User talk:Phatius McBluff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello Phatius McBluff! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 08:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Wikimedia.png

Eternal return[edit]

Hi, Phatius. I was copyeding your Eternal return (Eliade), and then noticed that a lot of the text appears to be original research. Could you please see my questions on the article's talk page? Dahn 12:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Dahn 23:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional newcomer Barnstar[edit]

For your valuable contributions to the category Mircea Eliade, I, Timor Stultorum present you with the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Keep up the good work!

--Timor Stultorum 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mircea Eliade[edit]

Hi. This category is up for deletion, and there is a vote in respect to this. It seems to me that people rushed into proposing it: they did not check to see how many red links existed in the parent article, did not realize that there were several people able to fill the gaps, and were themselves not aware of the fact that Eliade was more than a University of Chicago professor (for better or worse). It also strikes me as odd that most people who voted admit that the number of articles could easily expand, but basically argue that the category is too small for now (this is painfully counterproductive: not only would one have to track down the individual articles once the cat is recreated, but there is a risk that a category which was voted into deletion once could be permanently deleted if recreated, based on the assumption that it goes against consensus, and regardless of the fact that it was never opposed on principle). In case you're interested in the debate, please cast your vote following the link in the template at the top of the category page. Dahn 17:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Levi-strauss1.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Levi-strauss1.JPG. The copy called Image:Levi-strauss1.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Myth and ritual[edit]

Hi Phatius, the article is clearly in a early stage of development, I don't think that removing infos that it is missing can help. But I'm sure your edits are in good faith :) --BMF81 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Hem, sorry, I didn't see you just moved it :D --BMF81 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

mythology slogan[edit]

Welcome to the mythology project I am glad you joined recently. We have similar interest. Maybe we can work a little bit together on the slogan. Can you show some revisions to the slogan idea on the talk page? ...ultimately it might work best to have several slogal variations - one for the articles that no one ever finds controversial like "dragons", and one for living religion articles that tend to dispute the word "myth". I have a source but need to order it through inter-library transfer that may help the living religion articles. I also wonder if you might be the person to assess my 3 mythology articles? Tanfana, Weisse Frauen and Dames Blanches (folklore). I have left a request for someone to assess my recent work. Goldenrowley 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the star. Thank you also for reading my 3 articles and commenting. I highly appreciated the observations. I loved Eliade's book Myth and Reality, glad you're expanding on him. Goldenrowley 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Materialism[edit]

Dear Mr McBluff, I have referred to you on a comment on the discussion page of Wikipedia's "materialism". I look forward to your response. Mlofts 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)M. Lofts

Dear Mr McBluff, my apologies. I presume I forgot to press the 'save' button. This time I have pressed it - and left a spelling error in for you to correct. Looking forward to your reply. Mlofts 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)M. Lofts


Hylo hello[edit]

I heard, I saw, I answered, moderately I hope. I got nothing against God. What's he got against me? Why is he trying to kill me? (joke). I think we share an interest in mythology. My main concern though is how to keep it out of history. Anyway, I'm just letting you know I did answer. I won't be on the article for a while. I'm doing a little biological writing.Dave 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well...[edit]

Hi, and sorry for the delay (I was less active than usual). What happened was that the new bit of text was originally added to its own section (which was simply weird) and the work cited was passed for a "further reading" instead of a source. Therefore, I modified the text and added it as a source, as best I could, and requested page numbers in my edit summary. I would still like to see page numbers myself, but I'm not sure that the paragraph in question needs them - meaning that, for all we know, the entire book may elaborate on such criticism, and, technically, any page number could be given. I know how I would deal with that case and still manage to provide page numbers (for example, I would quote directly from the text with statements that summarize longer sections) but I do not know if lack of page numbers would necessarily discredit the current citations. I guess you could say I did some emergency surgery and am waiting to see if the patient will recover. Dahn 15:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish mythology[edit]

Hi Phatius. You tipped me off that "Jewish mythology" was page blanked and redirected recently. See discussion I began on Wikiproject Mythology. Goldenrowley 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I feel at a loss for words. I want to reciprocate, but that would seem artificial (as if prompted by the fact that you gave me one). The fact is that you deserve a special barnstar, one that would illustrate how so much progress can be achieved by fusing different interests and perspectives into one coherent article. It is obvious that you had the more difficult part to deal with: a summary of a researcher's entire work, which you have handled brilliantly (especially considering that Eliade's work is among the more difficult to summarize).

I do owe you some explanations. I always regarded the "Eternal return" article as an excellent idea, and I could see right away that you were a competent editor (and quite possibly one of this project's most competent). I made the quick comments precisely to smooth out the few problems I saw in it, and I was pleasantly surprised by your prompt response and the fact that we instantly agreed. I must apologize for seeming cranky at the time (though I was aiming more for expeditious). The fact is that, at that moment in time, I was growing quite tired with all the hubbab on the talk page, and this unease probably poured (unintentionally so) into my comments on related issues. I was being harassed, stalked, and mudslinged by various editors, all of whom knew Eliade was a great scientist (and therefore could not have been a fascist), even though they could not name a single contribution by Eliade without resorting to platitudes. The ridiculous page moves, the endless discussions about terms in languages they do not master, the removal of sourced information, the verdict according to which material discussed by academics is trivial because it involves Eliade's sex life, the implication that a researcher has a bias because he is Jewish, and the occasional rewrites to strong neofascist content were getting to me. Your edits were not only a breath of fresh air, but, together with feedback from a precious few other editors, they effectively silenced the agitated crowd and got us over the crux.

I shall soon become involved in another project, on an unrelated topic, which will absorb my energies. I do have an image of how the new edits on Eliade will look like, but I'm still missing the essential book by Lovinescu, which will create a nice background for all the other details, from the talk page links and from elsewhere, to fit into. Regardless of other edits, as soon as I do get hold of it, it shall be the main priority - since you expressed an interest in them, I can only hope I'm not abusing your patience. Thank you again. Best, Dahn 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I did some more research into Eliade (moving at a slow pace, but eventually getting to add the missing section). I was able to find quite elaborate material on his philosophic ideas before he was actually involved in writing his main works on the history of religion, the subject of his early essays, and not in any way connected with his academic activity. I was going to ask you: when I eventually add this stuff, should I modify the "Philosophy or religions" section and turn into "Philosophy", adding the new material in a separate section at the top? Or do you believe some other solution is in order? Best, Dahn 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree 99%. The one part I would amend is the titles for the subsections. I would rather go with a your part being under a "Philosophy of religion" title, and the one I'll eventually add under "Early contributions" or something like that. Splitting it into "academic" and "non-academic" parts would be slightly inaccurate: he's was, after all, an academic at a faculty of philosophy back in the 30s, so he was probably contributing as a, shall we say, professional philosopher. Since, during that part of his career, he was only marginally involved in studying religion, I suppose my alternative would not be itself inaccurate. Of course, this may change depending on what sources tell me :). Don't worry about the pace: I myself only added stuff in the recent weeks because I came across it while editing other articles. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the inuse tag - I didn't mean to have it around for so long. I am working on an expansion to cover his literary work, which I would have added earlier - the thing is that I had some hardware problems in the process. I'm actually glad this blunder of mine didn't prevent you from adding to the text in the meantime. Feel free to remove the tag at your convenience (it just occurred to me you may find it useful, in case you want to expand it as we go). I'll just add mine in one edit, which will hopefully not interfere with yours.

Did you perchance look over what I added so far? Please feel free to make any copyedits you see fit, or let me know if it requires further clarification, context, etc. Dahn (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The hardware problems I mentioned meant that I had to restart the computer. I logged back in, and didn't check to see if my previous message was still around, which is why I inadvertandly left you two messages saying the same. Consider the following as my backup copy :) :

Sorry for the inuse tag, I hope it didn't cause you any inconvenience. I am working on an expansion to cover his literary works, but it took me longer than I had planned and, because of hardware problems, I couldn't remove the tag. I'm glad it did not refrain you for editing, and, in any case, you could still keep it around if you need it. I'll just add from my side in one major edit to occur sometime soon, so I don't really need it any longer. Please feel free to edit any part of the text as you see fit, and let me know if you think my earlier expansion agrees with what you had in mind for the article (if it does not, then just change it as you see fit). Sorry again, and thanks. Dahn (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to say that, at this point, we've got at least something on all of Eliade's facets. Much more is needed to cover his literary works (especially the recent ones), and I'm working on finding some proper sources for this. Of course, there's no pressure on you to look over my additions - feel free to comment on them whenever you have the time, and I'll respond as soon as I can.
And, yes, that source would be a great addition. I'm looking forward to seeing the article develop further. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mythology ref removals[edit]

Sorry, but I was the one who removed the refs. They were just words with no sources, and I had not looked in the ref section because no page numbers were included. My apologies for any misunderstanding--Meieimatai 22:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Culture[edit]

I know this is not exactly your field, but up till yesterday I thought this article was an awful mess. It flunked a general review, thought I did not think the suggestions were very helpful. I just did a major overhaul (my explanation for what I did is on the bottom of the talk page or should be). I know it is better than what it was earlier today. But it still needs a LOT of improvement. If you have time can you look over it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks! To answer your question, well, there are a few reasons. First, it seems to me that from your edits you can tell the difference between a popular opinion and scholarly research. People use the word "culture" all the time and thus many think they are therefore experts on the term and can make substantive edits to the Culture article ... which is one reason why the article became a disaster; I believe people need to work on it who can tell the difference between common and popular beliefs and leading scholarship. Second, although it seems like your main interest is comparative religion, you have worked on articles on topics of anthropological concern, so you clearly have some familiarity with anthropology. Besides, scholars of comparative religion must discuss the meanings of "culture" too. Finally - you once edited the article on Adolf Bastian. Verrrrry few people here know anything about him, but he played a crucial role in the development of modern anthropology and modern academic notions of culture. If you have any books or articles about them you have resources that may directly help improve the article. Even if you don't I'd still welcome your edits! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
My reply. In short: I did not mention Levi-Strauss because his ideas about culture all come from Bastian and Boas, and have similarities to Radcliffe-Brown; my point is that his definition of culture is not original and recognizable to anyone working within the traditions I lay out (his real contribution is to our understanding of the task of anthropology, so I thought adding him would make it even more "too anthropological") If my answers to your other concerns is too eliptical, let me know.
I appreciate your edits. i realize it is a lot, but if you wouldn't mind going over a section at a time, every few days, and making edits for clarity, you would be improving the article significantly! And if you see any other substantive problems, let me know. The article needs to be comprehensibl to others, and you are really helping Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have added many citations and an explanation of structuralism. I hope my response doesn't sound defensive. i know my prose is often overwrought and definitely appreciate your making edits, even if you go over it bit by bit over a period of time. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent message! If you don't mind my venting for a minute (NONE of this is directed at you!!!) ... I have put a lot of work into that article, and intend to put in more as it needs a section on research into the evolution of culture. Judging from activity over the past few years, every once in a while someone would come along and add something that they read in Time magazine or saw on television or learned in a high school course. I have tried to identify Wikipedians who have expertise in linguistics, cultural studies, and anthropology and so far none of them have put any work into the article. I think the real problem is that there are very few Wikipedians who really have expertise in these fields. I really want Wikipedia to have as top-notch article on the subject, but I feel like I have to do it by myself. That is mostly my just venting about a problem at Wikipedia, that we do not have as active editors enough experts in a diverse set of fields. But it is also why I am very grateful that you are willing to check in from time to time even if it is just to copy-edit one paragraph each time. So far you are the only other person willing to put any time at all into making it better. I really appreciate that! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


I think you made good edits today - as before, real improvements. Thanks!

Please see my note below to Alottolearn. I fear she has not done much research on the scholarship on culture, and will make cuts based on serious misunderstandings. I did add a great deal of content yesterday on primate culture and the evolution of culture but this was in direct response to comments by user:Pilcha in the GA review of the Culture article requesting coverage of that scholarship. I went to the most notable sources, and have provided an account of the most notable views ... that's our policy, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Major culture edits[edit]

I see from the history of edits of Culture that

  • it has grown even longer today with the addition of material on biological etc aspects, and
  • you have today been making some edits to that new material

It seems to me the article is too long (at 102kb), and too much of a history of American anthropology. Just thought I'd let you know that I have also been working intensively today on all the later secions of the article, shortening them significantly, and removing some off-the-topic and/or unreferenced material. I expect to bring my edits back into the aarticle in about three hours from now.--AlotToLearn (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's taking longer than I thought, so I'll not be able to transfer the edits until tomorrow.--AlotToLearn (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a major problem in accusing the article of being "American centric." That would be like accusing an article on research in outer space of being American centric. So far the US is the only country to have landed on the moon and has sent the vast majority of satellites to the outer planets. It is inevitable that an article on this topic would devote a good deal of space to US activities. But this would not make the article "non-global" since the US government has shared what it has learned (and in some cases its facilities) with researchers from other countries. This is even moreso for the concept of culture. In the twentieth century a great deal of academic research has taken place concerning "culture" and the vast majority of it by anthropologists and for a variety of reasons, the vast majority of anthropologists who have written about "culture" are American. There is no way to mask this fact. But the research produced by Americans has been influenced by research by people from other countries, and has influenced researchers in other countries, and the article makes this clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated[edit]

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

re Christian mythology[edit]

Because of the heated debate that has arisen over the word "myth" in religious articles, there are a number of editors who have misunderstood or misrepresented my position. I am actually a lot closer to your position than you realise and am more than willing to work constructively on the Christian mythology article. I am certainly not "anti-myth". It is my view that the word has a place amongst most religious articles - all I have been asking is that it is used properly - i.e. that context makes it clear what is meant by the word. My initial reaction to the Christian mythology article was one of sheer horror because the current version simply includes (sometimes by inference) the whole of the Bible as examples of mythology. This is patent nonsense. "Religious story" is not a sub-set of "myth". The two have distinct uses that frequently overlap.

The issue over the definition of myth is a tricky one. I would like to see the main article (Mythology) used by the community to build a consensus definition. If this could be achieved then we would at least have a situation where "clicking the link" would lead to a consistent definition. Once that definition is established, then we can look at all other articles where the word is used and "weed out" those that do no conform to that definition.

That said, I recognise that the term is used differently in different fields. This can often be dealt with simply by identifying the type of myth. Rather than "Noah's Ark is a myth", stating "Noah's Ark is an Aetiological myth". A user reading the first may get the wrong idea; a reader looking at the second will either understand what an 'aetiological myth' is or will click the link to find out. In the former case, the reader believes that he "knows" what a myth is and will not click the link to find out. (I do not, however, believe that the above is a good solution to that article's lead - it is just an example)

Whilst no set definition of myth exists, on the Christian mythology article a lot of work can be done to identify: 1) what type of myth each story is; 2) who uses the term in that way and 3) which stories should not be included (such as the Babylonian invasion - currently covered in "the period of the prophets" but universally agreed to be "history").

Once these identifications have been made, proper references can be included and the text reworked to reflect them. The "categorisation" idea you suggested earlier would be a good way to do this, but I am open to other suggestions.

You may be aware that this issue is now at ArbCom. I will be concentrating on that for the time being, but will keep an eye on developments at Christian mythology.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New section[edit]

Thanks for the kind defense. Cmiych (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Medieval hylomorphism[edit]

Most definitely. Note, although I heartily approve what you are doing I do not swear never to make any changes to those articles. You got my approval however if you needed it.Dave (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Essence-Energies distinction[edit]

Please assume Good Faith. You edit summary stated that the conclusions where dubious. I have sourced them. I also am not alone in this perception. [1] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

maybe you can help[edit]

Hi. Currently there is work going on at potentiality and actuality. One section which needs work I am not very qualified for is trying to improve the section on uses after Aristotle. I see you've edited or commented on subjects related before. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology: Your input requested[edit]

I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for seeking my input! I've added some comments to a new section on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, I lack the time and energy right now to engage much further with this issue. I hope that my comments are of some help to the involved parties. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hell in Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]

Moss's source is undue weight. Also it is blog. Esoglou edit warred that the blogs can not be used as valid sources on Wikipedia. So the article River of Fire could not be used either. The Oxford source you have does not trump nor is considered a valid source in the Orthodox Church as I can not think of a single Orthodox church that uses it to validate or teach their theology, that is why I added what the OCA website has a valid teaching. Also Esoglou and Richard have edit warred over George Metallinos (esoglou has tried to portray him as anti-European) and removed him from mention when they added these parts from the article Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences. His passage below mysteriously disappeared from wikipedia in the transition and neither Editor reposted or re-enstated it.

"The experience of paradise or hell is beyond words or the senses. It is an uncreated reality, and not a created one. The Latins invented the myth that paradise and hell are both created realities. It is a myth that the damned will not be able to look upon God; just as the "absence of God" is equally a myth. The Latins had also perceived the fires of hell as something created. Orthodox Tradition has remained faithful to the Scriptural claim that the damned shall see God (like the rich man of the parable), but will perceive Him only as "an all-consuming fire". The Latin scholastics accepted hell as punishment and the deprivation of a tangible vision of the divine essence. Biblically and patristically however, "hell" is understood as man's failure to cooperate (synergy) with Divine Grace, in order to reach the illuminating vision of God (which is paradise) and unselfish love (following 1Cor.13:8): "love….. does not demand any reciprocation"). Consequently, there is no such thing as "God's absence," only His presence. That is why His Second Coming is dire ("O, what an hour it will be then", we chant in the Praises of Matins). It is an irrefutable reality, toward which Orthodoxy is permanently oriented ("I anticipate the resurrection of the dead…")"[2]

Also the most accurate source of the teaching as endorsed by Thomas Hopko of the OCA is Chopelas [3] It too is not allowed as per Esoglou arguing on the valid sources noticeboard. However it is consistent with what is taught in church. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) [4]

Hi LoveMonkey. Please feel free to revise the article if you feel that I have given Moss undue weight. If Moss really must go completely because it's a blog, then so be it. I can't believe that "River of Fire" can't be used. It may be posted in blogs, but it itself isn't a blog. Can't the Oxford source at least be used as one statement of the hell-as-God's-glory interpretation? It's clearly a published source from a reputable publisher. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I must say the Moss is inaccurate and missing critical understanding. It appears to be written by someone for fun and not really anyone someone taking the whole teaching in context. Maybe Moss seeks ecumenism with the West. Who knows. I will say that the ignorance of the light of God is one of the things that light burns. As for revising if I do it it will trigger another edit war with Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes. I hope that they reflect your concerns. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

PS[edit]

Whom do I report a dead internal link to.. Yuri Samarin has a portrait that seems to not want to surface on his bio article. [5] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I can't help with that. I'm not sure who can. Perhaps you should get a hold of an administrator. I'm not really part of the "Wikipedia community", so I don't know many administrators, but the first one who comes to mind is User:Dbachmann. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On Baron Meyendorff and Palamas[edit]

Here is a very nice and of course flawed account of Palamas by the Baron.[6] Meyendorff's is rejected as a valid theologian. Not because of any thing he stated about East and West (this is actually in my opinion the most accurate and general view of the Orthodox). As such I will defend it in the article (though it is too rosie to be completely accurate). However for the more mature, Bradshaws' book is much more Western and I support his approach. The Greek Orthodox can not accept that the Baron made such an obvious mistake with his teachings of Palamas that he did as such, he is not really a valid theology per se in the Orthodox church (Schmemann also has been treated critically by Greek theologians).[7], [8] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Request your opinion at Talk:Essence-Energies distinction[edit]

I know you declared you were taking a break. However, Esoglou and I would really appreciate getting your opinion on a proposal that I have made viz. a splitting of the article into Essence-Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology) and Essence-Energies distinction. If you have time, please look at the sections titled Esoglou's reorganization of the article and proposed move to Essence-Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology). There are not too many people who have shown an interest in this article and so it would be really useful to get your opinion (which Esoglou and I value highly) before making a major move such as this one. Thanks in advance for your help. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

From Esoglou[edit]

Thanks for taking an interest. I think it quite possible that Taiwan boi will not actually present his RfC. He seems to have been trying since 18 December to gather material for his effort privately, by arranging to contact by e-mail rather than on open Wikipedia pages people that he thinks are hostile to me (see his user contributions).

May I also comment on your Exhibits A, B, and C about me on your User page? Please don't think I am annoyed. It was right of you, indeed good of you to indicate your thoughts, and I am fully aware that I sometimes overstep and that I also at times fail to explain myself properly. I have full confidence in your openness to the explanations I give when called upon to give them.

A. These edits were not meant to be about Eastern theology. They were not made to a section about Eastern theology. They were made to a section headed "Theological discrepancies between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity" and in response to LoveMonkey's citation requests about Western theology, and so, naturally, they were from Western sources. As you see, my edits were immediately removed, reviving the "cn" requests to which I had replied, and giving the impression that they had not been answered.

B. I did not leave the sources the same. I removed all three that spoke of attributes: the main Pohle citation, the Mercier citation, the Labauch citation. My aim was to keep only the sources that spoke of energies. Yes, I did keep a citation of a Pohle page (one page, not the whole section) that explicitly said that Palamas was upholding a real distinction. I thought there was a very good reason for keeping it in the fact that it was you, not I, who had inserted that reference to Pohle's statement that for Palamas the distinction between God's essence and energies – yes you did write "energies" – is a real distinction.

C. I mistakenly thought the meaning was obvious. I have since clarified the meaning. Esoglou (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I hope you don't think I'm upset with you or anything.
Looking back at Exhibit C, I realize that your remark about St Paul was actually a relevant response to LM (although the tangent as a whole was irrelevant to the issue on hand, which was of course LM's fault). I have removed Exhibit C from my comment. I also corrected Exhibit B.
I've been unable to verify the truth of what you said about Exhibit A. If you look at the edit history here, it seems to indicate that the edits that I objected to (the Aquinas stuff, etc.) were made to a section titled "Eastern Orthodox Church". I don't want to tell you to go hunt down an elusive edit log that would vindicate you (you of course have no obligation to respond to me at all). But since I criticize LM in my comment, I feel, as a matter of principle, that I should keep my criticism of you in my comment unless you provide evidence to refute it.
Again, thanks for your reply. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A. Just get again the edit that you linked to, then search for the phrase "the illumination of contemplation", and you will find that my edit was indeed done in the part of the article that has the heading "Theological discrepancies between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity" and the subheading "Relation between being a contemplative and being a theologian". You will also find there the three "citation needed"s to which I responded, and which were restored when my responses to them were (characteristically) reverted in a manner that you thought was justified.
B. I disagree with but will not argue about your view on this. I will only say that I still think that it is legitimate to use, for the purpose of illustrating the different kinds of distinction (real, virtual, formal ...) the examples given with regard to their application to the distinction between the attributes and the essence of God. I did mention as another example that by which "real" and "virtual" are applied to the distinction between the human and the divine nature of Christ. But in my opinion that example (like others that could be cited) is a much less suitable illustration than the more elaborate and detailed accounts in the cited examples related to the attributes of God - even apart from the fact (which nobody questions) that the divine energies are one type (the active category) of attributes of God. But since your opinion is different, I thought it best to remove entirely even those examples.
C. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A. Ah, I see. Thanks. I'll remove that too.
B. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think WP:SYN clearly applies here. Anyway, thanks for caving on this issue; it definitely demonstrates a willingness to compromise.
C. No problem. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should stress here too that my latest comment on divine energies as divine attributes is not meant for argument or action, but only as clarification of what I said before. As you said, we can agree to disagree. Esoglou (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Editing" in blank lines so you can link to the diff[edit]

I was wondering what you were doing with those edits but now I understand that you wanted a diff that you could link to. Perhaps this was really necessary but I'm just wondering if there wasn't a simpler way to get what you wanted without all those "inserting blank lines" edits which were mildly annoying.

If you want to link to a subsection of a page (article or talk), all you have to do is go to the page and click on the desired section or subsection. The URL box of your browser will then display a URL which links to that section or subsection. Then, all you have to do is put the URL inside single square brackets like this and you're done.

Now, it may be that you wanted to link to just part of a section in which case your game with the extra blank lines may have been the only way to accomplish that objective.

I just wanted to make sure that you hadn't wound up inventing a fancy way to do something that could be accomplished in a much simpler way.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that linking by your method unreliable because it doesn't carry over after discussion sections have been archived. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but that's what I remember hearing. (It may even say that in the intro to RfCs.) Anyway, yes, there is another, less invasive way, which is to simply find the edit that you want to cite in the edit history and link to that, like so. However, doing that can be mildly annoying and time-consuming. If you consider my "editing" method disruptive, I can stop... --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Well, if you did it a lot, I would squawk more. If it's just for a few edits, it's OK. You're right that my method doesn't carry over after discussion sections have been archived and unfortunately contentious discussion pages do tend to get long and thus have short archive time windows. If that is your reason, it makes better sense to me now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC draft[edit]

My RfC draft was based on someone else's text, which I am gradually replacing with my own. I have no intention of including WP:POINT in the final RfC. I have an objection to people hacking up my draft with their personal attacks on other editors (WP:COAT), publicizing my draft as if it's the final version, and questioning me about statements which I do not intend to include in the draft. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I can assure you there are no hard feelings on my end. 2. Picture yourself in my place, putting together a page which I identify clearly as a place where I am "logging my links", and having it edited by people asking why I am doing X, Y, and Z without actually first asking me what I'm doing, without discussing the issue with me, and who acknowledge that they have no experience at all with the situation under discussion. I apologize for coming across very strongly, but perhaps you can see why I was more than taken aback by this. 3. The RfC is being brought by me. It is not being brought by LoveMonkey; he isn't even involved in the disputes over the two articles I cite as the cause of the RfC. It is not being brought by myself and LoveMonkey. It is not being brought by Leadwind, swampyank, or anyone else. It is being brought by me. This being the case, I took exception to a lengthy digression on the evils of LoveMonkey instead of the topic of the RfC. 4. I can fully appreciate your concerns with LM's conduct, and I have objected to it in the past myself. I even recommended that he cease from editing a particular article due to the friction caused by his involvement. However, I am prepared to cut LM more slack than Esoglou because regardless of his incivility he does not push his own POV, he is far more ready to discuss edits with other editors, he does not wikihound others, he consistently edits in good faith, and he does not demonstrate persistently obstructive behaviour. None of this can be said of Esoglou.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "those who were involved in the baptism-article disputes and who are thus in a position to endorse Taiwan boi's account of those events (e.g. Swampyank)". Leadwind was involved in the baptism article disputes. I've even linked to his contributions in the baptism article, and he mentions the fact that he had been in conflict with Esoglou over the baptism article for months. Why do you claim he wasn't involved in the baptism article disputes?--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad. That was a mistake. I'll go fix it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I realise there's a lot of text and it's easy to overlook some details.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Essence-Energies distinction[edit]

Since this exchange pertains to an issue which you raised, could you take a look at it and comment? Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring notice[edit]

Please see here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you seemed to give semi-credence to Taiwan boi's accusations, please read my user page. Esoglou (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a distinct matter, which however does not merit a new section all for itself, you may perhaps be interested in the latest edits to User talk:EdJohnston#Wording of the restriction about Orthodox/Catholic editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your request[edit]

Thanks, I will do that.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Request from Steven Todd Kaster[edit]

I see that nobody has responded to Steven Todd Kaster's sensible request on Talk:Filioque. For fear I might again unwittingly transgress, I will not do so myself, even here on your talk page. Anybody else should be able to do it with the help of this complete transcription of the original of the English translation that the article is drawing on, a transcription in which I have bolded the instances of the verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι and προϊέναι that appear in the paragraph included in the article. I think it likely that STK could do it himself even without that transcription, since he cites the two words ἐκπόρευσιν and προϊέναι in their exact grammatical form as in the text.

Ἀμέλει τοι γοῦν τοῦ νῦν ἁγιοτάτου Πάπα συνοδικῶν, οὐκ ἐν τοσούτοις, ὅσοις γεγράφατε, κεφαλαίοις, οἱ τῆς βασιλίδος τῶν πόλεων ἐπελάβοντο· δυσὶ δὲ μόνοις, ὧν, τὸ μὲν ὑπάρχει περὶ θεολογίας, ὅτι τε φησὶν εἶπεν, «Ἐκπορεύεσθαι κἀκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον·» τὸ δὲ ἄλλο, περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως· ὅτιπερ γέγραφε· «Δίχα τὸν Κύριον εἶναι τῆς προπατορικῆς ἁμαρτίας ὡς ἄνθρωπον.» Καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον, συμφώνους παρήγαγον χρήσεις τῶν Ῥωμαίων Πατέρων· ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἐκ τῆς πονηθείσης αὐτῷ εἰς τὸν εὐαγγελίστην ἅγιον Ἰωάννην ἱερᾶς πραγματείας· ἐξ ὧν, οὐκ αἰτίαν τὸν Υἱὸν ποιοῦντας τοῦ Πνεύματος, σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἀπέδειξαν· μίαν γὰρ ἴσασιν Υἱοῦ καὶ Πνεύματος τὸν Πατέρα αἰτίαν· τοῦ μὲν κατὰ τὴν γέννησιν· τοῦ δὲ, κατὰ τὴν ἐκπόρευσιν· ἀλλ' ἵνα τὸ δι' αὐτοῦ προϊέναι δηλώσωσι· καὶ ταύτῃ τὸ συναφὲς τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον παραστήσωσι.
(...)
Οὗτοι μὲν οὖν ταῦτα, περὶ ὧν οὐκ εὐλόγως ἀνεκλήθησαν· ἐκεῖνοι δὲ περὶ ὧν καὶ μάλα δικαίως, οὐδεμίαν μέχρι καὶ νῦν πεποίηνται τὴν ἀπολογίαν, ὅτι μηδὲ τὴν παρεισαχθέντων τῶν ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἐκβολήν. Μεθερμηνεύειν δὲ τὰ οἰκεῖα, τοῦ τὰς ὑποκλοπὰς χάριν διαφυγεῖν τῶν ὑποπιπτόντων κατὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν κέλευσιν, παρεκάλεσα τοὺς Ῥωμαίους· πλὴν ἔθους κεκρακηκότος οὕτω ποιεῖν καὶ στέλλειν, οὐκ οἶδα τυχὸν εἰ πιστεῖεν. Ἄλλως τε τὸ μὴ οὑτως δύνασθαι διακριβοῦν ἐν ἄλλῃ λέξει σὲ καὶ φωνῇ τὴν ἑαυτῶν νοῦν ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καὶ θρεψαμένῃ, καθάπερ οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τῇ καθ' ἡμᾶς τὸν ἡμέτερον. Γενήσεται δὲ πάντως αὐτοῖς, πείρᾳ τὴν ἐπήρειαν μαθοῦσι, καὶ ἡ περὶ τούτου φροντίς. Esoglou (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I haven't replied sooner. Based on a brief glance, Kaster's proposal looks reasonable to me too. Unfortunately, I can't read a word of Greek; I'm not sure which part of the article Kaster is talking about; and having a huge block of Greek text in front of me (even with the pertinent words bolded) is making my head hurt. Perhaps I'm just being lazy. However, I sort of feel that it would be bad form for me to make the edit you describe, given that it would be a completely mechanical, uncomprehending edit on my part. Why don't you ask someone else, e.g. Richard, about this? Or, if you can't get anyone else to help you, why don't you ask Ed or Taiwan boi for a green light to edit it yourself? As long as you're upfront about it, I can't imagine what they would complain about; the worst thing that could happen is that they would say no. If anyone tries to raise a fuss about you merely asking for permission, I'll come to your defense. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Query[edit]

As you well know, it was agreed that

LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice.
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.

I don't think it was a direct violation of the agreement for LoveMonkey to restore a vandalistic edit that I believed it was my duty to undo. (I can find no reference anywhere to the supposed "Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon", who allegedly burned numerous cathedrals, actions resulting in a hatred and revenge that gave rise to the Church of Rome under Charlemagne and his successors!) But I do not think that LoveMonkey's restoration of that edit, with a claim in the edit summary that I know John Romanides made this strange statement and it can be sourced, was, to say the least, good Wikipedia practice. Admittedly, LoveMonkey soon removed the reference to the curious Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon, but he then inserted the claim, "It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose", an unattributed claim about the Roman Catholic Church that I suspect is a violation of the agreement. (Before LoveMonkey's editing today, the unsourced statement was that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose out of obscurity", not that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose". That statement was questioned since March 2009, but now LoveMonkey has removed the "citation needed" tag, having inserted as a footnote a long quotation from Romanides that does not say that the Church of Rome arose only under Charlemagne and his successors, but is instead an attack on Augustine, the "Franks" and the "Franco-Latin papacy".)

With this edit LoveMonkey inserted eleven paragraphs, which I presume are a long quotation from Romanides, but he did not "in the body of the article" clearly attribute the eleven paragraphs to Romanides, nor did he clearly identify them as opinion, rather than as factual information about the Franks and the "Romans".

Was it perhaps a violation also to insert as factual information the statement that the Church of Rome arose "under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin"?

What am I allowed to do with regard to obvious errors such as LoveMonkey's "Frankish Empire of Goths"? The Franks were not Goths, and Romanides, whom LoveMonkey cites, does not make the curious claim that they were.)

Did I do wrong in undoing vandalism? LoveMonkey himself claims to be free to revert edits to the article, but that I, on the contrary, am not free. Perhaps, in view of LoveMonkey's reaction, it would ideally have been better for me to ask you or someone else to undo the vandalism, but when I saw the need to make that correction, I did not at all advert to my offer of a long time ago to refrain from editing that article, an offer that, as I have here indicated, did not elicit a reciprocal promise from LoveMonkey. I just didn't think of that offer. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that one way to get LoveMonkey to correct some of his claims is to mention them here on your talk page. Since I wrote the above, he has, with an edit summary referring to "typoes and grammar", corrected his classification of the Franks as Goths and altered his claim that "the Church of Rome arose under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin" into a claim that it is fact that the Church of Rome thus arose as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively. It would be excellent if this method could work for all his mistaken edits and if it could work also for those that I think may be exclusion-violating ones. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
LoveMonkey has stated in the article, as fact, that "These Frankish Popes where (LoveMonkey means "were", not "where") military leaders according to Saint Boniface known to 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." In a footnote, he quotes Romanides as saying: "many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." It is only wishful thinking that makes LoveMonkey believe that Romanides was speaking of popes, not of other bishops. I have looked up what Saint Boniface actually wrote - not all that easy, since Romanides gives the source as "Migne, PL 89: 744", when the real source is column 745, not 744. Boniface is writing in 743 to the newly elected Pope Saint Zachary, who was a Greek, not a Frank, about an initiative by Marcoman, leader of the Franks, to get rid of abuses such as clergy, even bishops, "having four or five or more concubines in bed at night" and other bishops "who, although they deny that they are fornicators or adulterers, are drunkards, law-breakers, engage in hunting or, bearing weapons, fight in battles as part of an army and by their own hands shed human blood, whether of pagans or of Christians" ("qui, licet dicant se fornicarios vel adulteros non esse, sed sunt ebriosi, vel injuriosi, vel venatores, et qui pugnant in exercitu armati, et effundunt propria manu sanguinem hominum, sive paganorum, sive Christianorum"). Naturally, Pope Zachary responded granting Marcoman and Boniface's request to have authority to hold a synod to remedy that situation, and ordered the deposition of any clergy whom Boniface found "... to have spilled the blood whether of Christians or of pagans or to have become subject to canonical sanction for other reasons" ("... aut si sanguinem Christianorum sive paganorum effuderunt, vel etiam aliis capitulum canonum obviasse eos reperit tua sanctitas" - the text is in column 919 of the same volume). It must have been wishful thinking on the part of Romanides too that made him interpret Boniface as saying that the battling bishops were "many".
If LoveMonkey is authorized to insert such material, am I allowed to respond in some way? Esoglou (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my late response. I often spend long periods of time away from Wikipedia, so you should always send me messages with the assumption that I can't respond immediately.

First of all, yes, both you and LM are always allowed to respond to the other's edits. But such responses should take the form of notifying Ed or another admin. (I suppose you sort of did the right thing by notifying me.) To your credit, I see that you didn't respond directly to LM's post on Talk:East-West Schism (a post which, in my opinion, by itself violates the editing restrictions).

No, I don't think you did anything wrong in reverting that atrociously-worded and unsourced edit, especially given LM's willingness to push the envelope regarding the editing restrictions. However, I don't think I'm in a good position to back you up there. If you want to be "officially" allowed to make such edits, please contact Ed, who formalized the editing restrictions.

As for the edits by LM that you mention, I do think some of them are problematic. This puts us in a difficult situation. Per the editing restrictions, you may not dispute such edits on article talk pages. (I'm not sure whether you should be discussing them here, either, but I won't object to it at the moment.) As for me, I'm frankly not interested in getting into another fruitless argument with LM. Again, you should contact an admin about this.

I'm less worried about the factual errors that you bring up and more worried by LM's declaration that he will henceforth edit East-West Schism, in clear (and self-acknowledged) violation of the editing restrictions. I just posted a reply to LM and have asked Taiwan boi to smack some sense into him. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was not worried about the delay, since I could see that you had not been active on Wikipedia. As for contacting an administrator, I did that last week. Ed has not yet replied. Doubtless, he finds the matter complicated. As I do. Esoglou (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
LM asked me for my opinion, and I gave it at User talk:EdJohnston ( [9] ). DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another schism[edit]

Thanks, I will take a look. I have already been contacted by LM about this, but my computer has been down for the last few days and I've been busy with the corporate tax season.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is an earlier agreement such as you describe. The agreement forbids either from editing the article to make representations of the other's faith community, but does not forbid either of them from editing the article to make representations of their own faith community's view of the other faith community, as long as such representations are referenced correctly and are clearly identified as commentary from one faith community on the other. I will go to the link you have provided and see what's happening.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Welcome back. I hope your other obligations allow you to continue to contribute. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try my best to stay involved. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Blogs[edit]

I presume you are familiar with WP:SPS and WP:USERG. Esoglou (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this in response to the question about blogs that I asked LM? Well, I have to admit that I've never meticulously studied the policies. I've basically been editing in accordance with what I consider to be common sense, checking policies when necessary, and it has worked so far. I am, however, familiar with the fact that self-published sources like blogs are generally not considered reliable. Of course, there are various cases in which exceptions can be made (e.g. the blog is put out by an official news agency, the blog is by an expert). My question to LM was simply a request for clarification regarding what a group of editors (apparently including you and he) had privately agreed upon regarding blogs. If this agreement was simply a re-affirmation of the standing Wikipedia policies, then please let me know. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no recollection of the discussion on this matter. Esoglou (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

With your eyes[edit]

1.[10] if you just can't read it, here it is read for you. Its got issues but so what. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting video. A lot of the information I was actually already familiar with. The bit about the theology behind the iconoclastic controversy was new to me. I'll probably check out some more of this guy's videos. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful. I hope that it clarifies where I am coming from. I just found it yesterday as I was looking for something else. However it (in specifically the last 15 minutes of it) clearly gives the Eastern Orthodox theological tenets of theoria. It does it without the technical terms per se (except the Tabor light) and is very simple to understand. I hope that you will now see (with your eyes) that I am really just trying to post this information. I am not here with an axe to grind and am only really trying with integrity to post that information (be it as well sourced as I can) to Wikipedia.
This has been a very difficult thing to do because of Esoglou and that is pathetic. Also I like how the video clearly states that there is no world of intellect (spirit) and world of senses (material world) that present the gnostic duality (their interpretation of Plato) of a creator God versus an incomprehensible God (Philosophy plays off that duality but does not make the dunamis and energeia waring factions like the gnostics did). As God (Trinity) is above all and over all and the material world, the body (existence) and the Jewish God are not evil. Chance, risk and randomness are essential ingredients to free will. They are caused by the separation between man and God, that is the cornerstone of Jewish theology (i.e. excellent men like Akiva ben Joseph and of course Maimonides). LoveMonkey (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an expert in Mythology![edit]

Hello!

My name is Gabriel, and I represent a startup company called Planeto (http://planeto.com).


We are currently developing a new type of community we call the Planeto Knowledge Network.


We all have knowledge and interests in various forms, of different topics and areas. We might even be experts at something. Our Knowledge Network is an attempt to gather and connect people who have a passion, and would love to share that passion by communicating their insights and knowledge with other people with similar interests.


I found you here at Wikipedia and after reading your presentation on your talk page, I thought you would be a good candidate to join the invite-only beta and manage a domain of knowledge regarding Mythology, which you seemed very proficient of!

Sounds interesting? Send me a mail to gabriel@planeto.com and I'll invite you to our closed beta!


Have a nice day :)

Zedekiel (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that there is a vote for changing the article from History of Pottery in the Southern Levant to History of Pottery in Palestine[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_pottery_in_Palestine#Requested_move Unfortunately it was saved at the Wrong Version in my opinion, but in any case, since you voiced your opinion in the discussion, please feel free to vote as well. Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Brahman[edit]

Hello. I am part of the community of editors who have edited this article over the last few years. I am a specialist in the field of Indian religions. The edit reversion was due to the fact that the new addition removes the definitions of leading authorities in the field (Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Gavin Flood). The new definition introduces doubt where none in reality exists. I have been studying the subject for many years and have been invited to lecture on it by the South and Southeast Asian Association for the Study of Culture and Religion (a branch of the International Association for the History of Religions, IAHR; UNESCO). The editor in question has introduced doubt into a number of articles in my field but this is because he is by profession a social worker and not a scholar of Asian religions. I'm just letting you know that I intend to restore the previous version. best wishes.81.106.127.14 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hylomorphism[edit]

It wasn't your proximate matter contribution I removed, was it? Regarding your other edit summary, there might be better ways to make it sound more passive... one receives not only information but also material goods, and typically only when transmitted or bestowed by another... so it's a bit problematic.—Machine Elf 1735 18:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was my proximate matter contribution. I apologize if my edit summary made me sound upset about the change. Actually, I don't really care whether we use the words "proximate" and "non-proximate" in the article, as long as we're consistent. As for your second point, I'm not wedded to the word "receive", but I'm convinced that "copy" is the wrong word. I used "receive" when originally writing that passage because medieval Aristotelians often used the words accipere and recipere ("receive") to describe the reception of forms. No particularly felicitous alternative leaps to my mind. Do you have any recommendations? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Monomyth[edit]

I saw that you added some valuable criticism to the Monomyth article. It would be nice to hear what you have to say about the category "monomyth". Should it be added to any myth, like Arthur, Horus, Odin etc? There's a discussion about that here and [[11]]. --Devadatta (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)