Hello, Kpant, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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! Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the warm welcome!

I started editing Wikipedia first time several days ago, and I got blocked right away - my edits were without any explanation reverted (see the history page of Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric).

I consider that this move was not in accordance with the Wikipedia policies of neutrality, fair conduct and especially the "don't bite a newbe" policy

I am willing to elaborate and provide references for each change that I make to this Wiki, but if any administrator can just delete my edits without any reason and explanation, I cannot contribute.

The user that blocked me is User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise he ignored my email to discuss the issue, also does not reply to my question on his user page. I see that he has a large record of misconduct [1] [2]

Therefore, I still hope that it is only an incident that I ran into such problems at the start.

{{helpme}} My question is this: I want to continue editing the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric page, but I don't want to start an edit war. Please advise me what is the best way that I proceed.

Kpant ( talk) 09:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Talk to the other editors - that's the most important thing. Start a discussion about the proposed edits on the talk page of the article, and leave a brief note to other major contributors, asking them to look in on the discussion. Stick to the point, use clear arguments, and sort it out between you - ie try to reach a consensus - if that fails, ask for more opinions - see WP:DISPUTE for lots of ideas on this. I hope this helps?  Chzz   ►  13:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help! The problem is that the person who deleted my edits without reason and explanation does not answer my email, nor my message on his talk page. If he found something disputable, he should have stated what that was, provide evidence that prove his standpoint. Everything that was stated in that edit was supported by lots of third-party references. Somehow, I see now that that article has been reverted to a much older version, and there is no history to show the dispute. So, I will edit it again. Hopefully, the reactions this time shall be more civilized.

Thanks for uploading File:Archbishop Jovan under arrest.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Fixed, thanks for the notice! Kpant ( talk) 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Archbishop Jovan under arrest.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

{{ helpme}} How do I move this article?

I proposed moving the article Zoran Vraniškovski to Jovan Vraniškovski, and provided evidence to prove that the later variant is the only correct one. I was not able to do the move myself, as the other page exists. I also posted this matter on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and tried to contact the persons that initiated the move from the correct (Jovan) to the current (Zoran) version (that move turned out to be based on false assumptions), but with no success, so far. How should I proceed? Should I ask a particular administrator to handle this issue, or will some administrator see the move notification and react?

Hi KPant, I've made the request on the redirect page to have their histories merged (thus deleting one and merging the history of authors together). Sooner or later it'll be merged by an administrator. ^blurred _peace ☮ 10:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Orthodox word 242-243.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on File:Patriarch Bartholomew Archbishop Jovan Liturgy.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Church Destruction Nizepole.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Archbishopric of Ohrid Synod Patriarch Paul.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you, but I've got no idea about other European countries... Can you just save the image...mark it on your own, and then send it to this email adress so that I upload it again? fabio.ab94@hotmail.com I'd appreciate that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabioAbazaj ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a minor note, the renaming to simply "Orthodox Church", although it is of course a correct name of the Church, would just imitate what happened at "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" (which at least in my opinion was done by ignoring the disambiguation policy), and it might indirectly encourage other articles to ignore the wiki naming policy, this should rather be avoided in my opinion. But of course, it is your choice whatever you support. Cody7777777 ( talk) 16:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Cody. There were several people that on the talk page of the Orthodox Church article stated their opinion that renaming Eastern Orthodox Church to Orthodox Church was much more straightforward than the renaming of the Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. I agree with that.

Your behaviour on this whole matter has been very violent (you were warned about the 15 copy-pasted repeats of your own statements weighting several KBs, did you have in mind the tl;dr by the way?), and your insisting on the word "Catholic" in the title is far from objective. I am not sure whether you aim towards uniatism, but that is the sort of confusion that would have been created, had we followed your lead.

Kpant ( talk) 17:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, the reason I kept repeating the same arguments was because I had (and to be honest, I still have) the impression that I was ignored (but maybe, I just don't understand something). As I said in that discussion, I had never seen the title "Orthodox Catholic Church" referring to the uniate (they are not called in english "orthodox", at least as far as I know). "Orthodox Catholic Church", does not give any impression of uniatism (at least in my opinion), quite the contrary, from an orthodox point of view, I believe it states there is only one true (Orthodox) Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church does not need to abandon this traditional title, if someone else also uses it (many Saints have called many times to the Orthodox Church as the "Catholic Church", they clearly knew these things much better than us). Except what was shown in that discussion, you can also find a small article here offering some explanations about "Catholic". Cody7777777 ( talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a recent confession of faith against ecumenism, I thought you may be interested to see it. Cody7777777 ( talk) 17:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for sharing that. I did not figure out, what is the reason for compiling such a statement? Kpant ( talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the reason why this confession of faith was compiled, was because of the popularity the ecumenist movement has achieved in the world, even among some Orthodox Churches. (Also, it should be noted that the confession uses "Catholic" only when referring to Orthodoxy.) Cody7777777 ( talk) 07:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I am again in discussion about the evisceration of sane Wiki policies (naming articles). Since you appear to take the side of in opposition to mine.. I invite you to continue that discussion on the Roman Catholic talk page. LoveMonkey ( talk) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the invitation. I did not agree with your suggestions on naming another wiki article. I assume in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, we would agree that Roman Catholic is more objective than Catholic Church. But, as I see, the renaming initiative has finished. Kpant ( talk) 17:50, 31 August 2009 (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