User talk:LoveMonkey/Archive 5

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I was never angry with you. I've looked in on the stuff you've asked me to and decided in those cases that I didn't want to get involved. A guy's gotta have priorities. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello

Thanks for the additions! Yodaat 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started the article. Got to do more research, but not this late at night.  :)

Thanks for the compliment.  :) Yodaat 02:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for the barnstar! The article looks great. Still don't get the controversy part, though. Yodaat 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you believe you've said?

You linked to a section of the Plotinus talk page as if you think you said something there relating to the current discussion. I think it may help if I understand what you meant to say in this comment: Plotinus compares the divine mind to the sun. The connection is of great importants because there is a connection. You are really doing the whole point and destinction of Plato and Christianity to gnosis, a giant and great disservice. Especially intellectual contemplation as most definitely defined by Plato and Plotinus. To see the play or view the life. This is very disrespectful to what the Hellenic and Bzyantine nous is all about. This is the point of all this fanagling (hint: Dean Inge). The previous poster and you by proxy are completely misrepresenting what is important to the understanding of Neoplatonism and Plato's ontology. Several aspects of this puzzle me. First, of course, the part about me and "the previous poster" looks like a bitter conspiracy theory. Second, I don't know what distinction you refer to. It sounds like you mean to say that 'the gnostics' had no interest in intellectual contemplation. But you've offered no evidence of that bizarre implication -- unless you count the quotes from Armstrong saying that supposedly the gnostics in question didn't think salvation required intellectual work (are saved not by their own efforts but by some dramatic and arbitrary divine proceeding), and that bit applies at least as well to Christians. It sometimes seems like you believe that because Plato (accepting the Neoplatonist interpretation for the sake of argument) used the metaphor of the Demiurge to mean Nous, nobody else could use it to mean anything else, and therefore the Gnostics must hate nous. But that seems self-evidently crazy; obviously the Gnostics didn't mind breaking with tradition and could use the metaphor to mean anything they liked. I've said before that in my view some of those calling the "demiurge" evil probably meant to attack biblical literalism, since in a literal reading of the Bible, God commands genocide (Deut 20:16-18) and generally acts like a jealous madman. Finally, I can't find a reading of the comment that addresses anything I said, in any discussion. The edits you wanted to make don't even mention contemplation or henosis, as far as I can see, whereas other parts of the Plotinus article do (although perhaps not enough). Indeed, I added more on the subject after our earlier discussion. (You responded by accusing me recently of wanting to remove it.) So what did you want to say in the comment I quote here? Dan 06:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan one, ontology connotes sequence, sequence is a chain of events (as a matter of speaking). It can not be ontology if the "chain" is broken at any link (of the links that are defined within a dialectical argument). Because even in emanation one proceeds from something. As for "bitter conspiracy theory" well between the disinformation campaign on Constantine I and the Da Vince code one would expect conspiracy theory to quote familiar to your perspective, it is a tool that is used. But I was endorsing no such of a thing and your interpretation as such is at best very hard to see. Since the nous and or the demiurge are part of Plotinus' ontology of being. You remove them, you break the chain, no conspiracy in that. As for your interpretation and the gnostic well Plotinus has his too and that was what was being discussed. As for gnostics and contemplation. Well a very Western way of saying this (Voegelin) would be that gnosis is to not to be contemplated. Gnosis comes from contemplation. Gnosis can not come from Gnosis.

Anymore then you reading about a swimmer would then impart to you the ability to swim (if say you approached the need to learn to swim as such). As for the gnostics misrepresenting Plato and Plotinus there is a degree of this that crosses into disrespect and actually engaging in destructive behaviour. This was Plotinus' point not mine. Specifically the attack on the creator and turning people against their creator. As well as creation and creativity. Since the pedagogic component of existence (demiurge/nous as facilitator of existence) then also too becomes vilified. Since gnosis by gnostics is not really then. Because what is there to learn from experience if one can read everything? Or what is there to learn from life if it is evil but evil? AKA gnosis is experience knowledge, if the experience is evil then what is knowledge?

LoveMonkey 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the best way to state it I think Mr Dan..

---

"We ought at all times to wait for the enlightenment that comes from above before we speak with a faith energized by love; for the illumination which will enable us to speak. For there is nothing so destitute as a mind philosophising about God, when it is without Him'." Of "Spiritual Knowledge" Discourse number 7 Philokalia volume 1 pg 254 — St Diadochos of Photiki

---

Continued

I hope you find peace and God in your life Dan, and not evil and dejection. I mean you no harm. LoveMonkey 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but you still haven't addressed the bizarre Armstrong footnotes issue. Now would be a good time. Also, I don't understand "expect conspiracy theory to quote familiar to your perspective". I hope you find peace with Cthulhu. Dan (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is all well good then why do you keep asking? Talk about conflicting messages. I as well as DGG answered that the footnotes are there to answer previous conflicts and they are not copyright violations and you should not have removed then. As for your peace- Rather then wishing you peace with a devil instead I say "Now would be a good time for you to move on". Also if you wish to address this further you can contact DGG and or ask for a WP intervention. Since you return good faith with sarcasm good luck with that. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wondered what you thought happened. DGG's remarks seem more ambiguous now that I look at them again, but like everyone else who's spoken on the subject the admin you brought in said this: "though I the quotes technically come within fair use, they're stretching it, unless it was absolutely necessary to explain the subject. It is not the style of WP to have material such as that, and when it appears, I usually start thinking of WP:POINT or SOAPBOX." Dan (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then DGG did nothing. This is because the quotes are in there as posted to address the fact that people like to edit the article without having read sources and without providing sources. People like remove things they don't like without justification and then claim that what is in print is not what is in print. Again if your version of Armstrongs Enneads says something different then post it. But my opinion and your opinion does not matter in contrast to WP policy and A. H. Armstrong. If you make an edit it should be sourced. If something is sourced and the source is deemed valid then contribution should not be removed. If people wish to argue over what the source states they should in the very least know the source. They should also have read the source and or valid sources before editing the article. If they had then they would know that what they are doing is not according to WP policy. My opinion and Dan's opinion do not validate the opinion of a scholar like say A. H. Armstrong. Nor is wikipedia the place for use to call A. H. Armstrong's work into question. Go read scholary sources and post what they stated. If you Dan have connection to the Neoplatonic community and can post an objection from that community about Armstrong please add it to the article. Please do not take sourced information from the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suetonius

De Vita Caesarum, Vita Divi Claudius 25.4. Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit. [Claudius] expelled Jews who, due to an instigator, Chrestus, were continually disruptive. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Sorry

I guess I don't see much future to a discussion where one person starts by calling the person he's addressing "crazy" and "lunatic". RandomCritic (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I was referring to the theory. Sorry you again did not read. Also sorry you could not continue the appropriate conversation on the actual talkpage. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Nestor of Odessa

Thanks for asking, but, sorry, I don't have anything extra on this subject. It does sound like a worthwhile project, though. I'll try to lend a hand if you need some help. Turgidson (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey: I have the same article you linked to in printed form. Sorry, but that's the only info on Father Nestor I've ever come across. MishaPan (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema

Would you mind keeping an eye on this article. Dan seems intent on reforming in according to his own POV. 87.90.155.217 (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yicks. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence fragment

"Leading to an argument that the human reality of Christ was diminished as the human will of Christ was not of freewill."

What is the subject of this sentence?

Argument. Is. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Richard (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello LoveMonkey! I replied here. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relation between We (novel) and The Possessed (novel)

Hi, I removed the "See also" links between We (novel) and The Possessed (novel).[1][2] Do you know of a source that describes the relation between the two? We (novel) already cites Gregg regarding two other novels by Doestoevsky, so it seems likely that there would be such a source. --Jtir (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from User talk:Jtir] --Jtir (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki policy on WP:ALSO as an editorial and or common sense judgement does not require that the links be sourced. You are edit warring it is disputive and unproductive please desist. Your removal serves no purpose and exceeds policy. If you would and can ask that an administrator look and see if the link topics are so far appart that they are unrelated. As such that is open for discussion not blanket removal and or deletion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and referral to the WP:ALSO guideline. In my experience, the "See also" section grows "ad infinitum", because there are no clear guidelines for what should be in the section. So I rely on the WP policies requiring that content be verifiable and not original research. Further, if an entry there can be justified, it would be better to add it to the body of the article, with a full explanation of the relation between the two topics. Talk:We (novel) would be a better place to continue any discussion of specifics. --Jtir (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dystopia

I haved removed some of your entries from the Utopia article, as they would seem to better belong in the Dystopia article. That article, though, already links to two of your entries, and I placed two others under the more appropriate list as follows:

Already in List of dystopian literature:

We (Russian: Мы) is a dystopian novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin completed in 1921. It heavily influenced Orwell's 1984 and Ayn Rand's Anthem. Along with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and indirectly Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano.

Already in List of dystopian music, TV programs, and games:

2112 Concept album about a future dystopia by music group Rush.

Placed in List of dystopian literature:

The New Class by Milovan Đilas's dystopian critique of the Communist system from the once Vice President of the former Yugoslavian Republic.

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek's dystopian critique on the modern socialism Utopian ideals.

Hope this was okay!

--Wikiscient (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

I haven't read the book you mentioned, though, so I can't comment on how to incorporate it into the Dostoevsky article. J.R. Hercules (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all is well with you too :) Chaldean (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free will

Hey there, just to let you know, doing stuff like this is discouraged. Do that sort of thing again, and someone is going to invoke the 3R rule.--Kerotan^Leave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I assumed that he knew.--Kerotan^Leave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I left a polite notice rather than the standard 3R template, mainly because I don't want to start some good old fashioned E-drama and I believe that this dispute can be solved peacefully.--Kerotan^Leave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nikol lossky.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Nikol lossky.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Akram Fouad Khater

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Akram Fouad Khater, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Akram Fouad Khater seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Akram Fouad Khater, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shlama

It is always good to hear from you :) May God bless us all and forgive those who are lost in his path. Please let me know if you need any help on Wiki. Chaldean (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, fellow Chaldean Christian I am. Just saying hi!Tourskin (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well. Its great to know an Eastern Orthodox Christian; we are all brothers in the same Catholic Orthodox Church established by the Apostles. Tourskin (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity

Hello LoveMonkey/Archive 5!

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) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism (metaphysics), Notes from Underground, and Black swan theory - huh?

I really don't see the reason for linking to black swan theory in either of those articles. That Taleb is Orthodox does not make it an "Orthodox theory of skepticism"; and the context of the "epistemic libertarian" quote makes it clear the analogy is to political libertarianism (contrast to bureaucracy). ~~ N (t/c) 01:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian denomination

Can you take a look at this diff and help improve the text? Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If

you want to translate any article in Greek i would be glad to help.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you bm?

Hi. I know somebody called BigMonkey. Is him and you the same person? It will be quite a coincidence not to be you.Raffethefirst (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not a sockpuppet. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a nice fellow. But I guess you are not him... best regards then.Raffethefirst (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hill

Hi. On the Gospel of John page, you seem to be a big proponent of Charles Hill. Do you think you could do a page on him? Do you think he warrants one? If he doesn't warrant a page, we should probably remove references to his scholarship as not notable. But if he's notable, he deserves a page. I have a project page for this topic: User:Leadwind/Charles Hill (theologian). Leadwind (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Άυχαριστω άδελφε μου

I didn't know of this. It is a very helpful piece of concrete evidence. It seems to me that,

Christians can argue that Gospel accounts of Jesus predicting his death and deliberately helping it to happen are now even better explained as genuine reports of what he did actually say, than as retrospective made up stories.

However, non Christians can still argue that the actual resurrection was still made up.

The problem will always be, are people willing to admit that they themselves and all people have a "behaviour problem". Are they willing to accept the possibility of a supernatural explanation—if we don't respect a supernatural creator, why would we respect other people unless it suits us?

Unless this supernatural explanation is taken seriously, a supernatural solution—the resurrection—is irrelevant.

On the other hand, if people are willing to accept the possibility of a supernatural event like the resurrection, they can be open to accepting that event resolved a supernatural problem we weren't even clearly aware of.

Greeks never knew that the one true God loved them and was angry with them because they weren't looking hard enough for him, and because they treated one another without respect. When Paul then the Fathers taught them that this God had fixed the problem at his own expense (θανατω θανατος πατισας) and asked them to "come home" to him, little by little, more and more accepted this kindness (ζωη χαρισαμενος) with happy surprize!

The liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the story of the Creator's love for Greek people and their struggle to learn, accept and rejoice in this. It is a story starting with God's love, continuing with the love of wise Patriarchs, and fulfilled in the love of many happy, forgiven and repentant sinners.

As the Apostle of Love, who Jesus himself loved said, καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.

αδελφε μου, αληθως ανεστι
χαρις και ειρενε σοι.

Alastair Haines (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrman

LoveMonkey. So Ehrman's wrong about something, is he? Tough luck for him. That's what happens when you base your conclusions on evidence: new evidence comes along and proves you were wrong. Maybe Ehrman should have stuck with basing his conclusions on faith, and then he'd never have to be wrong. Leadwind (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Randomness and faith are the same thing. Maybe it is said better that he should not speak in such absolutes that give his position one of a completeness that no human (individual or collective) could ever possess. Now if he was a real skeptic, a real Pyrrhonean he would not make such a mistake or "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." LoveMonkey

"Maybe it is said better that he should not speak in such absolutes that give his position one of a completeness that no human (individual or collective) could ever possess." Oh, I totally agree with you there. If Ehrman is speaking in such absolutes that give his position one of a completeness that no human (individual or collective) could ever have, then he should stop. Leadwind (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Testament Church Fathers

I've started a brief outline of a new list of sources at List of New Testament Church Fathers. Greeks are very well represented. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, my brother, at your service always. God bless you. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LoL :) Yes, a good man. We only have his commentary on Psalms, I think. He will be on the list of Church Fathers I expect. Mine is a shorter list of those who quoted the New Testament, and help us establish it's reliability. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean

Thanks, and I agree Goethean and some of the admins that have been covering for him have displayed atrocious behavior. CENSEI (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy

Ah! Very interesting, that makes Christians heretics from the world community. :)

In Protestantism, heresy is anything contrary to the Bible. Sola scriptura is a common phrase associated with staying clear of heresy. Protestants don't trust themselves to get things right! ;)

I am very interested, thank you, brother. Rather than posting to my talk page though, perhaps you could email it to me?

It is text, not a link? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little busy in life atm, but I created a stub you might like--Sobornost_(journal). :) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papoulis

Ufortunately not.I don't have any relation with this field.Keep up the good work though.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gnosiology and epistemology

You removed the following edit which I made yesterday: 'The study of the nature of gnosis is Gnosiology sometimes contrasted with Epistemology which concerns representational knowledge unlike gnosis which is the unmediated knowledge of things as they are.' Please explain why you have removed this edit. Thanks. Langdell (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input does not reflect the source I used for the article (and that you left to source your input after replacing mine with yours). Can you name a more current source that would supersede my source? Obviously one that is also Greek like mine (a Greek Professor from a Greek University) rather then say European and American. Forgive me but you seem to not know the meaning of the word ontic and νόησις/noesis (as in ontology in contrast to deontic and nominalism).

LoveMonkey (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My input revolves around the fact that the sentence 'The Gnosiology of gnosis as in contrast to epistemology..' does not follow simple rules of grammar. That is why I edited it. This is an English encyclopedia and sentence constructions within it follow normal rules of English grammar. If you wish to say something about gnosiology and gnosis in relation to epistemology you need to edit the current sentence as it does not make sense.

Your attention should also be drawn to the fact that Wikipedia has a Neutral Point Of View policy. You appear to be the author of the sentence, 'The knowledge of these groups is contested as religio-philosophical in nature rather than revelatory'. An editor (correctly) modified your statement making it known to the reader that this is an opinion of Eastern Orthodox theology (Father Michael Pomazansky) a branch of dogmatic theology to which (according to your user page) you subscribe. There is nothing wrong with asserting such claims (because Eastern Orthodoxy has important things to say about gnosis) as long as their provenance is explicitly stated in the main body of the text. The current formulation of this sentence follows the long tradition of attempting to marginalise and devalue the status of the gnosis of the gnostics - a polemical device of the early fathers who wished to make it known that the gnosis of the gnostics was a 'false gnosis' (Irenaeus et al). The study of Gnosticism revived in the twentieth century with a view to disentangling the skein of polemic and propaganda to find out what the gnostic sects believed within their own terms and not with a view to diminishing their validity or authenticity as was the intention of at least some of the church fathers. You may as a Christian find the view abhorrent that the creator of this world is not a benevolent deity but an inferior demiurge just as you strenuously reject the view that Jesus was not God incarnate but a messenger, a vehicle or a channel of God as Muslims, enlightened Jews and other sectarians believe. All these are views which may or may not be true. Our job is to present views and arguments clearly, fairly, stating their origin and source and all this within a worldwide pluralist perspective. Best wishes.Langdell (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? What editor are you referring to -"An editor (correctly) modified your statement making it known to the reader that this is an opinion of Eastern Orthodox theology"? Since I removed an unsourced assumption you see John D. Turner is not an Eastern Orhodox theologian. What scholars of the East have set these criteria (where these events occurred and where the word orginates)? What does your response have to do with your original question and my response to it. This reads like your lecturing to me. Please dont lecture me. Please stay on point with your original question. Also provide a source for your above POV one that establishes it as the defacto academic standard for the English world, since it seems highly unlikely the word gnosis is used commonly in India and other Oriental/Asian cultures. As a concept (spiritual knowledge) it again is a loan word as such, dialection carries baggage. Nobody owns Greek but the Greeks. Since you are explicitly stating that "the gnostics" have an exclusive on the word gnosis. Which you are stating and exemplifying by giving them primacy (unsourced I might add) in their mention and treatment in the article so far. The gnostics being everything -for the most part -but Greek. I find your criteria abit "unacademic". Maybe it would be appropriate to start a spiritual knowledge article instead. Note though your sentence that I removed does not validately fit into the concept there either [3]. You have confused metaphysic/ontology for Gnosiology or the study of spiritual things.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vandalise my work. You have put a link to Eric Voegelin in a section that concerns Hans Jonas' description of gnosis. It has nothing to do with Eric Voegelin. Langdell (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Fortunately for me you are vandalising my work and not vice-versa. You are welcome to have a rational discussion about it if you wish and in fact I suggest you do because your emotions have gotten the better of your reason. The article is about the meaning of the word gnosis. It is not about the relationship between Hans Jonas and Eric Voegelin. What has Eric Voegelin got to do with it? The link is out of place. It belongs somewhere else. If you disagree you are welcome to explain (something you haven't done yet). The fact that the two were associates is not an explanation. Before seeking the intervention of an administrator it is a requirement that you have to have attempted to engage in a rational discussion with the editor with whom you are in dispute with. Oh, and while I am here there is nothing in my editing that indicates that I believe the gnostics to 'have an exclusive' on the word gnosis. Gnosis has nothing to do with sectarianism, it is a common feature of all mysticism. But the typification of your Eastern Orthodox sources that Valentinus and Mani (or whichever 'gnostics' you wish to lump together) possessed only religio-philosophical knowledge rather than spiritual knowledge is clearly false as you would know if you were familiar with their teachings. As for your statement that 'Nobody owns Greek except the Greeks' is another distraction. English contains many Greek words and they are often used in quite a different way to how they are in Greek. English and French share many words identical in spelling but refer to different things altogether. The article is about gnosis as it is used in the English Language. Pick up your copy of the Philokalia and there you will find it defined at the back: Gnosis is translated as spiritual knowledge. Thankyou. Langdell (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What shame you stated back to me my very point. As if you made it. You should create a spiritual knowledge article. Just like I stated. Also note spiritual knowledge just wont jive with your sentence that I removed in the first place. The study of the nature of gnosis is Gnosiology sometimes contrasted with Epistemology which concerns representational knowledge unlike gnosis which is the unmediated knowledge of things as they are. As for the English language its rules clearly dictate that it is better to use the translation then the original word. So again more motivation to create a spiritual knowledge article since in the Philokalia the term "spiritual knowledge" is used through out it not the word "gnosis". Have a nice day. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosis Mediation Cabal case

Hi LoveMonkey, I'm the informal mediator for the Gnosis Mediation Cabal case. I've now read the talk page discussion, and looked at the article history, so the informal mediation will start soon on the article talk page. Apologies for the delay. PhilKnight (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Loski

I started the article in Greek wiki under the name Νικολάι Λόσκι.Ι intend to expand it further.Hope you like it. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page conduct

Could I suggest you focus less on debating, and more on reaching a compromise? PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey, I'm still concerned about your talk page conduct. In particular, you appear to be suggesting that you have the right to call anyone who is a Gnostic a bigot. Also, your response to Langdell saying "A great deal of what you say is irrelevant and beside the point", was "Tell that to the victims", which is needlessly inflammatory. Could I again suggest you focus more on reaching a compromise? PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links from poshlost

Hi. I noticed that you added "see also" links from poshlost to benevolence, sobor, and sobornost. I don't see why the links are there. For the benefit of readers like me and in keeping with the policy, could you please put in short sentences explaining the connections, or explain them to me so I can do it? Thanks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I took out the two links you didn't explain, as their connection seems much more remote. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heylow

hope you don't mind my asking but are you Russian? 85.75.176.34 (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its hypocritical that an anonymous editor would ask me such an inappropriate question. No-WP:OUTING LoveMonkey (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not quite ("hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself"), since one can infer from my IP address that I'm indeed living in Greece if not be a Greek myself (which I am, you could have asked too). nonetheless, it's your right not to answer and judging from your response i'm not sure i would like to know. thanks, anyway! PS: it was mere interest, not "OUTING" or whatever you wikifolks like to call it. 85.75.176.34 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to gauge ones intentions. Sorry for the perceived burn. Please recipricate, two way consideration for privacy. Please be considerate of security (pretty please). LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gnosis

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Langdell (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are WP:Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Policy shopping these are considered disruptive and in bad faith to me and the additional editor User:Malcolm Schosha. You have also committed a 3rr on the gnosis article. This is the second time. You have been reported to the 3rr notice board.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East-West Schism

Let's see if a NPOV in the Rise of Rome section of East-West Schism gets deleted by our biased friend. Gubernatoria (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well he did delete it didn't he. And it was subsequently reinstated as 'restore vandalism'. LoveMonkey, can you send me an email, not on Talk page? Thanks Gubernatoria (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for Bibliography at Samuel Angus

		Barnstar
		Sources are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Bibliographies are like giving blood to sick articles. For your injection of this quality into Samuel Angus many thanks. Perhaps I can honour you best by using that bibliography and extending the article. God bless you, brother. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Lovemonkey and have a good year. Can you please explain me the root of the dispute? If i understood right is about two words νοητικός and νοητός. Νοητικός means the one who refers to noesis and additionaly the one who can intellect.

Νοητός means the one who is being understood / felt through mind. For example " It isn't νοητή the existence of life without oxygen" meaning it can't be conceivable (through mind obviously). It can also mean the one who exists only i mind. For example "the νοητός axon of the earth". It exists only in our minds it isn't a substance that we can touch or feel.

I hope i helped you. If you have anything to ask please don't hesitate. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Νοητικός is a an adjective which derives from the noun νόηση (=noesis/intellect). Νοητικός doesn't refer to people only to function or an action. For example "νοητικός/noetic fuction" means a fuction that has to do with noesis.

The other meaning is the one who can exercise noesis. Still you can't say that John is noetic. But you can say John (as all humans) is a noetic being. A being that can exercise noesis. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Roman Catholic Church

While I don't always appreciate your acerbic style of discourse, I think you may be able to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. In particular, User:Mcorazao has challenged a sentence which reads "Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses—Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch—Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence". You can read the rest of it on the Talk Page.

--Richard (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Jonas and Gnosticism

I apologize: I don't understand the source of your complaint. I explained in the Talk page for Jonas why I deleted your quotation. Perhaps we could discuss and "collaborate" there? I would appreciate your giving a justification for what seems to me like a rather out-of-place insertion. Thank you. JKeck (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your concerns on the talk page for Jonas. I would appreciate either a response in turn, or else for you to edit the article as I have recommended. If I receive neither by the end of the week, I will take it I have a free hand in implementing the edits I have recommended (i.e., deleting the quotation). JKeck (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is Lima gaming the system?

You accuse Lima of gaming the system. What's going on? Leadwind (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

Hello LoveMonkey, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to come and take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69^talk 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi LoveMonkey Just like to apologize if any of my edits on the EO discussion page have seemed somewhat hotheaded. I have never meant offence, just blame me for general ignorance of being new to these discussions. It is a tricky medium to get grasp at first because of its very nature. I don't actually disagree with what you have to say and it is in fact very central to Orthodoxy to maintain regular confession with a spiritual father. I just wanted to make it clear that since it is God who forgives, there is a certain flexibility for the Orthodox. We are indeed bound by the Mysteries, of which confession is a minor part; God himself is not bound by them. I wanted to stress that someone who has been forgiven by God may not have actually comminicated this to a priest. As a matter of fact, Kallistos said in his book The Orthodox Way, which is highly acclaimed, that a spiritual father need not be a priest, and occasionally may be a layman. For any given individual, there may be only one person in the world to whom they feel they can communicate these things, and it is a matter of God's will which people we meet in this life. Once again, hope I never caused offence, and look forward to any input you have in future ! 147.188.244.133 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC) yours in Christ (Evgenios)[reply]

All is forgiven! No problem. With great love and respect let me ask you to create a log in, username and join in contributing.

With our love in Our God the Christ! LoveMonkey (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! all done, this is me :) should be better now !! (Y)Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious!

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but one thing; I was wondering if you could please show me how to do some of the things, like adding my name to the group of the EO project, and how to get those templates onto my profile that show what I'm a member of ? Also if Eugene-elgato is in red, how do you make it so the user page gets activated ? Thanks Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir N. Beneshevich

Thanks for your work. Several editors helped for me, and now we have almost good article. When I intended to create this article, I did not expect that we will receive so good article. Thanks. The subject is close to me, thought it is my first article. Brother of my grandmother fithed against communists in time of revolution (in neighbourhood of Samarra). We should always remember about victims of Gulag. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I need some help. My English is not to good. It is my fault, because I always tried to learned a lot of languages, but no one language I know really excelent. I want to expand some articles about manuscripts (like Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae) as much as it will possible. With best regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at List of Christian heresies

This is an article that I created per a discussion at Talk:Christian heresy. What I want to do is help people understand which beliefs Catholics consider heresy, which ones Orthodox consider heresy and which ones Protestans consider heresy. At this time, what I'm looking for is organizational ideas. How should we organize List of Christian heresies and should we have a separate article called List of Orthodox heresies and, if so, is that the right title for the article? --Richard (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Clement

The Eastern Othodox Theologian Olivier Clement died on January 15, 2009. His death was in the Deaths for January 2009 in Wikipedia.Are you interested in starting a stub about him?The editors of the Deaths in 2009 removed redlinks a month after the person's death feeling the person is not notable.I have heard of Olivier Clement because of his friendship with Pope John Paul II.Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will get a stub started for Olivier Clement-I have done a number of articles about Roman Catholic Bishops.With the stub it will be a bookmark for some to expand it-Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the stub started for Olivier Clement it was short with a citation from one of the Eastern Orthodox news agencies and I don't think I got the spelling of his name right with the accent marks.The Vatican reported on his passing-Thanks again-RFD (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found The Times obituary for Olivier Clement added it-Thanks-RFD (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help and encouragement on the Olivier Clement article-RFD (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East-West Schism

That section reads like it was translated from Martian. I'm going to tag it as such. LOL^thulu 18:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it post on the talkpage your objections and collaborate, please in good faith do not censor or delete content.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reblanked it. It's poorly written and not on topic. LOL^thulu 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is called Editwarring. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to an admin for review. You're warring, I'm cleaning up the article LOL^thulu 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First one wasn't a revert. LOL^thulu 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian heresies

Thanks for not reverting my deletion of your text. I am trying to keep the introductions to each section concise. I would urge you to add the deleted text to the article on Gnosticism. Perhaps a new section is needed in that article although I'm not sure what the section title would be. "Gnosticism and Eastern Orthodoxy" doesn't sound quite right. --Richard (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar, it is the first I receive (, although, I don't think I made enough contributions to really deserve it). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Help:Edit Summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Nikolai Lossky. I've noticed that you forget to provide a summary to edits in article space frequently. LOL^thulu 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover...

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Talk:East-West Schism, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:East-West Schism. Thank you.
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:East-West Schism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.
LOL^thulu 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've submitted this behavior for review at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#East-West_Schism. LOL^thulu 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn to use the preview button. I just edit-conflicted with your minor changes three times in a row, and it only takes me ~10sec to copy'n'paste. LOL^thulu 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to learn to not template the regulars, so I guess it's a learning experience all round. --Deskana (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is a policy, whereas WP:Don't template the regulars is a suggestion. You wouldn't have liked what I'd have said had I not used someone else's words. Thanks for your input, though! LOL^thulu 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essays exist for a reason, and that reason isn't "To be ignored". People who discard them so willingly frequently end up in trouble of some sort. I would ask you to be mindful of that but I have a feeling I know what kind of response I'd get from you. --Deskana (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am mindful of that. I actually considered not dropping templates, but decided that I wanted to use standard Wiki-warnings with LM, who's constantly accusing me of harassment and edit-warring. Less room for him to claim that they're something other than what they are. LOL^thulu 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor continues to engage in harrassment. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call it harassment. He's not being particularly helpful, but it's hardly harassment. --Deskana (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can excuse the harrassing behaviour or address it. But edit warring and repeatedly posting policy and wiki:stocking and the like is harrassment. You can do something about it or not your choice Mr D.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the takeaway from all this is that LOLthulu's points are valid but his way of expressing them via templates is not considered the best. Of course, in this sort of situation, LoveMonkey was likely to take offense at these things being pointed out by LOLthulu no matter how it was expressed considering that LoveMonkey and LOLthulu have been engaged in a content/scope dispute over at East-West Schism.

LoveMonkey, you would do well to look past who made the points and how they were made (style vs. substance, you know?) and consider that the points are valid. Let's all get past the style issue and ask LoveMonkey to take on board the substance of the comments. And then, let's move on.

--Richard (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More excuses and bias. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be another failure to WP:AGF. LOL^thulu 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given I have absolutely no idea what an "East-West Schism" is, and am intentionally avoiding finding out, I am not biased. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry D???? I was talking to Richard. But these posts here are just some of the behaviour as a whole. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

The talkpage of theophilos is empty. Can you please elaborate on the matter? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Lohmeyer

It is another interesting biography, victim of nazism and communism. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Massacre of the Latins

As appreciation for initiating a significant improvement of the Massacre of the Latins article. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article's talk page for a discussion on your recent edits. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A warm thanks for the barnstar and the endorsement of my edits. I know it is is not easy to take when someone comes along and rewrites an article you have put a lot of effort into. Very gentlemanly of you. However, if it were not for your edits, I don't think I would have bothered to actually expand the article any more... You too deserve praise, therefore have a cookie :). Best regards, and take care, Constantine ✍ 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this work I did for wiki and all I got was cookie.(wah wah, Just kiddin! Thanks Constatine). LoveMonkey (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essence-Energies distinction

About this revert, are you calling into question the truth of the edit or just asking for a citation? Your edit summary suggests the latter in which case a {{cn}} tag would have sufficed. The edit in question looks OK to me but I admit to being a complete ignoramus about this topic so I didn't restore the edit.

As you well know, reverting people gives them heartburn and reverting an anon IP editor can discourage them. See WP:BITE. --Richard (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filioque

Sorry for my ignorance, regarding the comments you post on my talk page, I don't check it very often (you probably noticed there isn't too much activity on it). Can you please explain in some details about the problem there, and what you wish to add there? (to be honest, my time became somewhat more limited during these days, but I'll be happy to help, at least if I can) Cody7777777 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godel and Existentialism

I notice that you have been trying to post a statement about Godel and positivism in the Existentialism article. I haven't read the article you cited, but assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is true, it is a point which is far too remote from the subject of existentialism to be included in the article. If it's valid, please take it to the article about Logical Positivism. Existentialism is a vague enough subject as it is, without extending the article to cover issues between non-existentialists like Godel and the positivists.

If you disagree, please explain why at the Talk page rather than just re-insert the material. Thanks.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Sophia

Thanks for that. Solovyev and sophia I know a bit about. Lossky has never been much more than a name to me. Interesting angle.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

On Noesis, I should have clarified that my main concern is with the references to Husserl and phenomenology. The noesis-noema correlation in Husserl is very difficult, but it can be stated better, and I'll work on it when I have the chance. I'm not qualified to work on the Lossky materials.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for a short time for disruptive editing on Ayn Rand and its talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP, just which of the longtrail of edits was it that brough you to do the block?  ?DGG (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I asked FP about this block and got this response. --Richard (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

things happen dude. get back into the game.Brushcherry (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry[reply]

For the record, I think Future Perfect's block was a bit trigger-happy. LoveMonkey's editing while POINTy and annoying was not outrageously disruptive and, considering his long tenure as an editor and his many prolific contributions, a bit more warning and advising would have been in order. Knowing LoveMonkey, I'm not convinced it would have helped but it would have been the right thing to do. Now, LoveMonkey has taken his temporary block as a "ban" and has announced his retirement. sigh.... what a drama queen. I would add to Brushcherry's comment, "Take a lesson and chill out when you run into conflicts. Then come back and help further the project." --Richard (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point, as you did here. [8]. If I see this again, it will lead to a block. If your problem continues and you really want admin attention, go to WP:AN/I or if it relates to an arbcom remedy, AE (which this one doesn't). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that the above warning was added to this page *after* the block, not before, and for some reason has the wrong timestamp: for the record, it was added at 2009-03-30T17:55:18 (and then modified slightly) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I thought you were retired...

Couldn't stay away, eh?

OK, then, could you take a look at this discussion? I think User:Deusveritasest is right that the EO perspective is missing from Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, neither he nor I seem to be motivated to add that perspective so maybe, if you're interested, you could do the heavy lifting and I'll help clean it up.

--Richard (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nous and Theoria articles

Christ is truly Risen. I will try to see what I can do on these articles. God Bless you too. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thank you.

I'm sorry, I've been in and out (semi-wiki break and all) and I just noticed; Thank you very much!! -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah!

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on editors

LoveMonkey, you've been here more than long enough, and you should know to comment on the contributions, not the editors. Referring to "your seemingly deficient understanding", as you did at Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb, is probably on the wrong side of that line.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized. What comments have been addressed to the other editors. Or have you even bothered with them at all?

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

I appreciate it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a big mistake

What you're doing over at ANI, posting and posting and posting is disruptive and yet you continue even after two editors have asked you Please to just wait a while and see if uninvolved administrators won't take a look at your request and do something regarding the matter. If you keep this up then don't be surprised if you yourself don't get blocked for disruptive conduct on ANI.

"Who is this editor. Who are you to speak to the process and the policies here? Are you still keeping an eye on Taleb's representive? Are you still pursuing getting him blocked from the article or banned. For WP:Policy vios?" I don't really understand your questions, I was however saying that I do not think that Sarekofvulcan should be an administrator here. I have been meaning to take a look at these Taleb matters but I have not gotten around to it yet, I have NEVER stated that I was pursuing getting Talebs representative blocked or banned from the article. I do not know of any reasons yet why he should be but I do not discount the possibility that such reasons exist, I however have not fully familiarized myself with the matter and am therefor unable to support any such ban or block at this time.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I would like to reply to your comments on the Taleb talk page: [9].

I added the Scholes criticism into the article, and this section was discussed and subsequently given a new formulation of Yechezkel Zilber [10]. I stated that I thought his new formulation was good.

Anyone who does not agree that this new formulation is good can continue to discuss it in the talk page: [11] - state exactly which sentence they think violates NPOV and propose a solution (for example delete the sentence). Anyone who thinks that a sentence in the article constitutes libel can according to the WP:BLP delete or change the sentence immediately.

Instead of following any of these possible routes of action, IbnAmioun has responded with personal attacks of differents kinds and legal threats. You write "...AND THEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ANOTHER EDITOR FOR ADDING BALANCE AND NPOV BACK INTO THE ARTICLE." This is not correct - I called into question the personal attacks and legal threats of IbnAmioun - I have not criticised him for trying to add balance and NPOV back into the article. Ulner (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Jimbo told me take it to the ANI. Instead of starting yet another discussion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think going to the ANI should be used for serious violations of Wikipedia policy or as a last step after failing to solve the conflicts in other forums (user talk pages and talk pages for the articles). If all conflicts are taken to ANI or ARBCOM they would get too many issues to handle. I wrote the section above because I hoped that we could achieve some kind of mutual understanding of this situation and how to proceed. Ulner (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look Ulner is still arguing. No surprise. [12] If the ANI is the place then it is the place.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Adding further details to your argument, without introducing a new section, after other users have replied to your sentences makes the dicussion hard to follow; see [[13]]. For example this edit: [[14]]. Ulner (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikithanks

Thanks for the barnstar, I've only just noted it. Sobornost is a good thing, as long as it is paired with a healthy sense of personal honour and worth. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. It is well deserved, and you understand the fallacy of individual (opinion) in contrast to the truth of personal (concrete factual).LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantialism

Wikipedia is not a forum, so we can't really discuss anything in particular that is tangential to the encyclopedia. Although I do admire the philosophies of Aristotle and Aquinas, I'm not exactly a specialist in their writings, and so I probably couldn't explain their views in detail. ADM (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our talkpages are to promote understanding and collaboration. Without discussion there is no collaboration and wiki is, means a collaborative effort. You deleted all my comments and are dodging and avoiding. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact try to respond to you, but my message was deleted after clicking the save page button due to a system glitch from the website. ADM (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that response, I had written that traditional Western theology strongly refuses the gnostic or neo-platonic concept of demiurge, because God has fully revealed Himself, and does not have a hidden or secret aspect which would lead us to doubt in the fullness of His revelation. It also stresses the unitive character of love, as well as its total identification with the divine Being itself. Catholic theology also has a belief in Christ the King, which tends to oppose the christological notion of monarchianism. ADM (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADM there are some many things wrong with your statement. Let me start with a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

"People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts."

God can not remain incomprehesible and be fully revealed. Again this is why people remained confused.[15] You are contridicting the saints and church East and West. The word God means incomprehenisible in ousia. As the essence it is a generic thing. I mean who as something created and finite can comprehend the infinite. This is straw dog ADM. Do not lay trenchs but rather build bridges. To try and disregard the points made as being both for and against you are "poisoning the well". And you doing it by claiming that Western theology is in without gnostic (as you call it) and or Neoplatonic influence (by contrast and comparison). LoveMonkey (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said fully revealed, I was thinking of the Chalcedonian Creed, where it says that Jesus is fully man and fully God. So, it means that everything is revealed in Christ, where there is total satisfaction in His saving grace. ADM (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rather stochastical and incorrect way would be- the Father as infinity is noumenon. Rather than God (as the pagans taught) be also the God's phenomenon of energy or motion, space, room. As freedom is an activity (an irrational activity which is denied by reason) of mankind but not a exclusive thing to man. Since energy can not be created or destroyed as Aristotle taught energy is the validation of the uncreated or supernatural. Energy is not and can not be caused. As I believe in energy I am not a scientist since I believe not all things have causes and or are caused. This is why science comes from logic and irrational-ism (but denies it). But this leads to the philosophical dilemmas of the old philosophical schools. One can exist with God and not assume. One can act in faith and grace and not dilemma or assume. Here is an academic way to say this.. [16][17]

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Catholic Church believes in mass–energy equivalence, like Einstein's formula, at least in spiritual terms. Meaning that energy can easily become an essence in itself, and that an essence can easily be equated as an energy. And this is true for God also. ADM (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Catholic Church

Thank you for supporting the renaming of the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post about "Sobornost or καθόλον". I think you should also add your opinion on the survey there if you wish. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank you again for your support in that difficult discussion. (Although "Orthodox Church" is not a bad article title, it seems to imitate what happened at "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" (which in my opinion was done by ignoring the disambiguation policy) and it will probably indirectly encourage other articles to ignore wiki naming policy, and I think this should've been rather avoided.) Cody7777777 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quick q) on something about wikipedia and google if i may

Hey LoveMonkey wanted to ask an experienced Wikipedian something out of curiosity if you google-search a username like say my own, there are lots of weird links do you know anything about them??Eugene-elgato (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah that's cool; haven't been on as much last days but shall be back. very glad to see you didn't retire in the end. There is bickering but hopefully people come round from persuasion; I mean, I have come to accept the recent changes and know if I didn't like it there's something I could do which would be finding out why/how/etc. Thanks for all the helps; cya on more talk pages! Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah Im retired I am still winding down. I needed to create some back ground for the intuitive personalism. Hadn't quite made up my mind.. About it.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of church and state

I wonder if you would look at this [section] which I've been working on. The condition of this section before I started working on it can only be described as "god awful". It is somewhat improved now but it needs a lot more work, especially in the section describing the Eastern Roman Empire. Could you take a look at it? This is all historical background and thus does not need a lot of detail but I suspect that the section on the Eastern Roman Empire needs a few more sentences. I am particularly interested in the role of emperors in convening councils of the Church. Why is it that the emperor convened the councils and not a bishop such as the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Constantinople? --Richard (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche and nihilism

I happen to agree with Nietzsche that christianity is a form of nihilism, so i don't understand that christianity is now purceived as the opposite of nihilism. I presume that millions of Europeans agree with me on this, more than in Nietzsche's days. hundred thousands of people have suffered in christian orphanages run by priests, thanks the the nihilistic aspects of christianity, so Nietzsche is right.Daanschr (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism is the belief that life has no meaning. Christianity does not state this. Anything that does not state this is the opposite of nihilism. If you have a problem with religion (in specific Christianity) that is your problem. If you wish to make obviously bigoted and blatantly biased and ignorant comments like you have, I as a Orthodox Christian beg to differ. You are not only ignorant but I bet you will say nothing of the Soviets. Since you can not deny the involvement of atheism, nihilism in the value of the lives of the children discarded in the Romanian orphanages. Under the atheist regimes in the East amorality was THE reality. I can not use shameful comments like I presume anything or everyone and some million people here and there must believe as I do and can not speak for them let them speak for themselves. Your comments show your hatred. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The true meaning of life in Orthodox Christianity, is to experience Theoria and Theosis. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regard communism as one of the consequences of christianity. Communism is christianity without god. I agree with you that communism is bad. The same disregard that Stalin showed for life is apparent in the crusades for instance.

Nietzsche's argument is that christianity (or i suppose communism as well) denies how life really is by implementing a non-existent entity, god (or the world revolution). I do think that life has a meaning, but that meaning can't be to try to get into heaven and having disrespect for non-believers.Daanschr (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. Some of what you have stated seems to me very strange. One as an Orthodox Christian, what you said about the crusades for example. Since there is of course the Battle of Ice. Let alone the Sacking of Constantinople. The Muslims where conquering Byzantium, why was that OK? Just being curious. I mean was King Lazar so wrong? The West has vilified, to no end Vlad over it. When will the nihilists have enough body count to get over their supposed oppression? I hate no one and definitely don't hate you. As for communism. I dare say Voegelin. He understood much about what happened with the Nazi and Soviet paganism that is communism. The paganism that Nietzsche endorsed the revitalization of. If you love the Rites of Spring then you should find out about the Silver Age in Russia which is the fusion of Nietzsche and Marx. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be less detailed and more to the point?Daanschr (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Your opinion seems poorly informed. One that is not balanced and at least not one that takes to account so much more then what fits in 2 dimensions.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for me to continue this discussion is because i dissagree with the text you reverted back and i want to have it changed. Protocol of Wikipedia is that we should both agree on a NPOV. NPOV means that we both need to agree on a text, by trying to get to a compromise. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. I invite you to join the discussion there.Daanschr (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Regarding your recent reply to me on the Taleb talk page: "The best you've done is to show the impotence of Wiki's policies in stopping this exercise. Pedantic wrangling IS tendentious and only causes frustration" I would really like to continue discussing the Taleb article and how it should be written - arguments for and against certain formulations etc, and ask you to comment on content, not on the contributor. You seem to have great knowledge about Taleb's work and I hope we can reach some consensus about how the article should be written. Best regards Ulner (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear lord this belongs on the Taleb talkpage.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA: "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page." Best regards Ulner (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did I post that is a personal attack Ulner? I mean you signed off on something as disgusting as called Taleb a stupid Arab. I have been very specific in my critism of you none of it is about your person only your contributions and as such is not a personal attack. You are now again misusing policy in order to frustrate people. You are engaging in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You've left the note now please refer back to Taleb's talkpage. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism (metaphysics)

Could you please hold off until I have a chance to actually *do* some of the edits that I'm in the middle of. I've added an inuse template to the article. Please, wait a little bit. Every time I try to add something, I get an edit conflict, and then I have to start over. This is not helping to improve the article, and it's slowing me down on what I'm trying to add. Edhubbard (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libertarianism (metaphysics). 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. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now then, to answer your question, {{inuse}} doesn't, technically speaking, lock an article from being edited. It's intended as a notice to other users that someone is in the middle of updating an article, and that they would appreciate it if other users would refrain from editing it until they are done. I'm sorry, LoveMonkey, but after taking a look at what happened, I have to side with Edhubbard here -- he was making an honest effort to improve the article, and you were trying to block him at every turn. I'll refrain from blocking you at this time, because I don't believe that a block would get anyone anywhere, but I would encourage you to assume good faith on the part of people that are trying to make improvements to the article. Thanks, Mikaey, Devil's advocate 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]