User talk:Vassilis78/Archive 1

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

I am VERY interested in how the NWT is understood in the linguistic sense. Does the article impartially lend some credibility to the translation? - CobaltBlueTony 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John 1:1

Hello,

I removed that due to no sourcing, and replaced with verifiable info. I cited Wallace as being in agreement with the NWT in that theos is qualitative, nothing more. If Wallace believes that Jesus was uncreated, based on this passage, then he is reading something into the text that is not there; an assumption that cannot be legitimately derived from the passage. I believe that Tim and I have come to a fair balance, although the entire section remains rather un-encyclopedic. If you have any ideas for change by all means make them, or post your ideas on the article's talk page :). Duffer 13:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. All I am saying is that the assertion wasn't sourced. By all means add it back into the article. Duffer (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Response

Your aggressive reply to my simple query regarding the importance of an ambiguous and unqualified reference was entirely inappropriate. Please refer to Wikipedia:AGF before assuming that individuals are making an attack on your religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You asked about the choice of the word 'attack'. It seemed a polite way of referring to your reaction... "Do you want to play a game? I will give you ... and you will..." I'm happy to call it a 'baseless unwarranted assumptive blurt', if you prefer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done

I must commend you on your handling of MS. If you would like to send the Administrators my way, I would be happy to support your experiences with those of my own. Best regards, -- cfrito (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal case

Following a request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal i have accepted a case based apon edits and users concerned with the page "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". The following have been notified about this:

I would request that throughout this case, all users remain civil and that editing to the page concerned is kept to a minimum. I hope that everything can be sorted as smoothly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see evidence from you showing that Fred Franz had attained a PhD in biblical studies. Thank you for you help in this case Seddon69 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the correct document however not the one that shilmer sent me. It is in pdf format and without the watchtower watermark, which in my opinion leads me to believe it to be the original file. There is also the additional front cover. Seddon69 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition as this is in the public domain there is no argument for this not to be sourced in the text. Seddon69 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Transcript and the Saga of a Copy

Vassilis78: I noticed that you asked Seddon69 whether the Franz transcript I sent him was the same one you provided a link to.

Seddon69 indicated the document I sent him was different, and specifically he added “without the watchtower watermark”. Seddon69 is correct that there was no “watchtower” watermark on the document I sent him. But I do not know why he thinks the document is not the same one you linked to because it is the same document, and in fact has a “watchthetower.com” watermark. This is the document I told you of when I said there is a “copy of Franz’s transcript online that even a cursory Google search would find”.

Apparently you conclude that me sharing this particular document with Seddon69 somehow presents an affliction to my personal visit and copying of the same document. That you apparently think this way is so amusing that I look forward to hearing why you would conclude this. In any event, you deserve to know that Seddon69 was wrong that the document I sent him is not the same as the document you linked to. They are the same document.

Here is a logical question for you:

Marvin made a copy of document X 
Marvin sends a copy of document X to Seddon69 
Marvin sent Seddon69 the copy he made of document X

Marvin made a copy of document X 
Marvin sends a copy of document Y to Seddon69 
Marvin did not make a copy of document X

Which, if either, argument above is a valid logical construction?

I look forward to your reply, should you offer one. If you refrain from answering then I am compelled to think you experienced a revelation about your thinking above.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere along the line what i said has been misinterpreted. What i meant was that that the file martin sent to me was the same document but not the same file. hope this helps clear things up. Seddon69 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: Because you said the document I sent you did not have the "watchtower watermark" it suggests the document I sent you was not the same document Vassilis78 linked to. The document I sent you does have a watermark. It has a "watchthetower" watermark. There is no foul, though. Vassilis78 thought this was an important issue, so he deserved to have things cleared up, and other readers also deserve the clarification. So I clarified. We appreciate your help.-Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation

Hi Vassilis78, regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article - what concerns, if any, do you have with current version? Addhoc (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis78, Watchtower.com is not the site for the Watchtower. It is Watchtower.org. JLDR —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLDR (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarianism

Hello, I hope this works, I thought it would be the quickest way to contact you. I am currently involved in a "discussion" on the talk page of Nontrinitarianism and would appreciate some support from people who believe in the article as I am encountering interferance from a (obvously biased) Trinitarian. If you have the time, and/or know anyone with input, please help. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your call so that I may contribute to the article of Nontrintarianism. It is true for many religious articles that have extremely poor bibliographical support and a lot of bias. I can give many resources but I need some time, because I am generally very busy. A couple of things I want to mention are that it is impossible for someone to understand the classic Trinitarian dogmatic formula without knowing Greek philosophy. In Greece, Orthodox theologians study Greek philosophy first, and after that proceed to patristic studies. Protestants who do not take into account this principle, p.e. who do not know the cultural, historical and linguistic environment of the Nicene/Constantinople Creed, become more anachronistic in their exegesis that those Church "Fathers", who understood Bible without taking into account its Hebraic background.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anachronism" - Thank you.
I look forward to your edits and input. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarianism

I have every reason to think that your input would be very welcome by everybody. As others have said, there is a lot of material there which isn't yet adequately sourced. One thing in particular I note is that no explicit reference to the Jehovah's Witnesses is made on that page, although seemingly they would be relevant to its content. And if you can provide references, believe me, I think everybody would be more than pleased. Thank you for being willing to volunteer to help the article. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWT Tag Disputing Neutrality

Vassilis78: You tagged the NWT article disputing its neutrality but failed to provide a place for discussion of your dispute on the article’s talk page.

To assist discussion of your dispute, I created a point of discussion on the NWT talk page for your tag. Please explain your views and engage the discussion so editors can resolve any substantive disputes of neutrality. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mediation successful?

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has requested clarification on whether mediation has been successful. Is arbitration still required? Could you please consider adding a short statement at WP:RFAR within the next 12-14hrs, with a concise update (one or two sentences) regarding your level of satisfaction of the resulting article, and whether the user conduct issues have abated.

If there are outstanding content issues, please list them at the talk page. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand. You added a lot of your own point of view to that article, which wasn't necessary. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm coming across blunt here, I have now seen the talk page and the concerns raised about the "Murders" section. I think I just assumed that you were a Jehovah's Witness and removed it for POV reasons, but it looks like I'm wrong. Apologies. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No really, I've been making a lot of mistakes like that lately. I think I need a break :) _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a JW?

Why did you revert my edits in JW controversy page. I read the new teaching in last month Watchtower. It was completely against their previous teaching. I think you are a JW and commenting sside with them. --59.93.34.26 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh

Hi - You write: based on the evidence of some Greek manuscripts of the Hellenistic period and on the schollarly speculation that it represents a Qal or Hiphil imperfect of the verb "hawah" ("to become"), but that is false. It is true that there is a lot of confused speculation in this area, but Yahweh was not at all chosen because of some preconceived idea about a relation with some verb. I have Gesenius' text in my hands. Consequently, your edit will have to be reverted or at least modified. (And, btw, "schollarly" has a typo.) Comments? 213.84.53.62 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gesenius' is of 1850. I have conslulted the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testatment, the last edition of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (HALOT), the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the Encyclopedia Judaica etc. which represent the modern scholarly views. When I return home (on this Monday), because now I am on vacation, I will add more specific information and bibliographical support. Briefly, I mention that the etymology of the name is linked with the root hyh (hayah) of Exodus 3:14, which means "to become, to occur". The thought suporting the form Yahweh, as given by by William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, is that hyh was in premosaic Hebrew hwh (hawah), as it happens with other verbs in Hebrew (e.t. chawah --> chayah). And then the speculative verb hawah in the third person of Qal or Hiphil imperfect gives Yahweh, which means "He becomes/will become" (Qal) or "He causes/will cause to become" (Hiphil). You can find some interesting info here.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you wrote that the hypothesis "Yahweh" was "based on ... verb" and I said that no such thing is true. Since it was not Albright or Freedman who first came with the Yahweh hypothesis, what they say cannot be used to explain why "Yahweh" was chosen. At most, in case they support this form and you like their arguments, their opinions may give additional plausibility. (Perhaps the opposite is true.)

Yahweh was chosen because of (i) theophoric names, (ii) pronunciation of Samaritans, (iii) various minor reasons related to the writings of Church Fathers and Gnostics. No verb form plays a role. Nobody knows whether any verb root, and if so which root, is involved. Opinions differ. Lots of speculation.

You say "the etymology of the name is linked to ...", but that is speculation only. Not standard scholarly opinion.

I do not like the Gertoux reference you gave. He uses religion, his beliefs, as part of the argument. In a scholarly context only semitic linguistics and historical data can play a role. There is also the strange "underdog" tone of the non-scholar arguing against a scholarly position. I suppose he will be disregarded by almost everybody.

Also, people who have strong religious opinions want to know the "True Name". Scholars do not talk about truth, they talk about conjectures that are more or less plausible. Yahweh is a conjecture with weak support, but I think no other reading has stronger support today. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: A little administrative help

Thank you for your concern. I'd suggest a warning and a suggestion for the IPs, although I assume that he's on a dynamic IP, so warnings may not be seen. I'll warn anyway. If he persists, a page protection or an ANI post may be necessary for wider input. Once again, thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I thought there was a bit of déjà vu here :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your spelling

Hello Vassilis:

Two points: Firstly, I don't want to insult you by criticising you for your lapses in spelling in the Charles Taze Russell article (discribe for describe, carrier for career). I have fixed those errors, but it's unhelpful for you to simply revert to your version and reinstate the errors I'd fixed.

Secondly, as per the guidance at Wikipedia:Quotations, while quotations are helpful, they shouldn't be overused or overlong. Russell's quote need not include such words as "No, dear friends" or other wordage that is unncessary to convey his meaning or the context. This is why I deleted it to retain the nub of his quote. In the case of Professor Chryssides, his quotation largely repeats what Russell says. Statements such as: "He claimed no special revelation or vision to authenticate any of his teachings" and "he claimed no special authority on his own behalf" are redundant, since Russell has just stated the same thing. This is already a long article and by insisting on every word in every quote detracts from it. I'm sure we both have the same goal of making the article as informative and accurate as possible. Please discuss this issue rather than reverting. LTSally (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosier

I'm not entirely sure that the issue is worth mentioning on the 'controversies' article, unless it can be demonstrated as a frequent method of silencing opposition rather than an isolated event. However, it is not simply a case of Mosier 'breaking the law'. The site contained small, fully referenced exerpts from Watchtower literature, which is indeed permissible by copyright law.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in Canada either. But copyright law in Canada is not remarkably different to accepted copyright laws in the rest of the world, and certainly not so different that fair use laws do not apply.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Site section

I think it is fair enough to have a section of sites. However, that section should contain sites that have some kind of authority. Basically, for this purpose, if a site would not be appropriate to use as a reference, it probably shouldn't be here either. Otherwise it leaves the door wide open for all of the blog-like sites, like freeminds, many of which are clearly biased.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re A question

I would like to ask if the Arbitration commitee can help in other Wikipedias beyond the English one, if the discussion can take place in English.--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. What and where is the problem? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, which is going on for months as I have already written to the Wikipedia foundation, is that a considerable number of users are accusing some administrators of the Greek Wikipedia for abuse of their authority. To give a recent example a user was banned for 3 months because he used the expression "fundamentalists babblers" in a talk page, being considered as a personal attack, while yesterday an administrator called the way of editing by some users, including the one banned, as poustrilikia, which means "to behave like a faggot/catamite", a word that is strongly offensive in Greek. The sad thing for me is not merely the behaviour of this specific administrator, but the fact that no other administrator reacted, on the contrary they covered him. Personal attacks and threats have repeatedly taken place.

Two days ago one other administrator said in a talk page that if someone has criticised the administrators that they are authoritarian may be banned. I believe the last statement is the epitome of the situation.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the extent of it or if it is a general problem on the Greek Wikipedia. Whatever is the case, what was the foundation response? I wish I could help but have you tried user talk:Jimbo Wales? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 17:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag at JW article

You placed a POV tag on Jehovah's Witnesses. Please go to the article's Talk page and discuss the points you believe to be POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hottest religion right now

Vassilis, I don't know whether this is an attempt at humour or a tantrum because you are not getting your own way. A claim that Jevohah's Witnesses is "the hottest religion right now" according to a professor of no great repute is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Your comment that you are playing "with the same rules" suggests you are behaving in a petty manner. Please remove the comment. LTSally (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JW in Nazi Germany

You marked persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany as a stub. The article is clearly not a stub by Wikipedia definition. Perhaps you meant something else??--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that to be the case, the appropriate tag would be {{expand}}, and you should also start a section on the article's talk page indicating what you think needs to be expanded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the talk page of the German version of the article to request improvement of the English version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross/Stake in Greek and English

I'm from Russia and nowadays I'm writting an article about cross/stake controvercy. I've noticed your message here, stating:

The article of the Greek Wikipedia has been reduced to 20% of its original size, because recenlty many pseudo-scientifical fallacies were exposed as a result of an amateurish and biased original research of its main editor. The English article also needs more information and sound bibliographical support. We will try to do our best as long as we have available time. P.S.: The same editor made the arcticle of the other web-page also.

Unfortunately, I cant read greek. Can you, please clarify your statments and maybe note some particular facts of "many pseudo-scientifical fallacies were exposed as a result of an amateurish and biased original research". It will be very helpfull for me and for russian Wikipedia article on the same subject also.ShiftWokl (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your answer! I've understood your points. I've collected material for my article in russian about cross/stake, which consists of more than 700 files (article, pics and so). But as I remember I there is no quatations from "Philo, Xenophon and Josephus" concerning the matter. When I tried to find such a evidence in Google it gave only link to anti-JW sites. Can you help me a little bit more with that referencies, please? :) ShiftWokl (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Tower Society incorporation

The document you have linked to at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania#Foundation is dated from 1955. Does this have relevance to the Society's registration in 1884? LTSally (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question abouot your identity

In looking at the the articles you have edited and the language and tone in your talk page comments, I notice a strong similarity with edits by User:Pvasiliadis. Are you the same user? LTSally (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are from different cities.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]