User talk:LoveMonkey/Archive 6

Hello, LoveMonkey/Archive 6, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)Reply

I've started the AfD for you. You need to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarianism (metaphysics) and put in your rationale for why you think the article should be deleted. Take out my text and put in your own. Thanks, Mikaey, Devil's advocate 03:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I am leaving for vacations in a few days and cannot help you. It would be better to ask Russians with a focus on philosophy; as you may have noticed from my editions history, I am contributing mostly on prehistoric and Native American topics. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Yworo (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes I posted on two editors talkpages whom edit on articles in that subject field. That's hardly canvassing. Since just asking any editor usually provokes the response "can't help cause I don't know anything about it". Nice you missed this exact thing in Dmitri's comment above yours here. But is asking for two editors enough to be considered canvassing? Or even one? I have posted on two editors who've contributed to many libertarian articles. Please assume good faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. Sorry, I overreacted. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Its cool no harm no foul. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. I'm sorry if my comments were misconstrued. I was just being silly. It certainly wasn't a criticism of you or your comment. Just a bit of ridiculousness to maintain my sanity. Sorry man. If you read the rest of the page I think you'll find that bad comedy and sarcastic hooliganism is rampant and shared among friends. Stop by any time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not on your life, your work is good, so I was hoping for help on the AFD from you.No offense taken at all. Your not a puppet so if you get C.O.M. you get just that. I asked for help because you would be fair and objective. I began to doubt some of my edits since I used the term libertarian metaphysical and it was pointed out to me that's not something used in academia and when I could not find the term anywhere, well.. The rest is history literally, I lost.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the links you posted on my "talk page", they are interesting. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Orthodox Church in America was called before becoming autocephalous in 1970, the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church", perhaps they wanted to use a shorter name, usually "Orthodox Catholic Church" is used for the entire Church (as it is done in the "The Tomos of Autocephaly" of the OCA). But, "Catholic Church" will always be a name of the Orthodox Church, because it is used in the canons of the ecumenical councils. Also, if you're interested, a new debate has started about renaming the current wiki article "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church", you can find the debate at Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Excellent.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is a recent confession of faith against ecumenism, I thought you may want to see it. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Better later than no more (ru:Fire in the Minds of Men). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yesterday I tried making a start on writing up on each date under the holidays and observances something for the feasts of the Orthodox Church and her names days. An administrator reversed some of this because he said that it wasn't helpful and needs to be something that can be verified (which I took to mean it needs to internally link to an actual saint) and said for me to read the guidelines. I'm aware there's an article about the different dates in the church but shouldn't there also be something on the main calendar? For a lot of the dates there's half-hearted attempts, and they're set out inconsistently, sometimes saying

• Eastern Orthodox or
• Greek Orthodox. I put
• Orthodox ChurchEugene-elgato (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Understood, but Eugene the Orthodox's Church's official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church. All Orthodox are Orthodox Catholic and believe that Christ belongs to all and is not reserved for a select few. I appreciate what your doing, it's just that there is many wars involved in these areas and the conflicts are very old. You kinda keep coming across them and get stung. Oh am I tired of the disfunction of wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, no! I'm not starting that one again ! I mean, do you think we should add all the saints days on the general Wikipedia calendar? I also meant, for some days they are already there, and it's all random and inconsistent. Whenever I added my own I called it Orthodox Church and gave the dates and saints, having due regard the HUGE discussion we've already had about this I had to concede if the article ends up calling it Orthodox Church then that's what it will be... ? Anyway, i't just a thought. I'm aware there are already dedicated articles listing the Orthodox Catholic liturgical year, with most days filled in Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --WlaKom (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping out --Snowded ^TALK 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your Welcome.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you please desist from inserting the unsourced category "New Age". It has been discussed an WP:OR/N and there has been provided no source for this claim. --Pevos (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you please take it to the talkpage and engage in collaborating instead of edit warring?LoveMonkey (talk)

It has been discussed at length on the talk page, then on WP:OR/N, and you continue inserting the tag without providing any source. --Pevos (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK again. Please got to the respective designated areas you just outlined and we can discuss it there. As you can see I have added several entries into the article talk page already and just added an entry or two (that explicitly states that Ken Wilber is considered New Age) to the No OR.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. You clearly don't want to discuss this with me. So I am now informing you of this. Cheers. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Efraín Vázquez Vera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly unsourced biography of a living person.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. +Angr 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you know, this article was previously discussed at Edit Warring noticeboard. If you continue to revert the article without getting clear consensus for your changes on the Talk page, you may be blocked. The duty of getting WP:Consensus applies to all editors. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ed I presented this information on the talkpage and no objection to it was noted.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I gave my reasons for the deletion at the same time as (maybe at most a second or two after) I deleted the sentence. There is a clear objection stated on the talk page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Post the specific objection to the passage.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did exactly that. Please discuss. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

BEFORE I made the edit. As I added the information on the talkpage BEFORE I added it to the article. You blanket deleted that addition to the article and then addressed the issue as Consensus only after I addressed it to the talkpage and then only after I added it to the article. You have deleted, removed the content and now wish to discuss. You accused me of no consensus when you yourself have not followed the policy.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Again post what objections you had to the addition that you or anyone else stated on the talkpage of the article before I made the addition.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ed I followed policy and when I received no specific objection to the content I added the content to the article.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't understand. I saw a sentence that seemed to me clearly inappropriate, so I posted my reasoning why it should not be there on the talk page, and simultaneously deleted it. I was not aware that this particular sentence had been proposed (a bad case of WP:TLDR, I'm afraid!). I followed WP:BRD. Please do the same. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is precisely the type of abuse that you have continually engaged in. You site policy when it suits your cause and claim ignorance when you transgress it (like your violating the 3 Revert rule).LoveMonkey (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If someone reverts your change, that lets you know that the matter is in dispute. Per WP:BRD that should be your cue to go to the talk page and see what everyone thinks. If you are reverted the first time, you should not revert again. You must use persuasion or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution before making your change again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ed if I posted it to the talkpage first and they posted no objection then I have every reason to believe it is not disputed. If I then due to that, post it to the article and they remove it, I have every reason to believe the cause is edit warring and not me engaging in policy violation. Notice my revert was reverted (the content is no longer in the article). Now finally the edit warring editor has to take it to the talkpage (when I noted their disputed behavior before on the talkpage they then stated they where not going to engage in policy) and now is very much so not only being unreasonable in the basis of their arguments but engaging in the very type of behavior that I am stating the group militant atheists are infamous for.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mark D. Steinberg, and it appears to include a substantial copy of https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/steinb/www/CV.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Mark D. Steinberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed the copyvio, in this case it was the CV, but it might fall under the lists exemption. something lame from CBW 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Cambridge. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. It didn't seem like a good idea to delete the entire article when on the CV (honours/awards/degrees) were the problem. Especially as that might have been covered by it being not much more than a list. The other thing is that you have been here a while and I don't see any other problems with copyright in your talk page. something lame from CBW 15:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

relax everybody. I was asked about it, and I simply rewrote it. LoveMonkey, any CV on a faculty website is generally copyright either to the faculty member or the university. What one does, is to use the information there, for it's a RS for routine biographical details. But when one does that, one selects the important stuff, as most academic CVs list every possible publication and lecture. I normally rework such lists, as I did here. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks DGG excellent work BTW.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You seem to see this web site as a valid source but I see it otherwise and I have added the source to the list of [1] and I consider it to have a low compliance to the licensing of Wikipedia content. As it re-uses Wikipedia content then it can never be used to support references within Wikipedia. We have a few articles that link to it [2] so I will be undo those. If you have a problem with this then please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard here Ttiotsw (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

I have nominated Nikolai Ogolobyak, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolai Ogolobyak. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. œ^™ 08:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am very concerned by a number of edits by User:Bertelin, who has been moving a number of ecclesiastical articles from the Greek to the Russian titles without discussion, and sometimes with misleading edit summaries ("standardized spelling", "reflective of more common usage"). The Greek forms are normally used by non-Orthodox English-speakers and should generally have priority. Examples:Kamilavka, Omophor, Antimins. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Demiurge, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm watching the article talk page, which is where I prefer to continue any discussion. There is no need to also post on my talk page, especially inaccurate comments about imaginary conflicts with other editors who I've never even spoken to and who have never even referred to me in their talk page posts. I'll be removing your comments because I've read them. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am going to try to go through this step by step Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am going to try to go through this step by step Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou, I have broken up Esoglou's response in my reply at the very bottom of the page and asking you to not respond for a minute helped that out alot Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ping on talk Catholic / E-Ortho theo diffs! Answer not required, but the main point is that modalism has nothing whatsoever to do with modal logic, please read the article modal logic before proponing such a connection: modal logic has some "pagan" philosopher heritage, but it doesn't matter since modal logic is used in modern science solely, modalism is something quite different that has no "pagan" philosopher heritage. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

(copied from own talk page)

I am still unclear as to this. So I will try another approach in "theology" modalism refers to Sabellianism. [3] If you wish to reword the article to reflect this distinction. Please do as I was referring to the Modalism of Aquinas as much as Aristotle. As a metaphysical concept use to arrive at a single substance. However as an Eastern thing. In the case of both this ties to substance theory as part of the classical science method as well as scholasticism. Which as a goal of metaphysics is to reduce everything down to a single substance. Is there a time when say the term metaphysics went from not being Aristotle and then went strictly scientific. I mean your implying that Saul Kripke metaphysics are not the in same general ontology-category as Aristotle's? Please clarify.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please let me be frank. I can understand being disappointed in the content being treated as overly simplified and or overly generalized, if you will. The eastern approach to metaphysics (and the idea of substance theory) can best be understood through the use of modal logic toward (I know bad way to say it) -stochastics. This is why Taleb is attacking the (modal and scholastic) logic of the West in its interpretation of Philosophy. Taleb calls the distortion of Eastern, Greek logic- Opacity. I think it's called stochastic modal logic, yes? If this is poorly expressed forgive me and help me to properly express it. Since in the East there is forever a can't know as a by product of human finite and incompleteness.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, your interpretation is hell wrong! Why don't you read the article modal logic?! You shouldn't claim anything like that if you knew what modal logic is about. Read the article on modal logic, for heavens sake if you are a real Christian, not just a POV affiniado!!

I guess this is an improvement over your comments on the talkpage for Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences since you did not use the word bullshit' this time. Administrators here need not worry why I am so confrontational. Since for me to respond in kind would make me the bad guy, here, but I could, I could.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seems you got my criticism wrong all the time, and that you don't grasp that my criticism regards wikipedia content.

Well then maybe you should report it and or avoid it, since it hurt your big important feelings.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're all the time discussing beside the point.

I have not done much of any discussing at all with you Rufus. All the time or not.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The point is that the article Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences alleges that Modalism emerges from Modal logic invented by Aristotle, Plato and Pythagorus, therefore that, since Aristotle et al are pagans, that modal logic is pagan, and therefore that modalism is pagan.

No it doesn't. But the ego has landed so you keep your temper tantrum in ink. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC

But that is blatantly false and incredibly misleading,

And yet mdork3! can't just go fix it but feels the need to WP:Soapbox.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

especially since it uses false statements to attack the Roman Catholics – the false statements are:

Or maybe attacking what you believe. Mr my feelings are hurt.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Aristotle, Plato and Pythagorus invented modal logic – false – Avicenna invented (maybe) some early temporal logic, the attachment of the term "modal logic" is modern and inspired by linguistics,

It does not say that.[4] Sorry you can't read. But since you like to send people to read wiki articles on logic.. Heres one Intensional logic what does it say about Aristotle and modal logic? PS note Ive never touched the article Intensional logic. You better hurry over there and reprimand them for hurting your feelings. While your at it you should mount a campaign to get George Boolos called out too for writing this filth."The Unprovability of Consistency (1979). Its subject is the relation between provability and modal logic, a branch of logic invented by Aristotle but much disparaged by philosophers and virtually ignored by mathematicians"[5]. Hell no relationship there uh?LoveMonkey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Modal logic is the basis for modalism – false – modalism is independent,

Wrong the article does not say that. But you can't post the passages you can contest because you know they don't say that. No your too busy acting like a fool pounding your chest and not postings those bad and terrible things in the article that aren't really there. WP:Showboat.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

What really really angers me is that false statements WP:OR are used in wikipedia for accusing Christians for a pagan connection by other Christians. That is not a Christian behavior. WP:OR bordering to WP:HOAX is in deep discord with Christian values. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pathetic. Real Christians don't cry using profanity like the word bullshit on article talkpages so I don't think you'd know what a real christian is or isn't anyway, but hey your all about wasting my time so its par for the course -four. Onto ousiology.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, LoveMonkey. You have new messages at Richwales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Richwales (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

More. Richwales (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some links of maybe-interest at my talk. Have a nice day and happy editing! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am Sorry for the long delay in response, but I did not had too much time for Wikipedia during the last months. I'll try to see how can I help on the talk page there. May the Theotokos always bless you too. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey LoveMonkey,

I responded to your comment on Talk:Theoria. Also, your name reminds me of someone I knew in World of Warcraft named Spacemonkey, he was a warrior.

makeswell (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

LoveMonkey, I don't know the extent of your involvement with the Theoria article, but if you'd take a look, I've consolidated the content presented there in a way that I hope makes sense, as well as provide a complete copyedit. I have requested the assistance of other copyeditors, but I would greatly appreciate a once-over by a subject-matter expert (or novice, as the case may be :) ). Thanks! Paulmnguyen (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, LoveMonkey, just a note to say thanks for your barnstar; it's appreciated. :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Greetings LoveMonkey

I would appreciate any comments about my proposals, to use this new draft to improve potentiality and actuality, starting tomorrow, which will then hopefully be a good enough article to take over from all the remaining overlap articles (entelechy, energeia)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't that be a WP:CFORK? Can you explain your reasoning about why something about energeia needs separate explanation? Energeia is a short article right now and pretty much all of it has been adapted into that draft? Is there more material you are thinking of putting in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds interesting, but if you do that, then that material will also be needed on potentiality and actuality anyway? (We may not all keep our personal versions of articles with different names about the same subjects. That's what WP:CFORK is about. When I started energeia and dunamis these other articles did not exist and I would never have started them if they did.) Why can that Bradshaw work not fit in potentiality and actuality? It is about that subject right? Maybe I should mention that one of the aims I've had in making this draft is to have a structure that is more logically modular so that new material from people with different interests can be fitted in more easily in the future. Maybe it even helps to visualize where the Bradshaw material would fit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. I hope you don't mind me answering with a lot more words! :)

• You say that the article would be too long if it covered Energeia? That might be in some future world, but the current draft I have made contains everything I could recover from all the articles and it is really NOT very long. Really shouldn't we let the articles evolve naturally by first getting a neat format for all the articles we have NOW, and THEN seeing if they one day become so big that they need splitting? Right now, the material we have, which already took a long time to write apparently, makes one short article.
• Secondly, the potentiality and actuality article is already about Energeia. What else is it about? It is supposed to explain that subject. It is not a sub-subject in my opinion because you can not explain the actuality-potency distinction without explaining energeia and dunamis, and you can not explain those two terms on their own either. Don't you agree?
• Plotinus etc are all fitted into the draft now. Please check. The potentiality and actuality article is NOT just about Aristotle (and energeia is NOT just about post Aristotelian versions of the actuality/potentiality theory). You say Plotinus etc are separate from Aristotle, but of course they are a development from him also, and can not easily be explained on their own. I think it is very hard to write an article that people can really follow which does not compare Aristotle with those who developed from him. (I think we discussed this on Talk:Energeia?) People will come sometimes not knowing whether they've heard about Aristotle or about Plotinus or something else. The article they hit should help them.
• Technically though, the logical conclusion of your point is not that we need a separate energeia article, but that we need a separate article or articles about Plotinus etc. Remember, that the Energeia article IS about Aristotle mainly right now, so it should not be an article mainly about what happened after him. We need a new title anyway, because people will come to energeia looking to read about Aristotle. Having articles about post Aristotelian potentiality and actuality might one day be necessary but I think we are a very long way from having enough material to justify having a separate article about post Aristotelians?
• You mention Polybius, Diodorus, Aristobulus, Galen, and Alexander of Aphrodisias. But no Wikipedian has written anything about their variations on the theory yet. It would be a lot of work and I do not expect it to be finished this year even if someone started today. My proposals right now are "short term", just to make what we have now, better in the sense of being easier to read and easier to edit. Articles can be split later, IF they ever really contain all the things?
• In my mind the most important thing you mention is a concern with focus. But this is where I feel quite strongly that the current situation where separate individuals have been working without structure in over-lapping articles has led to very badly focused articles which are very difficult to read (and very difficult to hit in a search). Anyone who does not know this subject would actually have difficulty to understand what some parts of these articles are about and how they link. So getting focus has been a major aim of mine. I really think I am getting a better focused structure in the draft? The key is finding a structure which will show a reader how you get from one subject to the next, for example from energeia to motion to Plotinus etc. Please do look at it and comment on this aspect especially?

By the way, merge proposals have been open on these articles since 2008.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the meantime, I presume from this discussion that whatever we do with Energeia, you would see the draft improvement page I've made for potentiality and actuality as an improvement if used. Let me know of course if you have any doubts. Concerning energeia, just please think about my above points when you have a chance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

So I have started lengthening potentiality and actuality as the agreed main article for all these over-lapping articles, so that at least one article says everything we have so far. I think it contains nearly everything that I can understand how to fit in, sometimes changed or expanded, from all the other related articles and it adds up to 27K. See WP:SPLIT, which says "< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division". To repeat once more, many futures are possible. I can imagine all sorts of ways in which this material can be expanded until we need to split, but I think we must wait to see which parts expand, if any in reality, (after several years of waiting it is not happening yet), and then decide which new articles would be needed? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll be interested to read any feedback you have on what potential and actuality look like now. I take it from your post on my talk page that you are happy with the proposal that we work first on merging the approx 27K that we have, and improving the resulting one main article (potentiality and actuality); and that if/when you or anyone else is able to expand to the point where it needs splitting, we can split then into whichever articles would fit best with whatever material had expanded the most. (And if that expansion requiring splitting happens the day after a merge is done, no problem. Nothing stops changing on Wikipedia.) Let me know of course if you see any problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is what I thought you agreed with. See above: merging into one main article and then working there until such time as we might need to split again. I very much hope that you can move your work to that main article for now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

LoveMonkey, I do try hard to understand you, and please respect my efforts to communicate. If you look at our discussion you not only agreed once, but twice, after I double checked and re-stated. I wanted to be sure. In the first statement of mine it also shows that I read and considered your post on my talk page which raised the concern about length of article. As far as I can understand you, this is the only concern you've clearly raised, and I gave a very clear sign that I can understand that concern, and also that I checked the size, and WP policy, and my proposal gives no problem. I have also explained several times why I am concerned that not doing it this way violates WP:CFORK, and I think you never gave any response to my concern. Anyway, putting aside that, please help me understand this more: what is the difference for you between expanding energeia and expanding potentiality and actuality? These articles are about the same subject aren't they?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I now see how you we were editing at the same time. I would like to understand what you were writing and try to fit it in to potentiality and actuality to show you how I think it can fit. Have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Particularly the part that starts "Never use headings to attack other users". You have repeatedly added another users' name to talkpage section headings, thereby enshrining your criticism of them in the edit history. Please cease this practice. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind my asking for a confirmation of your claim about a Wikipedia decision that OrthodoxWiki is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. You may perhaps wish to add some comments to my request. Esoglou (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have found this discusion [[6]] but I fail to see how it can be claimed that this endorses the Wiki as an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello please continue the discussion at the noticeboard. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I've been pretty sporadic about logging in lately. If I recall, the issue we sorted out was about copyrights and not about OrthodoxWiki as a reliable source. I seem to recall a number of articles and/or chunks of text being copied directly from OrthodoxWiki and the question was whether or not that constituted a copyright violation. As a wiki, it can't in itself be considered a reliable source. Mangojuice^talk 03:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The edit summary for this edit included what could be taken as a personal attack on another editor. This is inappropriate and should stop. Criticizing content (when relevant to efforts to improve an article) is another thing entirely, of course. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That edit summary was mild by comparison to others that I've seen by LoveMonkey. I concur with Richwales. Please focus on content and adopt a more collegial and collaborative interaction style. --Richard S (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that message! I noticed your current involvement in complex issues! Good luck with that. I can see good intentions and confusions all over the place there, and I know such situations can be quite complex. Concerning energeia, just to refine your description, it is merged into potentiality and actuality so the material is not deleted. (I even tried to capture the stuff you were putting in when that happened. Sorry about that misunderstanding!) As mentioned, I think that it might be a long time before any section gets big enough to split off, and then it is hard to predict which section might grow fastest until that actually happens. So I do honestly believe the merged version is ideal for the amount of material we have now. Anyway, good luck with all things, and let's see...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Andrew. People are just not going to allow certain things and I appreciate your kind words. Maybe it just isn't time yet.. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

REPLY TO YOUR PS:  :) I guess in the Middle Ages everyone, I mean every nation with philosophy, abandoned philosophy to some extent. And I do not disagree with you that, if I understand you correctly, what makes this period interesting is that "philosophical-style thinking" itself played a role in criticizing and reigning in philosophizing. However, such things continue to happen today and have always happened since philosophy came into being, even in classical Greece. Philosophy has never been popular or dominant. At best it has a back room influence, which it actually maintained quite long while Constantinpole remained Greek? I would put your observation a different way: there were a few hundred years after Alexander when philosophy was taken seriously by the Roman and Greek political and religious elite. That period was exceptional, and in my opinion periods when national churchs and the like dominate philosophy are in the majority. (Another very exceptional period was that of Latin scholasticism, but of course this was not fully philosophy for the most part either.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

ANI is the place you go (as far as I am aware) if you feel that users are being repeatedly uncivil despite requests to stop. That appears to be what you have accused Bali of, being Uncivil and refusing to apploigise. If not then whqt are you accusing Bali of doing?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please may you have a look at my most recent edits on good old Eastern Orthodox Church. An anonymous editor keeps insisting on removing Roman from before Catholic and I am trying to explain how there has been extensive discussion on this already whereby we have said Roman is a necessary prefix given Orthodoxy is also Catholic. The three-revert-rule might kick in. I am not sure what to say to him.Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, actually the IP user didn't even seem that emotive. It is a single-issue account solely for the purpose of making the point theirs is the catholic church and no other. Lots of people still don't get Wikipedia.Δόξα τον Κύριον! Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

πάντα και για πάντα. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I would like to assist in determining how best to divide the content now contained within the Theoria article. Please refer to its talk page. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 14:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought you where over the whole mad thing about this and where going to come back? I still need help. Here is an article that covers the same thing and is an overview it is from Oxford Press. [7] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm back. I take it seriously, and I'm going to help you. Thanks for the nice link, anyways. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm still reading the Engelhardt piece to better see where you're coming from. Alert me of specifics that require immediate attention. I'm a student of philosophy IRL so I don't have a huge block of time to commit to working on this every day. I'm watching everything, though. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both as Western Christians for stepping up and contributing. I appreciate your time more than I could ever express. And yes I know that it very much so could be in opposition to my position. But that is what collaboration really is, isn't it. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm western only formally, taking an "orthodox" stance on a few very critical questions, in the belief that I won't be violating the very liberal culture of Church of Sweden Lutheranism. If the link you provided is opposed to your view, then I'm on your side, since it creates a vicious circle by leaving out reality from the dogmatic loop. I'll be back with analyses when I've examined Augustine in detail, which is the main dispute between Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. Also, I'm able to go forth just slowly as Paulmnguyen is. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

LM, I just finished reading the Engelhardt piece, and I agree, as a student of the depositum fidei of the Roman Catholic Church, with the theological claims he makes and his concluding argument about the necessarily theological foundations of bioethics and understandings of sin, suffering, disease and death. I think that in so many ways, the Roman Catholic Church actually embodies his arguments against it, in support of what he believes to be objectively true and currently present in the Eastern churches. I will investigate the citations of our present Pope's statements in order to distinguish (albeit philosophically) them from the universal claim to Christian life that Engelhardt makes them out to be. I think that you (and I hope I will) can find a wealth of writing by Pope Benedict XVI (and, formerly, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that demonstrates the depth and beauty of noetic ("mystical") knowledge and the necessity to keep the sacrifice of Calvary and the Logos, the eternal Word of God that is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in sight at all times. Too, the power of the Eucharistic liturgy to demonstrate in what a life worthy of the ultimate vision of God consists! This does not mean that a majority of Catholics today exemplify these teachings; sadly, to the contrary. But, at a glance, we are not as separated dogmatically/doctrinally as the essay makes us out to be. More later. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well I don't see this in the most recent words of Pope Benedict XVI (and, formerly, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger). Since according to the Pope the Orthodox Church is defective [8] so forgive me if I see your comments as not accurate in their depiction of the Pope. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Everything is fine on my side, hopefully on your too! :) The news was mostly relayed as a rewrite of the Telegraph article, without further comment in the press, but obviously with some satisfaction. In some sources (and especially blogs, websites, etc) the irony was pointed out that in Greece, teaching of Ancient Greek is increasingly being sidelined. The PASOK government is generally seen as anything ranging from too "technocratic" and "globalizing" to outright "anti-national" and "sold-out to foreign interests" for the tastes of more conservative Greeks (and that includes many left-wingers too). Anna Diamantopoulou, the present Minister of Education, had at one time, while EU commissioner, stated that English should become the country's second official language, to cope with globalization etc. Predictably, that drew a lot of flak, and the issue is brought up every time something like this is reported. As you can see, whether modern or ancient, the Greeks always love a political dispute ;) Constantine ✍ 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm well, I am always made better when talking to the Hellenes! Sounds like Greece! Gone are the days of Papandreou (when you have a stewardess as a mistress- watch out for those auto pilots)! Its a bad joke forgive me. Hey what is the general opinion of the stuff that Dienekes Pontikos has been putting out? He seems to come across as very ethnocentric to say the least. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You mean this? Well, from a brief perusal I'd say he is the typical conservative New Democracy voter, although apparently of the Mitsotakis faction. To be clear, most Greeks are ethnocentric to varying degrees, even leftists (LePen once remarked that in Greece there won't ever be a successful nationalist mass party, because even the communists are nationalists). Blame the educational system as well as our massive inferiority complex towards our ancestors and the powerful nations of today... Of course, PASOK does at times really act as if it were intent to sell every last piece of the proverbial family silver (not only in foreign policy issues, but in selling off the big state-owned companies) without even haggling about it, so the suspicions are not entirely unfounded. In general, everything is not well (and hasn't been for some years) over here in terms of the political climate, and the financial crisis has only served to exacerbate things. Not much to smile about nowadays, I am afraid. Constantine ✍ 17:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes this is all over, very sad. It's really bad for Greece now. I wonder have you read Nassim Nicholas Taleb? Your comments on PASOK is hilarious BTW. He's views are very business -centric but he is re-vitalizing allot of Nicholas Metropolis' ideas (in a business sense). If Greece wants out of the money mess it's in, eventually just like Russia those ideas are going to have, to have a say. Sorry for the ugliness may the Theotokos shine down good fortune to her people the Hellenes. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your report at WP:AN3#User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: ). I have posted a request for advice from other editors, since is your fourth 3RR report on religious articles in 2010 that I've noticed. I also haven't noticed that you or Esoglou have tried to follow any of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You are welcome to add your own comment at AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have closed this report with no action, but I have left some advice partially for you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice). Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I am not urgently looking for things to work on right now. I have been working on The Prince. I have discovered how busy the talk pages on the early Christianity articles can be and appreciate that you and other editors are often busy on those. But it is good to be building up more knowledge of the many editors around who know something about various aspects of philosophy. With all the potential for disagreement, it is amazing but true that somehow Wikipedia articles basically, slowly, tend to get better isn't it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would agree in potential yes but in practice there are too many cult like elements that use their administrators to silence and ban those they disagree (the Nomenklatura of political science) with rather then they find some sort of a compromise. I have found this on Muslim, Eastern Orthodox articles here on Wikipedia as also too Militant atheism articles and articles that involve conflict between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. There is almost pure silence on the vast differences between the two communities as the Western Christian community preempts what is said about or from Eastern Christianity and the two only reflect minor likeness to one another. As for Machiavelli, John Kinnamos comes to mind. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm reading the article Philosophy and Christian Theology in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The sections preceeding section 2. Trinity fairly illuminates the various ways and troubles in combining philosophy with divine revelation. For your info. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I will take some time to go over the article, and then try to contribute constructively, hopefully in the short term. Cheers, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply