User talk:MishaPan

Welcome!

Hello, MishaPan, 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:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for the interest and help on articles related to Byzantine Christianity! Have a profitable Great Lent! InfernoXV 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Church-of-the-Holy-Sepulchre18.jpg.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Church-of-the-Holy-Sepulchre18.jpg.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on the John Chrysostom article?

Hello, MishaPan. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the current state of the article on John Chrysostom. We have some discussion going on the article's talk page, Talk:John Chrysostom, about the best title to use for some of his sermons. If you are so inclined please take a glance at it and let us know what you think.

Also, thank you for your contributions to Byzantine Christianity articles -- I've been working on several myself. Cheers, Majoreditor 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucession?

Misha, I've never heard the word 'crucession' used anywhere. It doesn't return a single hit on Google, and I've never seen it used in books of any tradition - is this a neologism? It seems the entire article can go under Processions. InfernoXV 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moleben

Good informative URL: http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/beginning/occasions.shtml

St. Porphyry of Gaza

I saw that you edited the Porphyry of Gaza article right after a bunch of reverts were done to my changes, and I thought your changes good. But I'm hoping to discuss the reverts in the talk page and would welcome your input.

Many thanks for your comments. With luck we can keep this article NPOV.Roger Pearse 08:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

contact

Dear Hierodeacon - would it be possible to contact you off wikipedia? My email is edward.yong@gmail.com, and I have some questions about monastic usage I'd like to ask! InfernoXV 12:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Octoechos

You did some good work there on the subject of the liturgical book, and I thought it deserved its own article. So I split it off into Octoechos (liturgical text), hopefully capturing all of your latest edits. If we were go go into much detail on how the various modes were adapted by the chant systems of the local churches as the Church grew, it could become rather longer and drift away from the main topic of the original article, which itself needs quite a bit of work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style

I see your intent, but it's not really good Wikipedia style to place external links inline within an article. If they're just for illustrating a point from the article, it's better to collect them all into the "External links" section at the end. Even better would be to find freely licensed photos and upload them so they can be displayed in the article directly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I notice that you most frequently use the "Notes" section for the kind of footnotes used to explicate some minor point related to the text it refers to. Their primary purpose is really to provide references. If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, for all the good work you've been doing the articles could be improved exponentially by Wikipedia standards if you happen to have sources at hand and can cite them. Citations can be expedited by using one of the citation templates or you can use whatever style you're accustomed to.

There are several articles I've worked on where I have to go back and do this. They were up to the standard at the time they were written, but that standard has become more rigorous since. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

It's been a real pleasure to suddenly have someone as knowledgeable and sensible as yourself contributing such a volume of quality writing to the Orthodox-related articles. I can't devote half the time I'd like, and we lost several valuable contributors over the past year. Thank you in return for all the work you've done. You will be in my prayers; please keep me in yours. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

Am I the only one who finds the sudden appearance of an article ex nihilo to be slightly dodgy? InfernoXV 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icon

Hi, I don't know if you've noticed the Icon talk page of late. The article has come under attack from rather unsophisticated members of the Orthodox project, unfairly I think, and another view, from someone with Othodox credibility, would be welcome. The article could do with improvement, but not really along the lines they suggest. There are currently two sections essentially on the Othrodox theology of images, and they could do (in my view) with being merged & made more concise, & then moved up the page. I have been moving stuff in from what was largely a duplicate article at Iconography, so this is partly my fault. I don't feel competent to do what needs to be done on the theology. Most of the article is pretty good I think, but some of the original editors seem to have moved on. Johnbod 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Nice addings to the List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow. --Damifb 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of Orthodox Monasticism

Thank You! for the excellent editing and work you did on the article. God Bless. LoveMonkey 23:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cheirotonia

Wee question about only bishops being able to perform cheirotonia - I recall an Archimadrite is permitted to tonsure one of his subjects to Reader/Chanter. InfernoXV 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was taught, the term "cheirotonia" is used only to describe the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops. Readers and subdeacons are ordained but do not receive cierotonia. Archimandrites may, with the bishop's permission, ordain to these lower ranks, but may not perform the Mystery of Cheirotonia, which is reserved exclusively to bishops. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 1984) says, "Distinct from the Mystery of Cheirotonia is ordination by prayer to the lower ranks of the clergy (reader, subdeacon); this is called cheirotesia (from a Greek word that has a purely Christian ecclesiastical meaning and came into use relatively late)." MishaPan 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! you're right. I'd confused myself there. There is, on the other hand, evidence that in the West, at various points, sometimes Abbots who were not bishops did perform priestly ordination, which is quite shocking. InfernoXV 08:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horologion

Are you sure that image is a Horologion? It has stichera on one page and a set of katavasia on the other; I'd expect it to be more like a menaion of some kind. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, actualy...no. I'm not sure. I'm just going by the title of the image: "Horologe1.jpg" The image is from Wikimedia Commons, and I'm trusting that the one who posted it used a filename that matches the item pictured. Sorry. MishaPan 07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the photo is not in focus. I can barely make out on the right-hand page that it has (I think) katabasiae for the Nativity of the Lord, but I can't make out what's on the left-hand page. MishaPan 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the right-side page does seem to be titled for the Nativity. I can't make out the text on the left either, but the rubrics look like "Pe [On] 8", "Pe 6", "Pe 4", followed by "Mărire- Si acum-" [Glory... Both now...; the 2 other stichera from the menaion is assumed, I guess] just as you'd see in a Menaion or Octoechos for a set of stichera. This must be a Festal Menaion or something similar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just shooting in the dark here, but if Pe mean "On" in Romanian (rather than "Tone", as I had presumed), would it be reasonable to assume that the text on the left is verses from the Praises or "Lord, I have cried"? I've got no axe to grind here, and if it seems that the image is not in fact an Horologion I will be happy to remove it. Whatever you think. MishaPan 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with how Romanians might organize their books, to the extent it's different from how the Russians do it. Since the katavasia usually anticipate upcoming feasts, it's possible that we seem them here inserted at a convenient point prior to the actual Nativity celebration for use beforehand, and that the stichera on the left side are the verses on the Praises for some day before the Nativity. But that's just a guess. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

On 17 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muristan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thankyou personally. Nice article!!! Keep up the great work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Eastern Christianity Barnstar
		Awarded to MishaPan for consistent hard work in Eastern Christianity oriented articles. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoudios

Hallo Misha, I think that you you did not understand the moving of the category. The article refers to the monastery, NOT the church. I am writing a serie of articles about the byzantine churches of Istanbul (I already wrote Little Hagia Sophia, Kalenderhane Mosque, Zeyrek Mosque, Fenari Isa Mosque, Eski Imaret Mosque, Bodrum Mosque). All these buildings are now mosques, but most of them have another name, which is the name that they had when they were churches. Because of that there is one redirect for each mosque (if the byzantine name is known). The name relates often with Constantinople because they were churches in Constantinople, NOT in Istanbul. By the way, this is the standard naming in the scientific literature about the subject (Krautheimer, Mathews, etc.). If you check in Wikipedia, you will see that the modern churches in Istanbul like S. Antonio di Padova are named after Istanbul, NOT Constantinople. Now, back to St. John the Baptist of Stoudios, this church is in my pipeline, so I wrote the redirect, which will become the article about the church when it will be finished. I hope that now the reason of the move and the idea behind this categories is clear. Ciao, Kind Regards, Alex2006 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Stoudios

Hallo Misha, thanks for your kind answer! No, actually all the churches - the old and the new, the destroyed and those still existant - now are in the category "Churches in Istanbul", and I must confess that the categorising of these buildings is not always an easy task (and sometimes not only due to purely architectural reasons ;-)). The church of Saint Mary at the Blachernae, if I remember well, was never converted into a mosque, but burned accidentally, and was replaced with a chapel. There each year takes place an ecumenical gathering, with christians, jews and muslims which go to the holy spring. I never went there, but I am want to visit the blachernae in the next time (I travel to the Polis ;-) about every second month) The next churches in my pipeline are St. John Baptist at Stoudios, Vefa Kilise Camii (Hagios Theodoros? But the dedication is far from certain), and Gül Camii (Aghia Theodosia, also not certain). There is still some work to be done down in Istanbul... ;-) Cheers, Alex2006 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deposition

About your recent additions [1] to Deposition: Even if you intend to write an article for Deposition (relics) (I've got nothing against that), it's generally not a good idea to add redlinks to disambiguation pages as they are magnets for masses of redlinked dictionary definitions (unfortunately, I must add, as most wikipedians are not aware of MOS:DAB). If you aren't able to complete an article for Deposition (relics) within the next week or so, could you remove the redlink from the disambiguation page in the meantime? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Chalice

Hi MishaPan! I'm just writing to you about your comments on this article. I feel perhaps that you hadn't read the article very carefully when you made them. You obviously have a strong interest in contributing to articles about Christianity so I hope my comments are useful.

There are a few ongoing problems with any articles dealing with matters of Faith.

Terminology

There are a number of terms applied in a fairly indiscriminate way. Christianity, Christian tradition, Christian mythology, Catholicism, Roman Catholic Church etc

Examples of appropriate use:

Christianity believes that Christ, on the night before he died, blessed the bread and wine and said "This is my body and blood that was given for you. Do this in remebrance of me."
Christian tradition continues to celebrate this act in the Eucharist.
Roman Catholic tradition says that the cup used at the Eucharist survived. (NOTE: Anglican and Protestant tradition doen't say this)
Christian mythology claims the existence of the Holy Grail which holds the blood of Christ collected at the cross.
The Roman Catholic Church states that the wine at the Eucharist become the very blood of Christ. (Transubstantiation).

Within the article, and any other article on religious subjects that I have had to do with, these terms are used very specifically, as above.

However, a very large number of editors, both non-Christian and Christian, do not undestand the difference. eg.

The Holy Grail article began "Christianity states...." No it doesn't! This is Christian Mythology.
The Holy Chalice article began "According to Christian tradition, Jesus ..."( relates Last Supper). No, this it is not "Christian tradition" that says these things. In this case, it is Christianity that says it.

So care needs to be used in defining precisely which body of believers owns the belief, and correcting such errors where they have occurred.

More about terminolgy

There are three ways of indicating that the material in an article may not meet Wikipedia's standards. You can state that it is POV, that it is OR (original research) or needs support, (citation need).

In the case of the Holy Chalice article, it was not POV, because every statement made it clear that these were beliefs held by a body of people, and stated whether that body was Christianity or Roman Catholic Church. In the case of the Grail, it is Christian Mythology.

If there is a different body with a traditional or ideological view on the matter, then it can be stated. It's pointless to state the view of sceptics, simply because the subject is already indicated as a tradition belonging to a particular body, ie "not everyone believes this". Unless, of course, some solid reference to recent research was cited ie. "Scientists at the University of Barcelona have discovered that the red porphory of the cup is carved from a fragment of Uluru."

The point here, which I seem to have lost, is that every editor needs to be clear what POV and OR mean, and that ^{[citation needed]} is generally a better way to go, unless the material presented is very clearly POV or OR.

I haven't mentioned Orthodox beliefs here because I do not know about them, and am reliant upon others to provide information which can be incorporated when appropriate.

--Amandajm 03:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Hi MishPan! thank you very much for your message! I'm glad this stuff was useful.

I have just written Romanesque architecture (which is mainly about churches) and I'm writing an extension to it.

Some time ago, I wrote an article called Cathedral architecture of Western Europe. But unfortunately, I'm not qualified to write Cathedral architecture of Eastern Europe. Do you know anything about this subject? Do you think that if I started the article and wrote about one of the churches with which I am familiar, eg Hagia Sophia, other people might rush to my aid? No-one is in a hurry to take this problem off my hands, but they keep asking why Eastern Europe is ignored.

God Bless! --Amandajm 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the tip. I'll check out what he has been doing. --Amandajm 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aër removed from WP:FASHION

Per your comments, I looked at the article and removed the fashion project box from the talk page. User:Warlordjohncarter seems to have made that call; perhaps you should take it up with him since AFAIK he isn't one of the fashion project members. He might have just seen "veil" in the article and included it ... I don't know. Daniel Case 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ross, Orthodox Semiotics

Would like to confer with you on the significance of several artifacts photographed at Fort Ross, a restored Russian America Company outpost on California's north coast. Please reply or contact oblagon[at]gmail.

I.E. vs. E.G.

Hi Misha, Translated, “e.g. – exempli gratia” is translated “for example” while “i.e. – id est” is “that is to say”. While it may seem at first that Greek and Russian Orthodox are examples of two of the churches belonging to the all-inclusive Eastern Orthodox title, such a concept implies that there are multiple different entities belonging to another entity. This is not the case. What is being given here is a clarification that Eastern Orthodox is sometimes referred to as Greek, Russian, or otherwise Orthodox but that they are all the same thing.

Here are two examples of correct useage:

The Protestant churches (e.g. Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, etc) – these are examples of protestant churches.

The Church of Latter Day Saints (i.e. the Mormons, the followers of Joseph Smith) – clarifications, other names for the same thing.

Here are explanations of the difference online:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ie-eg-oh-my.aspx

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f/ievseg.htm

http:// hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__ie_ve_eg

--Phiddipus 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thanks for your recent work on American civil religion. I hope this is a page you will come back to again in the future! Travb (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dali Lama and Biship Tutu photo

Hi MishaPan! I am glad you like this photo (so dod I - it's one of my very favourite photos, which is why I originally asked Carey to share it with everyone on the Wikipedia). Sorry I have taken so long to write but I wrote to Carey Linde who took the photo of H.H. the Dalai Lama and Bishop Tutu and he just replied today Oct. 16th saying: "The info on this photo is that there was a conference in Vancouver in 2004 with noble peace prize winners around the Dalai Lama’s theme for education the heart. I took the picture at a round table event." Nope that is of some interest. Best wishes, John Hill 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine of Kiev

I saw your question regarding "Blessed Constantine, Metropolitan of Kiev (+ 1159)." The only information I have been able to find online was at the Prologue of Ohrid site, giving the story. I added a page for him at OrthodoxWiki; if you find out any more, please feel free to contribute to it. The reason he wasn't on the "Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow" page was that he served earlier than the scope of that list. —Magda 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Battle of Agincourt

Thanks for linking the article to V-sign. However, as far as I can see the Two-fingers salute is repectful, and probably wasn't what you meant, so I changed that back. Hope that's OK. --Old Moonraker 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basil of Caesarea article improvement drive

Hi, MishaPan. I'm working on and article improvement drive for Basil of Caesarea and was wondering if you want to contribute. For example, the section on the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil could be expanded. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent contributions. What I've read so far is wonderful. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 28 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polyeleos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theotokos Iverskaya

Hi! Could I trouble you to take a look at Theotokos Iverskaya, which only has a Russian website source & see if you can work out what the article is actually about. I have raised some questions on the talk page - it may be about the Panagia Portaitissa there, but who can tell. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive! Thanks. I do think it should be moved to the Greek name, which is the most common in English also. Perhaps just Portaitissa, or Panagia Portaitissa, or with Iveron? The other would stay as a redirect of course. What do you think? Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but I think whatever we change it to needs to be in English, not Russian or Greek. There is a plethora of pages with Russian names which are not only cumbersome to someone who does not speak that language but also makes it impossible for anyone searching for the subject under its English name to find it. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Terms such as Panagia and Bogoroditza are perfectly fine in the body of the article--and are important theologically--but it seems to me should not be used in the title, especially when a perfectly good English equivalent is found in English-language Orthodox publications. MishaPan (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? - let's continue at the article talk page. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible version

Perhaps, although it is against my own instinct, you're right. If the editor chooses the version, the editor must, however, make sure that the words in the article do correspond to those in the version he or she points to. I think that holds even for the spelling. Perhaps even to archaic spelling. So is it OK to point to KJV for "veil", when KJV spells the word "vail"?

I think the choice provided by the template used to include NRSV, but this didn't show up when a short time ago, I thought of choosing (as a replacement for your KJV) that version as the closest to what I would prefer for the Wikipedia context, namely RSV, which is conservative in language, but more accurate than KJV, while also being clearly neutral (more so even than KJV) on the denominational plane.

Happy new year. Lima (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Rememberance of Father Nestor

I was hoping to write an article on Father Nestor do you have another source or further information on him?[2]. God Bless. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refec

Why remove refec but not the pther slang enteries like frater, frater house, fratery? They seem even more slang like?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only added refec because that is what the refectory(dinning room) was called when I was at polytechnic. I'll leave it myself.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Oliver

I have removed the image of lostprophets you put on this page, because the Jamie Oliver in that band is not the Jamie Oliver in this article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning vandals

Hi, I'm not sure what your usual practice is and whether I just warned them first, but if this is not already your practice, please consider warning the vandals whose edits you revert. See for more. :) Thanks Enigma ^msg! 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric

btw, since no one has objected, I will merge those two soon, if no one objects. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nun

Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 51

Hey, thanks for all your hard work on the Psalms. This is wondeful stuff, and I'm delighted to see it happening. I'm a little fretful about Psalm 51 though; I think it's a bad precedent to print the text of psalms in the pages unless there is a particular compelling reason, which there doesn't seem to be in this case. In addition, it is quite misleading to print an English translation and label it "Septuagint." Notice also what will happen if we decide to do this: we'll have a hundred and fifty articles, each with how many? ten? fifteen? translations of the psalm. I think that's clearly a disaster waiting to happen. I propose that instead of adding to the problem, we remove the translations in all these articles unless there is a particular compelling reason to have them. Tb (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of God Grant Many Years (Polychronia)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on God Grant Many Years (Polychronia), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because God Grant Many Years (Polychronia) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting God Grant Many Years (Polychronia), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of church

If I understand correctly, tou made and uploaded the image at right. I was wondering if you could tell me where this church is located? I would like to add that information to its caption in the article Iconostasis. Thank you very much. MishaPan (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is St Mary and St Mercurius Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales.--Ghaly (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning vandals

Um, yes IP's have a talk page where you can warn them. BTW, I saw your comment on enigmaman's talk page. K im u 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecost

You are absolutely correct. I don't know what I was thinking when I said that Pentecost was the birth of the Church. The Church is the body of Christ which has always existed.--Phiddipus (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography

This is drifting back to being a duplicate of Icon. Unfortunately no one has yet actually added much on Iconography in the primary English sense that this article is supposed to cover. The by religion sections should be called "Iconography of ..." rather than "Icons in ....". There is actually very little on EO iconography in that sense, just a load of stuff on icons, duplicating that article, not to mention Russian icons. Some of these EO bits are now rather better than the equivalent passages in Icon, and I would suggest you concentrate on merging the best stuff there. I don't know if Love Monkey is still around; it was his frankly unhelpful attitude that kept some of the stuff on non-Christian religions out of "Icon" & drove it here. But that is not where it belongs. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about this, and wonder if the best thing might be to move much of the present iconography content (and maybe some of the non-EO Icon content) to a new article called ? "Images in religious art" , "Religious images" or something, then adding new stuff to iconography specifically on the first sense, with lots of links to things like Christ Pantocrator, Life of the Virgin for the Christian sections, and so on. I think "iconography" should be about the first meaning given in the lead, with "icon" the main article for the second. But we need a general article about images in religious art - cult image is too specific. Does this sound sensible? Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Byzantine Empire article

Please support me when I claim that the article must also have in its infobox the map of its extent under Basil II. I tried to add the second map many times but it was always changed and I was also blocked. I have many arguments to expose about this subject. Dimboukas (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Byzantine Empire article

Please support me when I claim that the article must also have in its infobox the map of its extent under Basil II. I tried to add the second map many times but it was always changed and I was also blocked. I have many arguments to expose about this subject. Dimboukas (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians

Coped from my talk Page. Nwe (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I noticed you removed an image from Persecution of Christians, with the comment, "that's related to the persecution of an ethnic minority which is different, we also have context in a case like that, we also have none here &the image is misleading terms whole article". I was wondering if you could expain this--I'm not really an expert on Spanish history. Which ethnic minority is being persecuted in the photo? And how is the desecration of a statue of Jesus by anti-clericalists to be parsed from persecution of Christians? A lot of religious persecution has ethnic persecution at its root. Thanks for your help. MishaPan (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you misunderstood my edit summary, I was responding to your parallel with Nazi persecution of the Jews, pointing out that I felt this was an inappropriate parallel, since that's ethnic persecution. It's not a big point I want to pursue, I just feel that it's a false analogy. My main objections, I think, to the use of this image is:

1. It's disputable whether vandalism of this kind counts as religous persecution, from my point of view religious persecution should consist of attacks on people or communities for their beliefs.

2. We have no evidence, or none that I've seen, that this image is anything more than a symbolic announcement of defiance against the Church, since while there was a large amount of church property in the Civil War, actual persecution of clergy was less common.

3. The Spanish Civil War is itself a bad illustration of persecution of Christians. It was more an attack on the institution of the Catholic Church in Spain for its political views, not on Christians for their religion so to speak. In fact there is at least one description I've heard of people burning churches and then the same people proceeding to attend religious services in its sinders a week later. Nwe (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the courtesy of your discourse, its quite refreshing.Nwe (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC

Can you explain me why you don't answer? Dimboukas (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage of the Virgin

Am I right in thinking that the Orthodox view is that Mary and Joseph were not married? If so Theotokos ought to mention this, as the Western view is that they were. If this is correct, an authoritative reference would be much appreciated. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Of course, for Catholics and most older Protestant groups she is "ever-virgin" also, although the marriage is not a Catholic feast. The same scene in Orthodox art seems to regarded as a guardianship ceremony, from what I gather. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Saturday (was incorrectly "Good Friday")

After finally reaching some agreement not to declare "what Christians believe" about a controversial point, why did you just revert the beginning of the article to make such a declaration? Can we please drop the POV declaration? Tb (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, of course I meant Holy Saturday. The discussion was (unfortunately) on user talk pages. If you look at the history of your edit, you can see the revert that you did. I would happily drop the whole thing; what is really missing is a clear reference to the Harrowing of Hell at the beginning--instead it's buried down in the Eastern Christianity discussion. I plan to go over all these articles for Holy Week and its days after the season moves on and they aren't subject to such frequent changes, and maybe then it can be improved. I agree that the verses are not inconsistent; at the same time, some think that the Harrowing of Hell is inconsistent with being in Paradise, and so they say Jesus did not "descend to the dead", on Holy Saturday or any other time. The problem as usual is the disagreement between the broad consensus of RC-Orthodox-Anglican-Lutheran views and the fundagelicals. Tb (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday (actually!)

In other news, what do you think about the proliferating languages in Good Friday? Do we really need every human language on the planet? Tb (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the different names here are doing something. But I was thinking of maybe having each name, in English translation, and either leaving it at that, or giving a few representative languages but not a complete list, which conventionally use that term. Tb (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Fast and the use of the word Holy

Hi Misha,

I know you have been working hard on Great Lent. I was hoping you read the following comment by me. I would very much like to know your opinion.

I would like to address a concern of mine that has cropped up occasionally concerning language. If one studies the history of the Church one finds that terminology can be a crucial issue theologically. The use of the wrong word can ultimately lead to misunderstanding somewhere down the line, perhaps even hundreds of years later. I have always proposed that Orthodox writers must be exceedingly careful in their terminology when writing in English. Words must have the correct “Meaning” behind them to preserve the theology. Unfortunately, sometimes this comes across as nit-picking. The difficulty often lies in translating from different source languages (Russian as opposed to Greek) and the fact that both can claim strong traditions going back centuries. Never-the-less I think we should always examine the ramifications of the English text we use rather than simply translate from one language to another, otherwise we will end up as the protestants who often base their theological differences on the English texts of scripture while disregarding the Greek texts entirely.

That having been said, I would specifically like to address the usage of the term “Holy” when referring to chronology. In English we often use the terms: Holy Week, Holy Monday, Holy Tuesday, etc. or, as a combination such as “Holy and Great etc.”. But correctly there is nothing “Holy” about the days themselves. Originally these days are called “Great” to signify their high importance. Yes, I know that the Russians use the term “Holy” and that it has become common in English as well. Never-the-less I think we have the opportunity to correct what may ultimately lead to an error of theology. I propose referring to them as “Great” and nothing more. Also, we might consider referring to “Lent” as “The Great Fast” since lent is a Germanic word meaning Spring or Long.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment I would like to add to the end of the last part of the previous message: The word "Lent" which, as I said above, means spring or Long oddly enough does not mean to "Fast". To give an example of why the wrong word leads to theological problems, well, look at the Roman Catholics today...the do "Lent" which to them doesn’t seem to have anything at all with fasting anymore, which they almost don't do anymore. In other words, change the meaning away from fasting and eventually people will forget to fast. This is why I prefer the term "The Great Fast". Of course that is traditionally what it is called, but perhaps if we added even more meaning to it we could call it "The Great Preparation"!--Phiddipus (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Misha,

What do we mean when we say “Holy” and what can be “Holy”. We have, for instance, Holy Water which has been sanctified by God or rather, has been restored to its original properties before the fall of mankind. Crosses and Icons can be Holy, People can be Holy, in other words “Things” can be holy. God works through material means – water, oil, wine, bread, in order to touch us physically in a manner we can relate to because we are material ourselves. “Days”, on the other hand are not things, per se, but rather are abstract concepts with no reality in and of themselves. Tuesday comes and goes, it comes and goes differently for where you are than for where I am. In fact, Tuesday and the other days are mere perceptions, abstract concepts having nothing to do with reality itself. So, how can they be holy? Thus we might celebrate significant events on a particular day…which makes the day very important or Great, but holy, no. Besides, we celebrate significant events in the Church on Every day of the year, we celebrate the lives of millions of saints on every day. I guess it’s a matter of precision. It would be like imagining one color to be more Holy than another, once again colors are abstract concepts, actually even more substantial than “days” and yet to imagine a color being called holy would be silly. This is the basis for what I said. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the venue where we should be concerned for such things, but I am always careful, very careful. We might not see right away what theological errors may crop up in the future because of our choice of words but remember, many heresies centered around one word – theandric, filioque, etc, and such words took hundreds of years to do their damage. --Phiddipus (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, Misha, your argument is compelling, perhaps I am too careful.--Phiddipus (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic...

By any chance, have you heard of this site...

http://christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosewater Alchemist (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pisanie

Hello. Do you happen to know what a pisanie is called in English? In Romanian, it refers to a plaque above a church door giving a short history of the church. I gather the term comes from the Slavic for "writing". Here are a few examples: [3], [4], [5]. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks a lot. My own suspicion is that the English term derives from the Greek, so I'll ask a Greek speaker for the Greek term, and maybe that will help find the technical name. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can come up with is plaque or πινακίδα in Greek. I hope that helps. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention

If it is not too much trouble, I would like you to express your view. Not many people visit the page. Lima (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not trying to canvas are you? Those entries are not quite enough to convince me you are, so forget it. However, I will let you know that I put an RfCreli on the talk page to drum up interest so we might want to step away from personally notifying other editors lest it look like canvasing. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not trying to canvas. As you can see from the list you made, I began with the two editors who were already involved, one of whom (as you can see on my Talk page) was until then quite hostile to me. To get more people involved, what could I do - since I did not know of the method that you have kindly used on the article's Talk page - but get some Talk links from my Talk page, starting from the bottom (the most recent)? If you look at what they wrote, you will see that not all of them have always been in agreement with me; but I thought that, in this matter, the more, the better. I felt sure that scarcely anyone would support the claim of the "owner" of the article to control the gateway to editing it. If one of those I contacted is the editor who has since attacked Sherurcij anonymously, I was and am quite unaware of any previous conflict between him and Sherurcij. Lima (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Personal Freedom Outreach

An article that you have been involved in editing, Personal Freedom Outreach, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Outreach. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Northwestgnome (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exaposteilarion

In the Exaposteilarion page it is noted that the Easter Exaposteilarion is in tone 3, but in greek tradition it is chanted in tone 2. Is it the case for other Orthodox traditions to be chanted in tone 3? --K kokkinos (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrthodoxWiki

Misha, I very much enjoy your work. Are you also a contributor to http://www.orthodoxwiki.org? You could do a lot of good work over there. I am surprised at the articles they don't have, like Panikhida. --CaritasUbi (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreviewer

Hi MishaPan, I just read one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed quite so many articles as you over such a long period hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Churches in India

I was searchin for an Orthodox Wiki Editor, i need some support and assiatnce from you. The the two Orthodox church pages (Indian Orthodox and Jacobite Church) are not kept with the best and the true history. The present editors wont either allow to add anything and are not allowing to remove the irrelevant topics. A chart, called Nazrani Evolution is frequantly added to the webpage, which is an atmost catholic manipulated history. A catholic editor is posting this chart(catholic) history to the Orthodox church webpage. I have opened a discussion in the church webpage. Would support me and assist me in having this chart removed permanently from the wikipage of the orthodox church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.97.34 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor needs to fix the chart and not simply keep deleting it. We certainly need an NPOV chart detailing the history of different lineages among the Christians in India, but to simply give up is a disaster. The topic is extremely complex, and cries out for a chart. The current chart could surely be improved, so what it needs is improvement, not delinking. Tb (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@misha.. thanks for the interest shown, would like you to read through the webiste of the Indian Orthodox Church. http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.17.39 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Dean in the bisexual actors category

Hello, MishaPan. The reason I reverted you on this is because of the James Dean bisexual discussions on the article talk page...especially the most recent one there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Title

Would you kindly help me to change the title of the page, Baselios Thoma Didymos I to

Baselios Marthoma Didymos I . (Baselios Thoma Didymos I). Fyodor7 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Metania

I have nominated Metania, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metania. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edison (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Silber

Please don't add negative, non-neutrally phrased, material to BLPs.--Scott Mac 23:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandias listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mandias. Since you had some involvement with the Mandias redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Misha

Christ is born.. Could you look over the Essence–Energies distinction article and the Tabor light? It is one in a line of Orthodox articles that two editors are rewriting and whom are not knowledge of the content (theoria, Theosis are some of the others. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive invitation

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog to 18,000 articles and clear the 2008 backlog, and we need your help! Top participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts February 1, but you can sign up today!

Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the LGBT Studies WikiProject!

Hi, MishaPan, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:

Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification.
Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk /contribs) 01:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved material from Monogamy in Christianity to Christian views on marriage

This is a courtesy notice to you as a frequent editor of Christian views on marriage. I moved some material to the article. I placed a summary of my thinking on the Talk page. In brief, I think the moved content would very much benefit from integration intoChristian views on marriage, as well as stylistic reformatting to the style of that article, removal of interpretive components (unless they represent cited viewpoints), and redaction of primary source material. Perhaps you will be able to edit the material to bring it up to snuff. Regards,FeatherPluma (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

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

St. Cyprian--August 31 or October 2

Checking the Eastern Orthodox calendar for today (US timezone), I noticed St. Cyprian, whom I thought was a mid-September saint, at least on Western calendars. His wikipedia page lists his Eastern Orthodox feast as October 2, where he seems to be in addition to August 31. The difference is more than 11 days, so it doesn't appear to be a Julian/Gregorian calendar issue. Is the August 31 the Eastern feast of another Cyprian, not the martyred writer and bishop of Carthage? The August 31 Eastern calendar page doesn't seem to have a lot of editors, and you might be the main or original one. Jweaver28 (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:LGBT scientists

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:LGBT scientists, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nymf _{talk to me} 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT scientists

Category:LGBT scientists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nymf _{talk to me} 09:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT scientists

Category:LGBT scientists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. - Mr X 02:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Hi MishaPan. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sweg

I like buuttz

Ya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.251.235 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When? June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello MishaPan!
Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)

For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex 16:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"New Calendar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New Calendar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#New Calendar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Resurrection of the body" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Resurrection of the body and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Resurrection of the body until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"All of Creation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect All of Creation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#All of Creation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pulpit fall" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pulpit fall and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 20 § Pulpit fall until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Liturgical hangings" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Liturgical hangings and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 20 § Liturgical hangings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sultanate of Morocco" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sultanate of Morocco has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 14 § Sultanate of Morocco until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]