User talk:LoveMonkey/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Immersion baptism[edit]

I moved your comment on immersion in the Orthodox Church to a more relevant position, and added three references substantiating your comment. See here and let me know if this is accurate.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. LoveMonkey (talk)

Christianity and violence[edit]

Hi LoveMonkey,

I think you might be interested in an article that I've been working on the past month viz. Christianity and violence. Right now, it covers this topic almost entirely from the Western Church's point of view and has almost nothing about the Orthodox point of view except a little bit about the Crusades, pogroms and the Iron Guard. I'd like to change that but I don't know enough about that aspect of the topic. Would you care to take a look at it and give your input on the [[Talk:Christianity and violence|talk page? Or just edit the article directly. Thanx. --19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and Immersion baptism[edit]

Technically, you're past your limit for WP:3RR too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Careful with edit summaries, please[edit]

This issue was mentioned a few months ago, but apparently it needs repeating. It is generally considered inappropriate to mention other editors in a negative fashion in edit summaries (such as this recent edit). Please re-read WP:EDSUM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, and try to be more careful in the future to concentrate on content rather than personalities. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, LoveMonkey. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LOL![edit]

Well, it's kind of a joke to keep our senses of humor intact. If I make a mistake, then I believe the proper template is {{troutme}} which in turn places a gigantic picture of a trout on my talk page along with a big red "whack." Hope I don't deserve one...  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I did not know that and never understood the comment. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christ is born, and a merry Christmas to you as well. I also wish to thank you for the barnstar (although, I don't think I really deserved it). Cody7777777 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I'm flattered. According to WP:STAR, the Socratic Barnstar is for editors "who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their argument". As someone who isn't always sure about the strength of his arguments, I'm glad to hear that they aren't so bad. :) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've replied to some of your recent posts on my talk page. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Triads of Gregory Palamas[edit]

Please look at Triads (Gregory Palamas). At the moment, it is a content fork of Palamism but I created it in order to have more room to discuss the Triads in detail. Specifically, I was thinking of the analyses of Meyendorff and Romanides.

As a first step, I thought it would be good to include text like this:

Throughout “The Triads” from the 14th-century, St. Gregory Palamas is caught in a conundrum of apophatic silence and apodictic experiential observations. On the one hand, Palamas must describe the ineffible energy of the divine presence as manifest in a monk’s hesychasm. By the same token, Palamas must avoid scholastic formulations about hesychasm, which were promulgated by Latin immigrees in Athos, chief among whom was one Latin monk Barlaam. Scholastic reasoning was formulaic and required every manifestation of God to fit into conditional sentences and quid-pro-quo logic.

I got the above text from here. Assuming you agree with the assessment, I was wondering if you would like to take a whack at rewriting it to avoid copyright infringement.

--Richard S (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

The barnstar is much appreciated. UMass Amherst is a great school, ain't it?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too, Love Monkey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology[edit]

I wanted to let you know about History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, an article that I just created. It takes a look at the history of EO theology (i.e. the history of the EO church theology that omits most of the political and ecclesiological aspects except the ones that directly impacted the theology). I confess that the motivation for creating this article is that I wanted a place to discuss the Neo-Patristic theology of Florovsky as well as the work of Meyendorff, Romandes, Lossky and Yannaras. I stopped where I did because there is a plausible argument that discussing them is recentism. I don't think it is but I wanted to stop and check with others before continuing. My thought was to create a section titled "20th century theologians" or "Modern theologians" and then create subsections discussing the works of the these theologians.

What do you think?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You probably won't like this but you should read it anyway...[edit]

Modern Greek Theologians and the Greek Fathers --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

..Oh dear Lord, I agree completely Norm. Did you even read this article. You and Esoglou basically called the works of Nellas heresy and removed them from the Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences article.[1] HOW CAN YOU TELL ME TO READ something that just repeats what I have been posting? What does Norm say about the very book Richard you Esoglou attacked in the theological differences article? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No.. I didn't read the article. I just read the abstract. I have now scanned the article but not read it closely. I'm not sure what you are referring to in the theological differences article that I attacked. I am also not familiar with Nellas. Perhaps you are mistakenly remembering my involvement in a discussion in which I did not partake. (I stayed out of most of the discussion of the theological differences article) But perhaps it is my memory which is at fault. If that is the case, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the book was that you think I attacked.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
OK...that deletion wasn't about calling the works of Nellas heresy. It was about the specific text in the article not asserting a difference from Catholic doctrine. (Esoglou said it and, when I scanned the text, his assessment seemed to be correct. You really must stop turning articles into coatracks onto which you attempt to hang everything you know about Orthodox theology. You rapidly turn articles into unreadable messes (cf. History2007's comment about the Theoria article.) Wikipedia is not paper. You don't have to throw everything relevant into an article. That's what Wikilinks are for. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason I referred you to the Russell article was that you objected quite vehemently to the idea of a "rediscovery of Palamas in the 20th century by Russian emigre theologians". The abstract to the Russell article suggests that there was indeed a rediscovery of the Greek Fathers (cf. Florovsky's NeoPatristic Synthesis) via Greek theologians with the help of diaspora theologians (could these include Russian emigres in Paris?) and Western patristic scholars.
I have since run across another article for which there is only a sample but the following quote is quite interesting:
Saint Gregory is not known to the common pious, and his study by theologians is scant compared to the tomes that have been dedicated to the other Fathers. In Greece, it was not until the recent past that anyone showed any critical attention toward a collection of the Saint's writings. And, greatly owing to his rejection by the West and the proverbial "Western captivity" of many Orthodox theologians, some Greek theologians have only a rudimentary familiarity with Saint Gregory and his importance to Orthodox thought. (Happily, the state of Palamite studies in the Slavic traditions is better developed and more profound.) Contemporary Traditionalist Orthodox Thought.
Are you ready to concede Daniel Payne's assertion in his Ph.D. thesis that there was 20th century rediscovery of Palamas?
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am ready to asert that your treatment of Payne is a misrepresentation. As the specifics of the philokalia and it's "rediscovery" appears to contradict the way you are presenting Payne. I am ready to assert that you won't read anything completely and are therefore continuiously taking things out of context. Things you are already unfamiliar with. 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So... do you agree or disagree with what is written here? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, when you say "the specifics of the philokalia and its rediscovery appears to contradict the way (I am) representing Payne", how do you perceive me to be "representing Payne" i.e. what do you think I am trying to make Payne say? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Narrative fallacy[2] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely, you jest. You are denying that Greek theologians in Italy during the Ottoman era went through what Florovsky called a "Western captivity" marked by an "arid scholasticism" and learned to think in Western ways that are considered destructive to Orthodox theology? You're denying that Florovsky called for a NeoPatristic synthesis because the Greek theologians had lost touch with the Greek Fathers (though not so with the Russians)? You're denying that Florovsky and Lossky started the return to the Fathers in Paris which was later taken up by the postwar Greeks sparking a revival of Orthodox theology in the West which was ultimately transmitted to the United States by Meyendorff and Schmemann?
I've pieced this story together by looking at quite a number of sources. I do say it would have been nice if someone had pointed me in the right directions so that my work could have been more efficient but it's been an interesting bit of research even if unnecessary. I have provided sources for just about every piece of the story. (And, no, it's not synthesis because there are a couple of sources that tell most of the entire story in one place).
I don't get you at all. This story has no anti-Orthodox POV (mostly it's anti-Western POV) and appears to me to be the story that Orthodox theologians would use to explain the "rebirth of Orthodox theology in the 20th century" and "the 20th century being the century of Palamas". What part of this "narrative" do you argue is fallacious?
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Who are you to assume. Since you are not in the know and keep acting Cargo Cult (scratching the surface but not really getting at the substance of it). I think that you have pretty much shown your ignorance. However, there are four volumes of the Philokalia.
Each covering a period of history of Orthodox theology. The fourth volume covering the period ending in Palamas. In order for the Fifth volume to NOT BE A LIE, somebody there in Greece had to have kept the theology covered in the previous other volumes and they did so without forgetting whom Palamas was and without making Hesychasm into your Palamism. You see what you want to see. As if Saint Gregory of Sinai being of Sinia that was not from Egypt? As if the Monks at St Catherines ever FORGOT what Hesychasm is. You see by what your saying Hesychasm just stopped and was then "rediscovered" by Meyendorff. Of course it wasn't. But everybody likes a story. Be that partially based on Western opinion (as your take on it is) or not. This is one of the reasons the Greeks are upset with the Slav theologians. But you won't listen because you don't care to hear what you think you've found and what fits in your nice narrative fallacy. What you are implying is whats wrong here and you can argue all day about how many sources you have. You are Cargo cult, scratching the surface thinking that all Orthodoxy is, is a landing field, run way and an aviation tower and when the Gods don't send you planes you just can't figure out, why. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps part of your problem is that you are still stuck on the idea that I have said that "Palamas was rediscovered by Meyendorff". I never actually said that although I may have mistakenly thought that at an earlier point. What I actually said was that Payne said that Palamas had been rediscovered in the 1940s by Russian emigre theologians. He later names Florovsky and Lossky as the pioneers of this rediscovery with Florovsky leading by proposing a NeoPatristic Synthesis which would move Greek theology away from the "arid scholasticism" of the West and back to the Greek fathers. Meyendorff is part of the next generation. He defends his PhD thesis in 1959, almost two decades later. Romanides and Yannaras are also part of the next generation. Please get past your misconception of what I have written or implied in the past and focus on what I have actually written in History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology.


What part of these two sections [3] and [4] do you object to?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

sourcing question[edit]

Hi! I think I'm going to pass on that question. Can you post your question on the RS board? Better to get more than one opinion perhaps. Peer review is not needed in all types of source. But your concern seems to be about self publication?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev on Schmemann and Meyendorff[edit]

"I will not linger over such preposterous cases as the burning of the books of Fr. Alexander Schmemann and Fr. John Meyendorff by people who, apparently, had never read them." -- Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev Orthodox Theology on the Threshold of the 21st Century

Well, you got a bishop that condemns Meyendorff. Now, I have a Metropolitan who endorses him. Does a Metropolitan trump a Bishop?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal and Non sequitur Hilarion does not say he endorses Meyendorff's parts called into question. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. However, it is equally extreme to argue that Bishop Auxentios of Photiki is throwing all of Meyendorff into the fire. He wrote a corrective criticizing specific assertions of Meyendorff. I haven't done a comparison to see if Auxentios' corrective matches one-to-one with Romanides (I would guess that it does but that's just my speculation). The point here is that NPOV doesn't say we should ignore Meyendorff's existence. It says we should present Meyendorff's POV along with all other competing POVs without giving any one of them undue weight. Now one could argue that Jean-Yves Lacoste's POV is being given undue weight but then the question revolves around how to reestablish a balance. I'm open to suggestions. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed but disagreed? My sources name specific parts of Meyendorf not a general statement like yours. How is that the same thing? NO. As if Hilarion is attacking the Bishop of Photiki. But thats the WP:SYN that Richard is doing in the way he is handling this. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that Auxentios is attacking specific parts of Meyendorff and Hilarion is supporting Meyendorff in general without necessarily defending the specific parts of Meyendorff that Auxentios is attacking. Thus, if you are willing to accept Hilarion's POV, one should not argue that the Orthodox Church has rejected Meyndorff's work in its totality but that certain theologians and bishops have taken issue with specific arguments put forth by Meyendorff and any criticism of Meyendorff should detail which those arguments are. One should not take Romanides and Auxentios as reasons to argue against the mention of Meyendorff. Rather one should consider them as opposing POVs. Which is the approach taken by the articles Palamism and History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. Are we in agreement now? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Speculation, you Richard don't know which parts. You've also yet to include Auxentios in any of your edits for the related articles to his comments. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
LoveMonkey wrote "you (Richard) don't know which parts". I freely admit to that. If I did know, I wouldn't need to ask for your help. Does History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology adequately characterize the development of Orthodox theology in the 20th century? If not, why not? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

GK[edit]

I am sorry, but I am no expert on theological matters. If it is something very specific I might be able to give a look, though... GK (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

your conflicts with other editors[edit]

Please don't post about them on my Talk page. Thanks, and good luck. Leadwind (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How about sticking to the issues instead of making another user the basis of your interests. Didn't St Paul say love the sinner hat the sin? I thought you guys understood the homouison - the procession of the pnuematic perona from Pater. If you are smart enought to correct the Arians you should be smart enough to lay down yuour sword. FYI many of my edits clarify intellectual confusions which will not benefit your cause one iota. If I get any further problems from you I am going to complain directly to Father Hopko and the various echelons of the Orthodox Church in the USA with which I am far more familiar than you are likely to ever find out, and if you succeeded in the Stalinistic investigation you proposed you would not benefit God you will only benefit divisiveness particularly between Orthodox Chufch and Western Church. So please lay off, don't lkurk, stalk, harrass or accuse me, stick to the specific individual edits. If not, you will be traitor to St Athanasius and I will hold you responsible for conducting an evil personal smear campaign in the name of the Orthodox Church and I will bring your anti-intellectual authoritarianism out into scrutiny by not only Orthodox, who will probably shrug it off out of tribal loyalty, but into Catholic and Protestant circles as a specimen of Orthodox anti-intellectual extremism which discredits all Christian theologians. I do not wish to have any further communication with you whatsoever aside from discussion of specific edits. I am done with this dialogue, please end it here. Deviklishly Handsome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talkcontribs) 16:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Some of the 3RR violations that you allege on Leadwind's Talk Page appear to involve three reverts. I haven't gone back to the edit histories to check if there were additional reverts to that article within the same 24 hours. My assertion here is based on the fact that you presented three edits so presumably Esoglou made 3 and only 3 reverts in the cases that you are alleging. I wonder if you are aware that it takes 4 reverts to violate the 3RR policy. That is, 3RR says that if you make more than 3 reverts to the same article within a 24-hour period, you are in violation of the 3RR policy. I confess that I, myself, got this confused and accused someone of violating 3RR and had them argue quite indignantly that they had only made 3 reverts, not 4.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the 3RR rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.

That said, 3RR also says that it should not be construed to mean that editors are permitted to make 3 reverts to an article every 24 hours. It asserts that one can be tagged with edit-warring even while staying on the 3 reverts side of the "bright-line" rule.

(From WP:3RR) An administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

Moreover, it's important to note that the count of "3 reverts" applies to all modifications to an article within a 24-hour period, not just to a specific piece of text.

(from WP:3RR) "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. "


Thus, technically, if I revert two of editor X's edits to an article and two of editor Y's edits to the same article, I am now in violation of the 3RR rule. I don't think this interpretation is often enforced but that's what the policy says.

In at least two of the alleged violations reported on Leadwind's Talk Page, it appears that Esoglou reverted 3 times, not 4. However, I haven't gone to see if he reverted a total of 4 or more times on the same article within a 24-hour period.

One reason that I don't pay much attention to the 3RR rule except when the violation is egregious is that there are plenty of times when I and other editors make 4 or more reverts to the same article within a 24-hour period. I would guess that you have done this yourself.

So... there are two points that I wanted to make here:

  1. Are you sure that Esoglou violated 3RR or did he go right up to the 3-revert limit and stop?
  2. Are you sure that you have not violated 3RR by making 4 or more revert edits to the same article within a 24-hour period?

To me, the problem is not 3RR-violation; it's edit-warring and both you and Esoglou are guilty of that. I could report that and get either blocks or page protection but that just slows down progress, inflames emotions and, in the case of you and Esoglou, would probably not resolve the problem anyway.

And... I just don't have the time and energy for these administrative squabbles any more than I have interest in Taiwan boi's RFC on Esoglou. I'm glad that I'm not an admin anymore.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please quit WP:wiki-hounding me Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Eastern view[edit]

Hi, once you mentioned the Eastern view, I thought that I would mention that I wrote an Eastern section in Hymns to Mary. However, I am by no measure (pun intended) an Akathist expert. If you feel like representing the Eastern view, please feel free to correct any errors/issues there. In particular a good clean reference to how an Akathist and the veneration of a specific icon are combined would be really nice. I was at best 70% sure that I got that right. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article looks good. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Theologically motivated edit warring[edit]

At the hell article I have called for an end to the theologically motivated edit warring in which you've been involved across several articles, along with Esoglou and (to a much lesser extent), with Pseudo-Richard. I have repeated my call for participants to confine themselves to edits concerning their own faith community. Please consider this seriously. I would like to see you make a unilateral offer to abide by this suggestion. An alternative would be for a report to be made on the relevant noticeboard that you have all been engaged in theologically motivated edit warring for months across a dozen articles or more, and letting the higher level administration sort it out.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Issuing the report is far more preferable to any attempt to "ghettoize" Wikipedia by restricting editors to specific articles or sections of articles. Such ghettoization violates the five pillars of Wikipedia, namely the idea that it is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Richard, how would the voluntary step which Taiwan-boi is proposing be any more objectionable than a topic ban (which is already an accepted remedy, even if it does infringe on "anyone can edit anything" — and which is presumably what would eventually result anyway if this issue were to end up being formally treated as a conduct dispute)? Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey I have no problem staying away from an article as long as the same would go for contentious and disruptive editor or editors. Esoglou is bad for Wikipedia. I already agreed to this once with Esoglou at the East-West schism article. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
My point below is made moot by LoveMonkey's willingness to a voluntary article ban. Nonetheless, I provide it here because it addresses an important point about how Wikipedia works. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Richwales, the full context of Taiwan boi's proposal and my vehement objection to it can be found here.
At the end of the day, my objection is one of principle... if the goal is to stop the edit war, then an article ban or a topic ban might be appropriate. I had already thought of that although, in this particular situation with these two particular editors, I think a voluntary ban would just postpone the conflict for the length of the ban. Both of them are committed to editing Christianity-related articles and will be unlikely to stay away from each other without an ARBCOM-sanctioned ban (i.e. one that can be enforced via admin-imposed blocks).
However, the "ghettoization" that Taiwan boi proposes is a different kind of animal. He proposes to let each editor edit but only within the sections related to "their faith". This is a horrible idea if generalized to set a precedent. Do you imagine that every controversial article in Wikipedia should have a section for each POV and those editors supporting each POV should then be confined to edit within "their" section?
I am particularly incensed because Taiwan boi has accepted LM's characterization of me as pushing the Catholic POV and thus I have gotten lumped into the Esoglou camp and am being advised to restrict myself to the same ghetto as all the other Catholic POV-pushers. A review of my edits on Orthodox-related articles will indicate that I have put in much work and improved the presentation of the history of Orthodoxy dramatically; in many instances, I am responsible for creating and laying out the outline for a number of key articles in this area. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hell_in_Christian_beliefs#Break_it_up_guys for details of my more significant contributions.) Now, it is being proposed that I am to be confined to the "Catholic ghetto" just because I am a Catholic? (non-practicing, lapsed, whatever but once a Catholic, always a Catholic) Sheesh.
The standard for editing should always be: if you're right and you can prove it with sources, then you can edit. if you can't prove your case, then you're soapboxing and you should shut up. You shouldn't even insert your unproveable case into the section on your faith. We don't create ghettos for unredeemable POV pushers; we block them.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Richard, as Richwales has already pointed out there's nothing in my suggestion which is close to what you fear. There is no banning, there is no ghettoization, there is no insistence that this recommendation be generalized. I have seen no reason from you why the editors involved can't be asked to adhere to this voluntary code of conduct in order to reconcile a year long dispute which has been incredibly disruptive and which has had several admins simply give up on it because they can't control the editors involved. What I see is that LM is prepared to accept this solution, but Esoglou is not. That's significant because it shows exactly where the problem lies.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Richwales is wrong...your solution is very bad for Wikipedia in principle. I've already explained why above. However, as long as participation in the solution is voluntary, I guess whatever the two editors in question agree to is acceptable. As for myself, I don't agree to any of it but, as I think should be crystal clear, I am not part of this problem. Moreover, if Esoglou makes a suggestion on a Talk Page for an edit that I think makes sense, I reserve the right to make the edit, LoveMonkey's histrionics about collusion, conspiracy and cabal notwithstanding. My commitment to NPOV and civility should be evident to all (excepting, of course, the one lapse that LoveMonkey just loves to harp on because that's all he can use against me). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Pseudo-Richard, please restrict your comments to discussing improvements to the articles, and do not speculate about the behavior of other editors. Such remarks are inflammatory and un-collegiate. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Dianaa, first of all, this is a User Talk Page and not an article talk page and so the injunction to "restrict my comments to discussing improvements to the articles" does not apply quite so stringently. Secondly, because the history of the interaction between LoveMonkey and myself spans the Talk Pages of several articles and the period over at least a couple of months, if not years, you are unlikely to be cognizant of the full context of it. The key point here is that my comments are defending against his "speculations about my behavior" and not vice versa. I would provide you evidence of this but it's really not worth the effort unless you really don't have anything better to do with your time. I certainly have better things to do with my Wikipedia time. (Which was the point of my incivility to LoveMonkey that he now can't get over) I wouldn't really want to be involved in any of this except that Taiwan boi has drunk LoveMonkey's Kool Aid and accepted the allegation that I am colluding with Esoglou in some sort of Tag Team. So then, who in your opinion is now speculating about the behavior of other editors? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is not much different, actually. I don't need to know the full context to know that discussing LoveMonkey's behavior with TaiwanBoi here on LoveMonkey's talk page can only serve to inflame an already volatile situation. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 19:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah... that annoying voice of detached, third-party reason. Yeh, you're probably right. I should just cool off and slough it off. It ain't that important, really. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I already don't edit in any of the article sections but the Eastern Orthodox so staying away would just be a matter of remaining consistent. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Heres Esoglou acting on that promise [5] Esoglou made to not edit the article as long as don't. Esoglou is WP:OWN and this article and the filioque article. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems pretty clear that I'm no longer going to be (if indeed I ever was!) able to assist in mediating or resolving this dispute. At this point, I doubt anything short of ArbCom intervention is going to bear fruit here. So I think the best thing for me to do at this point is to retire from this topic entirely and direct my wiki-energies elsewhere. I will be "unwatching" everything relating to this issue ASAP (including the relevant user talk pages). Good luck, everyone. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

East-West Schism[edit]

LM, this edit of yours needs to be substantiated by a WP:RS. Please find one before you re-enter the edit. If you need help finding one, let me know.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

I accidentally deleted your e-mail as it was in my Junk folder. Could you please re-send it? Sorry for the extra trouble. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have reviewed the situation you presented to me and it seems the other user is behaving in a civil manner. Your own behaviour could be modified to help defuse the situation: don't post in ALL CAPS; don't post oppressive walls of text—try to be more concise; avoid commenting on other people's behavior. You have chosen to edit in subject matter where things can get volatile, and it is difficult to stay cool. Please think about my suggestions as the only person's behavior you can control is your own. Good luck. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify that i Only looked at the material posted in the last couple of days. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring notice[edit]

Please see here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello LM. I am planning to record an editing restriction as below, unless you and Esoglou can agree on something different:

Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments about Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, and LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. This does not prevent them from sometimes working on the same article so long as they respect this limitation.

Please reply on my talk page if you have a comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I've replied to your latest question at my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Phatius has created yet another version of the proposed restriction, at User talk:EdJohnston#Wording of the restriction about Orthodox/Catholic editing. (See his points #1 through #4 at the bottom of the section). Please let me know if you can accept this version, which I believe is easier to understand. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I voiced my concerns but agree to the restriction outline as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

English pronunciation of nous[edit]

Hi LoveMonkey, English is my native language, and I can confirm that the pronunciation, which I did not add myself, is correct. I've also just checked the Oxford English Dictionary. However I am hesitant to put a footnote for that look-up. We do not need to source things which are common knowledge such as our spelling and other basic knowledge of normal English words. Of course we could add footnotes to every word in Wikipedia but it would not be very easy to read. I thought your original concern was about the pronunciation in Greek, so that was just a misunderstanding. What is your concern now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation of a word that is not commonly used needs to be sourced. Please source the strange and unique pronunciation given for the word in the article in question. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I am very surprised though. I think this word is common still in its non philosophical and "bad Greek" use, especially in England. I did not put it in by the way, but I can see it would be confusing not to mention it because the word really is still used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Kitten[edit]

Editing at East-West Schism[edit]

Hello LoveMonkey. You have posted on the talk page here: Talk:East–West Schism#Why is Esoglou editing on this article?. Be aware that the editing restrictions on you and Esoglou are still in effect as listed at WP:RESTRICT. They can be enforced by blocks. Please note the following text that you added recently:

These Frankish Popes were military leaders according to Saint Boniface known to "shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans."[29] ... It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose, under the Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin (735-804) as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively.[30]

The source which you provide is to the personal opinion of John Romanides, which is acceptable. But the problem is that you are presenting this as though it is a matter of historical fact. To do this violates your restriction: "LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice." You should not be stating anything declaratively about the Western Church. If this material is to remain, it must be clarified to be the personal opinion of Romanides. I see that this edit may also need to be fixed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have clearly posted this above information in the article proceed by
"according to John Romanides"
You have noted it in this comment of yours but yet ignore that and are now threatening to block me. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I must have been looking at an old version. Please continue the discussion at my talk page, so it is not split up. The paragraph beginning 'It was not until the rise of Charlemagne' also needs attribution to Romanides. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the policy it states this..
LoveMonkey may add information about Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.[6]
I have asked you Ed Johnson on your talkpage that if the wording "according to John Romanides" is in adequate please provide me with a wording that would satisfy the requirement of posting a scholars opinion in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That form of attribution will be enough but it should precede every paragraph where you are giving Romanides' opinion. As of this moment the 'Charlemagne' paragraph has no such qualifier. I hope you will respond about the copyright issue about too-long quotes of Romanides. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You've asked me off-line for my opinion. I've given it at the talk page there. If I may add a personal note, I think you've carried this as far as makes sense, if not further, and I do not think your interest are served by continuing this. It will appear to most people that you've been gaming the restrictions, and that can only lead to increased restrictions. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You can be critical of me. I respect you. I understand you are someone who has always been fair and therefore I believe you when you say something. However, I think that you don't have the time to look into the whole of this and are therefore only scratching the surface on this as I posted what I posted in good faith. I have waited until heads got cooler before I went to editing these articles and the thing you miss here DGG is again "these are not my words or my opinion" they are EO theologians. I am gaming nothing. I am editing in good faith. What I have contributed is what is being said by people of power in my community. I hope you would see my contributions as informed. If so then they should be expressed under the topics or articles I have contributed them too. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

History of the Eastern Roman Empire[edit]

I'm sorry for bothering you, but since I know you're also interested in the history of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, I thought you might want to know that there is a request for renaming the article "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" to "History of the Byzantine Empire". If you have time, please check it carefully. However, there's no problem if you're not interested or if you're too busy with other things (especially, since I know you're working on many theological articles). Cody7777777 (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for deciding to participate on that debate. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Title for a priest[edit]

Hello --

I've been working on translating the Seraphim Chichagov article from the Polish wiki, where it is FA class. I was wondering, what is the appropriate title for a Russian Orthodox priest? Is it "Father", like in Roman Catholicism? I saw that you're active on various articles related to Orthodox Catholicism and might know the answer.

Thanks! --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Filioque dispute[edit]

Please see my reply at User talk:EdJohnston#Esoglou is again breaking edit restrictions. Be careful not to violate 3RR at Filioque since you could be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Violation of editing restriction. Thank you.  Sandstein  10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing restrictions[edit]

Since you have not heeded my request that you rephrase your comment on Roman Catholic teaching to make it conform to what your editing restriction allowed you to do, and instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to stay within the limits that you yourself set have instead simply deleted my request, I have had to raise the question at the noticeboard. Sorry. Esoglou (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Filioque[edit]

Christ is indeed risen. I'm sorry for the long delay in reply, but I have not logged on Wikipedia during the last days. I'll try to see, if there is something I can do about this. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Restriction now allows commenting on Talk pages[edit]

Please see this change in the editing restriction which affects you and Esoglou. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Arianism - who cares?[edit]

Please consider this comment at Talk:Arianism. Seems like the sort of thing you would have an opinion on. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

militant atheism[edit]

hi LoveMonkey- which part of it in particular?? Eugene-elgato (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I wish I could contribute. To be honest I know little about this. Obviously historically there is something in Albania which is a case par excellence for official atheism. Today we have people like Dawkins spouting their (pseudo)science.. but I do not know an awful lot else?! Will still go through those talk pagesEugene-elgato (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

Proposed deletion of List of Eastern Orthodox writers[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of Eastern Orthodox writers has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 07:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Michel de Montaigne[edit]

I had a look, but I'm not an expert on his life; I've read some of his writings. What do you think of that article?

Montalban (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's OK.. I just thought of him when I saw your name..However it could use a biography.. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

MA[edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg After what you've been through put some brandy in it! – Lionel (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
And you too! LoveMonkey (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied[edit]

See my reply at User talk:EdJohnston#More Esoglou edit warring. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

East-West Schism line of division[edit]

You may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#East-West Schism line of division. I have just noticed that User:Dotonj, who favoured attributing more territory to the eastern side than some other editors attribute to it, has been blocked as a sock puppet. I am neutral on the subject. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment?[edit]

Do you perhaps wish to comment in good time on this? Esoglou (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lacking help[edit]

Sorry I've not been helping out on various topics. I find it too daunting a task to be in endless debates with people who aren't willing to listen as they push Catholic Apologetics onto this site Montalban (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I can relate Montalban. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm X 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

I have nominated Free will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Discussion at Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church[edit]

Hello LoveMonkey. I'm sorry to see you haven't been recently active. Just now I came across a debate about whether the Georgian Orthodox Church was independent of the Armenian Orthodox Church. The term 'autocephalous' is being thrown around in that discussion. Since you know about Greek Orthodox stuff, I am guessing that your knowledge might overlap with this area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Modifying the Catholic view at East–West Schism[edit]

Hello LoveMonkey. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Editing at East–West Schism. It would be helpful if you can comment there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Sorry to hear you retired. Montalban (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East–West Schism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin Patriarch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG I added some info to that article about the Latin church in Constantinople Montalban (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank You Mr Montalban! 13:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

East-West Schism question[edit]

Just now returned from abroad to read your comments/question about protection for Eastern Christians. Well out of my range of expertise.

Having said that, Churchill, IMO, was trying for Christian hegemony when he invaded Gallipoli during WWI at a time when there might have been a chance to tip the scales towards the Greeks (Eastern Orthodoxy presumed) in the post-war fallout. Not sure what "success" would have looked like. Certainly Greek control of the Anatolian coast with their Orthodox Christians. Turks winding up being genocided instead of Armenians? Anyway, I think that it was more than just "military" strategy. Student7 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit regarding Western theology[edit]

Please undo this edit. I don't want to have to report you for violating your ban on editing in this field. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL look at the article Table of Contents Esoglou that section (section 5) is under the part of the article labelled Eastern Orthodox Church. It is YOU Esoglou whom has violated your edit restrictions [7]. And you would do good to report yourself. You should have posted the comments about Augustine in the header "Western Church" section 6. Your hubris is boundless. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Well then, I have done the reverting of my own edit as a precaution. Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
And now, for the same reason, shouldn't you revert your edit under the heading "Roman Catholic Church"? Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Take it up with Ed Johnston. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
EdJohnston, as you surely know, wishes to have nothing more to do with this question.
As you can see, I presume your good faith and assume that the apparent violation of your editing restriction was inadvertent, instead of pouncing on it as something for which to denounce you. If you do persist in keeping the editing tag that you have added to information on the Roman Catholic Church, you will force me to raise the question with an administrator. If the result is imposition on you of some sanction because of your persistence, I will not be glad. On the other hand, if in spite of my expectation the decision is that you are free to add such tags, that will free me to add tags for POV, OR, CN etc. to your edits, something that EdJohnston did not allow. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand that you suffer from WP:YOU CAN'T HEAR ME.. I will repeat again take this up with Ed Johnston. Please stay off of my talk page.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but by Wikipedia rules I am obliged to put the following on your talk page: Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Theoria - Original Research[edit]

I have added my comments. I agree with you. Esolgou is undertaking original research on the Catholic idea of Theoria. Montalban (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You, Montalban. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East–West Schism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Filioque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Who? (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Filioque[edit]

Thank you for asking me to look at the Filioque discussion. I do not watch that page. Your argument seems valid.

I can represent the position of A as A'. Then I can say "but X thinks the position of A is X' " I would need a real good citation(s) for the second statement!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah Aristotle.. OK. Any of your input is as always very appreciated. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, LoveMonkey. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page.
Message added 15:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In celebration of our Lord's resurrection[edit]

I'd say something about a Western pagan festival beginning with the letter "E" but I know you object to that so I will just say "Happy Pascha". He is risen! Alleluia.


Richard

Well my pessimism all the same, Pascha for the East isn't until May. But with all of the ugliness in this world I'll take whatever fraternity I can get.. Indeed Christ is Risen! Love and Glorify Him! LoveMonkey (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You look pretty active to me[edit]

Given all the edits I'm seeing I have to wonder why you are saying that you are retired. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll stop then.. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please LoveMonkey reconsider. At least not because of the reason of the comment above. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I have my reason for that tag to be there. So respectively so let's leave it at that. However I am always here for Dr K. 20:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much LoveMonkey. I think that it should be of no concern to others what one displays on their userpage and I hope you continue your valued contributions here for the betterment of Wikipedia. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I submitted an WP:SPI request about this IP: [8]. You may compare with his previous activities [9] and comment if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I really would like to incorporate some of the info provided if it checks out..But so far well, it doesn't. This person is just edit warring and I am so completely grateful for your help. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
How about that one? My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You are or at least appear to be correct in seeing similarities in the behavior of this editor. The IP is also canvasing [10] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This is certainly the same user as in my previous request. Did you see the source he appeals a lot to at article talk page? Do you read Russian? If you roll down, this book appears: Бобков Ф.Д. "Agents". Believe or not, but I read this book. Let's tell just for starters, author claims that persecution of Jews in the USSR was a fault of the International Zionism. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I wish to thank you both, for your efforts in improving that article. Regarding the edit-warring issue, I noticed the clerk who declined the SPI case, has suggested semi-protecting the article instead. In that case, I think a request for semi-protection should be made, at least if the IP continues edit-warring. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You can try to ask to semi-protect an article here. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I saw your questions [11]. Yes, they already know who you are because every time you click on their website they register your IP address. Do not be surprised if your PC breaks down or your emails are stolen. That happens. And not only that. Now, speaking more to the point, if you have any questions about sources, the place to ask is here. If you go there, something like this will be probably identified as RS. Keep in mind that links are not sources per se. They are made only for convenience of a reader. For example, the actual reference here will be one of the books listed when you scroll it down; everything would be probably qualified as RS, but one must provide exact citation with pages. A lot of stuff has been produced in Russia, enough to prove whatever. This is an industry, and it works in many different ways. For example, Russian police fabricate fake statistics of crime; this statistics then go to UN and returns back here as official UN data. As about Dyukov, this is only one of the guys. Look at Yuri Zhukov (historian), author of "Handbook of Stalinist"; this is a book how to argue with people who are not Stalinists. How to deal with it? Do not go to any noticeboards, unless you absolutely must. Do not waste your time in prolonged discussions. Focus on actual editing of articles and improvement of content, whenever and wherever you can. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

minor edits[edit]

Please revise your habit of tagging substantive edits as minor. You have been making large and substantive edits (eg East West Schism) and tagging the diffs as minor. I'm sure its just an oversight, but it is inaccurate and somewhat disconcerting. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh man I am so tired of all this drama on Wiki its posting like this that push me to retire from here. Thanks for being annoyed at my contributions and sharing it with me here. Being pedantic about my good faith contributions is just the best way to encourage me to contribute! Sorry if I hurt your sensibilities to hell with mine. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Drama? Er, I just thought that maybe you had some sort of glitch that was automatically putting "minor" everytime you edited. I don't really care. It was just odd. Forget I asked. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If you don't care then stop posting on my page. It looks like harassment and I have never engaged you on any of the articles I have worked on nor the almost decade I have contributed here. So stop. If you have nothing nice to say, go report it to the proper notice board on here. I have done nothing to you and have no idea where you come from. So stop. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Here's to you not worrying about wikidrama. :) Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are doing nor do I need you to continue. So please stop. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Filioque[edit]

Re this comment: does the edit not fall under item 2 of the editing restriction, "Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice"? (And I'm not trying to make Barth a Catholic.) Drmies (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

When was that modification made? 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is the restrictions.
  • 1.Esoglou will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.
  • 2.Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice.
It was agreed upon that any such contribution would not be to Orthodox sections of the articles that Esoglou edits. Thats great that Esoglou can now edit on Eastern Orthodox content and that his restriction is just that he has to attribute his non-sense as sourced opinion. LoveMonkey 19:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with the ban or any modification thereof; I'm just asking. If you have a problem with it, WP:AN is probably the place to address it and I encourage you to do so. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is about the best summary of the tactics that Wikipedia allows Esoglou to engage in. [12] I did not write that one but I agree. Ed Johnston worded the restriction from the perspective that Esoglou would not contribute to sections designated as Orthodox and that Eosglou could contribute to articles that share or over lap between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox in sections not specific to Orthodox perspectives. That way Esoglou was restricted from going into sections of articles and editing Orthodox positions. He could however go to sections where it was not one or the other and that is where number 2 above applies. LoveMonkey 19:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
See also User talk:EdJohnston#Esoglou edit restrictions. LM's summary (above) is a bit hard to follow. I suggest rereading the language of WP:RESTRICT. The restrictions have been in place for over two years and nothing has changed recently. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Except now they no longer restrict Esoglou from edit warring, POV pushing, citation tag abusing Orthodox theological content. LoveMonkey 22:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

purged from membership[edit]

A week ago I noticed the retirement notice on your user page and purged your name (along with many long-standing inactives) from the Eastern Orthodoxy Project membership list. But I've run into your recent activities, so I just restored your name to the list. I thought I should let you know what was going on, in case you had noticed and wondered. Evenssteven (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I get it I get it I should leave I understand. I posted that I am retired. I am retired. I should never contribute here again. Go ahead and remove me from your project. LoveMonkey 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you don't get it at all. I'm new; I thought you had changed your mind. I intended to welcome you back. Evenssteven (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I get IT! I am leaving[edit]

Sweet Mother of God. I get it, I will stop contributing. People here keep harassing me to go. LoveMonkey 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages[edit]

Since you have over 100 edits at Fyodor Dostoyevsky, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your signature on the edit warring subboard[edit]

LoveMonkey, your signature on the edit warring sub-board didn't have any links back to you (WP:SIG requires this ). I've temporarily corrected that. I would suggest you return to your message remove my correction and replace it by signing with four tildes ->> ~~~~ .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)