User talk:ASDamick

Fr. Andrew is currently in semi-retirement from OrthodoxWiki, so he may only be sporadically available and generally fairly inactive. Please remember him in your prayers.

• Archive 1 (Dec. 18, 2004 - June 17, 2005)
• Archive 2 (July 5, 2005 - Dec. 15, 2005)
• Archive 3 (Dec. 23, 2005 - Aug. 2, 2006)

---

Baby

Congratulations to you both! We are expecting our little baby girl in mid-October 2006. We might have to swap tips! {{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}} 23:48, August 5, 2006 (CDT)

Working on Bishop Basil entry

Dear ASDamick,

Thank you for your recent changes to the article on Basil (Osborne) of Amphipolis. I'm glad to see us working on this text together. I would like to see it accurately and dispassionately reflect the full state of affairs surrounding this bishop. I think that most of your revisions to my recent update of the text have been very helpful - again, my many thanks for them.

A few points that I think still need some further consideration:

• Title: The title 'Bishop of Amphipolis' is contested, and highly controversial. It doesn't seem appropriate for the OrthodoxWiki article on the bishop to take a definitive side one way or the other on this matter. I had altered the text to address this, which you refined nicely. However, I do think it appopriate that the issue is left relatively open, by simply referring to him as 'Bishop Basil' in most cases (e.g. in the caption under the photograph). The title of the article gives him the title 'Bishop of Amphipolis' already, which points things in a certain reading; but I think we need to be wary of giving 'our own blessing' to a matter that is disputed amongst the patriarchates.

• Nature of the bishop's retirement: I've corrected the paragraph on the nature of the bishop's forced retirement. This was not made because he sought reception in the EP, but because he sought to do so preemptorily, without canonical release and order.

• Title in summary box: In line with my point above on the bishop's title, I think it is only fair / accurate to return the small footnote qualifier on the title in the summary box at the bottom. Not to do so seems to claim, in the article, that the matter is disputed and open, only to go on in the summary information to present it as a closed/decided issue. I think in fairness to the actual situation, this small flag is warranted and not in itself a bias (cf. for example the summary boxes on autocephalous churches on Wikipedia, where a small asterisk is used next to churches whose autocephaly is disputed by some).

I've made edits to the article this morning to account for the above points; I hope they're in general things you approve of (I've made them as separate edits, so you can see the progression).

--Antonios 07:08, August 6, 2006 (CDT)

Edit count

"I'm currently in the lead and hoping I hit 10,000 first. (There's probably no prize, though.)"

I think we should throw a party. Fr. John

Seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof ? Fr. John

Bp Thomas (Joseph) of Oakland

Thanks for responding to the issue on my talk page; I fear that, in the mood I was in, my response would have been somewhat less than an exhibition of perfect charity. — edited by Pιsτévο ^{talk complaints} at 07:13, August 14, 2006 (CDT)

Byzantine response to OCA autocephaly

The bullet lists in Byzantine response to OCA autocephaly: Are they simply listing every single argument made by the Byzantine churches against OCA autocephaly? Because this one really boggles the mind: " * Moscow's act is an attempt to extend Soviet influence into America. "

This was perhaps tossed out by someone, somewhere, at some time, in an effort to amass as many objections as possible, but it clearly has no bearing whatsoever on the current state of affairs (as the rest of the article appears to). I'm not going to edit it quit yet (since you put it in there), but a footnote or an external link might be appropriate. Otherwise, it's completely spurious except as a historical curiosity which has clearly proven to be laughable. --Basil 16:16, August 14, 2006 (CDT)

I agree that documentation would be helpful. Historical arguments would be useful to keep in, as they do give some perspective on the historical relations between the two jurisdictions. Fr. John

Return

A nice, subtle change that has not gone unnoticed. I look forward to your inactive partication! — FrJohn (talk)

Welcome back, Deacon Andrew. I missed your discipline on keeping a consistent format for the articles. I mean this sincerely as I looked forward to your catching my "typos". It had kept me on the 'ball' but I still needed a good editor. Wsk 13:57, October 9, 2006 (CDT)

Congrats

I see you signed your last contribution "Father Andrew." Congratulations on your ordination! Gabriela 22:31, October 30, 2006 (CST)

corrupted letters

In editing the page Timeline of Church History with minor edits, the link you added [[bg:Времева лини�? на църковната и�?тори�?]] became corrupted. I would fix it, but the corrupted letters do not display on any of my browsers even if I look at the history. - Andrew 10:04, November 7, 2006 (PST)

AFAIK, this is a known issue with an upgrade to MySQL 5. I'm not enough of a whiz to fix the problem, and the damage is minimal, so we'll have to do it manually... Sorry! — FrJohn (talk)

Interwiki

Hi dear Father, I was leaving off the extra interwiki links for the Mian page until the additional localizations are ready for "Beta" stage, by which I mean that all the necessary documents have been translated... The "release" stage will then be when there are strong enough communities and moderation around these wikis to really launch them - i.e content and spam problems are dealt with quickly. — FrJohn (talk)