User talk:Troy 07

Welcome to my discussion page. Please post new messages to the bottom of the page and use headings when starting new discussion topics.
Please also sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.
Start a new discussion topic.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Troy 07, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

You were told at least part of what the problem was in the edit summaries. Please don't ignore such things in the future. You'll learn a lot about how things are done here if you read the links in the welcome message up top.

In any event, this change you want to make was discussed to death a long time ago. Like it or not -- and I don't -- when people think of Pope they mean the Pope of Rome, overwhelmingly. Usual Wikipedia practice in such cases is to give the most common meaning the unqualified title and to point to the disambiguation page in a hatnote, which is the current state of things wrt these articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if that's the case, how do I decide on the name with my fellow Wikipedians? Am I allowed to at least propose a Naming Convention to see what we can do with the current state of this article (and similar issues)? I was just wondering. Thanks,--~ Troy 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can start discussing a potential move informally on the article's talk page, or more formally through the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves (the latter is more or less a requirement for a controversial move, and also involves discussion on the article's talk page). See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Talk:Pope/Archive1#Naming and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz is correct. If you'd like to re-open the discussion, a good place to start is at Talk:Pope. Each article has an associated talk page for editors to work out issues like this one. If the move still proves to be controversial once you suggest it -- and I certain it will -- then you will need to go through the procedure explained at the requested moves link. But even that requires gathering a consensus in favor of the move you'd like to make.

In general, you move articles by using the "move" link that's right next to "history". This moves the article, the talk page, and the history to the new title, and automatically creates a redirect page at the old title. If there already is some history at the new title you'll need an administrator's assistance even for uncontroversial moves. Wikipedia:Requested moves tells you how to do that too. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the information. For now, I have decided to leave the issue of naming articles alone for the next little while, until I am use to the rules. If I decide to do that in the future, I will start a discussion to see if there is an agreement on the issue. ~ Troy 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on Athanasius of Alexandria

There seems to be some dispute about when Arius first encountered difficulties with the establishment of the church in Alexandria. Several recent books say his first disagreement with them took place during the term of Alexander, but some other books I've found place it as far back as Peter. Unfortunately, my sources don't indicate their own sources. If you by any chance have access to any information on what the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria says on the subject of Arius, I would be very grateful. I think it's probably counted as being the most reliable source on the period. If you do find anything, please leave a message at Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria#POV. Thanks. John Carter 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The category for those who are in the Oriental Orthodoxy WikiProject, Category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, is being considered for renaming. Please feel free to offer any comments you might wish to make at WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy. Thank you. John Carter 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria

You've recently put this article as top priority for our wikiproject. Regardless of how important he may be, our core biographies list is staying at 200 for right now. In the future though, we may be expanding it. The project is fairly dormant though so don't expect any big changes happening in the near future. Regards, Psych less 04:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Egypt

Hello Troy07, Wikipedia has a verifiability policy that requires statements in the text to have a reliable source back them up. Now some sources may have the Muslim population at 80%, but until those sources have been cited, the article cannot refer to them. Note that google searches in and of themselves are not sources. You can use Google to find reliable sources, which are usually sources that have some editorial oversight (not self-published). Find those sources, cite them in the article, and then place the range of 80%-90%, not the other way around. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troy. I just wanted to thank you for all the help you are offering with Coptic-related articles :) --Lanternix 20:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Greetings Fellow Copt!!!

Hello, Ghaly.

I have noticed that you have made several edits on Coptic-related articles. Kudos to you : )!!!

I have looked into your work — a fine job indeed. I'm looking forward to working on any articles with you, as I'm a big fan of Coptic history — being an Orthodox Copt myself. Once again, nice job.

I'd like you to send me a message if you want any help with verifying article details.

Regards,

~ Troy 00:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your message and comments , please feel free to add or change anything you would like , I understand that this is a collaborative effort on wikipedia and I will be very grateful for any help --Ghaly 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary Church ("Rmans ally")

Hi again.

Anyway, on the Seat of the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, it links you to "Saint Mary Church (Rmans ally)".

1. What Church is this? I think you mean "Romans ally."

2. Also, I believe you are thinking of the Coptic Orthodox of Saint Mary Church (Babylon Al-Darag). Is this true?

3. Lastly, I have noticed that you have worked on minor changes to my little development of the Church of the Holy Virgin in Babylon Al-Darag. Feel free to work some more on it, as it does need a lot of work. (BTW, you should remember that it's on User:Troy 07/Sandbox.)

PS: Pope Shenouda III will raise a Deacon to the Priestly rank in Cedar Grove, New Jersey at 7:00 AM EST time (Sept. 1). Of course Wales is quite far from there, but it's nice to know! (I'm in western Canada, so I'm not nearby either). You can learn more at http://www.saintmark.com.

I am awaiting your response (in due time).

Yours truly,

~ Troy 01:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry for that , you are correct it is Saint Mary Church (Romans ally) and if you look at ar:مقر بابا الإسكندرية you will find it written كنيسة السيدة العذراء حارة الروم - الغورية - قسم الدرب الأحمر I will try to sort it out at some stage Thanks a lot --Ghaly 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Virgin in Babylon Al-Darag

For future reference or discussion

My message to Coptic Wikipedians: I require help for developing the article for this Church (located in Coptic Cairo). You can do so by editing my sandbox at User:Troy 07/Sandbox (the page which currently holds my little project). I have contacted all of the other Coptic Wikipedians I know of for help. Please remember that copyright infringement will have to be reduced, as I have got the information from an article. I have typed a hidden message mentioning that and other things worth mentioning.

This is a list of all the Coptic Wikipedians that I know of (including myself):

Thank-you for your participation.

~ Troy 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troy! No worries about the copyright issues, since these can be easily solved. I was worried that many of the articles would be deleted (which often happens) if we didn't take care of them soon. I would be happy to collaborate with everyone else on these projects. I'll see what I can do for the two church articles that you mentioned. All the best, — Zerida 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troy, after reading the draft version in the sandbox, I see that it is a word-for-word copy of the Tour Egypt article. Unfortunately, I see nothing salvageable here as this is not an article yet. Since we already know this is a copyright violation, and since Wikipedia has a very strict policy on that, we cannot turn this draft into an article. It must be written from scratch. It's also counterintuitive to have the exact same article on a topic that is easily accessible elsewhere. Most people searching for information on the church will probably come up with the Tour Egypt site, and if they find the same information on Wiki, they will just ignore it. My suggestion is to create a stub in the mainspace with a descriptive paragraph in your own words. It doesn't have to be a stellar article to start. We can take small steps building it like with most other articles, or continue doing it in the sandbox until we have an article. I have some reference books that we can use in addition to the web links. Cheers, — Zerida 17:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll work on the stub that Ghaly created as time permits as well. Take care, — Zerida 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the page is still not on the mainspace I started a sub at Saint Mary Church (Babylon Al-Darag) ; feel free to edit , change , or redirect --Ghaly 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope (disambiguation)

Continuing this discussion, I should have been clearer in what I was pointing out. Disambiguation pages generally all take a similar form, based on the Manual of Style. They are not even really considered articles themselves, but a sort of signpost to direct people to the relevant content articles. I believe the new material does not serve that purpose in its present form. I also have concerns about neutral point of view with the prescriptive value judgments that appear to be implied by statements such as "Abba is the most powerful designation, that for all Monks in the East to volanterily follow his spiritual authority, it should be assumed he was a bearer of Christ." I'm asking (linked) WikiProject Religion folks to look in here and give their ideas. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~). Thanks! User:scbomber 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (category:Christian articles requiring attention)[reply]

Egyptians and Arabs

I think you made a mistake [2]. You deleted the reference which proves what you said on that article talk page. We are in agreement from what you said. Thank you. Hamada2 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you. I changed it back because I thought you made a mistake. What you deleted actually has a reference that agrees with what you said. Thanks. Hamada2 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troy! I am rather tired of this topic to be honest, and I particularly dislike using talk pages as debating forums. I simply supply references in the articles in question to maintain WP:NPOV. Our concern should be what the articles say, not the flaming arguments that some editors initiate on talk pages. I have provided a reference in the past regarding a Coptic conference [3], in which this issue was addressed. There is also a section in the Egypt article which discusses the topic in more detail, so interested parties can refer to that as well. I hope this helps. — Zerida 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, another thing that I'd like to point out Troy is that it is not helpful to canvass some particular users [4] whose editing behavior is often disruptive, mostly consisting of posting inflammatory messages on talk pages and baiting and canvassing other users to edit war. I'm sure you mean no harm, but please be more careful whom you ask for help and for what. Here are also some of the things that Wikipedia is not. Thanks, — Zerida 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copts

The problem is that I tried to draw a line between Egyptian Arabs -either ethnic or Arbized- (most of the muslims). and the Coptic christians (obviously not Arab or Araboized), their are no sources for political reasons, but we all know the turth.
You have to fix the Egyptian identity section, seperate the Arabized and Ethnic Arab muslims from the Christian Egyptians so the article can make sense.
I tried to fix the article Arab Christians, myself (an ethnic Christian Arab). However, if I continue editing the article I will only start offending people. I recommend that the Egyptian christians define themselves clearly as non-Arabs, opposed the Muslim Arabs. in the EGyptian articles, so it can make sense?! Also for some reason Lanternix insist that All Egyptians are non Arabs! (although millions are Arabized and claim Kinana lineage) so I am assuming this has to do with that. If you are a coolhead we can fix this.
I have respect for non-Arabs regardless of religion, and I don't like the generalization in both ways.--Skatewalk 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MATTA EL-MESKEEN

This article (Matta El Meskeen) wrongfully states that he was not at any point excommunicated by His Holiness Pope Cyril VI. HOW CAN YOU DENY WHAT HH Pope Shenouda III wrote??? It says it all on P. 6 of this link (English El-Keraza). He (Papa Shenouda) has severely warned anyone of what Matta el-Meskeen taught — Pope Shenouda even wrote 6 BOOKS countering Matta el-Meskeen's opinion on the church beliefs.

I'm not going against you, but you CANNOT DENY what HH Pope Shenouda wrote.

I believe that this is one of the most important sources you'll when it comes to the opinion of Pope Shenouda on Matta's teachings.

I am contacting others on the issue.

Thanks,

~ Troy 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say , unless I am mistaken, I only edited twice on Matta El Meskeen's article , (they were both on 21 Jauary 2007) and it was to add the information stating that he was the spiritual guide of the Coptic historian Iris Habib Elmasry. [You can check that by pressing here.]

This means that I am not the one who added the information regarding excommunication that you are mentioning. Hope this will cvalrify matters. --Ghaly 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, as I see it. However, this can only mean one thing: this article from the beginning seems to show Fr. Matta as one who was totally accepted by Coptic Popes. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I have quotes from Matta el Meskeen where he basically insults the way Pope Shenouda handles church matters. These quotes even supported Anwar Sadet. I'll let you see them in a moment. Thanks for clarifying your position. ~ Troy 17:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've got the quotes. They are from this historic article. I hope this can shed some light onto the issue.

“

I can't say I'm happy, but I am at peace now. Every morning I was expecting news of more bloody collisions. Sadat's actions protect the church and the Copts. They are from God.

”

...he later states:

“

Shenouda's appointment was the beginning of the trouble. The mind replaced inspiration, and planning replaced prayer. For the first years I prayed for him, but I see the church is going from bad to worse because of his behavior.

”

This looks to be FAR too politically influenced, but that is what happens when politicians mess with Church affairs.

...But the worst part is, he (Matta) said: "For the first years I prayed for him, but I see the church is going from bad to worse because of his behavior."

To that, I have the following response:

1. Pope Shenouda's "behaviour" was nothing of the sort. If anyone dares to insult his "behaviour," then they're the ones who have bad "behavior."

2. EVEN IF Pope Shenouda's "behaviour" was not positive (which is entirely untrue), does that mean that you should stop praying for him??? Never, for that is the largest reason why you would pray for anyone.

So, I have proper evidence that this article needs some real help. It would be good if you can take part in that.

Thanks,

~ Troy 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books

Sorry, did I say 6 books? I MEANT 8!!! Anyway, HH the Pope did write 8 books as a counterpoint to Fr. Matta's presumably incorrect teachings.

By the way, I will in fact be a bit busier for the next little while, so if you could help out with the article Matta El Meskeen, then that would be great... If you can't, then let me know. Thanks, ~ Troy 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged the article of Matta El Meskeen ; I hope this will be of help to you ; the subject is very contrevertial and I tried to follow the policy of NPOV of wikipedia when it comes to editing ths article if possible; The information included make this difficult and contreversy will not stop regarding the two leaders mentioned in the article, many thanks --Ghaly 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabized people

Hi troy, I have noticed this about some people bragging people into their Arab system just because those people speak a dialect of Arabic. I agree with you that a language don't make an ethnic result but I got a question. Iraq is offcourse arabized along with other countries in levant but if they are not ethnic Arab what are they then? Sumerians? Have a nice day Nancy usa 08:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to help?

If so then visit [5] :) Nick10000 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasius of Alexandria

I think the naming conventions generally call for the individual to be listed by the name by which he is best and least-ambiguously known. In this case, particularly to the Western Christians (Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and whatnot), the subject is best known as Athanasius of Alexandria, or Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. In this particular case, where he is known more for his actions than for his position (as it were), I think just simple "Athanasius of Alexandria" might be the best name for the article. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Forgot about redirects. This isn't my day, sorry. John Carter 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture request

I will gladly take the picture of Coptic Center. (Walking distance from my home) SYSS Mouse 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the one on Eglinton Avenue--I was there a couple of years ago for a funeral. I'll take a picture next time I'm in the area, unless SYSS Mouse beats me to it. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFPP requests

Hey there Troy. I chose not to protect the pages your requested, since the issues are only with one user. I warned the IP for their abusive and POV edit summaries and issues, and if it continues, just let me know. I appreciate you keeping a calm head with the issue, and, as always, happy editing! :) Jmlk 1 7 01:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for helping. As I see it, Wikipedia works far better when users like you are there to help out. Your contributions are greatly appreciated, ~ Troy (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following section appears to have been vandalism by IP address # 200.215.40.3 (anonymous user):

Against your usurpations

The followers of Claude Vorilhon call him "His Holiness"; what do you think of that? If they called him "Holy Father", would that be legitimate? The pretension of a title does not mean that you ACTUALLY possess that title. The coptic "patriarch" DOESN’T have the right of being called "His Holiness", "Holy Father" nor "Pontiff", because these titles are CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY CATHOLICS and they belong to the CATHOLIC tradition. However, your "patriarch" is COPTIC.

You should be ashamed of doing so base usurpations and so unfounded interpolations. And, in addition to everything else, you dare to put your "patriarch" before the POPE. When editing the english Wikipedia, remember always that it is in the WEST, not in Africa. But the most absurd of all is that you want to have reason.

I will say again, give up of your (absurd, ridiculous and illegitimate) claims. You know that the cause of all these usurpations is nothing but envy. By copying things of the Catholic Church, you acknowledge the inferiority of your religion itself.

(I have a guess: you are William A. Hanna) 200.215.40.3 (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respond to the above remarks as follows:

1. First thing's first: before everything else, you MUST be respectful. I have no intentions of making usurptions.

2. You MUST NOT call others "heretics". I am a Copt who is respectful of others, but the same should go for Copts and non-Copts alike. I promise you this: I will NOT make a personal attack on anyone the way some people might do. I would never dare say what you said, "you acknowledge the inferiority of your religion itself," as it is insulting.'

3. The Coptic Pope has held the title of "Pope" before the Pope of Rome. I don't have any disrespect for the Roman Pope, it's simply just a fact. Just look at the articles "Patriarch of Alexandria" or "Coptic Pope".'

4. I have several sources. From time to time I might be wrong, but at least I look for a factual basis.'

5. You cannot directly prove that other people are wrong. The best way to do that is to prove yourself right.'

I am a busy person, so whether or not I respond to these issues right away is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that I will:

A. Notify you about the issue. B. Notify others about the issue. C. Make a final decision along with everybody else about how to avoid this issue.

Also, I am not the person who you said I was. Please don't point fingers at others.

If you can't comply with Wikipedia policy, your edits are not welcome. I learned that the hard way when I was blocked once. Now you have to understand that.

~ Troy (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Flag

Hi Troy, Would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coptic flag and let us know your opinion? Thanks :) --Lanternix (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ويكيبيديا مصرى

Hi, you might know this already,but I have put a proposal and started an active project for ويكيبيديا مصرى wikipedia Masri. If this may interest you , I would be very grateful for any help you can offer in this project, many thanks.

To vote on the proposal or add your name as a potential editor please press here.--Ghaly (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Troy 07!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

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

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Troy 07! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Tinucherian (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Getting Started
General • Task for You Wikiproject Talk Page • Templates
Useful Links
Project Category List of Christian Topics Christianity Portal
Miscellaneous
Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know? •

Work Groups
Anabaptist • Core Topics • Indian Christianity Iglesia ni Cristo • Jesus • Syriac Christianity
Projects
Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics
Similar WikiProjects
Anglicanism • Bible • Calvinism Roman Catholicism • Lutheranism

Thank You

Just a quick note to thank you for defending Coptic articles against vandalism (Copt and Template:Copts). The same people are also constantly vandalizing Coptic flag, so maybe you should keep an eye on it too. Thanks :) --132.198.88.48 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copts in Libya

Thanks for adding info about Copts in Libya. The lines you added say that the Coptic community in Libya is composed almost exclusively of foreigners. Are you sure that almost exclusively is the right choice of words here as I am not aware that there are non-Muslim Libyan nationals, which would mislead the reader to thinking that there is indeed a small (very small) indigenous minority of Libyan Copts - which is not the case. P.S. Consider adding the info to Christianity in Libya article as well. cheers. ;) -- hɑkeem_¡ʇu^{ɐ^ɹ}ɯǝǝʞɐɥ 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I wrote that specifically in the article "Religion in Libya"? If so, than I only added to what had already been written.

This is the original sentence (as I remember it):

"The Anglican bishop of Libya has his seat in Cairo, as most Christians in Libya come from Egypt"

This is half-true, as Copts, who slightly outnumber the other denominations, are originally from Egypt — in fact, they are probably the closest to being pure descendants of the ancient Egyptians. However, you do have a point as to how this implies that the, quote, majority of Christians are almost exclusively foreigners.

I only added:

"The Anglican bishop of Libya has his seat in Cairo, as most Christians in Libya come from Egypt... including the Copts"

Either way, both are inaccurate, as it should probably only say that most Christians, the Coptic Orthodox, as well a few other denominations, have historical roots in Egypt.

I can tell you one thing for sure, though, I don't even remember writing the exact words: "the Coptic community in Libya is composed almost exclusively of foreigners". I know for a fact that this is not logical, as it is not feasible in most circumstances to have the majority being immigrants for centuries! The Italians have a history as well, as Libya was once a colony, so the same goes for all of the other Christians who have at least a notable prescence (ie: Catholics, Anglicans, Greeks, Russians).

Also, it was contradictary when it said that the Catholics have the largest minority, and then said the same for the Copts. According to the source I added, along with the Catholic source, the Copts should have about 10,000-20,000 more than the Catholics, so as this difference is not noticable, I see why the articles said what they used to.

Would you mind telling me where you think it needs help? Until then, I will try to add more information to the articles - may be it should clear up this mess with all this articles (the text is almost "exclusively" copy-and-pasted XD)Thanks a bunch. :)

~ Troy 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for having botherred you. I have rechecked the article and it appears that another wikipedian wrote that-I removed the word almost anway. Sorry again.

By the way, even though I do believe that 60000 does faithfully represent the number of Copts in Libya (most of which are from upper Egypt (which is the lower part;))-I know this as an unresearched first-hand knowledge), I would like to draw your attention to the fact that LookLex is not quite an accurate source. For example their entry about Libya is full of mistakes about obvious things. So if you can support your additions with more reliable source the article Christianity in Libya would be in a much better shape. I am willing to cooperate with you to dig up more info on Libya-related Coptic and Christian matters, as long as we work within the bounds of objectivity and neutrallity. Thanks a bundle.-- hɑkeem_¡ʇu^{ɐ^ɹ}ɯǝǝʞɐɥ 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The problem was with using the word almost with exclusively which is suggestive that there are some Native Libyan Christians, which is not the case. I know that claiming that 'No Libyan is Christian' is a paradigm sentence for a Negative proof, but given the fact that historically the last communities of christians in Libya go back to 9th century B.C. (I don't have a reference for that, but it is a word from a scholar who works on the history of christianity in North Africa) AND given the fact that no body, no source has ever mentioned the fact that contemporary Christian Libyan cases have been recorded AND given the fact that the law in Libya prohibits proselytization (so there is no way a Libyan can have a change of heart on matters of faith-at least not outloud), I think the burden of proof lies on the claim that Libyan Christians do exist. As of the present status quo, the best word to describe the situation is 'exclusively foreigners'. I am going to revert it to exclusively. If you think there are better reasons for keeping 'largely' please post me up. Cheers.-- hɑkeem_¡ʇu^{ɐ^ɹ}ɯǝǝʞɐɥ 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am taking the descussion to pages Christianity in Libya and Religion in Libya and Libya so other people can chip in.

Template:Copts — constant rvs

Thanks for the heads-up Troy :) Apparently they've been also vandalizing Copt and Coptic flag back and forth. I'll try to keep an eye on these articles with you. Thanks again and keep up the great work :) --Lanternix (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Re. Full-protection for: "Copt", "Coptic flag" & "Template:Copts"

Hello Troy. Here's why those pages had to be fully protected. Firstly, those edits are more of content disputes, not vandalism. The purpose of vandalism is to deliberately damage the article, whereas removing something because one thinks it should not be in the article is merely a content dispute. And when two editors keep reverting each other, that's an edit war. It's not up to an administrator to decide which side is right on an edit war, we simply grant protection to the article in question. For edit wars, full protection is required (or for vandalism, semi-protection). But since the warring users were IPs, I had decided to open an exception and grant semi-protection only, as that should suffice. However, I quickly thought it over, because since you (a registered user) sided with one of the parties by reverting the other one, I had to grant full protection. By doing so, the closing administrator cannot be accused of siding with one of the parties by preventing one from editing, while allowing the other to. Regards, Húsönd 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Americans

Hi there, please see history comment for Egyptian Americans. The two sources note a coptic source and the newspaper article cites to the coptic source. Perhaps you can locate a source that is entirely neutral and generally comports to the reliable source requirements. Thanks! See, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOTTRUTH, and WP:NPOV Scythian1 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scynthian 1. I'd like to thank you for "citing" the problem in the references ;) on the article "Egyptian Americans". I added a relatively recent (c. 1993) NY Times article in response—it actually says that there's more than a million Egyptian Copts in North America — the majority is likely in the US. For that, you can look at the Canada 2001 Census, which states that there were at least 10,285 Orthodox Copts in Canada (I say "at least' because I don't believe that everyone was counted as I wasn't, being someone who lives in Canada). At most, there might be one or a couple of hundred-thousand Copts in Canada, but they're probably still in the tens of thousands. There's only one Church in Mexico, from what I know, so there's certainly not a lot of them there. Besides, you can probably see that the New York Times is usually accurate, as I find it to be a trustworthy source for the most part. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Nofri Troy, I commented on the Egyptian Australian article. If you could also take a look at the latest disputes on Egyptians and Coptic language, that would be great. BTW, I don't know if you know user:Zerida. she used to be a great contributor to articles about Egypt and Copts, but she's been recently banned. We may need to be extra active now that she's gone. Ougai khen Epshois. --Lanternix (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.

Replied here. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected that one too. It's no pressure at all, glad to help slow down the reverting. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're welcome. Also, see here, if you haven't already. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic language

Thanks for you message , I have expressed my opinion regarding the matter of extinction of the Coptic Language that I think it is not extinct. Ghaly (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Copt.

Do you want full-protection (edit war) or semi-protection (vandalism)? · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fully-protected indefinitely, until the edit war is over. Put it up on WP:RFPP when there's consensus (or leave me a message). · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could have sworn I did that... anyway, fixed now. · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery of St. Antonius in Waldsolms-Kröffelbach

Hello,

I've noticed a photo posted by yourself that is marked "Monastery of St. Antonious" appearing on several wiki pages. On the fence in the foreground appears the emblem of the New Apostolic Church. I'm curious as to why this is? I not aware of the Coptic church using this symbol nor am I aware of any affiliation between the two organizations. Am I mistaken in some way? Is this symbol more broadly used? Any clarification would be helpful. thanks Aseelisch (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing

Why are you reverting my message to the admin as vandalism? 70.137.137.130 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. ~ Troy (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be disruptive? I have not been disruptive. Please don't prevent me from communication with the admin. I have done a long series of tedious edits, while proofreading an article against the references. There is nothing disruptive in it. I make the admin aware of the facts. It is not well possible that I dig out 30 references, open them and proofread against them, and after that the initial authors revert all as if I am an idiot and yell "Vandalism". Listen, I am an old fart and have worked 35 years in R&D, and I don't want to be pushed in the category of your Kindergarten and being accused of vandalism. I don't do "vandalism" like the mainly immature and juvenile kids who are making their fun with the articles. Convince yourself of the facts. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't start an edit war, I just did a long series of edits and explained what I was doing. Then they reverted and yelled vandalism and edit war. Read the whole history of the last week and the discussions of the last months, since April. How can I avoid such an edit war? Bold edits are perfectly legal and to WP policies. Their reaction is not completely honest, in that they avoid discussion, until enough edits are accumulated to make it appear as disruptive. Then they revert and yell vandalism and edit war and have everything locked in reverted state. This is foul play. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't foul play of the admin. I know that. But it was a bit of foul play on the side of the "owners" of the article. First they wait until 34 edits have accumulated and I have restructured and polished the article by proofreading. They don't respond to any discussion. Then they revert all without comment and yell Vandalism, call the admin. The admin sees a huge change, believes it is vandalism or page blanking and blocks. They have played this game before on other editors, if you look at the history. The admin is not to be blamed at all. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

حبيب جرجس

Hey Ghaly! Help would be appreciated if you can improve/expand "Habib Girgis" (and if you're willing to start an article in Arabic Wikipedia taken from here, then that would be great). I have put some sources as well (ie: I've read online that there's a book written by Habib Girgis called "between past and present"//"بين الماضي والحاضر", so if you have it, that would be great). You don't need to do any of this if you don't have time, but if you do, then I'll be there to help out. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ghaly (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you need me for anything, don't hesitate to ask. ~ Troy (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Flag

Nodri Troy; I replied to the Coptic flag discussion on the Copt talk page. Also, thanks for the sneaky Coptic font advice :) What exactly do yo uhave in mind regarding that Coptic version of the Bible article? Ougai. --Lanternix (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User talk:71.116.162.168

Per WP:UP#CMT I believe this wasn't needed (I was thinking of doing the same until I checked up on the policy). Just FYI! :) -Rushyo (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page edit

That wasn't vandalism. I was removing the template from a talk page whose article is a redirect, and therefore should not have the template. But thanks for watching out for vandals, MrKIA11 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche movement

That wasn't vandalism either. --Polly Hedra (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thank you for your message [6] on my talk page. Actually I did see the warning you left at User talk:77.248.185.98, however I felt that a {{uw-vandalism4im}} was inappropriate for the situation ... hence my "user has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned" comment at WP:AIV. For future reference, you might consider a {{uw-3rr}} or something similar for a WP:3RR. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of my talk page

I only wished to make the statment sooner instead of later. --> Halmstad, Talk:Halmstad 03:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Someone wants help

Sure, I'll have a look. Regards, Húsönd 01:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I went to the kitchen for a snack and when I came back and read your comment, that vandal had already been done away with. Pity. :-) Thanks for the compliment. Feel free to request assistance whenever you need. Best regards, Húsönd 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We must leave it. Regardless of the claims of the IP user, the content that he/she was trying to remove is sourced. When content is verifiable, it must stay. Húsönd 02:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Re. User Page Protection

Hello Troy. Whenever you need semi-protection for any of your user pages, just ask me for it if you see I'm online, or any other admin you see is online, or request it at WP:RFPP. Users have the right to have their user pages semi-protected upon request. Regards, Húsönd 23:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy, I think that user does not exist. Could you please check the name of the account you wrote for any eventual typo? Húsönd 23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I know about contributions, Troy. What I mean is, if you click on the link you gave me, you'll see no contributions at all. Please verify the user. Húsönd 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is not a vandal-only account. He's causing a lot of disruption alright, but even that does not appear to be in bad faith. Still, he has been warned and if he continues to be disruptive then a block shall be in order. But only if he transgresses a last warning. Regards, Húsönd 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The IP 24.251.72.114, that Is actually me, I'm testing anti vandalism techniques, the ip edits from that ip address are me logged out, please disregard all edits from that ip to that page. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh, thanks :) - Tyler Puetz (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User talk:24.251.72.114

User talk:24.251.72.114, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:24.251.72.114 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:24.251.72.114 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TKAM post

Hi, just letting you know I responded to your post on my talk page. (Do I have to place the tag that says you have a new message on my talk page, or does that happen automatically? I can't find the template for it.)

Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my comment

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. 77.248.185.98 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you are not in the liberty to strike my comment according to wikipedia policy. Only the commentator himself can do that if he wishes it. But, for you, If you wont stop your disruptive editing of freedom of speach, i will have to report you a second time. Please note that you are blindly engaged in vandalistic acts driven out of religious motives 77.248.185.98 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]