User:Paulmnguyen/Archive2010d

September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 07:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

GOCE barnstar

 * Thanks! I'm glad I can contribute a little to keep things running smoothly. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify October 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, you have been sent this notification because your name appears on the list of participants for the WikiProject Wikify October 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive yet you have not had any wikified articles.

Regards,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Excellent Job! On theoria, many many thanks!
The Editor's Barnstar


 * Glad I could help! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting request
Hi! I'd like to nominate three articles at WP:GAN, those are A3 (Croatia), A6 (Croatia) and A4 (Croatia). The first two passed a PR, and the last one is currently listed among PR requests. However before I submit any of the above for GAN, I'd like to have them copyedited since I'm not a native speaker of English. Would you please copyedit at least one of those three? All of them are currently listed at WP:GOCE requests. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A3 is now done. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 17:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello, ! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I'm willing to accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Please let me know if you decide to accept. Good luck with Wikipedia!  THENEW M O  NO  ™ 19:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, Mono! BTW, Your editor for deletion page is hilarious and so is Ian's talk page. However, I already requested adoption by User:Ruslik0, who accepted. I'm sure I'll see you around. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One of our mentally ill or insane sources
I think that I need to start with a bigger circle or sphere of perspective on Eastern Orthodox theology. Since you appear to have equated revelation of God or mysticism with mental illness and that potentially my sources are "insane" or "crazy" because their belief is the revelation of God. Here is a big fat overview of the Orthodox position against the Roman Catholic one. It is written by a Professor whom converted from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. It is a segment written by Professor H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., it only gives a recapitulation of what I contributed to the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article as Will Durant is wrong about why Orthodox Christianity beat out Paganism. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize again for using harsh language to refer to WP:V. I meant not to accuse you of having cited an insane source, only to propose a metric by which sources may be verifiable. I believed, in good faith, that both your sources and E's were valid within your respective school of thought and entered the discussion in order to assist in resolving a conflict of precisely that nature, isolating views from each school into its own well-qualified section of the article in order not to mis-represent any views. For your peace of mind, I do not " [equate] revelation of God or mysticism with mental illness". I will read the Engelhardt piece this evening when I return. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It takes a true Christian to have metanoia to the spirit of apology. I will say that your rewrite of theoria is still worthy of the front page of Wikipedia. And I will say unequivocally that Editor Esoglou is edit warring from a Roman Catholic POV and because he is suspected as a member of Clergy is allowed to edit war without re-dress. What a shame. Hopefully this link will show how the Hellenist society broke from pagan society (Greek) to Christian society (Katholicos) and how the way the article is now (i.e. theoria) it is verging on cheap propaganda. As Engelhardt shows that philosophy and theology are not the same in their ultimate goals and how theoria is the noetic experience of God. And how Esoglou has created a giant distorted mess and then pinned it on a Greek loan word that is not used or understood in the Greek language the way Esoglou has Westernized it. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit warring not against me per se but against the opinions of Eastern Orthodox theologians and attacking them not with Roman Catholic theologians and Roman Catholic theology or officials but rather attacking the Orthodox positions with his own personal interpretation of Eastern Orthodoxy (that Esoglou can NOT source because his distortions are invalid) and the abuse of wikipedia sourcing and citation and contribution rules to silence this which goes against Esoglou's personal opinion. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I have a Latin translation test tomorrow. I made it through the intro and first main section of Engelhardt; I will definitely keep reading. It takes some effort not to put up my wall and shut down because, from the first sections, the article is very inclusive and holistic. However, my own knowledge of Catholic church history is lacking, so I do not have much to compare to but a notion of what I would expect from the church (obviously easily circumvented by free men). I am very curious to see what else he has to say! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 02:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well again he is only restating the general position. Go look at the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article and look at the fight Esoglou has put up there and that article is saying the same thing. I understand if you disagree but why is it that these things not allow to actually get addressed? Why can't this be said? LoveMonkey (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to your posting. There is too much confusion on this. Although it is an improvement from what appears to you saying is "mental illness" to now the same thing. And that there are several heresy like issues for both sides that you appear to not be treating with the proper levity (it is condemned in the East as the Euchites heresy to say that one ever sees the essence of God). I will say that the Orthodox don't see the Roman Catholic Church teaching people the theology of say St Symeon the New Theologian. Theoria here is not complicated by words here it is a clear experience and one that is taught in Orthodoxy that all of it's people are to seek and that the entire Church and it's activities are to direct people to this as it is the goal of theoria that is one of the last stages of theosis. Please post Roman Catholic theological teachings that validate the teachings of St Symeon. I would be fascinated to see where the Roman Catholic church teaches gnosiology and how that gnosiology (mysticism) differs from ours. As the teaching of the Sarx is not the same so the bioethics are not the same. In Christ. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not pretend to know all of both or even one side, as we discuss them here. Also, Western Christianity is fragmented in so many ways, and I will only treat of the Roman Catholic Church, consisting of the teachings that continue to be supported by the Bishop of Rome, to state it properly. The mystical doctors of the church, St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, lay out a progression of increasing depth in mystical life (like stages of theosis?), progressing from vocal and mental prayer (meditation) to contemplation (a more word-less exercise, but usually still containing "images") to "Mystical Marriage" and "Transforming Union"; at the end of the line, the soul is so filled with the love of God that the person dies, the soul being taken into heaven—the death of love. We still hold that no man can see the face of God and live. However, the revelation, personally, of God's love (in a sense at least analogous to the "light" of gnosis) to the soul (to the whole person, but most directly to the soul, the spiritual component) is something that can be had quite frequently and is recommended by the Church. We do not depend on such a vision for salvation, only that, having been baptized, we die in God's favor or with the sincere intention of gaining His favor at the earliest convenience as of the moment of our death (imagine someone seeking the Sacrament of Reconciliation but killed in a roadway accident, etc). Of course, those who have not been formally introduced to the church and the necessity of baptism for salvation may be saved; God will judge them according to their conscience. My reading of the material on St Symeon shows agreement with the Catholic Church, inasmuch as the illumination, as described by Anidopoulos, is not the complete vision of God but rather various "spiritual lights". This is consistent with the experiences of various Catholic mystics, and, though he is not venerated in our tradition (to my knowledge), I see no fundamental difference between his teachings and ours.
 * The piece about analogy is very interesting. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) details how we may come to know God, that it is imperative in our creation (a "natural" tendency) to seek Him, but that we can only know him through the finite material world, that our knowledge is in so many ways mediated by what we can experience with our senses . This does not preclude His ability to reveal Himself to us; we could not, however, hope to know him fully, being that we are finite and He, infinite. In this sense, analogy is necessary, by virtue of our finite nature, to know anything of God.
 * I must acknowledge, however, that the Catholic church does not mandate such a pursuit of the vision of God that is theoria, as you claim above that the Orthodox church does. Rather, the purpose of our earthly life is summed up thus: Man is to come to know God, love God, serve God, and by so doing attain everlasting life with Him in paradise. While the Sacraments convey sanctifying grace (the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity) and various pious practices and devotions (along with the examples in the lives of our saints, sacramentals, religious icons, etc) can aid us in this journey, there is not such a prescribed method as the stages of theosis.
 * To be continued... –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 01:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not an idea, or a thought it literally is to see God. Do you have official Roman Catholic sources that agree with your opinion on St Symeon, on theoria, on the Tabor light, on enstasis and ecstasis? Since the highest theoria or 8th is one taken out of time or in ecstasis. As it is now you are purely stating opinion. And it really does nothing to further the collaboration on the articles in question for me to say that in my opinion what I believe is (fill in the blank). As long as the schism which is close to a thousand years now what official statement to the effect from the Roman Catholic church. A thousand years is enough time for people to make official statements to clarify what you are saying. Instead I have statements to the contrary. I have provided them. So please provide Roman Catholic source saying that the Roman Catholic church now believe the mystics, ascetics or chasmatics should be the church theologians and not the academics. And that whats makes them valid is the experience of theoria like St and Archimandrite Sophrony. I am not seeing what you are saying in your sources and it is a pretty straight forward thing so please provide where the Roman Catholic church endorses the Eastern Orthodox theology and how it does this over and beyond the sources I have which do not say any of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand you would rather have authoritative sources; the CCC, promulgated by Rome, is such a source, and refers to the teachings of various prominent figures in Church history, including some Eastern fathers, as well as Sacred Scripture and documents generated by Ecumenical Councils. I find that the intellectualized nature of Western theology is perhaps overstated... take this passage from the page on Orthodox Spirituality that addresses the Western method: "Western theology however has differentiated itself from Eastern Orthodox theology. Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character. In the West, Scholastic theology evolved, which is antithetical to the Orthodox tradition. Western theology is based on rational thought whereas Orthodoxy is hesychastic. Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology. Characteristic of such an approach is the saying of Anselm of Canterbury: 'I believe so as to understand'. The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man. We accept faith by hearing it not so that we can understand it rationally, but so that we can cleanse our hearts, attain to faith by 'theoria' and experience the Revelation of God." Western theology contains truths about God framed in terms developed by philosophers through the ages but often used in a different, more perfect sense (CCC on speaking about God–language and on belief and faith). We do not abandon those who have developed a philosophical and rationally-sound method of describing the faith; such a foundation was required to combat heresy (and Benedict XVI, as quoted by Engelhardt, seems to be confronting a modern heresy on its own terms when he encourages rational, even political approaches to meeting today's society with the Faith). At the same time, neither do we claim it impossible that a simple, un-schooled (I will not say "uneducated", in order not to preclude the possibility of one learning outside of an institutionalized educational system) can attain a complex knowledge of God (as we all would desire of our respective theologians); however, we do take great care to ensure that those who teach others formally (especially those who will, in turn, teach others) are sufficiently educated and examined within such a philosophical framework as we have developed over the centuries. Thus we require our "certified" theologians to have a rigorous academic background—to this I assent. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 13:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A Barnstar
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WP:WWF/D/2010/O at 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Congrats
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WP:WWF/D/2010/O at 06:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive
 Ⓢ ock   00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User (computing) merged with End-user_(computer_science)
I've finally merged End-user_(computer_science) into User (computing). Since you offered to expand the stub, would you mind to revise the merger and comment on the resulting structure? Diego Moya (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Drive – Final push
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Barnstar
Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 15:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks, and the same to you! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 06:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)