople', but with no intent of not recognising the title Oecumenical. I don't dispute the title of Oecumenical, my only concern is that 'Ecumenical Patriarch X of Constantinople' is a tiny bit long, as 'Patriarch of Constantinople' already implies 'Oecumenical' to me. So, all in all, I don't mind the move. On the other hand, I would not feel comfortable moving the Bishops of Byzantium and Archbishops of Constantinople to 'Patriarch'. Never mind that the Romans insist all the early Bishops of Rome were Popes - we all know how Latins think! We're Byzantines (I'm a Byzantinist, and I'm assuming you are too) and we don't use that sort of faulty logic. I had a huge argument a while back with a Greek chap who insisted St John Chrysostom and Nestorius were both Patriarchs of Constantinople. This despite my pointing out to him that the dismissal at the Chrysostom Liturgy calls him quite clearly 'Archbishop of Constantinople'. InfernoXV 10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno, we may need your help with This Article. Please feel free to add your thoughts onto the article's discussion page. Thanks, Majoreditor 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! What can I do to help?InfernoXV 09:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use your opinion on the article's talk page. [1] Grimhelm and I are building concensus for using non-inflamatory language in the article. On another subject, I saw your suggestioned name change from Eastern Rite Catholic to Eastern Catholic Churches. I will support the change and have left my comments on the discussion page. We should pull together supporting material prior to making the change. Majoreditor 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno, I have submitted a request to move Eastern Rite Catholic Churches to Eastern Catholic Churches. Over the past fortnight we've five editors speak in agreement and none express opposition. The request will sit in backlog for several days. Majoreditor 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah, thank you very much! Out of curiosity, to which jurisdiction do you belong?InfernoXV 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Melkite Greek Catholic, currently residing in the United States. I'm always happy to assist in matters concerning the Eastern church. Majoreditor 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was really freaky how your userpage was moved. Just when I thought I'd seen everything.

I was wondering. The image on your Eastern Catholic userbox -- is that the icon of the napkin of Christ (sometimes associated with Cheesefare Sunday)? It's familiar, but I can't quite place it. Majoreditor 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say! What's worse is that Semperkatolica is supposed to be an RC deacon from LA. Trust Mahoney to ordain such a man. Yes, the icon is the Napkin of Christ - the Acheiropoietos. I'm not sure about Cheesefaresuday, but it seems, to me, tobe quite strongly linked to the Sunday of Orthodoxy. InfernoXV 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. The name has been officially changed to Eastern Catholic Churches. Inferno, thanks for your diligence. Majoreditor 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard fewer than six syllables, but it seems to me that the epsila run together when intoned by the cantor at the local Greek church: "Kee-ree-e-le-ee-son, Kee-ree-e-le-ee-son, Kee-ree-e-le-ee-son..." The iotacized eta in "eleison" does seem — I suppose I shall say "clipped" since I don't know the correct term from linguistics — but it isn't ellided with the epsilon, in my experience. I don't suppose this subject of Kyries has ever been treated by one of your fellows at King's College in a form that meets Wikipedia's stringent requirements for intellectual rigor and quality of presentation <cough, cough>? --Jpbrenna 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, with sung Greek, so much gets elided! I don't need to remind you of ο ανερ -> ωνερ, και εγω -> καγω, ο ουν -> ων and so on, of course :) I've been chanting for a while now, and how many syllables one gets seems to depend on the mood of the chanter (as well as his home region). Particularly with slightly melismatic Kyrie Eleison responses at litanies, the little runs of notes tend to be invariably at the last syllable of Kyrie, running into the first syllable of Eleison. Most chanters don't re-articulate the second e, making it a joined run ending in 'lei-son'.

If you listen to the recording of the DL done by the Greek Byzantine Choir, there seems to be a slight inconsistency in the number of syllables Kyrie Eleison gets, from response to response. Sometimes a clear articulation of a second E is audible, sometimes none, sometimes about half the choir does it and so on.

Bishop Kallistos Ware and the late David Melling and I had a discussion about this some years ago, and Kyr Kallistos tells me that the ideal pronunciation in the Greek Church today is "3+4 syllables, with the double vowel εη being elided somewhat half-way to a diphthong". Which makes sense. On the other hand, there appears largly to be two schools of thought on the pronunciation of Greek in those Byzantine church circles that use Greek. One is that of the Greeks themselves who, being good Medeterraneans, are happy to elide as much as possible. It makes for a much prettier and smoother sound after all. The second is that of converts and non-Greek scholars of Greek, who in the interests of clarity, articulate everything in a manner most precise and exact. It makes things easier to understand after all. De gustibus non disputandum! Over some alcohol and many laughs at anecdotes, we agreed that perhaps the most prudent thing to do is to leave the matter well alone, and as long as everyone understood what was being read, that was enough.InfernoXV 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Quite frankly, I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other; but I do find "Patriarch" alone to be less unwieldy, and slightly broader so as to be a more inclusive title. -- Pastordavid 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about helping me rename the lot? *grin* InfernoXV 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hiho, he appears in the Greek Anthologion published at Rome in the 1950s, if you have access to a copy. InfernoXV 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

No, I don't have the book, but I'll certainly take your word for it. It seemed odd to me: I would have thought the Eastern Catholics would have had the same problems with him that the Roman Catholics do. But perhaps you should include that book and whatever other source material you are using as a footnote on the "Category:Eastern Catholic saints" page. Carlo 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The service to him in the Greek-Catholic books has been edited to remove some of the more pointed and obviously anti-Roman elements. His zeal for the truth and courage is praised, but things such as references to the 'papal antichrist', 'demonic addition to the Creed', 'impious Emperor Judas' and suchlike are rewritten.

If one looks very closely at calendars of saints in all churches, one starts to find some, shall we say, interesting things. There's that howler of Emperor Nero appearing in the list of the Seventy Apostles in an edition of the Synaxarion published at Athens, for example. Hours of fun if one is a geek like myself! InfernoXV 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InfernoXV, which of the 22 sui iuris particular Eastern Catholic Churches venerate Mark of Ephesus/Mark Eugenikos/Μάρκος Ευγένικος as a saint? Are there any primacy sources you can point me to on the Internet that I can view to confirm this? I have written a post on my blog The Banana Republican [2] with five points in defense of the sainthood of Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople (Φώτιος) and twelve points in defense of the sainthood of Archbishop St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonika (Γρηγόριος Παλαμάς) vis-à-vis their canonization in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I now have no reservations about these men. Nevertheless, I was wondering if you could offer your expertise as to why Bishop Mark of Ephesus, the third Pillar of Orthodoxy, would be a Catholic saint, in light of the following historical information: I cannot but characterize him as an obstinate conspiracy theorist who said, "It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." According to Joseph Gill's The Council of Florence, Mark of Ephesus "persisted in asserting that the quotations advanced from the Latin Fathers were falsified (since the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, the Saints could not have said that He does, was his reasoning), in spite of their number and in spite of the fact that they are found so widespread in Latin writings and so interwoven into the treatises that to exclude them would leave no more than blank pages (as Bessarion rejoined): at the least they were doubtfully authentic, since the Greeks lacked the means of checking them, so only the Greek Fathers should be followed ." Mark of Ephesus himself said, "The words of the western Fathers and Doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize ( for they have never been translated into our tongue nor approved by the Oecumenical Councils) nor do I admit them, presuming that they are corrupt and interpolated …" [Confessio fidei, in Petit, Docs. P. 438 [300]]. After he said this and the Latin members of the Ecumenical Council of Florence proved that the texts were correct, Mark went silent and left the discussions, and was fruitlessly sought by the Latins. Mark of Ephesus was the only Eastern bishop to refuse to sign the Ecumenical Council's decrees!

The day he died, Mark of Ephesus said of Latin-minded Patriarch Gregory III (1392-1445), "For I am absolutely convinced that the more I distance myself from him and those like him, the closer I draw to God and all the faithful and Holy Fathers; and to the extent that I separate myself from these people, even so am I united with the truth and the Holy Fathers and theologians of the Church" [PG 160:536C;537A]. He added, "I hereby state and testify before the many worthy men here present that I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not accept communion with him [Gregory III] or with those who are with him, not in this life nor after my death, just as (I accept) neither the Union nor Latin dogmas, which he and his adherents have accepted, and for the enforcement of which he has occupies this presiding place, with the aim of overturning the true dogmas of the Church." His last recorded words were, "… just as in the course of my whole life I was separated from them, so at the time of my departure, yea and after my death, I turn away from intercourse and communion with them and vow and command that none (of them) shall approach either my burial or my grave, and likewise anyone else from our side, with the aim of attempting to join and concelebrate in our Divine services; for this would be to mix what cannot be mixed. But it befits them to be absolutely separated from us until such time as God shall grant correction and peace to His Church" [PG 160:536C].

Thank you so much and God bless you for your help! Huysman (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. I know he's in the Greek Anthologion published in Rome in the 1950s, with the office slightly edited to remove the more obvious anti-Roman sentiments, but as for web sources that say he is commemorated by any church, I really could not say. InfernoXV (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InfernoXV--Sorry, I think you and I were editing Canonical Hours at the same time. When I went to save my work, there was a conflict. I tried to save all of your edits, but I may have missed a few. You may want to go in again and make sure. Again, my apologies MishaPan 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you for the notification! InfernoXV 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inferno. I am going to request that category: "Eastern Rite Catholicism" be renamed "Eastern Catholicism." Are there any other categories which need renaming? Please let me know and I will batch them together.

On another note, thank you for starting the category "Eastern Catholic saints." I have added some saints to the new category, including John Chrysostom and Sampson the Hospitable. Majoreditor 14:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Regarding the category "Eastern Catholic saints", I felt it needed creating - too many RCs were objecting to Photius the Great etc being labelled "Roman Catholic saints".

Now, the next big battle is to get Roman Catholic Church renamed to simply 'Catholic Church' - I'm certainly not part of the RCC, heh. InfernoXV 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you changed the text that was not part of the article but part of the reference. The ref say that one quote is from EB and the other from Kostomarov. Please restore the source's usage of the term (Uniate vs Greek Catholic). You are of course free to correct what others write in the article's text but not from within quotes. It may be confusing, though. So, just please watch for whether the text is located between <ref> </ref> signs or not. Thanks, --Irpen 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I got confused - thank you for the tip. InfernoXV 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ted. Your purism was inappropriate on the Archlute page (insufficiently neutral...), so I had to undo it.Galassi 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure Sting's album doesn't count as a re-interpretation. By the way, "Ted"? InfernoXV 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it counts as an interpretation. It is a lot less unorthodox than those by Pluhar, for example. Do you prefer "Edward"?Galassi 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you may be right there. As for name, InfernoXV works fine for wiki msgs :) While we're at it, just to pick up where we left off a while back, do you happen to be linked to the Kapelya Banduristiv? InfernoXV 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno -- You've seen enough similar articles, that I would love to get your two cents here. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. -- Pastordavid 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• tip of the hat* InfernoXV 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to the moleben page-- I'd copied it more or less wholesale from orthodoxwiki. Question, though-- it's my understanding that a moleben is a specifically Russian Orthodox service, not practiced in the Byzantine churches. Is this incorrect? Buddhagazelle 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Buddhagazelle[reply]

It's more popular in the Slavic churches, and is generally unknown in Greek churches, but with the phenomenon of mixed-use parishes in the diaspora, it's done in all but the most staunchly-Greek parishes. Heh, I'd been trying to get round to starting the Moleben article for ages, and was JUST about to start it when i found you'd started on it. grrr. heh. InfernoXV 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hence the ridiculously prompt revision! Buddhagazelle 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Buddhagazelle[reply]

I noticed that "User:InfernoXV" now appears on the list of saints on the Eastern Catholic Saints category page. I thought I should mention it to you. You're in good company, aren't you? :) Majoreditor 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! it's been corrected - I didn't realise I had to put a little colon there - it's been corrected. How embarrassing! InfernoXV 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InfernoXV--Yes, I too pondered whether or not Crucession should be a seperate article. The Procession article seemed quite general (and quite full already), and I felt that the information I was wanting to give might seem a little out of place. There really wasn't much differentiation between religious traditions in the Procession article as is. As for the term "Crucession," my source for that is the Abridged Typicon by Archpriest Feodor Kovalchuck (St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, South Canaan, PA). The term certainly seemed unusual the first time I came across it, but I've known Father Feodor personally (well, by telephone and corresondence; we've never met face to face) for a number of years now, and he's always seemed like a sensible fellow. So if he used the term, I figured it was appropriate. But I'm open to any input you feel adviseable. MishaPan 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the few users that I've seen with so many userboxes on here. LaSaltarella 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hello =) It's just a way of relieving boredom at the office... thanks for dropping by though! InfernoXV 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It IS your talk page, so knock yourself out. I've only got the one userbox on mine, but since that's language-related, I thought you might enjoy it. (I can translate later...) -- OtherDave 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see that there isn't an article for Fool for Christ, just Yurodivy. The concept of Fool for Christ is well known throughout most of the Eastern churches. I'm inclined to remove the redirect and compose a separate article but would like to solicit your opinion before taking action. What are your thoughts? Thanks, Majoreditor 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the Eastern Churches, but also Western Christianity has a tradition of the "Holy Fool" even if they're more rare and their sanctity doesn't receive official recognition so often. The article ought to cover the subject within all of Christianity, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi chaps, sorry it took me so long to reply! I think Fool for Christ might be a more useful title, with Yurodivy being a section of the former. TCC is quite right - the concept is present in both East and West (St Francis of Assisi comes to mind, obviously). Majoreditor - for what it's worth, you have my support! InfernoXV 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status. I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well. Again, thanks. -- Pastordavid 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. May I trouble you to look at and possibly improve the article on intinction? The article says hardly mentions how intinction is practiced in the Eastern churches. Much appreciation. Majoreditor 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming right up! InfernoXV 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed it until you pointed it out. Despite the claims of the editor who posted it (who appears to be an over-enthusiastic Ukrainian Catholic kid) that it was his "own knowlege[sic] and external sources" it began as a text dump from the OrthodoxWiki article Divine Liturgy. Rights are problematic. The default license there prior to November, 2005 was CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. They recently changed to a GFDL/CC-Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 dual license and asked editors willing to relicense their older work to place a template saying so on their user pages. Trouble is that not all contributors to that article did so.

It's furthermore about the Divine Liturgy in general, not St. John's in particular, so it's mistitled. Stylistically, it's probably unacceptable for us since OrthodoxWiki uses a clear Orthodox POV. In any event, it's redundant with Divine Liturgy. I'm not sure what is to be done with the thing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Csernica is correct. I suggest that there be just one article on Divine Liturgy. If needed that article can discuss the differences between the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, etc. Majoreditor 13:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		A Barnstar
		I proudly award you "The Saints' Barnstar" for creating and improving articles on saints and Eastern Christianity. Majoreditor 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inferno. You may want to examine the editor review for PastorDavid. He's asking for feedback from fellow editors. 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt this weekend to find specific material to cite. Majoreditor 12:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Was I the only one who found Lima's tone to be, to say the least, unpleasant? InfernoXV 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was, and I came close to mentioning it. The best course is to let his comments slide and focus on presenting quality cites. I regret that I have few sources at my fingertips and must run to the local theology library to obtain material. I also suspect that what I find will be messy. as you know, some Eastern Catholic sources tow the Roman line, others are diplomatic, a few silent, and several assert a traditional Orthodox view. Majoreditor 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please write a stub http://cu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кѹровъ - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 3-5 sentences enough. Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already on 179 languages. If you do that, please put interwiki link into English version. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests) Pietras1988 ^TALK 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering starting an raticle on the delatization of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Do you have any suggestions on source material to use -- or where I can find before and after photos? Majoreditor 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long to answer this one! Not being in the USA, I couldn't say, precisely, but there's a picture of a certain Melkite parish somewhere on the net, whith before and after pictures. The before pictures are appallingly Latinised. St George's somewhere, if I recall correctly. Sorry I can't be of much more help than that! InfernoXV 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added a request for sources. They've all been posted for my edits in the discussion page. If you think the placement would be better elsewhere, feel free to add them into the article as you see fit. In the meantime, I'm removing the primary sources tag as it's unwarranted. TMLutas 14:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, that was Centrx, my mistake. Odd, he obviously saw the sourcing as he commented on the discussion page. TMLutas 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also put Bishop John Michael back in the RC categories. I think his inclusion in the USCCB list of bishops should be authoritative and I started the page by following an empty link from a list of RC bishops on Wikipedia. By removing him from the RC bishops categories, you were creating an inconsistency in Wikipedia and not following the national conference practice. He is not a latin rite bishop. But that makes him no less a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. TMLutas 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Bishop John Michael is a Romanian Catholic, not Roman Catholic. The term 'Roman Catholic' refers solely to Latin-rite bishops. The USCCB list is a list of Catholic bishops, not merely Roman Catholic bishops - note the 'CCB' stands for 'Conference of Catholic Bishops', not 'Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops'. Eastern Catholics are part of the Catholic Church, but not part of the Roman Catholic Church (which is a part of the Catholic Church). InfernoXV 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the RC categorization from several of the articles on eastern Catholic bishops. You're absolutely correct; their primary classification should be to their particular church. Majoreditor 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that means that Pope Pius XI was wrong in Divini illius Magistri(54) to refer to the whole of the Catholic Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" and Pope Pius XII similarly erred in Humani Generis(27). And Pope John Paul II in his 26 June 1985 general audience just made a few slips of the tongue when he did the same thing.

In fact, the term Roman Catholic Church is a bit slippery, sometimes referring to the universe of all sui iuris churches in full communion with Rome and at other times to the particular sui iuris church elsewhere called the latin rite. Now if there were an eastern rite bishop stub and you were substituting one category for the other, that would be a fair deal. But when there is no eastern rite stub and no actual discussion to be found regarding the exact sense of the RC bishop stub in the stub discussion or the Catholic project page, I hope you understand that I find the exclusion a bit arbitrary, even discriminatory. TMLutas 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pius XI and XII were using terminology of their time, which spoke of Latin and Eastern rites of the One Roman Catholic Church. We've moved on since, and the Catholic Church is now comprised of the Latin/Roman Catholic Church and the various Eastern Catholic Churches. You were quite right - I should have created a category for Eastern Catholic (note, not Eastern 'rite') bishops, which I have now done. Apologies for not having discussed it earlier. InfernoXV 12:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a thank you for making the category, I've walked the organizational tree of eastern catholics and tagged all the bishops. I didn't feel up to fixing it all so I'll leave to you the task of cleaning out the roman catholic stub and roman catholic bishop/priest/clergy category tags if you want to. At least now it's all in one pile. TMLutas 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InfernoXV - The term Roman Catholic (as I pointed out to MajorEditor) is not exclusive to the latin rite as at least three popes have a different usage. Wikipedia itself does not use your proposed definition consistently in its own articles (see: Eastern Catholic Churches for a brief exploration of the distinction). Of course, you could stuff that section of the article on Eastern Catholicism down the memory hole, but that would leave you the problem of the two encyclicals and the general audience.

I would suggest that the purpose of a stub listing of this nature is to categorize all bishops' articles that need attention. By excluding the eastern rite bishops, you make it less likely that some fervent catholic (or even interested academic) interested in telling the full story of the catholic bishops would give appropriate attention to the eastern bishops, more likely that they would languish incomplete longer than would otherwise happen. What's the point in that? TMLutas 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMLutas, you're missing an important point of WP organization. It's much cleaner for Eastern bishops of a particular church to be categorized under their own church (say, Maronite Catholic bishops), and next for that category to be listed under Eastern Catholic bishops, which could next roll into a Catholic church category. That's a nested approach to categorization.

One other note. We prefer to call the Catholic communion the Catholic Church.

I also noticed that you're using the term "eastern rite". Please see the WP discussion and vote on the naming convention; the term "Eastern Rite" was eliminated in favor of Eastern Catholic Churches. Thanks.Majoreditor 14:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossing over the nit picky details, I'm in the main satisfied now that there's rough parity in categories, though I'd like there to be a stub category for eastern bishops as well. The distinction may, one day, matter. In practice it doesn't today because I think they're all stubs right now. TMLutas 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to make a few suggestions about your editing style. First of all, the category system works a tree, with categories themselves being grouped into narrower categories: this means that you do not actually need to place an article into, say, both "Eastern Catholics" and "Eastern Catholic bishops", since it is impossible for someone to be an Eastern Catholic bishop without also being an Eastern Catholic. The best, clearest, and most helpful way is to include the category for bishops into the larger one(s). Categories are destined to help readers by hierarchies, not by creating large pools of names, so streamlining them on levels should always be encouraged. See Wikipedia:Categorization for more details.

There is also the matter of names in category brackets. If you look into categories, you will notice that they are subdivided into sections on letters. This basically works as a dictionary, and their purpose is for articles to be easily found by the reader within the same category. Unless specified, the system will list an article with the first letter of its name, which is awful when the article is on a person with a family name (although irrelevant for, say, the name of a bishop or a king). In articles that should be listed by a letter in their title that is not the first one, there are two simple methods (feel free to use any of them, but please remember to use one, because you would be saving other editors a lot of work): one is to add, say, "|Botean, John Michael" after, say, "Category:Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops", resulting in "[[Category:Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops|Botean, John Michael]]"; the other one, which is also simpler, involves adding, just above the first category, the script "((DEFAULTSORT:Botean, John Michael))" (which transforms all category inclusions accordingly). You can find this script among the clickable icons listed to the bottom of your screen each time you edit a page (it is in the first section, the "Wiki markup" one).

Thank you and happy editing. Dahn 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's the rudest editor that I've personally had to deal with so far. I had to edit his comments in order to keep my cool. I just copy and pasted into notepad, and got rid of the capital letters and insults before evaluating what he said. I also reported him on Wikiquette alerts, not that it will do much good against an established user like him. Oh well, I have plenty of non-controversial engineering pages to keep me busy anyway.--Yannick 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey remember this Dreamguy from Mixoparthenos? He has an arbitration case and RFC against him now. I think we can comment on the RFC. I did.--Yannick 06:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back - wow it looks like we're not the only ones who've been badly treated by him. InfernoXV 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I took a look at the talkpage and am not sure what Balbir is saying. Mind if you fill me in a little? I was looking at this version of the ACS page. Thanks. Chensiyuan 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay did he mean to say he'd rather not have the blurb on the top of the article which says the article focuses mainly on the Singapore schools? Chensiyuan 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wants the Anglo-Chinese School to be a pointer page to various other pages, but he then took the entire content of what is now on that page, and did a cut and paste to entirely new articles Anglo-Chinese School of Singapore, Anglo-Chinese Schools of Singapore and so on - destroying the edit history. InfernoXV 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InfernoXV, you were originally invited to Singapore meetup 4. However, due to the lack of response, the date of the meetup has been changed to November. Please refer to this page for more information. -- ZhongHan (Email) 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. Ohconfucius 02:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? --219.73.11.127 09:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, no. InfernoXV 18:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to add citations to the John Ireland (archbishop) article and was hoping you could help me. The main thing I need help with is the citations involving Alexis Toth. You seem to know much more about the conflict and I was hoping you could show/find some sources for that section. I tagged the statements that I think need sourcing, feel free to add or remove statements that need citations. I really don't know much about that section and I was just struggling to find sources. Thanks for any help you can give me. P.Haney 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be found, but first I'm reëditing that section header to 'Relations with the Greek-Catholics', as it's about more than just St Alexis Toth. InfernoXV 06:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Inferno. I added one reference to the Bishop John Ireland and may add more later. Majoreditor 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've been bogged down with arranging music for Divine Liturgy... InfernoXV 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you undid my edit on the Trisagion part of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. I was just wondering why you undid it. Let me explain why I changed it in the first place

I felt the phrase 'similar to', while (rightly) acknowledging the similarities to the Trisagion, was at the same time sensitive to the Roman Catholic belief that the prayer was given to St. Faustina by Our Lord Jesus Christ. To put it another way, it seems that stating that the prayer was 'based on' the Trisagion implied that the prayer was made up by St. Faustina herself (i.e. not divinly revealed). I'd be intrested to see your view on the topic.--Trounce 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I'd feel that 'based on' doesn't necessarily imply Faustina made it up - if, as proponents of the visions believe, the prayer was divinely revealed, there is no reason Christ could not have modified an already preëxisting prayer. The Trisagion itself was originally divinely revealed. Furthermore, the RC belief that the Divine Mercy devotion is divinely revealed is not dogma, and individual Catholics are free to doubt or disbelieve in the divine nature of the visions Faustina received. The Trisagion part is clearly based on the original Trisagion, merely with a few more words added. InfernoXV 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough. I also considered that idea that Christ himself would open the eyes of the western tradition to a prayer from the eastern tradition and it really excited me. Churches can get bogged down in dogma and sometimes become blind to what we have in common.--Trounce 09:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About User talk:Error#St Anthony and Preto Velho I have no idea. You make sense and I was just propagating info within Wikipedia. I will add cn tags. Be bold. --Error 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I did not realize that travelling is British English spelling. I just changed it by the automatic screen spell checking. Regarding the title of the article, I still think that Eight Mile Bridge should be renamed to Baliqiao and left my opinions at Talk:Eight Mile Bridge. You can go to talk there. Thanks.--Neo-Jay 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for the piece of information which you added to Xiao (flute). The entire article is rather short and your piece of trivia stands out disproportionately. Articles such as flute, oboe, shakuhachi, and lute (see [3]) do not contain references to their slang usage to refer to fellatio and/or reproductive organs. Thus, by precedent, your addition is unnecessary, especially in an article which does not have a large amount of information on less trivial subjects. Furthermore, your claim is unverified and uncited. I am Chinese and it is doubtful that enough people are even familiar enough with the instrument for it to be common mainstream slang, and it is certainly not "common knowledge." --Xiao Li 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Your profile notes that you are in Secondary school, so I'm not entirely surprised you are unfamiliar with the usage. I suggest you ask any Chinese person over the age of, say, 50. Watch them blush. 吹箫 in common Chinese slang refers to 口交. Check http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%A3%E4%BA%A4 if you like. It's common enough for it to be a joke in scripts of films from Hongkong, Taiwan and the Mainland. InfernoXV 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments on relevancy still stand. Why is this relevant? Articles about other musical instruments used in sexual euphemisms do not include such information as I have cited. Sexual euphemisms are various and numerous in almost all cultures. If you look in urbandictionary.com and type in something random, you will get one or more sexual meanings perhaps half of the time. This website [4] demonstrates my point quite well. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to document every inch of the murky, ever-shifting, and multifarious world of slang. Articles such as flute, oboe, shakuhachi, piccolo, trombone, trumpet, lute, sausage, snake, banana, spear etc. (which all may refer to reproductive anatomy or relate to sexual acts) have established a precedent of factoids such as yours not being relevant to articles about musical instruments (or other topics). If your trivium is relevant, could we not add pieces of sexual slang trivia to all of the articles I listed and thousands more? If you are still so obstinately and intently insist on the significance of fellatio to traditional Chinese music, I suggest we obtain a third opinion.--Xiao Li 08:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: As per WP:TRIVIA, trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. I agree with Xiao Li on this. The remark seems better suited for one of the pages listed at Chinese slang. Hope this helps! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi inferno. Please allow me to explain why I use greek orthodox and not eastern orthodox. The reason is that most of eastern orthodox churches still uses for liturgucal reasons the old calendar. So christmas for them come on the 7th of January, the dormition somewhere around the the the end of august and not the 15th of august etc. Only the Greek orthodox churches with the exception of the Greek orthodox patriarchate of jerusalem are using the new calendar as a liturgical calendar. Thats why it is not accurate to use Byzantine or eastern orthodox as those days are particular only for the greek orthodx church. Kind Regards. Italiotis 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but nevertheless, it remains in theory the same dates, merely that the placing of the date onto the modern calendar is different. Also, many Byzantine-rite Catholic Churches use the Byzantine calendar, and on the new calendar date too. InfernoXV 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi inferno. We have a small problem here, as we are using byzantine calendar. As you can see byzantine calendar is the calendar of the byzantine empire which dates from the creation of the world and not from the birth of christ. So for not being confusing and at the same time not be insulting to the eastern catholic churches I will replace the byzantine calendar with " Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgical calendars" so it include both the eastern orthodox and eastern catholic. All the best. Italiotis 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest a further refinement: 'Eastern Orthodox and Greek-Catholic liturgical calendars'? Thanks!InfernoXV 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will make the change as u suggested All the best. Italiotis 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please close the "strong" tag in your signature? It's also bolding every comment made after it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the Eastern Churches consider them part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I realise the Western Church doesn't. How do we work this one out? InfernoXV (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Eastern Catholics view ordination to lector as a sacrament like baptism. Yes, it shares in the sacrament of orders, but the minor orders are not treated the same as deacon, priest and bishop. Do you have a source which clearly calls the minor orders sacraments? Gimmetrow 06:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in helping? The article still needs much work. In particular, I was wondering if you could glance through the article and suggest improvements on the article's talk page. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear InfernoXV,

I have been dealing with much vandalism of various Mediacorp drama pages lately. The edits are all made by a user (now banned) named Colourwolf and his sockpuppets. These vandalisms often include inserting blatantly fake contents into Mediacorp drama pages, with the contents dealing with superhuman powers, magic cards, Power Rangers, among others.

I am here asking for help. I can only do so much, and he is starting to attack my talkpage as well. Please help! Also, please bring this issue up at your meetup later this month. Many thanks! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I shall bring this up at the meeting. I'm not sure what I can aside from helping monitor the pages though! InfernoXV (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Inferno. I noticed that someone has removed the section on Eastern Catholic beliefs from the article on Purgatory. I'm going to re-insert it but may need your help. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently edited "Christianity in Singapore" by rephrasing a sentence thus: "[A] priory in Singapore, run by the putatively Traditionalist Catholic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), offers traditional Latin masses." I wasn't the editor who inserted this information, but I did a minor cleanup by moving it to its present location and rephrasing it slightly. The adjective "putative" seems to require more explanation – perhaps you can clarify why the Society is only putatively Traditionalist Catholic? I'm afraid I'm not Roman Catholic so this is beyond my area of knowledge. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiho, thanks for the message. 'Putatively' is when something is "commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof." I'm not Roman Catholic either, but the situation is straightforward - the chapel labels itself 'Traditionalist catholic' - whether they are or not is still a matter of debate. What is not in dispute is that they offer the old Latin mass, but the Latin mass alone does not make a group Traditionalist, as they will be quick to point out. I hope this helps? InfernoXV (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you think you ought to incorporate some of that explanation into the article? I'm thinking of something along the lines of this: "For instance, Latin masses are offered by a priory in Singapore run by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which regards itself as Traditionalist Catholic." Otherwise, I can see the word "putative" without further qualification becoming a point of dispute. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to put it at the very end of the section, apart from the main body of the section, as the SSPX are in a highly irregular status with regards to the Roman Catholic Church, 'irregular' being as kindly as I can put it. InfernoXV (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to make more sense referred to at the point when the Latin Mass is talked about, though. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it's almost as hard to de-latinize Wikipedia articles on Eastern Catholic Churches as it was to de-latinize the churches themselves :) It seems that an edit-warrior is bent on reverting your edit. If he keeps it up perhaps we can try discussing the issue with him. Best, Majoreditor (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, quite so! Normally I'd be happy too discuss, but in the case of anonymous IPs, I'm not usually too keen on discussing this sort of thing with faceless editors. What thinkest thou? InfernoXV (talk)

1. Since St. Gregory Palamas and Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople are officially Catholic saints, I want to be able to defend their sainthood but I cannot give up EENS in order to do this, since this would mean that His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII erred when he infallibly promulgated Unam sanctum. Therefore I have endeavored, with the following points, to show that their canonization does not violate EENS and thus protect the true Church from accusations of error. By the grace of God I think I might have constructed a successful defense of the sainthood of these two men vis-à-vis their canonizations. But, lest pride clouds my judgment and leads me into error, I am seeking you, on account of your manifest intelligence and expertise, for peer-review. Please let me know if my points in support of their sainthood (without violating EENS) vis-à-vis their canonization are valid. I am sorry to burden you with such a lengthy message! Thanks and God bless, friend!
2. St. Photius: (1) He has been largely vindicated in Francis Dvornik's book The Photian Schism and Dvornik shows that there was no second Photian schism (Dvornik is Catholic; praise God!); (2) Several anti-papal writings were wrongly ascribed to him; (3) Pope St. Nicholas I the Great mentioned St. Photius's "great virtues and universal knowledge;" (4) he said, "On Peter repose the foundations of the faith" [Epist. 99 and Niceph., PG 102:909A] and he appealed to papal jurisdiction; (5) perhaps he was canonized not for his theology but for his evangelical zeal; he dispatched St. Cyril and St. Methodius to evangelize the Slavs; (6) several apologetics sites report that he died in communion with Rome but I am not sure what the primary source for this report is and the secondary sources are not very detailed and as such might not be up to par for Wikipedia Reliable Sources; (7) he negotiated with the Muslim Khalifa to protect Christians and treat the Holy Places with care; (8) he defended the Faith in his disputes with such Eastern heretics as the Paulicians; (9) his private life was beyond reproach; (10) the Catholic Encyclopedia says "he bore his troubles manfully and well;" (11) he contributed extensively to the library of works on dogma, canon law, Biblical criticism, sermons, the Bibliotheca, and epistles discussing all contemporary issues.
3. St. Gregory Palamas: According to Catholic apologist Mark J. Bonocore, St. Gregory Palamas was ultra-Cappadocian and Antiochian and the important thing is that, although not the Augustinian Filioque expression, his view was that there is indeed Personal connection between the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity, viz. the Spirit is the eternal divine love between the Father and the Son. He says in Capita physica XXXVI from Patrologia Graeca 150:1144D-1145A that "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A Love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as He [the Son] has the Spirit coming with Him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in Him." And Bonocore says that Palamism "was a valid and fitting response to" Barlaam of Calabria's "brutal, pseudo-Scholastic (and most impious) assertions" and implies that at the root of this problem is that Palamism "was simply not designed to take on the nuances of Western doctrine, viz. Filioque."
4. I have not read the Triads fully yet but I hope to get Palamas's work soon. St. Gregory Palamas called St. Peter the "foundation of the Church" in Triads II, I, 38. Not a foundation but the foundation. This type of comment carries heavy implications. These are the words a papist would say; Petrine primacy leads to a bunch of Catholic affirmations. He said, "We will not receive you Latins in communion with us as long as you say that the Spirit is also from the Son." Now he could have simply meant to deny that the Spirit is from the Son as if the Son was a second source of the Godhead. That would be correct and that seems to be what he (mistakenly) understood the Latins to be teaching. That might explain his statement, "Indeed, the leaders of Old Rome did not add to the Symbol anything that might have even proved to be Orthodox" and his attributing a "failure to return from heresy, ... although it was the greatest and the leader of the Patriarchal Thrones of outstanding eminence" to "the Church of the Latins." He also said, "It is right to demand that they [the Latins] remove the addition and not, by reason of the eminence of some living Pope, cease loving those who ended their lives with a death attested by God." In light of his apparent affirmation of Petrine primacy and possibly papal succession, I would think that he meant something like the following:

(A) St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) said to Pope Gregory IX in 1376, "Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation."

(B) St. Antonius (1389-1459) said in his Summa Theologica, "A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."

(C) Pope Adrian VI said, "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)." He added, "It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst theologians that I know of, except that some, with Turrecremata and Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was formally deposed."

(D) Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) said, "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him."

1. St. John Cassian was apparently Semi-Pelagian [Conferences 3; 5; 13]. Semi-Pelagianism was condemned in 529 at the Council of Orange. My favorite theologian, Doctor Angelicus St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-3/7/1274), was a maculist: "… the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb" [ST 3.27.2.2r]. The Immaculate Conception was infallibly defined in 1854. The greatest Christian preacher, St. John Chrysostom the Great (347-407), Patriarch of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, said that the all-Immaculate Theotokos sinned: "She wished to do them a favor, and raise herself in their esteem, by means of her Son: and perchance she succumbed to human frailty, just as did His brethren when they said: 'Manifest Thyself to the world.' … For as yet she did not believe in Him as she ought" [Homily on John 2:3; cited in ST 3.27.4.3]. St. John Damascene (676-12/5/749), Doctor of the Church, seemed to have been non-Filioquist: "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son" [De Fide Orth. i]. Unlike St. Gregory Palamas, St. John Damascene lived well before Lateran IV (1215) and Lyons II (1274), both of which declared Filioque dogma. However, St. Gregory Palamas apparently mistakenly thought that the Latins denied the monarchy of the Father. St. Augustine the Great (11/13/354-8/28/430), Bishop of Hippo and Doctor Gratiae, wrongly said that children who die without baptism go to Hell. My point is that saints who are Doctors, wonder-workers, etc. are not immune from quite serious error. We must consider this when we speak of controversial men like Sts. Gregory Palamas and Photius.
2. St. Gregory Palamas extolled Mary thusly: "Mary is the cause of what had gone before her, the pioneer of what has come after her; she distributes eternal goods . . . She is the glory of earth, the joy of heaven, the ornament of all creation. She is the principle, the source, the root of ineffable good things. She is the summit and the fulfillment of all that is holy." He added, "No divine gift can reach either angels or men, save through her mediation. As one cannot enjoy the light of a lamp . . . save through the medium of this lamp, so every movement towards God, every impulse towards good coming from him is unrealizable save through the mediation of the Virgin. She does not cease to spread benefits on all creatures . . ."
3. My Maronite Catholic friend user:Jimmy on Catholic Answers Forums said that St. Gregory Palamas may be called an Eastern Catholic and that in his case the Catholic-Orthodox dichotomy is false.
4. St. John Chrysostom appeared to St. Gregory Palamas in a vision the night before he died. The Blessed Virgin Mary, St. John the Evangelist, St. Demitrios, St. Anthony the Great, and angels also visited him during his lifetime. St. Gregory Palamas did a lot of healing, particularly in the three years leading up to his death. As a priest (upon being ordained to Thessalonika) St. Gregory prayed alone for most of the week and on weekends he preached sermons to and cared for youth. His holy relics are incorruptible.
5. In light of my points about (1) his understanding of the Filioque which was impaired due to communication flaws; (2) his affirmation of an eternal connection between Son and Holy Spirit; (3) his befitting response to Barlaamism; (4) his Hesychasm (unceasing prayer) and monastic asceticism; (5) his zeal to teach younger Christians about Christian living; (6) his affirmation of Petrine primacy; (7) his miraculous gift of healing; (8) his teachings on theosis {2}; (9) his praise for St. Mary as the Mediatrix; (10) the incorruptibility of his sacred relics; (11) and his miraculous visitation by St. Mary and other great saints, etc., is it not true that he was saved by his at least invisible participation in Catholic unity? In Dominus Iesus,{3} His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) says, "For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit";81 it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".82

(81) JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 10. (82) SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Ad gentes, 2. The famous formula extra Ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur is to be interpreted in this sense (cf. FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, Cap. 1. De fide catholica: DS 802). Cf. also the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: DS 3866-3872." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huysman (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! I'm not a supporter of the extreme interpretation of EENS, but given the premises within which you're working, your points work for me, and seem both consistent and logical! InfernoXV (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No!

There is a Russian orthodox Church in Nice! So how abouit you reaserch it jerk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Cheventogne?

Because I do not know the name of the Cathedral stupid! If you looked at all Cathedrals written, they had names! But I couldnt find a name for this one! Go back to The article and stick your eyes in it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because...

There is no Church name to it. Maybe I should write out all Churches that are on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chevetogne Abbey is a notable and famous centre of Russian Catholicism. If you're not aware of this, you really shouldn't be editing the article in question. InfernoXV (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no...

There is no name to the Cathedral! What are thou stupid?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a Cathedral, it's an Abbey, and Western European abbeys are referred to by name of their location, not by the 'dedication'. If you like, you can put it down as 'Abbey of the Holy Cross, Chevetogne'. InfernoXV (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid jerk!

I repeat for the last time! THERE IS NOT NAME TO THE CATHEDRAL! THERE IS NOT NAME TO THE CATHEDRAL! THERE IS NOT NAME TO THE CATHEDRAL! THOU STUPID SINGAPORAN JERK! NO NAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...

So the name of the Cathedral is Cheventogne Abbey? So that is it! HOW ABOUT YOU EDIT IT SINGAPORAN RACISIST JERK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet!

I said your warning, you better understand it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

Well you are abusive and rude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I

I know English! I speak English and Russian YOU STUPID SINGAPORAN JERK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and

And how am I not using proper English huh? huh? HUH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha!

No stupid! I was in a rush for dinner! So be quiet! And leave me alone for the rest of my life! I am a wealthy Russian, who has a wealthy family! And we help people. I better help someone instead of yelling at you. Leave me alone. Our relationship is finished! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dare you

Go on, I dare you to edit Cheventogne Abbey! I will report you with one shot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is it!

I am reporting your name to the administrator! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you Little...

I hope you get banned from Wikipedia someday! And you will! We will meet again you stupid Singaporan fool! But for now, I shall take my break from you, so long FOOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (Disapears into a puff of smoke).

It is clear that user Albania T has engaged in a pattern of disruptive behavior against you and other users. In the process he has de-stabilized articles through edit warring. His comments are purile and unacceptable. Please feel free to initiate a complaint to admins. Please let me know if you need any other assistance. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above series of comments by Albania T requires no comment from me: they speak for themselves. As for the matter that you have brought to my attention, I have looked at the article with the list, and have found that it contains much information of which I was altogether unaware. I need more time to study it, and perhaps yet more to study the precise matter in dispute. Some of the items look obviously correct. But the last place on the list (yes, I did begin at the end, and Belgium was absent when I first looked) does not belong: the language (other than English) on what it calls "our new website" is Ukrainian, not Russian; and even on the old website the name "Serhiy" (with "h", not "g") is Ukrainian. I have not yet looked at any of the other pages. That is all I can say immediately, and I may not be able to say anything else worthwhile until tomorrow. Lima (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the "List of worldwide Russian Catholic parishes" is obviously list of Russian Catholic parishes. I have already pointed out that it is inaccurate at least with regard to the Irish "parish", which is obviously Ukrainian, not Russian. I could have added yesterday that the name of the "new website" of that "parish" - ugcc.ie - shows its affiliation to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). As for Chevetogne, it obviously uses the Russian pronunciation of Church Slavonic, not the Ukrainian pronunciation, but I doubt if it can be called a "parish", and I am uncertain too whether it can be considered part of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church. After all, it celebrates the Eucharist also in Greek, but that does not make it part of the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church. It obviously has excellent relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular with that Church's office in Brussels. In short, I cannot really help with regard to the page in question.

As for Albania T, I do think he should be banned for incivility. Lima (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the Dublin parish is that while it's under the jurisdiction of a Ukrainian bishop, and uses Ukrainian simply because the majority of its parishoners are Ukrainian, it follows Russian recension books, and the priest is Russian Catholic. Chevetogne also uses the Russian Recension for its services. InfernoXV (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerk

Ill shwo you idiot! I will finish your life you idiot! For the last time! There is NO name to the Cathedral! That is it! Do uyou understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One

I am the one who put Cheventogne there ok? So let me remove my mistakes. Do me a favor, you can put Cheventogne back, ONLY if you find the name of the abbey. And do not call me and idiot, you are an idiot yourself for not understaning this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. I just realized that it is an abbey. And that it is Cheventogne. Forgive me.

прости меня —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about the use of "Greek" in the archaic sense of being a synonym for "Byzantine." Your participation is appreciated. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey InfernoXV! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently or in several times in the past and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello InfernoXV!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Fatima and Sacred Heart items you reverted seemed semi-reasonable to me, although they could have been improved. I suggest modifying and keeping them, but I do not really want to debate it. Please use your own judgement, with a keep suggestion from me. Regards History2007 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the general public is interested in on this:-

1 Did they drop the midnight Liturgy which for at least the last fifty years started at about 1 a.m.?

2 Why did they introduce the service(s) of blessing kulichs and paskhas - which some would say is a folk custom having little to do with the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ?

3 What are the theological implications of these changes, if they did happen?

Please keep the contributors on the point - it does seem to have touched a raw nerve for some people.

Good idea. For my part, I was a member of the choir for a bit some years ago. I will ask my contacts what precisely happened. It certainly is a very emotional issue, from what I can see. InfernoXV (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your successful Slavonic editing, but now the text about New Practice has vanished at two places. I trust you can repair this.

Why do you think is "Holy Spirit" preferable to "Holy Ghost"? As far as I know, the Protestants prefer "Spirit", the Roman Catholics prefer "Ghost". But I may very well be wrong with this. If not, I'ld prefer "Holy Ghost", since Roman Catholic practice is after all closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than any Protestant tradition.

Vasilij (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the Nikonian text!Vasilij (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Roman Catholic practice, and most Orthodox jurisdictions which utilise English in worship tend to use 'Holy Spirit' these days - I don't know of any that still say 'Holy Ghost'. Really old-fashioned (i.e. Traditionalists) Roman Catholics will still use 'Holy Ghost' when praying in English, but since English is never used liturgically by them, it's a moot point there. The only denomination I know of that currently still uses 'Holy Ghost' in public worship is the Anglican Church! InfernoXV (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when most Traditionalists pray the Rosary before Mass they will still say Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit. I've heard it at SSPX and Indult Masses.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, that's what I meant - outside of 'Traditionalist' circles, nobody in the Roman tradition uses 'Holy Ghost', and even then since English is never used in public worship (i.e liturgically), it's not incorrect to say that nobody but the Anglicans use 'Holy Ghost' in public worship. Rosary, even when recited in a group, is not 'public worship'- it remains 'private worship', or am I mistaken? InfernoXV (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your revert at talk:Richard Williamson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Do you have a good public domain photo of She Shan? Kung's website has nice a nice photo, but I am not sure if they can be just grabbed. The photo Wikipedia has seems to be of the door. [5]

It would be good to have a nice photo of She Shan. Cheers History2007 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the Old Believers Talk Page. This story about a decree and four pendant stripes looks most unlikely... I am curious as to where you've found this! Vasilij (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) You mention "Liturgical English." I guess you mean contemporary liturgical English. In that English, you're right that both verbs are used. What I was saying was that I think in older English (as in, the time when "thee" and "thou" were in their heyday) there was no expression as "give birth." Am I correct? What does the dictionary say? (b) Also, thank you for the info that the Diocese of Sourozh uses "has given birth". IIRC I originally typed in the contemporary English version. Today I restored that older-style, translation, so that both are now included. Palmleaf (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Bonus, in the section on the Congregation for the Oriental Churches says:

Art. 58 — § 1. The competence of this Congregation extends to all matters which are proper to the Oriental Churches and which are to be referred to the Apostolic See, whether concerning the structure and organization of the Churches, the exercise of the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing, or the status, rights, and obligations of persons. It also handles everything that has to be done concerning quinquennial reports and the ad limina visits in accordance with arts. 31-32.

§ 2. This however does not infringe on the proper and exclusive competence of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Causes of Saints, of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura or the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, as well as of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for what pertains to dispensation from a marriage ratum et non consummatum.

It is crystal clear from the congregation's own website that this is the case. the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches clearly includes this. This is the case. Cite any canon law, any official document to the contrary.24.164.153.45 (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm travelling at the moment, will be back home end of the week and check my sources. AFAIK, Divinis Perfectionis Magister and Pastor Bonus have no official juridical status in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Neither, incidentally, does the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches (CCEO) - all of these were the Pope of Rome's own initiative, we neither asked for them nor received them. Rome has no power to take the power of glorification of Saints from the Eastern Churches, and they themselves cannot voluntarily give up this power. InfernoXV (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The "pope of Rome" is the successor of St. Peter with universal jurisdiction, East and West, if you are Catholic. Yes, the Orthodox Churches do not recognize that authority, but that's the very point of the difference between the Eastern Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. DPM and PB are as binding on the East as the West -- it was PB that laid out the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches after all, which is the Eastern Churches' own dicastery! The members of that congregation include all of the Catholic eastern patriarchs and major archbishops, and if you read it, it lays out quite specifically that the other congregations (which have their authority as delegates of the "pope of Rome") retain their authority, see below:

Congregation for the Oriental Churches Art. 56 — The Congregation for the Oriental Churches considers those matters, whether concerning persons or things, affecting the Catholic Oriental Churches. Art. 57 — § 1. The patriarchs and major archbishops of the Oriental Churches, and the president of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, are ipso iure members of this Congregation. § 2. The consultors and officials are to be selected in such a way as to reflect as far as possible the diversity of rites. Art. 58 — § 1. The competence of this Congregation extends to all matters which are proper to the Oriental Churches and which are to be referred to the Apostolic See, whether concerning the structure and organization of the Churches, the exercise of the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing, or the status, rights, and obligations of persons. It also handles everything that has to be done concerning quinquennial reports and the ad limina visits in accordance with arts. 31-32. § 2. This however does not infringe on the proper and exclusive competence of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Causes of Saints, of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura or the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, as well as of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for what pertains to dispensation from a marriage ratum et non consummatum. In matters which also affect the faithful of the Latin Church, the Congregation will proceed, if the matter is sufficiently important, in consultation with the dicastery that has competence in the same matter for the faithful of the Latin Church. Art. 59 — The Congregation pays careful attention to communities of Oriental Christian faithful living within the territories of the Latin Church, and attends to their spiritual needs by providing visitators and even a hierarchy of their own, so far as possible and where numbers and circumstances demand it, in consultation with the Congregation competent for the establishment of particular Churches in that region. Art. 60 — In regions where Oriental rites have been preponderant from ancient times, apostolic and missionary activity depends solely on this Congregation, even if it is carried out by missionaries of the Latin Church. Art. 61 — The Congregation collaborates with the Council for Promoting Christian Unity in matters which concern relations with non-Catholic Oriental Churches and with the Council for Inter-religious Dialogue in matters within the scope of this Council.

The CCEO was written with help from that congregation, and was applied as per the Apostolic Constitution "Sacri Canones" in 1990 (q.v.).

You say you belong to the Russian Catholic Church. I don't know who the "we" are to whom you keep referring as refusing to recognize the "pope of Rome's" jurisdiction, but currently Russian Catholics, while they retain their liturgical rite, answer jurisdictionally to the local Latin rite ordinary -- even in Russia itself, Russian Rite Catholics come under the jurisdiction of Bishop Joseph Werth, SJ, a Lithuanian-born Jesuit who is Bishop of Transfiguration in Novosibirsk, a Latin-Rite jurisdtiction, and who has responsibility (as of January 18, 2005, an act specifically made under and referring to the CCEO) -- so I can't fathom where all of this nobody-pays-attention-to-that-guy-in-Italy thing comes from.

Further, you seem to fail to grasp the point of canonization. A "saint" in Catholic definition is someone whom the Church has declared, infallibly, to be worth of such veneration "always and everywhere" -- by definition,even a patriarch has no jurisdiction beyond the limits of his patriarchate, whether that is personal or territorial. Only an ecumenical council or the "pope of Rome" can speak with the voice of the "whole church" with jurisdiction extending to all of the faithful -- I mean, without even having to quote all of the canonical texts above, sheer logic should indicate that as canonization in the sense presented here requires an authority with universal jurisdiction.

I get the strong sense that you are confusing the theology of the Orthodox (which you seem to be arguing) with that of the Catholic church. I take no sides on who is right or wrong, or which is better -- I simply argue for accuracy in presenting each opinion.24.164.153.45 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Inferno. I havea question. I seem to remember that the term "Royal doors" refers to the central doors from the narthex to the nave. However, the term is often confused with the term "Beautiful doors" or "Beautiful gates", which are the central ("holy doors") in the iconostasis. Am I remembering correctly? Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your userpage and found you interesting. I'd like it if you add me, in case you have MSNM. Siúnrá (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see that your level may qualify you for a Latin translation, could you please translate for me the following text (taken from the Directorium Inquisitorum). It is most probably the result of a character recognition system. The scan of the page is available here if you need it - a rather bad one, I'm afraid.

(§151) Tertius modus processum fidei finiendi & terminandi est,++ quado delatus de hæresi processus meritis diligenter consideratis, cum bono consilio peritoru, reperitur varius, vel habens indicia co[n]tra se ad quæstiones, ut scilicet exponatur quæstionibus & tormentis; ut si quæstionatus nihil cocesserit, pro immuni & innocente habeatur; ++[Sylues.de Strig.lib. 3.cap.4. pun.5. Tabien. verb. inquisitor. §.14. Siman.ca tbo. insti. tit. 65. nu. 13. Schol. 53] Et hoc est, quando delatus non est deprehensus nec propria consessione, nec facti evidentia, nec testiu legitima productione, nec sunt indicia ad talem suspicionem, ut habeat hæresim abjurare: est tamen in suis cofessionibus varius, vel aliàs sunt indicia sufficientia ad quæstiones & tormenta. Circa istum talis practica est servanda. In tali autem casu quia sententia interlocutoria est contra delatum fereda, & non pro eo, per episcopum & inquisitorem, conjunctim, & non divisim est ferenda, juxta c. Multoru. in clem. In primis si talis steterit in negativa firmiter, & nulla tenus (licet inductus per probos viros) fateri voluerit veritatem, feretur sententia, quæ videtur sapere vim diffinitivæ sententiæ per modum tenoris sequentis.

[...]

(153) Si quæstionandus reperiatur varius, & insimul sint indicia alia ad quæstiones sufficientia, ponatur utrumque in sententia, ut in prædicta positum est. Si autem hæc duo non concurrant, sed unum tantum, utpote varietas sine alijs indicijs, vel alia indicia sine varietate, ponetur in sententia ut invenitur. Sententia autem lata mox exequetur vel exequi simuletur. Non sit tamen inquisitor multum voluntarius ad quæstionandum aliquem;+ nam questiones & tormenta non inferuntur, nisi in defectum aliarum probationum; & ideo perquirat alias probationes. [+ Non facile veniatur ad tormenta Schol.53.] Quod si non invenerit, & tenet probabiliter, quod delatus est culpabilis, sed metu negat veritatem, bonis modis & [gr?]andoque cautelosis, & interdum adhibitis ejus amicis inducentibus ad veritatem dicendam, faciat suam diligentiam,++ ut ab ore ejus habeat veritatem, & negotium non festinet: nam meditatio frequens, & carceris calamitas, & replicata informatio proborum virorum, disponunt ad veritatem eruendam. [++ Notandæ inquisitoribus.]

Take your time, just leave me a note when you're done with it. Thanks in advance, Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether you are familiar with a WikiProject or not (a description can be found here) but I'm planning on starting one for the Latin language. This is mainly because Latin is and has been such an important language in the history of western civilization but the article is only rated a 'C'. If you support my proposal then please sign your name on the proposal page here. 95jb14 (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno XV, I'm currently engaged in a discussion with user Asoer on whether East Asian Calligraphy is "calligraphy" or not. You've contributed to discussions on East Asian Calligraphy before, so I wonder if you could have a look in. [6]

Bathrobe (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented on the previous RM, please see Talk:Wonton noodle#Requested move 2 which is a new RM Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InfernoXV. WikiProject Singapore will be featured on the Feb 15th SignPost. Would you be willing to be interviewed for the article? The general idea is to publicize the project and focus on the main issues that project members face as well as on the help you need. Please let me know ASAP since we're approaching the Feb 15th deadline! (Jacklee has agreed to be interviewed and I'm asking Hildanknight as well). Thanks. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing, I've set up an interview page at User:RegentsPark/WPSingaporeReport. Regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly contact me if you are interested in tutoring me in Latin and Ancient Greek: charles.w.hewitt.ii@gmail.com. I live in Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.223.126 (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Hi, Where have you been? I was concerned that you had retired, like many other editors. We have had good editors retiring right and left, so it is good that you came back. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day! You are cordially invited to a meetup Tuesday evening (tomorrow; 4 September). Sorry about the short notice. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InfernoXV, there is another Singapore meetup on 31 October (Wednesday). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

In what way are you a native Latin speaker?--Herb-Sewell (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, InfernoXV, your comment on the Feast day redirect discussion says "oppose" but you seem to be supporting the redirect to Calendar of Saints. Did you mean to say "support?" Malke 2010 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi! i'd prefer it be its own article, but if between two options, then to Calendar of Saints, sorry for the confusion! InfernoXV (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, InfernoXV. I primarily edit on the English Wiktionary (this is me), where I am seeking to create entries for the English derivations of the Ancient Greek names for their own diacritics. So far, I have:

1. ´ — oxia ← ὀξεῖα
2. ` — baria ← βαρεῖα
3. ῀ — perispomene ← περισπωμένη
4. ᾿ — psile ← ψιλή
5. ῾ — dasia ← δασεῖα
6. ᾽ — coronis ← κορωνίς

However, I'm stuck on ¨ (as in ῭, ΅, ῁, &c.; usually called diæresis in English). I must confess that I'm no expert, having relied upon Greek diacritics#Description for clues to the names, which I then checked by making reference to LSJ. I know it's called διαλυτικά in Modern Greek, but a corresponding Ancient Greek sense is missing from the LSJ entry for διαλυτικός. I was thinking along the lines of ὀξεῖα and βαρεῖα, which are feminine substantives of adjectives elliptically modifying προσῳδία (“diacritical mark”); accordingly, ἡ διαιρετική προσῳδία (“the diacritic given to resolving diphthongs”), ἡ διαλυτική προσῳδία (“the diphthong-resolving diacritic”), and ἡ κεχηνώδης προσῳδία (“the hiatus-forming diacritic”), but there was nothing that explicitly backed that up in the LSJ. I considered τρῆμα and its diminutive form, τρημάτιον, but again, I could find nothing in the LSJ. I suppose, also, that because the diacritic comprises two dots, that its name may be declined for the dual grammatical number, which would result in διαιρετικά, διαλυτικά, κεχηνώδεε (uncontracted) or κεχηνώδει (contracted), τρήματε, and τρηματίω. Lastly, I thought that there might be a lead in something related to ἀλιφή, but I wouldn't know where to start with that one. Do you know what the diacritic was called in Ancient Greek? Can you help at all? Any ideas you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fish sauces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton (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) 08:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[7]] --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am contacting you here as this seems to be the wiki you are most active in. There is currently an ongoing proposal with regards to having an ancient Greek Wikipedia, accompanied by an active incubator wiki that has plenty of articles already. I thought I would let you know as you have an interest and strong knowledge of ancient Greek, so you're more than welcome to participate if you find it worthwhile. Gts-tg (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I currently have a project known as the Roman and Byzantine military history page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Roman and Byzantine Military History, I was wondering if you would like to join, as you have showed interest in byzantium. Iazyges (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there a Catholic parish in Singapore that has liturgy in the Russian Byzantine rite, or any other Byzantine rite? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, unfortunately. InfernoXV (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, InfernoXV. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello InfernoXV,

I’m Irvin from PhilWiki Community, a member of the Communication Committee of the ESEAP Conference. ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities throughout the ESEAP region: ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5–6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for these Wikimedia communities.

East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific are the most under-represented regions within the Wikimedia community. There is a significant number of Wikimedia contributors in our regions, yet we continue to struggle in establishing a well-managed community. This conference will bring participants from various ESEAP communities together in order to better understand the issues and to look for solutions. It also aims to connect people of the Wikimedia movement within ESEAP regions, to share ideas, and to build regional collaborations that are impossible to achieve through online communication.

We’ve got a lot of participation from several countries, but we’re lacking from your country. As we need more participants from your country, we believe that your contribution and participation would be a valuable asset to the success of this event. If you would like to participate in the conference, please do fill the form as soon as possible (by April 5, 2018) and we’ll inform you if you get selected for the conference.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon. --Filipinayzd 06:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello InfernoXV. You greatly assisted me with the Colin St Clair Oakes entry a few months back and I hope you may assist again. I've taken over a biography entry for the author and journalist David Patrikarakos which had its draft (by someone else) rejected on the grounds its references were too close to the subject source amongst other things. I think I can redraft it though would appreciate your review of it before uploading. Im relatively inexperienced in the technical aspects of formatting but do have a grasp of writing. Please get back to me when you can. Le Bijoux (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, InfernoXV. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]