I have restored your text, but it will soon be deleted again. I hope you understand that a man who owns a country with nuclear arsenal and has $40+ billions (according to your sources) can keep his BLP article clean.Biophys (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a pretty interested how does Russian nuclear arsenal help to keep Putin's BLP clean? Like he's dialing George Bush: hey, George, command your guys to clean up my article or the next day you'll wake up among ruins of the Washington? ellol (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, not. You know how. This is not a wikipedia issue. This is his personal image/publicity issue. Russian voters would be very disappointed to learn that Putin is their major oligarch. Hence the murder of Roman Tsepov who talked too much about Putin's money and Andrei Kozlov who reported to Putin himself about traces leading to his accounts abroad. Hence the murder of all open critics, such as Politkovskaya and Litvinenko. Once Larisa Latynina talked too much about his money. Next day, all her words have been carefully deleted from web site of Echo of Moscow and she started reporting from Israel. Once the dust had settled, she returned back. That is how it works, and you know that. They work by eliminating all "reliable sources", so nothing would appear in press.Biophys (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. But the nuclear arsenal is also very helpful. It forces George Bush (like you said) to look in his eyes and tell: "What can I see there?" "...K.G.B.? Oh, no, no! He must be our friend." Such a "helpful bourgeois idiot"! (a favorite Lenin's saying)Biophys (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, guys. Sorry to intrude, but this is my discussion page, not Putin's.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You are welcome to remove my comments.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Max and have a nice new year! Concerning your questions:

• The "Bishop of Ierissos, Holy Mountain & Ardamerion" is a greek bishop, belonging to the Church of Greece, under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. His title "of Holy Mountain" is only historical, as he does not have any connection or jurisdiction upon Mount Athos. Mount Athos is governed by the Synod of Heads of Monastries and it is under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
• The ancient Greek city of Perinthos was later renamed Heracleia. It is correct that the Metropolitan Bishop of Heracleia had a lot of Bishops under his juridiction. I read that during Leo VI the Wise his jurisdiction was covering 17 bishops! Today's turkish name is Marmara Ereğli.

I hope I helped you!--Kostisl (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. St. Hilarion (291-371) the anchorite = άγιος Ιλαρίων ο αναχωρητής
2. I put the shorthand at ru:Третий Спас (Ανακομιδή του αγίου Μανδηλίου)--Kostisl (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the Great? I do not know if he is called so...--Kostisl (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99 for the referral regarding your violation of the WP:NPA policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits here Diff are not constructive. The are the same edits that have all ready been reverted as not helpful to the article and violate the ideal of the WP:RRR. If you have any questions or if I can be of any help please leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here Diff is counter to WP:BLP restores content that has been removed and has been discussed at length on the talk page. The material has been removed a number of times and you have restored it a number of times. I always try to assume good faith but it would appear that you are intentionally ignoring Wikipedia Policy and attempting to engage in edit waring behavior. Your comment here Diff which completely disregards the content that is in violation of W:BLP and the fact that your first edit to the article after posting to my talk page was to restore the same, would seem to indicate knowledgeable intent to edit counter to consensus and policy. Before making contributions to an article that have been previously deleted and/or may be controversial please discuss them on the talk page of the article and seek consensus with other editors. Jeepday (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muscovite99. Given your apparent intention to continue making personal attacks despite the comments left at the RfC, I have started a thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all my respect, could you please do not make comments that can be interpreted as personal attacks in the future? Too many people are watching here for you. To be honest, I was very surprised to see how fast an RfC was opened about you, and how promptly you has been reported to the ANI. A lot of people behave much worse, but did not get attention. Regards, Biophys (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ο ζωοποιός σταυρός--Kostisl (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know Russian politics better than me. Fiction book "Lesser evil" by Yuli Dubov describes struggle of Berezovsky and Badri with an evil KGB general named "Old man" (Starik). Do you know who was the prototype of this fictional character? Book does not provides enough detail, except that wife of "Starik" committed a suicide in past.Biophys (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit Diff the addition of the primary source and making it clear in the reference that it is a primary source. I read the entry via Google translation, and it appears to support the entire paragraph. If you are fluent in Russian and can confirm this I would encourage you to site it again as appropriate at or near the end of the paragraph. I would also encourage you to use an improved style of referencing, my favorite style is here User:Jeepday/Cite and allows for the ease of second reference with <ref name="NAME"/>, the choice on referencing format is a personal one which is was described recently at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Tutorial. I am only offering friendly encouragement for improvement here, you are welcome to ignore my suggestions as the reference style (Wikipedia:Embedded citations) you have chosen while not as complete is one of the three preferred styles of referencing on Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying, I was out of the country.

Το 1313, το Άγιον Όρος υπήχθη ως σταυροπηγιακό στον Οικουμενικό Πατριάρχη και η επισκοπή περιορίζεται στη βορειοανατολική περιοχή της Χαλκιδικής: In 1313, Mount Athos was directly appointed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Diocese (it means the Diocese of Ierissos, Mount Athos and Ardamerion) was limited to the north-eastern part of the Chalkidiki peninsula.

I do not know if 1313 is correct. It is so written at the web site of this Diocese, indeed. It does not sound strange to me though, as the first Monastery in Mount Athos was founded at 963AD--Kostisl (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wishes.

As for your question, I think Μονή Καρακάλλου is the correct, ancient spelling. It is usual in modern Greek to simplify spellings like this, from double-λ to simple-λ for example. I guess this is the point here. I will check it and come back as soon as I find something.--Kostisl (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DRC. Any further restoration of comments on my page will be taken as harassment. Krawndawg (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil about pointing out the tendentious tendencies of an editor. I'm sorry you were offended by what I said, but I assure you I didn't mean it as an insult. Only to point out that it appears your bias against Putin is clouding your proper judgment in what qualifies as NPOV. Krawndawg (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. You're claiming you can't be biased against Putin because you've never personally met him? That makes very little sense to me. You can still be biased against his policies and against his actions etc.. but one way or another, I think you misunderstand my intentions. Krawndawg (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the extreme delay in my response to your question, but here is my answer.

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church considers their link to the Ecumenical Patriarchate through Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk), the first Patriarch of Kyiv in the UAOC, who was at the time, the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (UOC-USA), and also consider a tie to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's granting of autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church. In 1995, the UOC-USA was accepted into the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and thus with the UAOC hoping to receive similar status, started to recognize the Patriarch (Bartholomew) and the American Metropolitan, Constantine.

To date the UAOC is not part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or part of the UOC-USA. --Calak (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Doxology starts in Greek with the words: Δόξα Συ τω δείξαντι το φως, δόξα εν υψίστοις Θεώ...

Gloria in Excelsis Deo is δόξα εν υψίστοις Θεώ.--Kostisl (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filaret is translated Φιλάρετος in Greek. It is not very common, but it is used by monks and clergy.--Kostisl (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . 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. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of the complaint here I would advise you that you have been removing content inappropriately and request that you do not continue to do so. You may continue to argue for the removal of the sourced information, and its interpretation, on the article talkpage. However, if you remove this content without first forming a consensus to do so you will be blocked from editing. Please regard this as your final warning in this matter.

I would also comment that it appears that your block for 3RR was appropriate, as the content you were editing over was not vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]