User talk:LoveMonkey/Archive 1

.

Plotinus
I laid some ground rules for protect removal at the article. Any comments, criticisms would be welcome. As an administrator, I rather enjoy finding creative solutions to such problems. --DanielCD 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a reply at the article. Please calm down and don't overract. I don't know who you've had contact here in the past (besides VisualBasic and myself) but I can assure you I never abuse the few petty admin tools I do have. Read what I wrote carefully and you will find that I am not endorsing anyone at this point, I just want a square#1 place to start. If you go away now, you will lose any and all weight you have in this matter, and yes, you do have some. --DanielCD 15:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
Hello LoveMonkey! If you can develop Neoplatonism and Gnosticism into an article, I would be happy. I don't like deleting. That's the reason that I use PROD. I gives someone a chance to fix it and take off the PROD. FloNight  talk   17:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll keep working on. I'm going to move all the text to the top. And finding the best format for the table of contents. The sentence you added about it being the turning point declares why it is encyclopedic. I'm going to work on it a little more before I take the tag off. The tag gives the article some protection from being WP:SPEEDY deleted or put up for WP:AFD deletion. FloNight   talk   06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Theurgy and the Soul
Believe it or not, I actually own a copy of this book.

Sorry if I didn't answer your question; I've been swamped lately. --DanielCD 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, awsome. I hope he can help. --DanielCD 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
Thank you for the compliment! P.S. That link did not show up, but it is located at A.H. Armstrong. Perhaps we should move it? My reply is also on my talk page. I'll be watching here and my talk, so you can reply anywhere. Copysan 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Demiurge
I'll look as I get a chance to. Sorry to be neglectful of these things, but I'm dealing with so many other projects at the moment. I am taking classes myself, and the semester is kind of starting to heat up. I'm curious: what is your opinion of Elaine Pagels and her writings about Gnosticism and other such things? --DanielCD 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

From Demiurge:

I changed


 * the evidence at the time ...to... the evidence from the time

Is this what you meant, or were you referring to the evidence available when Christos was around, as in "evidence available when Christos was around" (excluding what's come to light since then)? Just so you know; the wording is a little ambiguous. --DanielCD 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I already edited the article. It still sucks. I reworded it to include that the sethian were of hebrew heritage. Some later became christian gnostics. Not all or even a significant amount of early christians were "gnostic". Visual error likes to use "early christian" instead of "christian gnostic". Daniel also likes to claim that Christos was in his camp but Christos' analogy was very different then Daniel's. Christos knows that the greeks take the secterians that called themselves gnostic and where outside the platonic academy as being very anti greek. Very anti hellenist. That these "gnostics" where trashing and stealing things uniquely greek and also Hebrew and distorting to create "cults". Faux knock off of the very private and ellite "mystery cults" throughout the mediterrianian. It makes this group very hard to sympathize with because of their "hateful" distortion of the old testament/Septuagint and platos works. Christos would not and does not agree with this I mean look at his new book. LoveMonkey 02:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Pagels she makes allot of errors and mistakes for someone of her supposed caliber. And obvious amateur ones at that. Big big mistakes like why aren't the greeks gnostics? Why are all these "gnostics" who dig on redefining greek words themselves "not greek"? Also she makes blanket statements about the early church that are either fabricated or just ignorant. You know it is interesting to see just how her game works check this wiki article in light of all the plotinus upheavel..History of Gnosticism note the purposeful mistakes and emissions about the conversion of roman europe. Europe and roman europe did not became christian after theodious' edict. Let alone catholic. LoveMonkey 02:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to assist you as I have time. I have to read up though. --DanielCD 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Its all cool. Your friends here seem very high caliber so the help they have given has been greatly appreciated.LoveMonkey 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

a history of mature knowledge
Hey Sam how are you? My name is LoveMonkey ooo eee. Hey your History of Gnosticsim has some problems with it. I don't feel too keen on editing it so I will not do too much. No disrespect but you missed some stuff. Hey I am no scholar but then.........www.theandros.com/emoore I don't speak for the Dean Professor Moore speaks for himself. Anyway the article is a very one but we can tug a war on it awhile. It is OK to disagree. But ask and I will provide you with sources to back the edits. Good luck and great writing.. LoveMonkey 13:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't write that at all! I made that article out of content from gnosticism, which had gotten too big, and wasn't really helping explain gnosticism to people. Please feel free to help edit! Sam Spade 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

stepping in a big pile of seth
Hey how is "Commonly, the Sethian cosmogonic myth describes an intended prologue to the events of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, which by its emendatio" an explaination to edit out apophatic theology from greek christianity? Even in an article on them sethians.LoveMonkey 04:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatz a madda Yu? Why can you not reponse to antaganizms? Hey anyway I think your articles are actually pretty d@mn good. Good luck. Mr Sam. LoveMonkey 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your pretty swell too. I didn't respond because I didn't know what to say. I don't know much of anything about sethians. At first I thought it had something to do w the Temple of Set, but I don't think so... Their article says they are some sort of jewish / platonic fusion.


 * Anyways, the edit I made was mainly ment to be gramatical rather than substantive in nature.


 * Cheers, Sam Spade 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Glossolalia
Excuse me? Was that message really meant for me? &mdash; A.S. Damick talk contribs 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How? The only mention of Orthodoxy is a brief comment regarding the hymnology from Pentecost, that it is regarded as a reversal of the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel.  I don't see anywhere in the article where it states that Orthodox engage in "gibberish."


 * Anyway, I'm not really interested in working on the article. &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Deacon Damick LoveMonkey 21:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Iamblichus
Here's an online version of Iamblichus' work: http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm - Online copy of On the Egyptian Mysteries

The thing about this material is that it takes a lot of reading and specialized knowledge to really get into the debate. I know quite a bit, but haven't focused on it in a long time, so I have to do a lot of mind refreshing to keep up. Otherwise we would be better able to help clean up problems like these. But hey, Wikipedia is mostly in fun, a hobby. It's got its problems, and we'll keep working on them. Glad to see you feeling light-hearted about it. --DanielCD 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Neoplatonism and Gnosticism Here's the link to the discussion. --DanielCD 13:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS! Neoplatonism and Gnosticism survived the AfD. --DanielCD 01:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The article got a lot of attention for a week. That is a good thing, I think. : ) -- FloNight  talk  01:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's one of the positive things that can come out of an AfD. --DanielCD 02:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

N & G
No problemo. :) Sounds like an interesting subject. I'm sure it will make an interesting wiki. Lucidish 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mails
Hi LoveMonkey, I've just been made aware of the e-mails you sent some weeks ago to real-life associates of another editor. The only reason you're not being blocking indefinitely for that is because of the time lag. That kind of stalking (and that's what it is) is never acceptable and I hope you'll apologize to the person concerned. I realize you were a newbie when it happened and so I very much hope you interact on a different basis now with your fellow editors, even when you're in conflict with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, LM. I appreciate the apology and your assurance that it won't happen again. It would be good if you could also apologize to the person it affected. About your edits, I have no idea what the issues are, and know next to nothing about the subject matter. However, I just looked at a random sample of your edits, e.g. these ones. This is problematic editing in a number of ways. First, you're deleting good material, and you mustn't do that. Second, the writing could use some improvement. Third, it's not clear what you're saying, and the listing of chapters with summaries is not how articles are normally written. Fourth, it sounds argumentative, as though you're pushing a particular POV. I have to say that I feel most editors would have a problem with these edits. Can I suggest you take a break from these pages for a week or so, and let things cool down a little? Then you could go back to the talk pages and request sources for any edits you feel are not properly referenced. Also, you could take the time to review the content policies, particularly WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, because being familiar with them will help you to know when it's reasonable to request a source, and when not. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Plotinus
This edit constitutes a personal attack against me. Discuss the content of articles, not your fantasies about the inner workings of my mind. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Smile 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --Bhadani 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So you smiled back at me, and wished me well. Thank you friend! --Bhadani 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You said to me on my talk page: Your city is deep within my heart. Are you one of St Thomas?
 * My answer: I respect St Thomas, and have also contributed to the page Saint Thomas Mount. I could not understand your words "your city is deep within my heart." --Bhadani 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will try to do something, if possible. --Bhadani 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus
I do not know anything about the subject matter so there isn't a lot I can do. You say you have been or may be banned from editing there...can you link me to that page. I did notice that Slimvirgin mentioned to refrain from personal attacks and that you may be blocked, but that is all.--MONGO 00:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ophites
LM, I'm not EM by the way - he said you thought I am. I have an interest in the Ophite topic but don't have time now to comment. At a glance, one thing that stands out as needing strong validation is the sentence in the reference link "Emanations and angels reveal Persian influence." Comparing the Ophite diagram etc with other catalogs of angels and daimons in magical texts etc shows that not all roads lead to Persia. Zeusnoos 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know about JDT - he was alive and well at a conference in Nov. 05. Try:

http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/John%20Turner%20-%20HomePage.htm


 * We don't really know enough about the Ophites to claim what is claimed in this article (esp. serpent as hero). It's unlikely they actually had much in the way of texts and manuscripts. Looks like the entire page is a bunch of interpretation and opinion - should be flagged for major rewrite (like most of these articles). Zeusnoos 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Theoria
All i did was add some links!. :) Needs a "See also" and "External links" section, though. And there should be an expanded lede, separate from the examples. Regards-Ste|vertigo 17:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Father Arseny
It's a real pity that I don't know anything about Lossky and Alexander Men. You'd better ask User:Alex Bakharev. He is a very helpful guy. Happy edits, Ghirla  -трёп-  12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, actually I am not that knowledgeable in the religious matters either (although I know how to use Google and Yandex). It is usually easier to write about something you are ignorant about and it is the case about my wikiarticles on the religious philosophy. I will try to help you anyway. I expect to have more time after the end of June. BTW, it is usually difficult to make me mad on somebody, and you have not even tried. Please forgive me, if I somehow upset you abakharev 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fear lead to anger, Anger lead to hate, hate lead to suferiiiiiiiiing.
Arguing "correctness" of POV or translation is not only futile but also counter productive. Ideologues feed on flamewar. Delete his edit simply on the basis of NPOV (i.e. lack of POV attribution), verifiability (lack of reference from wiki credible sources), no original research (not adding personal interpretation of quote). Report him when he keep reverting delete without giving any sort of justification in term of wikipedia policies. Once his edit is recognised officially as vandalism, self policing of wikipedia will take care of any subsequent vandalism. Let him burn. Someone like him won't stay in wikipedia for long. Vapour

Re: Dostoevsky in exile
Hi, thanks for your comment. Do you mean this picture? Yes, I've taken it. Right when I was near the monument the clouds closed the sun and it became most dark that day. So I had to edit it to lighten the monument. Take a look at my pictures of Omsk city on Commons, there are pictures I like more. Ъыь 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Father Arseny
Hi, I'm sorry, but I have no idea who this person is. Arseny is not a rare name, BTW. Ъыь 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Response
I only see one edit by him/her in the past week to the article in question...work it out on the talk page, or just revert him and see if he/she is even still around.--MONGO 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Neoplatonism
I do not understand your message. I didn't delete your "new research", I just moved it out of the intro to its proper section, see. I have no opinion on the matter, but you'll need to elaborate on it, first of all introducing the "Anonymous commentary on Parmenides" before presenting bleeding edge discoveries relating to it. The article is still very weak on what the tenets of Neoplatonism actually are, and it would be time well invested to discuss the content of the commentary regardless of recent theories concerning its date. dab (&#5839;) 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Neoplatonism again
This article is pitifully short. While I understand the possible import of the Parmenides commentary, the section should be a subsection about specific works, or about pre-Neoplatonic influences. Dab above is correct that you are discussing a specific issue without the heart of neoplatonism fleshed out. Corrigan, Turner, and others currently have a study group (Parmen ides Group) so I'm sure in the near future more will come of it. But it's not appropriate for a general encyclopedia to give priority to it.

About your question, my current interest is in certain Middle Platonic themes (and overlapping Stoicism, Neopythagoreanism, etc). It is obvious to me that the classification of Platonic versus Neoplatonic is too crude. More should be said about the influence of Numenius (and the two demiurgoi) and Ammonius on Plotinus (maybe this would be the place for Parmenides comm). Different neoplatonists should have summary sections leading to their main pages (Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, Hierocles, late aristotelianizing platonists (Simplicius, various anonymous commentators). These summary sections should illustrate some differences among them such as on the soul, matter, evil, etc. In Christian neoplatonism, the Cappadocians, Origen, Maximus, etc. should be mentioned. To flesh out key ideas in Neoplatonism, use Dr. Moore's article as a guide - http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/neoplato.htm - without plagarizing. Zeusnoos 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most excellent ZN. LoveMonkey 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean
Yes, I saw one edit he made to a talk page where he labelled another editor as not giving a shit...anyway, I can't quickly find any other changes he has made which reverted your work and also can you link me to where he is complaining about you? Also, try to find a reference for this information here. Thanks...I'll keep a lookout.--MONGO 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see there is no love lost here and I have to remain neutral. I suggest that you can do a revert or two, but hash it out, and encourage him to do the same, on the associated talk pages. So long as you both follow no original research, usereliable sources and maintain civility, you can find a way to work things out. I have about zero knowledge of the subject matter, so the best I can do is check sources to see that the comply with the information posted.--MONGO 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you can revert his work if it fails to comply with the above mentioned polices and guidelines. I am trying to help you, but I have yet to be provided adequate links, and I have searched for others myself. Some of the information about his reverts are from yesterday...please demostrate links that shows that he is currently edit warring with you and I can protect the page and let you two discuss it on the talk page. PLease calm down.--MONGO 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two problems here. The first is that LoveMonkey cannot seem to compose a sentence in Standard Wriiten English. The edit to Dostoevsky (which was on my watchlist) inserted a sentence fragment. I correct your bad grammar and in response, you run to an administrator? Grow up. Furthermore, LoveMonkey is inserting his opinion into the Dostoevsky article. No matter how obvious it is, content needs to be cited to a scholarly source. Ask User:MONGO or anyone else. This is a very basic rule of Wikipedia which LoveMonkey cannot seem to grasp. I will not stop correcting your grammar or your inability to follow Wikipedia procedure. Go to all the admins you want. If you don't want your contributions to be edited mercilessly, you shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia at all. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Another edit bad grammar...this one I can't even make sense out of. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have asked Essjay if he can be of any more help, since my knowledge on the subject matter is zero and I can't simply revert someone if I can't find any evidence of vandalism, unless I am able to understand the subject matter. You two please do your best, like I should talk, to be cool with each other and follow the guidelines I have linked. Poor or improper grammar is not a sin and can be easily corrected. My concern, unless an article is soon to become a featured article, is that sources be reliably referenced and the article not violate original research or NPOV.--MONGO 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Attasarana
Thank you for your message. I am not sufficiently knowledgable about Plotinus to comment on POV matters. Howver, I agree that user Attarasarana's habitual failure to properly sign and date stamp his contributions is to be deplored.--Stephen Hodge 16:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius of Alexandria
Thanks for your comments on the criticisms of Athanasius. The section was not added by an IP vandal. I originally wrote this section in October 2005. You can see the original edit here.

I wrote this section based on sources from two books. If you're interested in reading more of the context of the Rubenstein book you can find them here:

Search for Athanasius inside When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome on Amazon

I don't know much about Rubenstein, but he is a Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at the George Mason University Institute for Conflit Analysis and Resolution. He specialises in Political violence, media and conflict, religious conflict.

While it is not possible to use Amazon to search inside Constantine and Eusebius by Timothy D. Barnes, he is also a professor with credibility in his field. You can see a biograph of him here: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/classics/bios/tbar.html

Obviously this is a controversial subject. So I looked at another source to get a third perspective. K. Anatolios writes in Athanasius (The Early Church Fathers):


 * "we are told of prefects inciting violent riots against Athanasius' supporter and of the lynching of an unpopular rival bishop, George of Cappadocia, by Athanasius' supporters." (p. 2)


 * "It is true, nevertheless, that Athanasius was accused even during his own time of employing violent means to assert and maintain his authority. But it is very hard to evaluate these accusations objectively, especially considering that some of the most egregious of them (such as the "murder" of Arsenius) were provesn, as we have seen, to be artificially contrived by his enemies. There can be no doubt, however, that outbreaks of violence occurred throughout these conflicts between Athanasius's supporters and their Melitian and anti-Nicene opponents. One testimony to this state of affairs was the finding of a papyrus, LP 1914, dating from 335 and compromising a letter sent by a Melitian, Callistus, to two Melitian priests. In this letter, Callistus complains bitterly of the sufferings of his fellow Melitians at the hands of the "adherents of Athanasius." While certain corruptions in the manuscript make the exact construal somewhat in doubt, the documents seem to provide clear evident of violence perpetuated by Athanasius's supporters." (p. 35)

You can read the second quote here: Search for Athanasius Adherents on Amazon

So while there is disagreement about the level and extent of violence by Athanasius and his supporters, I think its very important to represent this criticism by some scholars sine it is largely unknown. mennonot 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I was wanting to know what you thought of Barnes' follow up book Athanasius and Constantius to the one you used Constantine and Eusebius? I mean since the article we are discussing is about Athanasius I was wondering what you thought of Barnes' work that was obviously more pertinent then work of Barnes that you quote. No disrespect but I think it also puts in context the critiq Barnes made which you have not done. LoveMonkey 13:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I used Constantine and Eusebius because that was the book I had access to. I'd encourage you to expand the criticism section to include context provided by Athanasius and Constantius if you have access to the book. I'll jump in and contribute as I have time. mennonot 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your question about Porphyry
If there is no evidence, it is more or less speculation. It makes more sense to me that they were burned by Christians, for obvious political reasons, and not by Porphyry. We know very little about a friendship with +Origen. I think it's more likely that Porph. was formerly a Christian then reverted to non-Christian beliefs. Zeusnoos 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles E. Hill
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Charles E. Hill, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.rts.edu/faculty/StaffDetails.aspx?id=285. As a copyright violation, Charles E. Hill appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Charles E. Hill has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Charles E. Hill. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Charles E. Hill, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Copysan 20:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. Look at the bottom of that page, and you'll clearly see "© 2006 Reformed Theological Seminary" Copysan 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No hard feelings. Copysan 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

monad edits
The monad disambiguation page is not a place to explore the history of monadism, but as its goal is to provide searchers with access to a list of "monad" pages, I left anything that had specific similarities of name. In some cases, this was the title of a book, and in some cases, that book didn't have a page, but the author did. So be it, that's the nature of disambiguation pages. Anyone looking for that book's page might search for "monad".

That's as I recall. If there's something not explicitly named "monad" on that page, it should go. -Harmil 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)