User talk:LoveMonkey/Archive 4

God bless you too, sir! :D

Great minds think alike they say. ;) This is a wonderful project for Wiki. The way Wiki links so easily to other articles allows people to look at all members of family 13 for example. To be quite honest, Wiki could be the place to think through text-critical decisions when doing exegesis if we get it up and running nicely. That's a major contribution indeed!

You thought of this first, and chose the best naming scheme! ;) Alastair Haines 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hola. Good revert!

I noticed that you reverted "realize" for "arrive at". You are right, it does make better sense. I guess I knew it was right all along, but I doubted it myself. How do you feel about the subtle changes I made on that first paragraph. Do you agree is better? I think the words that define Theoria, are very inspiring. Best. Jrod2 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cleanup

My pleasure. Just be careful with links, redirects, etc. But keep up the good work - we certainly need more coverage of Orthodoxy here. Biruitorul 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly take a look and do what I can. Biruitorul 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed He has descended! Biruitorul 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mount Athos

Xpistos anesti, my friend. I am planning to try to put together some articles on manuscripts at Mount Athos, there are more Greek manuscripts at Mount Athos than anywhere else in the world. It deserves a feature in New Testament textual criticism. For your encouragement -- auxapistw! Alastair Haines 13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to History of Christianity

I inserted the text that you edited in History of Christianity. It originally came from Catholic Church and ecumenism. You may wish to review the text in that article and make similar changes. You may encounter disagreement from whoever wrote the original text. I will leave it to you to work out any concerns that other editors may express.

Your "little buddy"

P.S. In case you care, some people might consider "little buddy" to be condescending and therefore mildly pejorative and condescending. However, since we are all good Christians, I will decline to take offense. Also, I believe that "Moldavia" and "Moravia" are two different places.

Perhaps I misunderstood your message to Biruitorul and you were referring to someone else? If not, I'm sorry that you have found working with me frustrating. I would say that I similarly have found you difficult to work with as well. I can only hope that we can improve our working relationship over time.

--Richard 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sidonius Apollinaris

Why has Sidonius been assigned to be a part of the Eastern Christianity series? Sidonius was a Latin westerner (and while important for the history of his times, hardly important in the history of the Church [esp the Eastern Church]).Djnjwd 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Procopius Anthemius. LoveMonkey 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Monad

I reverted your change to Monad in which you wikilinked the names of several philosophers in the entry for monad (symbol). Per WP:MOSDAB, "Unlike a regular article page, do not wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information." —David Eppstein 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church

The contributions that you made are encyclopedic and valuable. However, they are excessive detail in an article that is providing a broad overview of the entire history of the Eastern Orthodox Church and is already 82kb long. I conisdered moving your edits to History of the Russian Orthodox Church but even that is 47kb long. So, I have moved your edits to Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union which is where I think they belong.

--Richard 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And then you removed them from there?

[1]

LoveMonkey 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so... and, if I did, it was probably an accident. Your edits seemed to best fit in Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union except that, when I got there, I discovered that the article was incomplete. I copied some text over from History of the Russian Orthodox Church to flesh it out and then dropped your text in. I confess that the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union is a bit of a mess now because I did not have time to do a complete integration and rewrite of the intro. However, I thought that I preserved your edits. If I left anything out, feel free to restore it.

I will respond to the comments that you left on my Talk Page below those comments.

--Richard 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so is no excuse if you have time to remove them and view my contributions on other editors talkpages I think it is fair that I state I am well beyond skeptic that Mr Nag me on my talkpage does not have time to restore them. Excuse me while I express fatigue at your continual hypocrisy. Good faith would be to spare me your opinion and spend that time restoring my edits. LoveMonkey 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking about two different things? Are you referring to material deleted from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church or from Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union? I did delete your edits from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church in order to move them toPersecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. I've explained my rationale for doing so on my Talk Page. Please read it and then tell me what you think. I believe that I preserved your edits by inserting them into the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union article.

I'm not committed to deleting your edits from the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article. I do think that it is excessive detail in an article of that scope. However, I also readily acknowledge that this is a judgment call and that there may be different valid opinions on this question.

--Richard 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the text that I deleted from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and attempted to make sure that everything that was deleted from that article was inserted into Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. If you find that there is anything still missing, let me know and I will insert it if you wish.

--Richard 06:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

PS and no your nagging can not and does sell it's self convincingly as constructive. Your comments are shallow and antagonistic. I find them nothing but distractions to that fact that you have yet to actually write an article and or even validate that you have a valid reason to be antagonising me at all. LET ALONE TAKE OVER AND CONTROL ARTICLES ON ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY of which you are not a part of. LoveMonkey 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok let us all calm down abit. Now, can you please tell me what the problem is? You think the section of "Eastern Orthodox Church under the Republic of Turkey" is too small? If so, I kinda agree as well, since compared to other section, it is too short. Are you looking to expand it? Chaldean 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah I just had an editor removing my mention of the assyrian genocide even though I triple sourced it. LoveMonkey 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed it from where? Sourcing is important but sourcing is a necessary requirement to keep an assertion in an article not a sufficient one. The question is whether or not the assertion is relevant to the article. If you're talking about History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the question is how to link the three genocides (Armenian, Assyrian and Pontian Greek) to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think I left comments on the Talk Page.

--Richard 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not talking about you a) and b) stay out of my conversations.

In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia discussions often involve multiple participants.

In case you hadn't noticed but out of my conversation. Is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? From your posting I am beginning to believe it is. You appear to a comprehension problem. LoveMonkey 04:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't specify who you are talking to, it is reasonable that some people may think you are talking to them when you are not. If you want to have a private conversation, consider using e-mail.

--Richard 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You really think that you run wikipedia and dictated to me what I can and can not do. No matter what you say anyone reading this can see that you are coming on my talkpage and dictating to me what I can and can not do. I am more then positive since you have a comprehension issue you are oblivious to the fact that this is what you are doing. LoveMonkey 04:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The editor is the one who just edited out your "contributions". Also restore the edits and or info, content you removed from the Orthodox church under Soviet rule in the article. AND AGAIN PLEASE PROVIDE THE WIKI POLICY STATING THAT ARTICLES HAVE A SIZE CAP. LoveMonkey 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP SHOUTING.

Again telling me what to do. How did you get the arrogance to appoint yourself to such a role? LoveMonkey 04:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard on the eyes and conveys a nastiness and belligerence that we can all do without. In this particular case, it's particularly annoying because I have already addressed your request above. (well, sort of. I provided a link above to my Talk Page where I provide a detailed discussion of WP:SIZE as it applies to the edits in question).

Where above? And finally post what in the policy dictates that you can removed sourced info from an article and how you think you know enough about the subject to be the one making those decisions. Dont change the subject answer the questions. I mean I at least have added new sources to the articles from my own private library where as you have just copied and pasted and now have decided your editor in chief to Orthodox christian articles while yourself showing continually that you do not have the knowledge to even remotely start to justify taking such a role. LoveMonkey 04:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already provided you with links to WP:SIZE which is admittedly just a guideline.

Where in this post you just made. As if that absolves you? LoveMonkey 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to WP:SIZE. This is a diff of the edit that I made on my Talk Page on June 5th where I explained why I thought WP:SIZE applied to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. --Richard 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly room to discuss how best to apply the WP:SIZE guideline to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. You may feel that it is very important to include details of Russian Orthodox martyrs in that article. I am of a different opinion. I think there is sufficient information to convey that the Russian Orthodox Church was heavily persecuted under the Soviet Union. Additional detail is available in subsidiary articles which are linked to.

This issue is not about raw size since the text in question is at best several hundred bytes which doesn't materially change the length of a 87kb article. On the other hand, every bit of excess detail degrades readability in an article of this length. The question is whether that level of detail fits in an overview article. I think it doesn't.

--Richard 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion at WP:3O. --Richard 03:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good maybe they can explain to you that you are not an administrator and that you need to stop with the petty micromanagement tactics and stop nagging. Being a sycophant does not make you editor in chief to wikipedia let alone the Orthodox christian articles of which before I pointed out to you you obviously knew nothing about and had just left the entire group out of the History of christianity article I dare say you did not know we existed. If so why'd you leave the giant hole? Now you delete my contributions you did not move (and I have argue in circles with you over that AGAIN). If you did show where you put them in the article your edit shows you deleted the info from history of the eastern orthodox, then I had to complain, for you to finally add them back to wikipedia after the fact to the Soviet article. LoveMonkey 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For somebody hard pressed for time you love adding long dialogs on my talkpage

I hesitate to ask you to assume good faith for fear that you will assert yet again that I am telling you what to do. The diffs below are accompanied by times expressed in my local time (UTC-7:00).

And yet here you did anyway.

LoveMonkey 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My first edit deleting text from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church at 17:05 June 5th.

My second edit deleting more text from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church at 17:13 June 5th.

In between 17:13 and 17:35, I started to insert the deleted text into History of the Russian Orthodox Church but stopped just short of saving the insertion. I then decided to insert it into Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union but found that article to be a mess so I took 20 minutes to re-organize that article so that I could find a logical place to insert the text in question.

My third edit at 17:35 June 5th, inserting the deleted text into Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union and re-organizing it a bit.

This diff is the edit that I made at 17:37 on June 5th inserting your text into the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union article.

A minor edit at 17:42 June 5th to fix outline levels that I screwed up in the re-organization.

A note left on this talk page at 17:44 June 5th to advise you of what I did and why. Figured I was done and logged out of Wikipedia.

This edit made at 23:17 June 5th attempts to re-insert text deleted from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church in response to your complaints.

Ah the very thing that has angered me. Though this is nothing new only your latest round.LoveMonkey 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This diff shows two further edits made at 23:17 and 23:21 June 5th that I had to make when I realized that I had somehow screwed things up and duplicated text while moving stuff around. In essence, I got confused by your accusations and thought that I had somehow failed to actually insert the text into Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union when, in fact, I had already done so. As a result, the second insertion resulted in the text being duplicated.

So how does this explain the need to come on my talkpage and antagonize me? You remove my edits claim you moved them when you actually deleted them and come tell me on my talkpage. And that is supposed to do be good and or do what? I still don't understand the need to tell me what I need to do and or involve yourself in my conversations on my talkpage. I think you need to be alittle sympathetic to the poster above. My comments that prompted him were about so lovely things being done to some very ugly articles he's involved in but you interrupted. I value this person more then YOU can imagine and him being alittle skidish (and you being disputive doesn't HELP). As for the conversations one that was about you but you would not know unless you are tracking my comments to other people and one that completely does not involve you. GO and read up the poster you interrupted. And if you have then you have no shame. LoveMonkey 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, this set of diffs and the accompanying explanation of what happened will restore your confidence that I acted in good faith and never had any intent of deleting your text.

No because you have done other stuff like it. This is just another incident in a pattern.LoveMonkey 07:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the facts you wrote are important and valuable in the right context.

But you removed them anyway.LoveMonkey 07:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said in [the note that I left you here at 17:44 on June 5th.

You left me here. Really was I supposed to keep shop while you where out paw?LoveMonkey 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you did not find the text in question at Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union and assumed that I had acted in bad faith.

No it's that whole pattern thing that makes me believe you are passive aggresive to my criticisms of you and are trying to frustrate me into whatever. It's the pattern, really.LoveMonkey 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only refer you to WP:BOLD. The problem with being bold, of course, is that sometimes people make mistakes in editing, in writing messages on Talk Pages and in reading those messages. And sometimes people disagree as to what the "right" approach is. These are times when it is useful to assume good faith. I would also propose to you the WP:BRD model.

Funny the word bold is not the same word as reprimand and or anatagonize or say annoy or pester and maybe harass. I mean Richard when the last (or ever) I complained on your talkpage for "misusing" the minor edit feature? Or misspelled words? When is the last time I threatened to remove your edits? Or threatened you at all?LoveMonkey 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have annoyed you to the point where you find it difficult to assume good faith on my part. Perhaps this can change in the future.

And yet the pattern will continue.LoveMonkey 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

--Richard 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Encratitic

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Encratitic, by Nekohakase, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Encratitic is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Encratitic, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Encratitic itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi Lovemonkey, no I am not angry with you at all my friend. I understand your passion for keeping these articles as thruthful as possible and sometimes you will face bumbs every now and then. It has been like this with me since I have arrived here as well. I think in the future when you are having disagreement with another user, you should directly seek the opinion of a modetarator. Thats what I do and it works for me for the most part. Yousif Akhabut's article is a messy your right, I will try to work on it as well. Please, feel free to ask me questions whenever you need to. I will be seeing screamers later on this month. Regards. Chaldean 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic or Byzantine Rite Churches

LoveMonkey,

I fear you will see this as me "carrying out my threat" to delete your text if badly written. This really is not my intent. I never meant the comment to be a threat. I have been trying tonight to clean up some of your errors in spelling and gramar but this one paragraph is more than I can fix by myself. I am happy for you to restore this text if it is fixed so that it makes sense.

You have a tendency when writing fast to write in sentence fragments. I often can figure out what you meant and convert the fragments into sentences. There are some ambiguities in what follows, however, and I think it is better if I point out the problems and let you either explain to me what you meant or fix it yourself.

Some of the problems are just spelling and grammar. Others are POV issues.

There have been conflicts where there where forced conversations in the 20th century both by the Roman Catholics i.e. the Ustashe (also see early destruction of Orthodox churches and monasteries under Roman Catholic European rulers [4]) and by the Eastern Orthodox after World War II. This including the Roman Catholics of the east, inside the USSR after the October Revolution. As the conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, it is yet another ploy by Roman Catholicism to undermine and ultimately destroy the the ancient church by undermining its legitimacy and absorbing it into the Roman Catholic church. While not restoring the power to the original eastern Patriarchs of the church. Along with forcing the acceptance of rejected doctrines and scholasticism over faith. Where as the Roman Catholic Eastern churches depict their position as one of unity between the east and west albeit at the expense and denial to critical doctrine differences and historical atrocities. This since the original Christian church did not give Papal supremacy at the expense of the other Patriarchs of the East and their positions of power over their own respective jurisdictions.

1. "where there where" - "where they were"
2. Minor spelling issue: You mean, I think, "forced conversions"
3. "This including the Roman Catholics of the east..." - Do you meant to say that the Russian Orthodox forced Roman Catholics inside the USSR to convert after the October Revolution? If so, why use the unclear locution "Roman Catholics of the east"?
4. "As the conflict..." - Not a sentence. This sentence should simply read "The conflict..."
5. "From the Eastern Orthodox perspective..." - Is there an official document that sets this forth as "THE Eastern Orthodox perspective" or is it just the perspective of SOME Eastern Orthodox? This sentence fairly reeks of POV. I'm not saying that it isn't true simply that it doesn't necessarily represent the viewpoint of ALL Eastern Orthodox nor am I even convinced that it represents the official view of the Patriarchs. This assertion screams out to be qualified with a weasel phrasing like "From the perspective of some Eastern Orthodox, ..." and absolutely needs to be backed up with a citation.
6. "While not restoring..." and "Along with forcing..." - Neither of these is a sentence.
7. "Where as" - should be one word "Whereas"
8. "denial to ..." - should be "denial of"
9. "This albeit..." - another sentence fragment
10. "This since..." - yet another sentence fragment; also don't quite know what to do with this fragment as it is not clearly linked to any other idea.

Here's my attempt to weave your sentence fragments into a logical flow. Unfortunately, with so many sentence fragments, there is more than one way to weave them together and so I may not have captured what you want to say.

Worse yet, what you seem to be trying to say is very POV and so I have tried to shift it towards a more balanced NPOV stance. Unfortunately, this most certainly changes what you were trying to say.

There have been conflicts where there were forced conversions in the 20th century both by the Roman Catholics i.e. the Ustashe and by the Eastern Orthodox after World War II. These forced conversions included the Roman Catholics inside the USSR after the October Revolution. The conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives. From the perspective of many Eastern Orthodox, it is yet another ploy by Roman Catholicism to undermine and ultimately destroy the the ancient church by undermining its legitimacy and absorbing it into the Roman Catholic church. This perceived ploy fails to restore the power to the original eastern Patriarchs of the church and forces the acceptance of rejected doctrines and scholasticism over faith. Whereas the Roman Catholic Eastern churches depict their position as one of unity between the east and west, this unity comes at the expense of ignoring critical doctrine differences and past atrocities.

--Richard 05:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All things considered your rewording is a vast improvement. I do give you this although grudgingly. :| LoveMonkey 14:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take what I can get, even if given grudgingly.  :^) Perhaps this can be the first step in a more collaborative working relationship. --Richard 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

EC Part2

Hello LoveMonkey,

Yes, Eastern Catholic Churches follow exactly the same traditions as the Eastern Orthodox in many many cases, ie. hesychasm, various liturgies, specific prayers, forms of monastic and eremitic life, etc. Deleting such facts from articles reduces their completeness.

Referring to Eastern Catholics as "Roman Catholic Eastern Christians" is an incorrect designation. Eastern Catholic Churches have their own jurisdictions and ecclesiastical dinstinctness while being 'in communion' with Rome; they are equal to the Roman Catholic Church, not subordinate. Eastern Catholics are in no way whatsoever Latin Rite 'Roman Catholics'.

I am aware, that some Eastern Orthodox Christians do not accept that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in faith and practice. This is a matter for theologians of the various Churches to determine.

Thanks for communicating!Jc3schmi 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Jc3schmi tell me what Eastern Catholic Monasteries practice hesychasm AND discard Barlaam over Palamas. Provide me with clarification on that, also would that not mean that in decision of doctrine that the Pope has the last say? If not show examples of where the Papal authority is not followed and is instead ignored. Would such actions under the by laws of the diocese not be heresy?

LoveMonkey 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As for your theologian comment that part of the article you take measure with was copied by permission from the Orthodox wiki. I can not say that it was a theologian who wrote that part but....I am more then positive that a priest and or theology or two has at least read and edited the article on Orthodox wiki though.

LoveMonkey 12:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And finally let's discuss this [2]. With prayers to the Theotokos we might see that now is but a culmination of the past.

LoveMonkey 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey.

I appreciate your comments. I will look over what you have referred me to and get back to you. Although I am not an expert in these matters your respectful dialogue is most appreciated. Jc3schmi 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (Hesychasm, George A. Maloney, S.J., John, XXIII Center, Fordham University)

Hesychasm

A term applied to three distinct but related stages of development of Eastern Christian spirituality. The term comes from the Greek word meaning "tranquility."

First, hesychasm refers to the spirituality which was characteristic of the early Church Fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries. These monks were hermits dwelling in the deserts seeking inner peace and spiritual insight while practicing contemplation and self-discipline as they studied the New Testament and the Psalter.

Secondly, hesychasm refers to the type of contemplation which developed with the Byzantine spirituality from the 10th to the 14th centuries. Such spirituality employed the method of praying the Jesus Prayer "(Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.)" The saying of the prayer was synchronized with one's breathing. This spiritual practice is characteristic of the spirituality described in the five volume collection called Philokalia.

Thirdly, hesychasm refers to the theological exposition of the contemplation of God as proposed by Gregory Palamas in the 14th century and became the official doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

Palamas' aim was to defend the hesychastic spirituality and the way of prayer of the monks of Mt. Athos and the Byzantine Orient against the attacks of Barlaam of Calabria.

Palamas distinguished between the unchanging essence of God and His uncreative energies. "The Taboric Light (the light that surrounded Christ in the Transfiguration), the goal sought in contemplation by the hesychasts, was a theophany, or manifestation of God, through His uncreated energies." A.G.H.Source (Hesychasm, George A. Maloney, S.J., John, XXIII Center, Fordham University) This is at http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=374608

Why did you post this? Is it to get an agreement on the issue? Here I respond in kind [3], [4].

LoveMonkey 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you so much for those :) - check out this new website from Sweden [ESNA http://esna.se//eng/]. Regards. Chaldean 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your the best. LoveMonkey 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Richardshusr's RFA

I removed your vote on Richardshusr's RFA because it's not yet live (and the candidate was worrying about it at WT:RFA). When it goes live, please place it again.--Chaser - T 04:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! As I suspected. So Friday it is. LoveMonkey 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, thanks for your vote for support even if it was premature. The problem is that "jump the gun" votes are explicitly forbidden according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. I guess the concern is that some candidates might "pack the ballot box" by lining up support before going live with an RFA. For this reason, I removed your vote along with a couple of other "premature" votes.

The RFA is now live so you are welcome to express your opinion now.

--Richard 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinai

H Μονή Σινά ακολουθεί τους Ιερούς Κανόνες των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων και πνευματικά είναι ενταγμένη στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία και σύμφωνα με τις αποφάσεις, κατά διαφόρους καιρούς, Τοπικών Συνόδων και Ορθοδόξων Πατριαρχών που την αφορούν, κατέχει το μοναδικό προνόμιο στη Χριστιανοσύνη να είναι διοικητικά "αδούλωτος, ασύδοτος, ακαταπάτητος, πάντη και παντός ελευθέρα, αυτοκέφαλος" καθώς δεν εξουσιάζεται από κανέναν Πατριάρχη, ούτε από Σύνοδο. Η εν γένει λειτουργία της Σιναϊτικής Αδελφότητας είναι διατυπωμένη σε "Θεμελιώδεις Κανονισμούς". και διοικείται με θεσμούς άμεσης δημοκρατίας υπό του Ηγουμένου της και Αρχιεπισκόπου Σινά Φαράν και Ραϊθώ και της Ιεράς των Πατέρων Συνάξεως.

=

Mount Sinai Monastery follows the Holy Rules of the Ecumenical Synods and is spiritually part of the Orthodox Church. According to Decisions of Regional Synods and of Orthodox Patriarchs of several times that concern it, it has the only privilege in Christianity to be administratively "free, loose, untresspassable, free from anyone at any time, autocephalous", as it does not refer directly to any Patriarch or Synod. The function of the Sinai Brotherhood is set forth in "Fundamental Regulations". It is administrated by institutions of direct democracy by its Abbot and Archbishop of Sinai, Pharan, Raitho and the Holy Synod of Fathers.

--Kostisl 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What an excellent quote! I've made some, I hope peaceful, comments at St Catherines. AGAPH KAI EIPHNH ADELFOS MOU. Alastair Haines 04:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox History

Hey their Lovemonkey. Yea I am not sure how accurate it would be to have the Assyrian Church of the East in Orthodox history, as it is technically not an Orthodox Church (even thou the mass is very similar to Orthodox masses.) In any case, it should be noted the connection with the Orthodox Church, definatly. Chaldean 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion on my RFA

My RFA has ended and I have been granted adminship. I must say that, given our recent interactions, I was pleasantly surprised when you voted to support my request for adminship. I hope that we will continue to work collaboratively and productively in the future.

When you have a moment, I would be interested to know what you consider to be my "passive aggressive" behavior. Perhaps there are still some hatchets that need to be buried. Let's discuss them and perhaps we can put them to rest.

Thanks again for your support.

--Richard 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East

(Note: Starting this as a separate thread so as not to "jump in" on the conversation above.)

User:Chaldean is right that the Assyrian Church of the East did not separate from the Orthodox church but rather the pre-1054 Catholic/Orthodox church.

Thus the Assyrian Church of the East should be mentioned only in passing in History of the Eastern Orthodox Church but it should be mentioned at least briefly in History of Christianity.

An alternative would be to create an article titled History of Eastern Christianity which covers not just the Orthodox but all other Eastern churches which split off prior to 1054. Is there enough material outside of History of the Eastern Orthodox Church to warrant such an article?

--Richard 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perferct! I'll help out right away. Chaldean 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Star

Thank you very much. I will help, if I can...--Kostisl 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Underground Cities

These are fascinating! Thanks for pointing them out to me. I have just read about Derinkuyu. It's a great article and I'd love for it to grow. Thoughts for exansion:

• more information from the Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca, and St. Basil the Great (perhaps google Mazaca and Derinkuyu)
• Cappadocia Link
• Another Link
• perhaps some connections with the Cappadocian Fathers would be relevant
• images (I know that it is hard to find free pictures, so don't worry too much, unless you have friends who have photographs from visits)

Things I think need improvement:

• the Turkish ministry of culture doesn't seem to want to admit the earlier Christian presence in the location
• something needs to be said to reconcile 6th-7th century date and 3rd-4th century date ... there were no Romans by 6th-7th AD
• someone is likely to challenge Paul being in Cappadocia, it might be wise to quote someone who says this
• there is some repetition across the first three paragraphs ... hiding from persecution from Romans or Arabs

I'll get to the other articles soon. I must remember it is a lot more work to write articles than to read them. Please forgive me for being slow. Also, my comments are just comments, feel free to ignore them unless you think they are helpful. Xapis kai eipene, adelfos mou, alastair. Alastair Haines 07:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Confronting Arianism

I read with great interest your latest edits to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the "Confronting Arianism" section. In the West, the Arian heresy is presented in a fairly dry way and really it seems like a boring theological issue from the layman's perspective. I would guess that those few Western laypeople who have heard of Arius think something along the lines of "Some crackpots thought that Jesus was man and not God but the Nicene council set them straight by kicking them out of the church. All Christians say the Nicene creed and we've said it forever. Everything was tied up in a neat package and why do we even bother wasting time thinking about it?"

Your edits show that, at least in the East, things were not quite as tidy as the popular perception would have it.

--Richard 18:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, it's clear to me that you think Arianism is an important ongoing battle throughout the history of Christianity. I am concerned that this is your personal perception (i.e. OR) rather than that of Orthodox theologians. (Please note: this is a concern because I don't know anything about Orthodox theology). My personal perception is that Western Christian theology has long since moved past Arianism and, for the most part, considers it dry, dusty, boring history of the early church. That is, for the most part, Western theologians are not preoccupied with fighting Arianism.

Now, I am far from an expert in Western theology and a near complete ignoramus about Eastern Orthodox theology so I will defer to your knowledge at least wrt Orthodox theology. However, it would be really good to back up assertions about Arianism with citations because some of what you write regarding Arianism is news to me and leaves me wondering if this is because of holes in my knowledge or because these assertions are not commonly known and accepted in the West.

--Richard 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am complete amiss. Someone posted a citation request on the History of the Orthodox Church article. I posted citiations how is this that "I think Arianism is an important ongoing battle throughout the history of Christianity"? Also I am posting citiations so where is the comment about Original Research coming from? Are you really looking at the edits that I have done? LoveMonkey 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

your random conspiracy links on my talk page

You should know that bad things happen to those who attack the Illuminati. Dan 18:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

preview editing

With respect, I notice you have a habit of editing your comments after posting them. Substantive changes make the time-stamp in your signature false, an accidental lie, and make it seem like you want to go back and change history. I suggest you do what I try to do, and use the "Show preview" button to read your comment and edit it before posting. This allows you to fix mistakes before others see them. If you started angry, it also lets you calm down before posting. Of course, if you then find that someone has edited the comment you wanted to respond to, thereby forcing you to start over if you want to respond, it may just annoy you further. If the other user proceeds to cut apart your carefully prepared comment and insert seemingly irrelevant remarks, you may feel an irrational urge to strangle someone. Preview editing for your response then seems even more important. Dan 18:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Falasha

See Beta Israel!

Controversy

I removed the controversy section from Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. Please see the talk page.

Thank you, Yodaat 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Arianism in the early medieval Germanic kingdoms

The Wikipedia article on Arianism puts a different spin on the relationship of Arianism and the early medieval Germanic kingdoms...

However, during the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert Ulfilas (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube, a mission favored for political reasons by emperor Constantius II. Ulfilas' initial success in converting this Germanic people to an Arian form of Christianity was strengthened by later events. When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century.

The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the majority population Nicene. Many scholars see the persistence of the Germans' Arian religion as a strategy to differentiate the Germanic elite from the local inhabitants and culture and to maintain their group identity.

Most Germanic tribes were generally tolerant of the Nicene beliefs of their subjects. However, the Vandals tried for several decades to force their Arian belief on their North African Nicene subjects, exiling Nicene clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Christians.

By the beginning of the 8th century, these kingdoms had either been conquered by Nicene neighbors (Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians) or their rulers had accepted Nicene Christianity (Visigoths, Lombards).

The Franks were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene Christianity directly.

--Richard 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the different spin is from what I posted and what your stating. If you feel you can integrate the article and keep it as about Eastern Orthodox Christianity good. I was under the impression that we needed to shorten the article. I am trying to rewrite chunks of the article more concisely for this very reason. Once I have the parts concise enough I will drop and or integrate the stuff you copied from the "other" Eastern Orthodox article. LoveMonkey 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The above text was presented to provide counterpoint to the following edit of yours (which I deleted)...

The Trinitarian theology held true (but only after much more conflict) until the Gothic Wars which saw Byzantium try to convert back the Western Roman Empire (which fell to the Arians) to the Orthodox Christianity of the East. Where as much of the West was conquered by the Arian Gothic European Tribes. The Western Roman Empire primarly fell under the control of the Franks. This group later evolved more or less into France. It was under Clovis I that this group of Arians converted to Catholicism. It is believed in the East the Franks extended influence over the Western Roman Christian church, as Arian Goths that spawn much of the different understanding of God and also the filioque clause. This was an influence over the Western Church that started after the last Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus 476AD.

In the above edit and a couple other places, you insinuate that the Western Roman Church effectively became Arian or Arian-influenced and that this is the cause of the Great Schism. This is an assertion that would assuredly be rejected by the Western Church and therefore cries out for citation.

--Richard 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the article on Arianism asserts that "The Franks were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene Christianity directly." This seems to directly contradict the text that you inserted (and I deleted) that said "The Western Roman Empire primarly fell under the control of the Franks. This group later evolved more or less into France. It was under Clovis I that this group of Arians converted to Catholicism." The Arianism article asserts that the Franks converted directly to Nicene Christianity. Your text asserts that they converted under Clovis I. I confess that I know practically nothing about this topic. What I do know is that these two statements do not jibe with each other and we should resolve the issue.

Second, you wrote "It is believed in the East the Franks extended influence over the Western Roman Christian church, as Arian Goths that spawn much of the different understanding of God and also the filioque clause. This was an influence over the Western Church that started after the last Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus 476AD." This is confusing to me. What is the relationship that you are asserting between the Franks and the "Arian Goths"? The thrust of this text seems to be that the Arian Goths were an influence over the Western Church that influenced the addition of the filioque clause. Once again, I know very little about this topic but it has never been my impression that the filioque clause was an attempt to insert Arianism into the Nicene Creed. It may very well be that the Eastern Orthodox consider it to be such but this is certainly an extraordinary assertion that screams out to be supported by a citation. I can't imagine that any mainstream Western theologian would let such an assertion go unchallenged.

--Richard 22:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

barbarians and how to fight them

That heading is a little excessive, for those who wish to keep academic topics they do not have the background to understand nor the energy to learn are not barbarians--just insufficiently educated, and one purpose of WP is to enlighten them. I'm here primarily for that & I know you are likewise. But the cause is not helped by obvious excess -- as any wikipedian, educated or not, would recognize. even the uneducated have common sense, perhaps equal to that of the better educated. I will strongly defend any good article on a subject you add. But I can't defend the conference one. Nobody can. It's driven even Jimbo, who is an educated and sensible guy, to unjustified complaints about a possible hoax. If you want to help WP, I suggest you userify it and ask yourself for its deletion from article space. The world is not yet ready (smile).DGG (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? LoveMonkey 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you would realize, though I tried to be ironic. The heading is an attempt to treat lightly the repeated attempts to delete important articles on recondite topics--and I use "recondite" as a highly favorable description. But The First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism article is a mistake. DGG (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (If you want to continue, let's continue here rather than divide the discussion) 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You have my email. It is part of my profile let's continue there instead. LoveMonkey 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I discuss WP articles on WP. But i thought you might have liked to continue. I've said what I think needed to be said, and return to the AfD talk p. You have my full support for your work in general, but not on this one. DGG (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled about what you intend. I know almost nothing about the Cherokee, and so I cannot judge what might be plausible, though the article sounds rather unlikely--after all though, the question is what they think happened, not what did. DGG (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, interesting, but just a hint--after you get it done right, it does not help to use the word "lies" . Pretend to assume good faith, and just call everything errors. DGG (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid point. I apologize I will keep this in mind. LoveMonkey 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I try to be a nice guy, and it hurts and takes lots of patience. I find a lot of relief in DGGs wisdom here.

“ It does not help to use the word "lies". Pretend to assume good faith, and just call everything errors. ”

Errors are, in fact, more common than lies. Public editing should catch both! ;) Alastair Haines 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Neoplatonism, etc.

All of what you say about the bizarrely animated views that people have on this article may be true (and, if it is true, wouldn't surprise me much -- people are people). Try to stay cool. You do what you can with the resources you have, and the only resource any intellectual has are reasoning and solidarity among the reasonable. { Ben S. Nelson } 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You might enjoy this

The Jesus of the Cults

--Richard 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User privacy

Trying to get a WP editor to reveal his true name and identity is not acceptable here and attempts to find it out off wiki will result in being banned. I remind you that OR is not acceptable, and that only published information can be used. There is no reason to ask an editor for his credentials; there is equally no reason for an editor to use his credentials or personal knowledge or membership in a group to defend his views.DGG (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Posting excepts from Mooney book is not OR. Now point this out to other gentlemen doing the same. LoveMonkey 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

will you two please stop this back and forth fighting on-wiki, and especially on my talk page. If this continues, both of you are likely to be blocked for harassing each other. Please confine yourself to the talk page of the article, and politely at that, discussing just the article and the published sources. DGG (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. LoveMonkey 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia

Hi my friend,

I must get back to looking at your underground cities! :D

You might like my little articles: Libellus, POxy 2990 and POxy 3035.

Persecution is real. ;)

Xpistos anesti! Alastair Haines 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Greek (Orthodox) church every Sunday is Martyr Sunday! But that is not to diminish. I was hoping that the whole "Christianity caused the Burning times" could be addressed I find lots and lots of comments on how this group or that group has been persecuted but very little historical proofs. I mean look at the Holodomor and the holocaust the proof is there but for these other groups to claim that the Christians wholesale persecuted and slaughter them I am finding almost no proof. Also allot of these early "gnostics" group where very very small (except for Valentians). So to anger the local pagan groups as well as the christian groups would lead to all kinds of ugliness (like Athanius' controversies). LoveMonkey 15:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments about my articles. My Dad is Greek Orthodox and, as I get older, I am thinking of converting. In fact, I did spend some time in the 1970s in the monastery in Essex with Father Sophrony. He was an amazing man.

There is no doubt in my mind that your articles are valid and important. However, I can add nothing to the debate as the discussions seem to be closed [red links]. Perhaps you will let me know next time if there's anything I can add. Thanks Jack1956 12:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, LoveMonkey,

I'll read your entries on Frank and Lossky and try to help you on that.

I plan to gradually expand subcat and article on human rights in Ukraine, so some topics of your concern would be reflected there, I think. I'm less interested in the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church per se, though.

Wish you all the best. And think about returning to Wiki.

Anstan07 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ophites

Hello FDuffy. I am contacting you about the ophites article. You added the to the article that the group was persecuted out of existence [5]. And that there text was destroyed by the orthodox of their day. Could you please source that? If not it is POV and needs to be removed.

Thanks LoveMonkey 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ophites were Gnostics; they were the gnostics who put emphasis on siding with the serpent in the garden of eden ("ophite" means "serpent"), as opposed to the gnostics that emphasised Seth (Sethians), or other variants (such as Valentinians). The gnostics were persecuted by the orthodox of their day; indeed the brutal and gruesome (even by the standards of the day) Albigensian Crusade was direct persecution of the gnostics, and similarly the inquisition began as a way to weed out the gnostics. The Christian Gnostics basically no longer exist as a result.

The only complete texts from the Ophites, or any of the gnostics, that survive are really the Nag Hammadi collection, and a few other really ancient manuscripts that were hidden in the desert; none of the later copies survived, and all were banned by the "orthodox" (eg. in the Gelasian decree). You have only to look at the treatment of the people who supported the view of homoiousios rather than homoousios (a single letter difference) to work out how little tolerance of heterodoxy there was; Arius' writings were ordered to be burnt, and supporters of homoiousios rather than homoousios were exiled, and that was just because of a minor difference, compared to the huge difference between gnostics and the "orthodox". I put "orthodox" in quotations, because the supporters of homoousious were actually the minority, but they had control.

Just in case you are perhaps confused in the terminology, "orthodox" here refers to the mainstream view, rather than adherants of Eastern (or Coptic) Orthodoxy.

(please reply, if you wish to reply, on my talk page) --User talk:FDuffy 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Christians

Looks like the nom didn't let you know - The Slavic Christians article you posted last month has been nominated as an article for deletion. It's certainly potentially possible to preserve it, however. Just a heads up - MrZaius^talk 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Arian controversy

User:Jacob Haller has created and written this article which looks like it has significant content over and above what can be found in Arianism. However, I can't see the rationale for having both Arianism and Arian controversy. Looks like a content fork to me. I'm inclined to propose merging the two articles. Could you take a look and tell me what you think?

--Richard 18:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Derinkuyu Underground City

Please leave the grammar and style adjustments to this page unmolested. Aramgar 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Belated responses to your June/July comments on Talk:History of the Eastern Orthodox Church

For reasons that I am not sure of, I missed quite a number of the comments that you made at Talk:History of the Eastern Orthodox Church back in June and July. The problem is that I tend to use my watchlist to look for new comments rather than visit Talk Pages and look for them. Unfortunately, if a comment shows up on my watchlist and I don't see it right away, it moves off the main screen within a day or two.

I am belatedly finding that you made a number of comments back in June and July which I did not respond to. I am responding to some of them now but others will take time as I have lost the context of the discussion and I have to reconstruct what we were talking about which means I have to go back and reread the whole discussion and rethink what my position was/is.

Just wanted to let you know what happened. I wasn't intentionally ignoring your comments, I just didn't see them.

--Richard 16:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. JoJan 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Gulagbook cover.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Gulagbook cover.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fireinthemind.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fireinthemind.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Theoria. Thank you. Jrod2 15:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Florovsky bookcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Florovsky bookcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)