Καλώς ήρθες!


Чръный человек, καλώς όρισες στη Βικιπαίδεια! Η συνεισφορά σου είναι ευπρόσδεκτη. Ακολουθούν μερικοί χρήσιμοι σύνδεσμοι:

Μπορείς να υπογράφεις στις σελίδες συζήτησης γράφοντας ~~~~ ή πατώντας το κουμπί της υπογραφής (). Για οποιαδήποτε βοήθεια ή απορία, μπορείς να απευθυνθείς στην Αγορά. Καλή συνέχεια!  Nataly8 12:31, 21 Ιουλίου 2010 (UTC)Απάντηση

Πρόταση λήμματος για διαγραφή Επεξεργασία

Αγαπητέ Чръный человек, το λήμμα Λαύρος Σκούρλα που δημιούργησες (ή σε ενδιαφέρει) έχει προταθεί για γρήγορη διαγραφή για τον ακόλουθο λόγο: Αυτόματη μετάφραση από ru:Лавр (Шкурла). Εάν είσαι σίγουρος ότι το λήμμα ακολουθεί την πολιτική και δεν περιλαμβάνεται στα κριτήρια γρήγορης διαγραφής μπορείς να πεις την γνώμη σου στην σελίδα συζήτησης του λήμματος. Πιθανώς να χρειάζεται να διαβάσεις την πολιτική (π.χ. εγκυκλοπαιδικότητα ή προβλήματα πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων) και τις σχετικές οδηγίες πριν σχηματίσεις άποψη. —Vagrand (συζήτηση) 13:27, 17 Απριλίου 2013 (UTC)Απάντηση

Thank you for treatment and improvement the article. ~ Чръный человек (συζήτηση) 05:07, 18 Απριλίου 2013 (UTC)Απάντηση

The problem is that no Wikipedian, in this wiki or elsewhere has the patience to spend time correcting articles with so much mistakes and misunderstandings... Especially when it's not situated in his favourite subjects (that's my case... unfortunately...)... You have to understand that creating articles of such quality in the use of language, puts them immediately as ones to delete due to the fact that an admin could, eventually, consider them being a result of use of an automatic translator, like Google Translate... Maybe it's not your case but the result looks like it... Anyway... What you could do, is to try writting short articles which are easier to correct than big ones... An article, for example, of around 10 lines would be easier to correct than one with around 50... спасибо...--Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! (συζήτηση) 15:54, 18 Απριλίου 2013 (UTC)Απάντηση

I really don't think that text will be so unreadable. That's true, I used Google Translate, but the fact is the article based not only in semiautimatic translations. I took information from Mark Markou database [1] (in greek). ~ Чръный человек (συζήτηση) 04:15, 19 Απριλίου 2013 (UTC)Απάντηση
This is great that you contribute here on el.wiki...I have some tips for you though as long as you use automated translations. Some webpages provide free correction of texts from native speakers of the language, such as Lang-8 and Italki which is quite popular. You can make corrections to the automated translations there and after that put it in articles on el.wiki..In case you want to continue with automated translations just put your text in a user subpage and I will help you to fix it (I will try to respond in a period of 5 or 6 days). Then we can always move the page in the main namespace. All the best. --Γλαύκος shoot it 11:28, 19 Απριλίου 2013 (UTC)Απάντηση
Good day. If you want to keep up with automated translations please have in mind to put the text in a user subpage like Χρήστης:Чръный человек/Title of the article and leave a notice for help to my talk page. Do not put that text in the main namespace. --Γλαύκος shoot it 06:21, 21 Απριλίου 2013 (UTC)Απάντηση

File:Artoclassia.3.JPG Επεξεργασία

ο Μητροπολίτης Νικαίας Αλέξιος, (Alexios [Bishop of Νίκαια Αττικής], (sorry for late ans.)--Templar52 (συζήτηση) 18:08, 17 Δεκεμβρίου 2013 (UTC)Απάντηση

Metropolis of Austria Επεξεργασία

What is the problem with the church in Budapest and you keep deleting it from the article? Κωστής (συζήτηση) 10:45, 20 Ιανουαρίου 2024 (UTC)Απάντηση

  • The fact is that this cathedral has never been under the jurisdiction not only of the Metropolis of Austria, but also under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Yes, it was founded and built by local Greeks together with local Vlachs. And they served in Greek. This parish was subordinate to Serbian Metropolis, later Patriarchate of Karlovci, but not Constantinople. But I want to remind you that the jurisdiction of Constantinople at that time did not extend beyond the Ottoman Empire. The very idea that parishes in the diaspora should be subordinate to Constantinople, announced only in 1907. And it is absolutely inappropriate to mention some kind of anti-canonicity. ~ Чръный человек (συζήτηση) 07:52, 23 Ιανουαρίου 2024 (UTC)Απάντηση
You are right on this. Nevertheless, "anti-canonicity" does not refer to why the cathedral does not belong to Constantinople, but how it was passed to Moscow. In fact, even the hungarian Wikipedia mentions that this has been done in 1951 by the State Bureau of Church Issues under guidance of the communist leader Mátyás Rákosi. It is well known how things were working in Eastern Europe during Cold War. This process is obviously "not canonical" in ecclesiastical terms.--Κωστής (συζήτηση) 09:35, 23 Ιανουαρίου 2024 (UTC)Απάντηση
Certainly, there was pressure on the Church in communist Hungary. But there has been state interference in Church affairs throughout the history of the Church. Remember how many times the Patriarchs of Constantinople were dethroned by the secular authorities during Ottoman rule. And such interventions were more cardinal and harsh than in communist Hungary. But no one is telling about anti-canonicity. A project of the Hungarian Orthodox Church was also appeared, but it did not receive support from the Moscow Patriarchate. Serbian and Romanian dioceses in communist Hungary remained subordinated to Belgrade and Budapest respectively. The local Uniate church was not liquidated either unlike USSR, Czechoslovakia and Romania. This indicates limited interference in Church affairs. Moreover, joining Moscow Patriarchate was in the interests of the community in 1940s because Moscow allowed them to celebrate in Hungarian. ~ Чръный человек (συζήτηση) 13:26, 27 Ιανουαρίου 2024 (UTC)Απάντηση