User talk:LoveMonkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vn-7

This user talk page has been vandalized 7 times.

Talk Archive 1 Talk Archive 2 Talk Archive 3 Talk Archive 4

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, LoveMonkey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Re: Hello

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

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Reply

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

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

Hello LoveMonkey!

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Christian denomination

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

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

[edit] If

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

[edit] 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)

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

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