User talk:Deusveritasest

Welcome!

Hello, Deusveritasest, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Deusveritasest

Hello

Hello User:Duesveritaset how are you doing well if you have any questions ask a admin well you can ask me but i do not know this is site really well. EriK Frillery 5:53, Feb, 08.

List of Christian Denominations

I'm finding it difficult to understand your changes, because of two things.

You still don't bother with edit summaries, despite having been asked many times to make them, and
You seem very impatient with trying to find consensus.

Some compromise is part of wikipedia. We clearly disagree about what names should be used for Orthodox churches in List of Christian denominations, but you have so far not been willing to write more than one sentence explaining your actions. I find this frustrating. Can we please seek consensus rather than just struggling? Tb (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained my actions in the names of these churches. I'm using the official names that these Churches to refer to themselves. To call the Church of Constantinople a Patriarchate and then not do the same for Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem is HIGHLY misleading.

Can you provide your documentation then? Since the Wikipedia pages do not specify these names as "the official names" I think you need to provide more than that. But also, you haven't answered my question: why do you think this page should deviate from those pages? Why should those pages--the official wikipedia sources for information on those churches--not be the standard-setter? I have no dog in this fight, but I think the fight should be carried on on those pages and not on List of Christian denominations. Would you please address that question, rather than just insisting that you're right? (After all, we don't use the "official name" for the Roman Catholic Church, because simply saying "Catholic Church" would be misleading.) Tb (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is, as I said, the use of not referring to Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (and even Moscow, Pec, etc.) as Patriarchates is also misleading. So in the case where the official name is less misleading it should be used. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's an important consideration. But I'm not sure what method you propose to determine the official name, and I'm not sure what to do about the polemically charged names which are often in use. I've created an RFC for this; I hope that I have accurately summarized your view, which I do think has merit. Perhaps the views of other editors will help figure out the right thing here. Tb (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I give you an example of what I object to? You have used the name "Church of France" and "Church of Britain" for the oriental orthodox jurisdictions in those countries. The former is not the name that church uses for itself. The wikipedia page is French Coptic Orthodox Church, and if you go to their website (http://eocf.free.fr/eglisep_eng.htm) you'll see that they use the name "French Coptic Orthodox Church." Likewise, "Church of Britain" may well confuse people (given the larger "Church of England") and their own name (see http://www.britishorthodox.org) is "British Orthodox Church", exactly matching British Orthodox Church. So I am concerned with your sources for these "official names." Tb (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that when the jurisdiction's own website gives a name for their church, and it agrees with the name of the Wikipedia article, that this is the name we should use? Tb (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the autonomous churches such as the British Orthodox Church and the French Orthodox Church have not yet been debated. And I never said I objected to them. What has been argued is the names of the patriarchal churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which case the official names found on the websites of those churches and on Orthodox wiki are in contrast to what is on wikipedia. Those are the churches I am making a big issue on. I have no problem referring to the Oriental Orthodox in Britain under the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch as the "British Orthodox Church" or that in France as the "French Coptic Orthodox Church". Deusveritasest (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good; I think I understand well then. Let's see what other editors think about the question for the churches where there is a question. Tb (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox wiki

Are you using Orthodox Wiki as your source for the official names of Orthodox churches? It is not a reliable source, and certainly not acceptible as a Wikipedia source. If that's not it, can you please be explicit about what source you are using? Tb (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the Greek Church of Alexandria refers calls itself "the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa" right off the bat: [1]

Likewise, the official website of the of the Greek Church of Alexandria refers to itself as "the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East" both on their front page and their homepage: [2]

The official website of the Greek Church of Jerusalem refers to itself as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem: [3]

However, I do not know what to do with Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia, because they all refer to themselves as both the Patriarchates of their respective patriarchal sees and the Churches of their respective countries. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, however, that again, referring to Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as Patriarchates but not Moscow, Peć, Bucharest, Sofia, and Tbilsi is also misleading. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far the other editors who have commented on Talk:List of Christian denominations have suggested that the right thing is to have the List of Christian denominations use the names of the Wikipedia pages for each. And, if those titles are incorrect, the pages should be renamed using the normal process. There are, BTW, cases in which the titles don't match the official name of the church for good reasons (such as Episcopal Church in the United States of America). As I said, I don't have a dog in the fight about which name is the right name for these--my concern is to keep Wikipedia self-consistent. So can I encourage you to work on getting the right names as titles for those pages, but also on agreeing to have List of Christian denominations match the content and titles of the other relevant pages, and not have a different divergent thing? Tb (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll take this matter to the main pages and leave the List of Christian denominations alone for now. Thanks for your concern in this matter. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect edit warring

If you change that redirect again without substantial discussion and a recognition of the months of discussion that went into it, you will be blocked. Gimmetrow 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the sort of thing you want to do during holy week? Gimmetrow 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defend the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church may very well be the Catholic Church spoken of in the Creeds? Yeah, it seems quite appropriate. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that CC points to RCC doesn't imply they are identical, whatever your POV may think. It was established in the last discussion, which went on for months, that the WP:PRIMARYMEANING of "Catholic Church" is the content currently at "Roman Catholic Church". Thus the redirect must point there. Gimmetrow 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not universally established as identical to RCC, then the CC should redirect to a page detailing the various possibilities of what is meant by CC. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not carry on this conversation in two places. Gimmetrow 05:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate on the Catholic Church redirect was conducted here: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive4#Compromise and had wide support form both sides. --WikiCats (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

The guidelines say "Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians." --WikiCats (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hes at it again, he trolled the Catholic Church redirect. - Ockie Eye (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edit which deleted the Catholic Church redirect to the page Roman Catholic Church. It looks as if you have been warned about doing that before. Please stop. I am working on this page quite a lot and I purposely check that redirect and the page is watched by quite a lot of other editors. NancyHeise ^talk 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should provide a defense for my substantial accusations of POV then. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Catholic Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Phenylalanine (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Catholic Church. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem we have a lot in common

I just took a look at your user page and got some insight into your personality. Take a look at mine.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually looked at your user page before. To go even further with the similarities, I was actually Baptized and Chrismated in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. So our roots are both in particularly Greek Orthodoxy. If you want to know more about me I have a Myspace profile (my profile), though I haven't used it in a while. I'm not exactly sure how to engage in user conversations on this site, but I'm guessing one just sticks to a particular section. Anyway, I'm interested in getting to know more about you, and hope to hear from you soon. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the only major difference between us is age; I am 44. I like a lot of the music on your list especially NIN and Soundgarden. Similar taste in movies, glad to see you have at least one foreign film - I love foreign films. I especially like horror films and shows that freak me out. What do you think of David Lynch as a director? How long have you and Justin been together? For the record, I am married to a wonderful guy for 12 years this past July 10th. If you want to chat you can always email me at Phiddipus@gmail.com--Phiddipus (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Justin_L_Raines/Userboxes/Abortion_and_Capital_Punishment for one of the userboxes in your profile. Trigaranus (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Council of Ephesus has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature of the Church

There are two reasons for this change. The term “sacrament” though commonly used in the United States is really a Roman Catholic notion and it carries with it the idea that there are levels of holiness in how we commune with God. The term that should be used is “Mystery”. The RC recognizes seven sacraments (baptism, communion, confession, etc.); the Orthodox, while recognizing these same mysteries, does not single them out as somehow being more important than other mysteries (such as lighting a candle, offering incense, venerating icons, etc). Orthodox Christians count as mysteries anything that facilitates our communion with God. Second, and perhaps most important, Orthodox Christians do not always share these Mysteries with each other. There have been numerous times when one group has isolated itself from another group because they felt that group was in error. There are currently fairly strong divisions between the Old and New Calendarists which remain in place. Theology is what unifies the Church.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is and who is not Orthodox is not decided by a majority of members, rather, adherence to the Orthodox Faith is the criterion by which Orthodox Christians are judged. Orthodoxy is not a club, and Truth exists independently of man’s opinions. Priests, Bishops, even Patriarchs do not have the power to enforce their opinions without Truth being on their side. Historically we know that hierarchs have at times become power hungry and have voiced heresies which were ultimately rejected by the Church. Likewise, there have been groups who stood with resistance to what they perceived to be heresy. Their intentions were to preserve the Church. There have been times as well when much of the Church fell into heresy and it was the resisters (such as Maximos the Confessor) who saved it. Today, there are a number of groups who believe absolutely in the Orthodox Faith and hold tenaciously to its traditions but resist what they call ecclesiastical heresy in the form of ecumenism. Some of these groups have completely separated themselves from the rest of the Church; but others, correctly following cannon law have mysteriologically walled themselves off from those that have fallen to this error. They see ecumenism as an illness that needs to be cured, not as a break from the body of the Church; and until it is cured they choose, for quite practical reasons, not to allow intercommunion. Canonically they have every right as Orthodox Christians to hold this position as long as they do not go so far as to pronounce the rest of Orthodoxy false and themselves alone as true. It is, in fact the position that every Orthodox Christian is bound to take if he feels that his particular priest or hierarch has fallen into error. Of course, those in error will make every effort to deny the Orthodoxy of the resistors, but as I said above, they do not have the right. Such things are decided by ecumenical council; and until one is convened we cannot ignore a position of resistance. --Phiddipus (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]