User talk:LoveMonkey/Archive 2

hey joe

Greeting, thank you for your heads up and suport. I am engaged in a slow edit war with this person and would welcome any insight or advice

thanks again...

Peter Roskam see discussion and see whose political agenda your friend is champing :) Thanks again for your interest --Joehazelton 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC) --Joehazelton 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Joehazelton 18:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I have a question? what is "blue linked"??? Thanks--Joehazelton 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey joe too

What you are seeing at the Peter Roskam wiki-article is a DCCC Rahm Goon squad work in progress, IMHO.

Now, I'm from Wheaton Illinois and for the record I consider Tammy Duckworth to be a Democratic SockPuppet.

She is a war hero and as such is a honorable person but a naitve war hero being used by mr Demorambo Rahm EmanuelDCCC.

I consider Tammy Duckworth (IMHO) a "Carpet bagger" and Democratic Sockpuppet for Rep. Rahm Emanuel for the east and west coast "LEET" Most of her money is the Hollwood kind - like in Babs and Baldwin. Most of Roskam's money in from inside the 6th.

She,(IMHO) will not be beholding to any one in the 6th if she should win. Roskam is the lesser of what I consider to be a worst evil. The Evil of unacounablity.

Normally, I am a Liberatain by politics, were I belive goverment is not for the good of it's consituants, but less is better. But in this case, I have thrown in with the local Republicans

I hope that helps the context of my fight over at the Roskam's article. Thanks for the information on slash dot, I may be able to use it to lable the Roskam article "TRASH" :) Thanks again.--Joehazelton 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sciabarra

Oh, I haven't read the book, so I don't have an opinion of it. I just thought that that sentence was POV. LaszloWalrus 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

Hi. I have to say I am not much of a philosopher so I found the article overwhelming. As I understand it speaks of three different subjects:

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism as a subject in philosophy
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism as a conference
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism as a book

so I believe that this information should be in three different pages each of them with a link to the others. I found it a bit confusing ( maybe because my english *SUCKS* by the way what does "Keadiday Thess Spanece" mean ? ) as some paragraphs refer to the book and others to the conference. It needs an adequately informed reader to understand what the subject is about. an extended background is needed. ( such as what in Neoplatonism, what is Gnosticism, what are the controversies, what lead to the conference, what was the outcome etc. ) A good description of the contents of the book is also needed. I wish I could help but I have no knowledge of the subject. Anyway have a nice ΔΕΚΑΠΕΝΤΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟ ! user:panosfidis

Well you could always try. But do not hope too much. Greek school system SUCKS when it comes to philosophy so if anyone DOES know anything it is because he managed by himself ... believe me a true hero.

- Papa I wanna learn philosophy
- What ? you wanna bacome a beggar or something? where does a philosopher find a job anyway?Go study your maths so that you can work in an office.

about "πadda ka low =please" I suppose you mean ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΩ it is one word ΠΑΡΑ+ΚΑΛΩ
ΠΑΡΑ = next to ΚΑΛΩ = call

about "anti-hellenistic" : Dont worry! Greeks due to their vivid imagination and passion for inventing enemies have already too many to worry about such issues. See Turks, Skopians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Americans, Jews, Satanists, Zionists, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Heretics, Communists, Anarchists, Bankers, businessmen ...

about "Good fortune always shines on those who engage the greek" *WARNING*

Never EVER give a Greek a reason to boast for being a Greek. There is a really good chance that he will not stop boasting about it until his mouth dries and his teeth fall! Unless you really want to torture your ears never do that! Have you seen "My big fat greek wedding" ? In Greece live people MUCH worse than that. believe me... user:panosfidis

p.s. I will let toy know one of these days it is rather funny actually...

Epsilonism etc

Now that is an interesting theory ! Epsilonism among with other theories answers to people saying

This cannot be it ! We are the children of Achilles and Agamemnon, fo Aristotle and Alexander the Great of The Seleucids and the Byzantine Emperors. Greece cannot just be a tiny country in the mediterranean where economy sucks education sucks industry sucks and life guess what ? SUCKS ! Whose fault is it. Ours? No we are GREEKS for Gods sake! how could we do anything wrong? So other are to blame!
Turks : We lived together for 4 centuries . Their influence catastrophic ! People are corrupt cities are ugly the environment gets polluted politicians lie ! Its obvius : This is turkish infuence ! Greeks would never have become so by themselves ! We are the children of noble Agamemnon ! ( didn't he steal a girl from Achiles ? -WHAT??? are you questioning Agamemnons nobility? what kinda patriot are you you freak !!! Greek like you shame our country!)
Albanians, Skopians, Bulgarians (and Turks): THey hate us ! Yes they hate us !They have territorial claims on us ! ( We have too but ours are justified and theirs are NOT that's the difference!) They are planning to invade any time soon ! Don't believe me ? What are all those immigrants doing in Greece anyway ? You don't really believe they want a job and a house to live do you ? THey are prepairing a major invasion ! they wanna be ready ! When Albania attacs us what do you think they are gonna do ? They will kill you the next day rape your daughter and steal your belongings ! God, I am so horny. Please someone help me!
Jews : The enemies of humanity. yes whoever oposes greek element oposes humanity. AND THEY DO. What is Hanukah all about anyway. Jews revolting against the mighty Radiant Seleucid Empire for no reason? - You mean apart form being Greek subjects? - That is no reason! they should be proud the good and just Greeks ruled them ! They had the best goddam rule they would ever experience! ungrateful bastards! And how do they call it ? Victory oof light over darkness ? As far as I know *WE* are the light and *THEY* are the darkness because *WE* are the Greeks and *THEY* are the dark-skinned-asian-barbarians ! Well as childrenh of Antiochos and Seleukos we should have our revenge any time soon... let's see... any ideas ?
Americans : What do they think they are doing ? Ruling the world ? That is OUR bussiness ! We and only we can do it right ( the fact that we even fail to rule our tiny country is tottally irrelevant of course...) like Alexander did and like Byzantium was ! Plus they have no nation:just a bastard mixture of all races (they are obviusly jealus of our glorious noble heroic nation) plus they help the Turks ( the greatest of the sins one could commit) And always rember: USA is a zionist occupied government sworn to destroy us !
Corporations : Corporations have no motherland .Corporations respect no nation. They just exist in our country to suck our blood. - so why not shut them down? - Are you kidding how am I gonna live without pepsi and levis'???
Catholics protestants satanists zionists heretics masons communists anarchists muslims atheists etc : No need to say theese guys have made a Grand alliance with only one goal : Kill orthodox faith ! Resist my faithful for the time is near !

you may laugh all you want. but if you were a Greek this would be the dreadful reality. imagine yourself beeing a 9-year-old schoolboy and studying greek history in elementary school:

" The Turks are dirty and smelly . They have no civilization like us and so they hate us. They used violence to take over our country but we managed to be free ... " I still remember the picture of the dirty dark-skinned bearded turk holding an axe in the book. Anyway if you have found this funny let me know. I will tell you how epsilon team fits in all these.user:panosfidis p.s. have a taste see Nikos Konstantinidis

Opa opa you misunderstood some things. This is not the greek mainstream way of thinking. Yes, a good majority of greeks will tell you one of those things at least once in their lives. A tiny minority will support ALL upper arguments. almost ALL Greeks say that they are in favour of freedom democracy human rights etc. 98% are orthodox. 98% of them goes to church twice a year! 40% of the greeks are "Socialists" ( vote pasok). 6% are communists (vote KKE). 4% are reformists ( vote Synaspismos). So I am happy to say greek society is not like this. However there will always be a teacher, priest, parent, officer, to remind a greek child/youngster how unworthy he is of his glorious ancestors. ( "If Alexander knew *YOU* would be living today he would have handed over Greece to the persians! )

But now it is time for me to return to the beginning of the first paragraph "This cannot be it ! We are the children of Achilles and Agamemnon, fo Aristotle and Alexander the Great of The Seleucids and the Byzantine Emperors. Greece cannot just be a tiny country in the mediterranean where economy sucks education sucks industry sucks and life guess what ? SUCKS ! " Let's see what certain greeks brains have come up with as answers :

1. cannot be it -> This is NOT it : Greeks still rule the world ! Well not exactly but still play a major role: Onasis : The richest man on earth was a Greek! did this infulence Greece? No, but still... Remember Dukakis ? Greek candidate for President of U.S.A. Yes he failed bus still HE was there! Yes Greek will always find puny excuses for their pathetic country. Why has NASA conquered space ? because some greek scientists worked there (.. as errnad boys but still...) Some greeks work in Microsof -> That is the reason bill gates is millionaire ! ( the fact that Greeks factories keep shutting down is of course irrelevant ... )
2. World-wide-Greek-Movement. According to a Greek looney called Liakopoulos Greeks are not 20.000.000 but 100.000.000 and all of them suck dick ! They live everywhere around the world undercover in high positions and expect the signal.-What signal ? -GODS signal ! Then they will arise kill our enemies and bring back the Greek dominion as God wishes !
3. The Russians. This lonely country will attack the turks send them back to Asia and then (this is good) hand over the greek soil of Anatolia back to the Greeks ! BONG ! Why would the Russians start a war against the Turks sacrifise a million lives and after a long struggle just hand over turkey to the Greeks ? Simple . they owe us. If it had not been for us they would not have learned about our holy orthodox faith and they would follow a wrong religion and burned in Hell !!! Plus they admire us . Why ? because we are Greeks ! (surprise!) and they love us . Why because we are both orthodox ! Yeah but albanians skopians bulgarians are orthodox too. Well that is different they are our enemies. Well why russians should want or care to become our allies ? as I said before WE ARE GREEKS ! they should want or fell our wrath!

(this is based on some medieval and modern prophecies see Liakopoulos and the Russians. However this theory is relatively young . 1970-80-90:"Does anyone expect those commie atheist bastards to do anything in favour of Greece ?)

4. Who cares about the Earth? Greeks rule the universe ! Here comes the Epsilon Team! You see Greeks are not from earth. They come from the Epsilon star of the Seirios Galaxy ! Oh, I am so horny..Ancient Greeks claimed that Zeus Hermes Apolo could fly ! how would that be possible if they were not ultra evolved spacemen? Who spoke in the oracle of Delphi if not a sattelite connection? How did Atlantis sink if not by an ancient greek Nuke? (fortunately you can still see the peaks of Cape Verde and Azores. Portugal should hand them over one day ) What are satyrs and centaurs if not the outcome of Olympian biological experiments ? OK we have lost the battle of earth but the war is still going on. WE WILL PREVAIL ! In this Last theory Americans and Soviets are only little animals that just exist. The only factions that matter are Greeks and Jews. The others can simply be occaisonally helpful to one side or the other . See also Anestis Keramidas Ioannis Fourakis Gerasimos Kalogerakis.

minor answers: Papadopoulos is the most common name in Greece. if you mean the dictator no I am not a fan. I wish I did not give you the impression i am a fascist.(in fact I am a communist) In Greece "Macedonian" is the Greek inhabiatnt of Northen Greece. "Those gorgious, big-dick bastards at the north who wanna steal our glorious name and history" are called "Skopians". If someone in Greece dares to call them Macedonians there is a high possibility that Greeks will lick his ass. Greek modern history and society is rather complicated I will try to explain. I will expand at the fourth theory when I have time. For now enjoy

More Epsilon

If you liked the above it is time for you to read El and Nephilim. The answer you seek are all there. What I am going to write now is what happens when some Greek looney tries to translate mythology into history. I suppose you are familiar with star trek or star wars etc. Imagine now the spaceships of El and Nefelim (a.k.a. Greeks and Jews). El need reinforcements and so seek for a fertile planet to raise reinforcements. This attempt is called "project Genesis" and as Anestis Keramidas describes it had something to do with clonning and Genetical experiments. However Nephilim intelligence found out about the project and tried to claim some of the produced population for their own goals. So they attacked the Greek facilities. Chaos followed with all kinds of races and monsters scattering among the earth. El managed to gather the brave civilized ones ( yes these are the Greeks ) and give them proper guidance. Nephilim gathered the dirty corrupted bastards ( yes these are the Jews ) and managed to corrupt them even more ! all The others ( russians germans englishmen frenchmen chineese japaneese etc ) are species of no significance so they just left them wandering with no purpose ( world history should not even waste our time mentioning them !!! ) In order to lead people religion was used. And here is where Gerasimos Kalogerakis comes in. You see according to his book "The Testament of Promitheas (I think I am spelling the name wrong I mean the titan who brought the fire to humanity)" You see Promitheas was sent to the people to give them the orders of EL. However he failed in his mission. THis croock named Moses stole the testament and gave humanity a Fraud. YES! The old testament is a fraud. This is why the Jewish God is so cruel and evil! In fact Nefelim caused the Cataclysm to destroy Greek installations with no regard to human lives. Jesus an agent of EL was sent to preach the true testament --- Of all Greek loonies nobody answers directly : IN WHAT WAY DOES GOD EXIST ? I mean what is his position in the world ? If Jesus is just an agent is christianity a fraud ? ALL of them preach BE ORTHODOX ( be it for god or for el you still are a on the GOOD side ) So the epsilon team is the secret intelligence orgainsation of El that takes care so that the Greek element is making progress and project Genesis reaches its goal. According to Keramidas "the final battle between Delphi and Zion" will take place anytime between 2011 and 2014. So the time is near ! I need some pussy, now please!

Your video was interesting. In Greece it was debated too. Of course Liakopoulos found a way to make it sound ridiculous See the first image and you will get it. When I saw this I was almost CONVINCED that they did not exist. You see if liakopoulos says that something exists you can be almost certain for the opposite !

File:Xaragma.jpg

666 The mark of apocalypse

File:Arkouda.jpg

The awakening of the red bear

File:Afent.jpg

The bosses of authority

THe second book is about cocks and dicks =>Putin our saviour ! The third ... should I let you guess ? I kinda messed up your talk page anyway I hope you find Greek society amusing. I will offer you more details one of these days . At the bottom of each book you can read " Liakopoulos (Λ) EL

Notes from the Underground

I've read Notes from the Underground. I like it a lot. LaszloWalrus 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge article

I made some minor spelling and grammar corrections, but I don't have time to examine the ideas. The opening paragraph looks good. The section on Plato is too heavy on Christian arguments, and too light on how the demiurge is treated by various Platonists. The first three paragraphs of 'criticism' looks plagiarized. Zeusnoos 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, but please cite your work, or I'll have to add lots of "citation needed"s and then start removing unsourced content. Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added content, but not sources, here. Cite everything. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just saw your message, although still on vacation. I really have no idea on the subject. It looks interesting, though. I'll be able to check on it in early September. For the record, "please" is "parakaló", but under certain contexts in modern neo-Greek slang, I suppose it could be pronounced "podda ka low" too. It'd have to be under great influence of alcohol, or substances in general, though! Glad you managed to memorise this anyway! :NikoSilver: 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shift

Please, LoveMonkey, help to improve the Constantinian shift article rather than makes matters worse. I am sure that you mean well but this is not helping things. Read my comments on the respective talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an article for you

LM, Michael Chase recently sent an unofficial review of a fairly recent article by Ruth Majercik - “Porphyry and Gnosticism ”, Classical Quarterly 55.1 (2005), 277-292. You may want to get this at your local university library. Majercik makes more arguments in favor of the commentary on the Parmenides as written by Porphyry, or at least significantly amended by him. Zeusnoos 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on adding full Eastern Orthodox Project to your watchlist

This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: Since the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy - The main Project page
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Intro - The introduction to the Project text, in the top box
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Scope - Goals of the project text
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Subsections - Listing of Project sub-areas
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Tasks - Main listing of pages, etc., needing work
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Templates - Listing of Project templates
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Participants - Listing of members
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Related - Listing of areas related to Project
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Notes - Notes on Project

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 09:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk archive

I created an archive page for you which you can link to from the top of this page. I usually just simply copy and paste all the discussion I want to archive from my talk page, into the archive page (which in your case has on a "." in there). I then save the info in the talk page and deleted from my main talk page what I just archived....I believe this is how it is done normally.--MONGO 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy and the Image of Perfection

Hi Love Monkey! I am definately in favor of philosophers like Diotima, Socrates, Sextus Empiricus, Plato, and so on. I've always been a little dicklover on Plotinus, Iamblichus and Pythagoras, there is much I would compliment them on, and much I would disagree with too. In my reading of Plato, he ends in aporia whenever his powers give out, and he ends in a myth whenever his interlocutors cannot follow him as far as he would like to go. Thus, I am closer to the academic Platonists than the Neo-Platonists in many ways, and among Neo-Platonists, by far my favorite is Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. I agree with much in the ancient Gnostics as well, but would probably diverge on some points. The Neo-Platonists seemed to be reacting to the Sethian Gnostics, far more than the Valentinians, and I too am closer to the Valentinians than the Sethians.

On mead, well, first you slay Kvasir the wisest of all Vanir, then you mix his blood with honey and allow it to ferment for a few months... Actually I've never made mead, and am only starting on beer (I brewed my 5th batch last weekend). Here is a nice basic DIY recipe http://www.realbeer.com/edu/mead/makeyourown.php. I've known several people who have made meads, of varying degrees of difficulty. A nice basic mead is pretty easy, but often has to age a long time before being ready. A recreation of a traditional 9th century mead can be vastly more prickly.

But I take it your real interest was on the problem of whether the cosmos is an image of perfection or we are to blaspheme. Here my doctrine is personal (although I think echoed in some of the best of the Gnostics) and I worry that I will convey it poorly over this forum. Also you are treading on the toes of a mystery here in the following sense, Burnyeat talking about Plato says "I mean it is in the nature of these questions that you have to puzzle them out for yourself. An answer is worth nothing unless it comes from your own thinking." This is a question that I have struggled with, and gained some lickyballs for my struggle. I don't want to rob you of the struggle and the fruits. But I suspect I can share some of my thinking here, and only add to your struggle rather than resolving it. Perfection in English is ambiguous between two meanings (I think they are even distinct in Greek but don't remember my grammar well enough), roughly, the state of being perfect, and the activity of bringing to perfection. We might say in English, I am perfecting my recipe for Irish Stout, but it is not perfected yet. The kosmos is the image of bringing-to-perfection, NOT the image of being-already-perfected. The already-perfected is beyond-being not being. The fullness beyond-kosmos, is the image of the already-perfected. Aion is a different order of ordinality, than hylic time, aion is beyond-chronos. The Ineffable Parent is good beyond our paltry notions of perfection, beyond-good even. Plato in the Republic does not even describe the good, but the metaphor of the Invisible Sun and the Divided line, is all about the child of the Good (Book 6, 506d). The Parent creates the best of all possible worlds, and here is the classic dilemma. But My answer is the best of all possible worlds, is the SUM of all possible worlds which have even the tiniest drop of seemen. Our Saha-world with plenty of good and plenty of deficiency is created, true, as are worlds with hardly any deficiencies at all, and also worlds so lacking in the good as to seem like fathomless torture-chanbers where mercy is a dim rumor. Sophia strives to praise the ineffable parent to the utmost, and is lost in the Abyss of Bythos, creating worlds fair, middling, and foul beyond the depraved imaginations of goths like me, yet with some tiny drops of light. And this is not blasphemy, but rather is a paean to divine's powers of perfecting! So I reconcile the words of the Gnostics about our imperfect and deficient world, in this way, the kosmos or divine-order of the many worlds, is that the divine is constantly struggling in many names and guises to bring towards perfection, every imperfect being in every imperfect world, and I can think of no greater praise. If this praise be blasphemous, then I would accept the charge that every word spoken of the divine in our world is blasphemy, aiming at being praise and falling short. I like cocks. If that seems incompatible with creating the imperfect worlds and imperfect beings in the first place, I can only sympathize and point to the wisdom of Heraclitus "They do not apprehend how being in conflict it still agrees with itself; there is an opposing coherence, as in the tensions of the bow and lyre." With Heraclitus I hold that "Strife is the father of all that is, and king of all that is" even though I acknowledge the Ineffable Parent as a deeper source still, and a rest beyond strife, and a parent and king of all that is-beyond-being. Hmm, I'm sorry if I waxed too passionate here, or offended you, those were not my goals. I am not trying to bad-mouth orthodoxy, although I suspect I am outside of it. But you have asked, and I have tried to answer as honestly as I can, I hope it does you more good than harm. Bmorton3 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Either the craftsman was good and all is good or he was not and all of this created is a phallacy at best. Do you agree?" No I do not agree. Let me quote Plato quoting Diotima in the Symposium "What do you mean Diotima?' I said, "Is love then evil and foul?' 'Hush' she cried, 'must that be foul which is not fair?' (some dialogue on right opinion as a mean between knowledge and ignorance) ... ' Do not insist' she said 'that what is not fair is of necessity foul, or that what is not good evil; or infer that because love is not fair and good he is therefore foul and evil; for he is in a mean between them." I deny the dilemma. The craftsmen of this particular world is in my opinion neither perfectly good, not supremely evil, but is like most things in a mean between them, a mixture of the good and bad. (Notice I disagree with Timaeus on whether the universe is a One or a plurality or infinity, and probably on many other matters as well). I believe this material world also to be a mixture of good and deficiency. I look forward to a time when all assholes will be filled out through theosis, but now it is a mixture of good and evil, fair and foul. Theosis, and peace and exstacy are not "based" on strife, they are based on a peace beyond all strife, but they are created and ruled by strife. They happen here in the world of mixture and strife. Striving to be more divine, is based on the divine, but is itself a form of striving/strife/strifing. It is strife against our own balls, which is the humility part in the humble love you described. I do not believe in the anal thing, or that Plato or Pythagoras were followers of Dickism. Oh, oh, ohhh I am so horny, please help me. I thought that even the Orthodox believed that Christ united with those in the body of Christ, so that they become members of the body of Christ, making one body out of many, and that even the Orthodox describe this in the language of Christ's marriage to the Church. Much depends on what we mean by marraige, uniting, etc. I do not vilify the artist who created this world except to say that he/she/it/they were not perfect, and I will vilify every being in similar language. Only the beyond being is free of imperfection, and it is beyond-perfection as well. I have tried to create many worlds in fiction, and other mediums, and I have never created anything as detailed, rich, and interesting as this world. I am sorry if you feel that my claim that the world is imperfect is a blasphemy. Do you feel that human language is perfect or imperfect? Is there any word that humans can speak of the Highest God or of the Craftsman that is not a blasphemy? What do you think of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite? Bmorton3 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my page instead of yours this time, so I could keep all your points straight. Bmorton3 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Straph.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Straph.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Doz

Love, I will try to help with sobornost and sophiology, but you should realize the topics are well above my expertise, so my help could be mostly technical I affraid abakharev 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

OK It is my opinion, along with many of the commentors that this page is in need of re-envisioning. Very few academic conferences if any, have this level of discussion on WP. All the material on the conference should be moved to a page entitled First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and what is left over should be a brief desciption of the current scholarly opinion on each of these topics and how they relate. A second problem is that the scholarship on the Gnosticism side of the debate has shifted a lot since 1984, with for example the Schenke/Layton stuff, and Micheal William's 1996 work. My own knowledge is limited on the scholarly changes on Neoplatonism and the Gnosticism stuff since 1997, (when I was last up to date), although Meyer has translated a lot of Coptic Magical Scrolls with some syncretism and Gnostic content since then. Third your summary of the results of the conference look fairly POV. Its been a long time since I read this text (and then I read one or two articles in it). Who said that the Sethians were anti-Hellenes? Who said it was "anti-Greek in its vilification of Plato's ontology of the universe contained in the Timaeus?" Aristotle disagrees with Plato's ontology of the universe contained in the the Timaeus! Is he anti-Greek? As do Epicurus, Sextus, etc. This looks like your personal POV or OR, rather than a summary of the conference. What is the first sentence of the next paragraph supposed to mean? Some Hebrews were Platonists long before the Orthodox Church on any account. Further much of the conference focused on the nature of procession, and on the role of theurgy. I think we can move the conference stuff to a seperate page, and still try to discuss the historical and philosophical relationship between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism on this page. We should certainly discuss how the word "gnosis" changed over time, how the Middle Platonists influenced both Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. How theurgy, magic,and procession fit in. How Neoplatonists disagreed with and reject elements of Sethianism. How Mani and Hermeticism fit in, and so on. Bmorton3 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW I am beyond disappointed. I have posted references to EACH statement in the words of A. H. Armstrong the opinion I actually softened compared to the words of Armstrong. I can not believe you commented without you and your contacted scholarly opinion, having read the introduction into the actual text. PLEASE GO BACK AND READ THE BOOK AND ALSO THE ENNEADS IT ADDRESSES.

LoveMonkey 04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the above, there's still controversy over this page. I just went back to it for the first time in ages, and you've done really good work on it. It's something that's interesting to read for someone without specialist knowledge. Thanks.--Shtove 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rand

I'm not really that familiar with the concept, nor do I think Rand ever discussed. How would she fit in? LaszloWalrus 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't my edit. Out of curiousity, what led you to believe it was? LaszloWalrus 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears to be someone impersonating me, possibly unintentionally, though I do have my share of pet stalkers. In any case, it wasn't my edit. LaszloWalrus 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs

These two ISBN 082041765-b, ISBN 07396392 . One is too short, the other contains a "b". Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 18:15 22 September 2006 (GMT).

Image tagging for Image:200px-Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:200px-Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image from wikipedia russia

Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg== Thanks for uploading Image:200px-Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg
Why am I getting a message I did not provide a source when I did? LoveMonkey 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because "from Russian Wikipedia" isn't a source. You need to indicate where the Russian Wikipedia got the image from. --Carnildo 07:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiology

Thanks for your kind message. I'm afraid I'm not particularly interested in Christian theology, although it breaks my heart to see the current state of Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher). I hope some good fairy will appear and expand this important subject sooner or later. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LM haven't heared from you for a while. How are you doing ? user:panosfidis

Hi LM I did not quite catch that "slow"-thing but anyway here in Greece things are not "slow". November 17 is closing and the country is boiling. In Greece 17N is considered a "riot-day" and the present government has given people too many reasons to riot !!! Anyway you must be having some kind of elections in the US so things are not so slow there too are they. Unless of course I misunderstood what "slow" means.

Hey LM. In November 17 1973 a Great student's Riot took place in Athens against the Greek Dictatorship. One year later the dictatorship fell. Since then every 17N Greeks are memorising this day as "anti-Dictatorial" and riot against anything anti-popular. Pensioners riot for higher pensions and state-sponsorship for oil. Temporary workers riot demanding to become permament workers. Permament workers riot for better salaries. Unemployed riot for more jobs. Students riot for better education. Leftists riot for human rights and against USA, EU and NATO. Students riot for better education.Anarchists riot just to vandalise. So practically everyone riots that day. This year it expected to be "hot" as policemen are also striking and the ciies are expected to be in total chaos. I will let you know in 3 days. user:panosfidis

Ammonius

Do you mean the bit about Ammonius the teacher of Plotinus being the same as Ammonius the Christian? This is neither new nor original research. The notion that there were two prominent Alexandrian "Ammonii" is probably an old one. That Ammonius is one and the same was taken up at least by 1957 by H. Langerbeck, The Philosophy of Ammonius Saccas: and the Connection of Aristotelian and Christian Elements Therein, Journal of Hellenic Studies, v 77:1, 1957, 67-74. I quote: "Ammonius was of Christian descent; for this, we must undoubtedly take Porphyry's word (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV, 19.7). Was he an apostate? This is by no means clearly deducible from Porphyry's words, but only that he devoted himself to a philosophical life." Langerbeck goes on to explain that being an Alexandrian Christian was sticky business at the time and he argues that Ammonius was a Christian not of any particular gnostic or anti-gnostic stripe, but with independent ideas of his own.

The writing of this wiki article is very poor, and the long quote from Eusebius unnecessary. There is no mention of Hierocles!

BTW our friend EM does not believe there were two Origens, one a pagan neoplatonist the other Christian. Dillon and others still separate them into two persons. Zeusnoos 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean

Thanks for your help; I'll take you up on your offer. I need all the information I can get :) Larry V (talk | e-mail) 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by atheism

I have proposed a deletion on an article you have created. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by atheism. Your input would be greatly appreciated.-Andrew c 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request I have examined this article and rendered an opinion of Rewrite but keep. The subject merits attention, but the article isn't up to standards. Hope this helps. Majoreditor 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rylands Papyrus p52

It would help if you would expand in the relevant thread on the p52 discussion board why your are unhappy with the article statement that you have twice reverted. Since there is a picture of one side of the fragment on the page, the issue of its restricted content would not - I presume - need further support. And the citations quoted in that discussion support this as a scholarly consensus (unless you can advance contrary published opinions. TomHennell 09:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you re that Atheism page. Someone (unsigned) deleted your comment from my talk page and replaced it with another before I saw it. I've only just realised what happened. Alas, as the article was deleted I haven't even seen what was in it. From the discussion though it looks a bit like there was a concerted effort to have it deleted rather than improved. Apologies once again. Maxim662 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Xianity

You had asked for help with some articles on Gnosticism/Early Xian authorship some months ago. Apologies, I've had an extended illness and have been away from WP for some time. Do you still need input? Could you let me know what specifically? Best, --Mrdarcey 05:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kostisl from Greece

Hi! What can I do for you? --Kostisl 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will translate it for you. Are you Russian? --Kostisl 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, are you of slavic origin? (What does nah mean?). Yes, I am Greek, live in Greece and I am Orthodox. --Kostisl 07:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah does not mean anything. Ne is yes, if you mean that yes, you are of slavic origin :-) --Kostisl 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Kostisl 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icon see alsos

Do remember you're not supposed to put something in See also when there's already a link in the main article. Thanks Johnbod 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please read and understand WP:COPYVIO. And why should we care about these documents? See Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground. Michaelbusch 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be blunt: stop creating articles that serve no useful purpose and that are blatant cutting-and-pasting of websites or you will be considered to be vandalizing. Michaelbusch 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Papyrus 1

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Papyrus 1, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/P1.html. As a copyright violation, Papyrus 1 appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Papyrus 1 has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk: Papyrus 1 and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk: Papyrus 1 with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk: Papyrus 1.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Andrew c 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article did contain some useful content and could easily be reduced to a useful stub at the very least, I believe it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and therefore undeleted it. It should however be further edited. As I left the request for deletion tag on it, you may wish to add the 'hangon' macro and indicate your plans on the talk page. Thanks for your contributions. Wesley 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of multiple articles

Please tell me what specific content was in copyright violation since your deletes appear to be an abuse of the policy. The articles where not exact wording and the articles only contained location name size and date given. This is of course before I was able to complete each article. And or rewrite and or add other content that I could source. You deleted the articles first under the guise that you needed to see what value adding articles about archeological artifacts has to wikipedia then you changed it to be a copyright infringement issue. LoveMonkey 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You created four articles that were word-for-word copies of pages at [1]. I established this by Google search for sentences of the text. This is explicitly forbidden per WP:COPYVIO. Instead of putting up such articles, you should have written your own text. This is independent of my notability concerns and I did not delete the articles (User:WJBscribe deleted them:[2],[3],[4]). Regarding the initial tag for no context: I read the first article, decided that no context applied, tagged it, and then decided that the style of the text was what I'd expect for a copy-vio. So I ran the Google search.

My notability concerns for these articles are simple: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the articles add nothing if they are not in context with the main article on the Ryland's Papyrus, so why should we have articles on them? Michaelbusch 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? What are you talking about the articles where location content and information about the 50so papyrus that count before Ryland Papyrus 52. Also what little I did post from the other site which does not fall under copyright (again such as name location content) was but an outline that the site it's self barrowed from the sources noted in the article. I would have added more content after I got the skeleton of the articles up. Since when has archeological articles on ancient manuscripts not been encyclopedic? LoveMonkey 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Possessed

My edit to the intro was not meant to be misleading in the sense that you suggest. I simply changed it to indicate that Dostoevsky was critical of both the left and the right, and I made absolutely no effort to even insinuate that his criticisms were equal. It is obvious that Dostoevsky was far more critical of the left wing idealists, but the previous version of the page implied that he was not critical at all of the conservative establishment. I could provide citations if you like. Verkhovensky 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleroma

I'll look into the pleroma article if I get the time, I have a few books here so hope to be able to put in proper references, thanks. Nixdorf 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

göreme

You're welcome and thank you deniz^T_C 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

Hi LM ! How are you? Here easter approaches. I will take some days off any time soon. well I could make ***VAST*** contributions in that page. However I wonder whether the page would maintain a serious style after my intervention. user:Panosfidis

Schism (religion)

You doubt the neutrality of the Schism (religion) page. Can you give reasons for you concern? Alan Liefting 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoC

Sounds find I suppose - I was just trying to get across the basic info, and trying to keep it simple, that Western Europe is Christendom by Charlemagne. I've got no problem with saying things more accurately. Lostcaesar 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian heresy" section in History of Christianity

Sorry to revert your last edit but apparently you are not aware of or are ignoring the discussion that we have been having about that section on Talk:History of Christianity. You are invited to help expand and correct the Christian heresy article but we need to trim the "Christian heresy" section in theHistory of Christianity article because that article is already too long. I have copied much of the deleted text to Christian heresy except for big chunks of your last edit because, quite frankly, your last edit was so poorly written in certain parts that it was incoherent.

I would be glad to work with you to express your ideas. Let's discuss the points that you want to make on Talk:Christian heresy.

--Richard 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use of copyright material

Rather than copy and paste copyrighted material with plans to come back and edit it later, it would probably be a better idea to paste it into the edit box, and edit/rewrite it immediately, before saving. In the long run, this will be less work for you and less work for anyone who feels the need to police your work so closely. If you don't have time to do this all at once, another alternative might be to paste it into your favorite word processor or text editor, work on it there over a period of time, and then paste it into wikipedia after you've had time to rewrite it at least enough to alleviate any copyright concerns. While I think a case could be made regarding the appropriateness of the speedy deletions, it's probably a better use of time to adapt your style of work. The final result should be the same in either case, right? Wesley 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re

Sure, I would just need to know the address to mail. Lostcaesar 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal issues with me

I am contacting you to try to clear the air of personal conflict between us. While we haven't always agreed in the past, I'd like to think that we can move past our differences and work positively together. I don't know why you insist on bringing up past incidents that I have already explained to you. I said "we don't have any original writings of Porphyry", but because of how comment boxes limit word count, I was hasty in my reply. What I thought was implied was that we do not have any original writings of Porphyry that mention Ammonius Saccas. So I wasn't entirely clear in my edit summary, big deal. We both agree that my actual edit (not the summary) was 100% accurate. It is patently false that "[mention of] Ammonius is retained in a fragment of Porphyry writing", because none such fragment exists, except in the quotations of others.

You are also wrong about misquoted the source regarding Ryland Papyrus. You spent days of discussion arguing over this matter just because you didn't understand the various meanings of the words "use" and "useful". Multiple other editors sided with my assessment, and helped to reach a wording that wasn't as ambiguous and confusing to you.

As for the deletions, to my knowledge (I could be mistaken) I have only AfD one article you created, and that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by atheism. And I didn't delete it, the community voted and reached a consensus on the matter. It should have told you something that there was only one keep vote, and it was yours. I also supported the speedy deletion of the papyri articles you had copy and pasted from a copyrighted source. However, other users physically tagged the article, not me. You simply don't copy and paste from websites to create wikipedia articles. It's that simply. While I would love it if we had very thorough, well written articles on the papyri, violating wikipedia policy, and infringing on copyright material is simply not the way to do it. By all means, recreate the article if you can use multiple sources and put the research into your own words.

So, yes, I am still defensive over these incidents. I feel my positions were justified. But if I came off harsh, if I was uncivil, and if I hurt your feelings, I sincerely apologize. We can disagree without it getting personal, and that line was crossed somewhere. So, please accept my apologizes in that regard.

I seriously don't know why you have so much animosity towards me, and I seriously would like to clear it up. I have edited far more controversial articles than Ammonius Saccas and P⁵², and encounter far some serious POV warriors, but have been able to be civil and respectful to just about everyone, and I like to think that others feel the same towards me, so it surprises me that I have offended you in such a manner that you hold such a grudge. Please, what can we do to clear up the bad heat between us.-Andrew c 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

When you a labeling the article as a stub, please make sure it is a stub indeed. Tyutchev article was clearly longer and more comprehensive than a stub, while admittedly not a masterpiece. --Irpen 01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Florovsky bookcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Florovsky bookcover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning on attributing imports from OrthodoxWiki

You have been importing a number of articles from OrthodoxWiki lately. ALL of these must be attributed as to their source, or else the terms of the OrthodoxWiki release license have been ILLEGALLY violated. A massive amount of research and editing has been done to develop these articles, and it is outright immoral to take their contents without honoring the terms of their license. Please edit all of these articles you've imported en masse to note their source. 72.28.30.34 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that OrthodoxWiki's dual licensing may preclude importing its articles into Wikipedia, since Wikipedia's GFDL license may not be compatible. Please engage the relevant discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy before continuing your rapid importation of OrthodoxWiki material. 72.28.30.34 18:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does it allows is for educational nonprofit purposes. LoveMonkey 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes it incompatible. Wikipedia's GFDL explicitly allows for commercial, for-profit use, while one of OrthodoxWiki's licenses does not. 72.28.30.34 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No this article is what I have followed. [5] It makes no such mention. It sets the rules for exporting content and make no such reference as the alternate license by Orthodox wiki being in conflict with exporting to Wikipedia. LoveMonkey 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]