Togo national football team and User talk:LoveMonkey: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:33, 10 October 2008

vn-7

This user talk page has been vandalized 7 times.

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

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

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

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

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

Re: Hello

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

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

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

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

What do you believe you've said?

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

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

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

LoveMonkey 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Continued

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

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

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

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

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

Suetonius

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

Sorry

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

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

Father Nestor of Odessa

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

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

Thelema

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

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

Sentence fragment

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

What is the subject of this sentence?

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

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dystopia

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

Already in List of dystopian literature:

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

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

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

Placed in List of dystopian literature:

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

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

Hope this was okay!

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

Thanks for the barnstar

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

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

Free will

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

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

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

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nikol lossky.jpg

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

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

Notability of Akram Fouad Khater

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

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

Shlama

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

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

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

WikiProject Christianity

Hello LoveMonkey!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Christian denomination

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

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

If

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

are you bm?

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

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

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

Charles Hill

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

Άυχαριστω άδελφε μου

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

αδελφε μου, αληθως ανεστι
χαρις και ειρενε σοι.

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

Ehrman

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

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

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

List of New Testament Church Fathers

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

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

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

Goethean

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

Heresy

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

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

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

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

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

Papoulis

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

gnosiology and epistemology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gnosis Mediation Cabal case

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

Nikolai Loski

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

Talk page conduct

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

Links from poshlost

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

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