Welcome!

Hello, Bernard Mc Nally, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! OlEnglish ^{( Talk)} 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Any relation to Bernard McNally? ;)

Any relation to Bernard McNally?

You mean the footballer? I was never that good at football! Although I did score a goal from a corner!

I have further information on Saint Dismas but it is my conclusions, rather than the facts which I confined myself to. Bernard Mc Nally ( talk) 14:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Bernard Mc Nally ( talk) 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I posted a few details on Saint Christopher on his page entitled (from my memory). These details I am sure of as I, as a young fellow in Secondary School, I was following them in the news at the time. The history of 1961 on there details haven't been written yet! Bernard Mc Nally ( talk) 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I am certain that on the beginning of 1961 Febuary St. Christopher and Saint Philomena were taken off the list of Saints. However, Saint Philomena was placed back on the list of Saints. Saint Christopher a month later. This was a news item at the time. And I claim my own authorathy from my profession in outlining this. Bernard Mc Nally ( talk) 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Next time I'm in Rome I'll look up the news of that time.

It is so revealing how people always remember the bad news not the good news. Patrology and History should always be presented in a non-biased way. Not leaning to one side or another. The desertation on Saint Christopher does not cover the complete history. Bernard Mc Nally ( talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank You, I wasn't trying not to sign my comments.

I am sorry if I didn't follow protocol properly. I did put the four marks after my notes but it comes up with my nick-name, sorry. I'll try again.

--MacOfJesus 17:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It still come up with my nick-name, should I change things on "my preferences"?

-- MacOfJesus 17:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I do stand over my comments about remembering bad news versus good news, it is a well known phenomenon in psycology.

--MacOfJesus 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC) MacOfJesus 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MacOfJesus 18:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What do I do to get my signature recognised ?

Even though I do put in: (MacOfJesus 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)) after it I notice is the comment: "unsigned".

All my comments I wish to own.

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me.

MacOfJesus 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Heheh.. currently your username is User:Bernard Mc Nally. If you wish to change it you may do so by placing a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Otherwise if you want to keep your username and just change your signature, which comes up when you do the four tildes (~~~~), then you can change it in your 'my preferences' setting under 'User profile'. Enter "MacOfJesus" where it says 'Signature' and you should be recognized by that name anytime you type "~~~~" :) -- OlEnglish ^{( Talk)} 09:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'v done that, but I'v noticed the caviat re raw signature, I'v taken the "tick" out of the box so hopefully it should work OK now?

MacOfJesus ( talk) 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

P.S.: Thanks.

Ahh ya.. forgot 'bout that. No prob. -- OlEnglish ^{( Talk)} 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In Saint Philomena's site some comments have been added that contain the most glaring errors.

How do I adderss them without incurring a war situation.

I don't want to incur a R3 block as the site has had one already.

I would normally refer the student to Densinger-Ranhar to reserch the subject but then in this literary form that may take on an invitation to war!

MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Please see the response to your comments, which can be found at User talk:John Carter#Athanasius - moved from IP page. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I did read all the refernces to Athanasius in the Williams book, and none of them dealt with any form of criticism of his personal conduct, although there was a statement to the effect that he may not have been much of a philosopher. I should have told you that earlier, and my apologies for the delay. The existing negative content of the Athanasius article is sourced from Barnes's material, which, being published from Harvard, and Timothy Barnes himself being a fairly reputable academic, has to be counted on as reliably sourced as per WP:RS. At least the first of the reviews on JSTOR of his work, which can be found here, seems to indicate that the works were well received by the academic world as well. So I'm guessing they have to be included, although I'm not sure how much weight to give them relative to other sources, or even what the other sources say about Athansius' conduct. John Carter ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear John Carter,

Thank you for coming back to me.

I have the books in question ordered, and should have them shortly. Two points I'd like to make:

1. The professors who taught me and touched on this subject said: " That is why we in the West don't consider the Historians in America ".

2. If the Catholic Church thought there was any grain of truth in these points it would immediatly remove Saint Athanasius from the list of Saints and from the list of doctors of the Church and also question Saint Gregory Nazianzen's position too.

The Church did remove Saint Philomena and Saint Christopher in 1961, on account of lack of evidence that they ever existed. They were replaced soon after, when that was produced.

The letters of Jovian I cannot locate. The pure historical references are very dismissive.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The main site on Saint Athanasius looks very all embrasing now with Saint Gregory's testament as well! I did correct a date on the conference in Alexandria that was after the death of Julian. I did'nt take away anything but added the correct date and time.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I started here writing hagiographies, and am more than a bit of a practicing Catholic. I don't think the Catholic Church's opinion, and it is by definition at this point only an opinion, is something that we can use to change policy. They also removed Clement of Alexandria from the lists, and he's stayed removed, because there was no contemporary evidence of his being venerated as a saint. The expressed opinions of others, particularly in as hotly-contested and difficult fight as this was, which seems to have involved more than one emperor, while they cannot be dismissed, will not necessarily be a basis for determining content. Also, by policy, we have to represent all significant views on any subject, and the basically favorable reviews of Barnes' books in addition to their meeting WP:RS are probably grounds for inclusion of that information. We also can't really try to structure the text so that one opinion is given more credability than the other without external sources saying the same thing, as per WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure if you reviewed the talk page of the article, but I myself think that the statements of Barnes are probably a bit overstated, but that's not a basis for determining text content. And we probably shouldn't try to present "he said/she said" type material, putting the sources off against each other, unless we can find reliable sources doing just that, again, as per WP:SYNTH.

The problem here is that, so far as I was able to determine at the time, based on the comparatively light research I did when I first saw the Barnes work in the article, there at least wasn't a lot of external academic opinion regarding Barnes' work to determine how much weight to give it, as per WP:UNDUE. If you can find any recent reliable sources which indicate that Barnes' conclusions aren't widely regarded, that would help a lot. John Carter ( talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I would'nt have it any other way. The account should be all embrasing.

I remembering having a serious discussion with Johavha's Witnesses re Saint John's Gospel which I felt they had relegated to the dust-bin! And up-graded The Book of Geneses to The Gospel level!

Now I'll order the Timothy Barnes book, too.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, my professor in question died, so can't ask him.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The way I would answer Barnes at point (33) that Athanasius used wrong material to discredit Arians and it was'nt like that at the beginning is: Saint John's Gospel was there before Athanasius and before Arius. It was written (as we know it) approx. 100-150 AD. Even a simple understanding of Jesus being handed over for execution by the high priest, the words of Jesus here, and "The Father and I are One" statements. On these alone Barnes is out of cinque.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Mk.14:61-63: "Are you the Christ, he said "the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am", said Jesus "and you will see the Son of Man...." The high priest tore his robes,...

Mat.41:63-66:

Lk.22:66-71:

& of course: Jn.1+

Just a few quotes. You see the professors of this field would just not discuss Barnes, say something like what I'v said: "forget it", so we, the pupils saw Barnes as someone we did'nt need for exams.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 10:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the next thing to do (for me, anyway) is to outline all the times that Saint Athanasius was exiled or fled and the reason. I discovered that he fled at one "peaceful time" because that at the house he was at, some armed men attempting to batter down the door did'nt help. Also to outline who were his adversaries, and why.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 10:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have looked at the page you suggested WP:SYNTH and briefly the talk page. I do agree with it as the main article page chould be free of conclusions. I see Barnes' statements remaining in sharp relief in the article. I think the best defence of Athanasius is following his steps. He must have been very astute at living "off the land". From what I see Athanasius has more on his side. But, I would say that here but not in the article page. The Old English Adage: "Show me your friends, and I'll show you who you are", is what I'd look at in Athanasius, his friends being Saint Anthony the Great (of the desert) and the desert itself.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

His Friends:

Saint Alexander the previous primate and promoter of Athanasius, As bishop "his friend" St. Frumentius. The monks of St. Pachomius.

These are his recorded "friends".

His adversaries:

Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius,

Constantine Emperor wanted Athanasius to accept all those who were ready to submit to the definitions of Nicaea to be re-admitted to ecclesiastical communion. This Athanasius refused to do, alledging that there could be no fellowship between the Church and one who denied the Divinity of Christ. Catholic Encyclopedia 1930. Atricle by Cornelius Clifford. (I find this account very well ordered and good, and well sourced).

Eusebius followed up with a number of accusations to the Emeror. These here are very well outlined.

These accusations are, perhaps, significant in that they are the bases of todays words in Barnes accounts.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

(I shall continue from here, later.) I hope this is significant.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear John Carter,

I have discovered that Saint Athanasius went to a Council of the Church to answer the charges brought against him by the "Constantinople faction". He was cleared of all accusiations and letters were written to the Church at Alexandria and another to all the Bishops of Egypt, to this effect.

I'm on a break at the moment, but when I'm back I'll write to The Vatican for the transcripts of this Council and of the letters.

This should be definitive.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 15:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It will definitively state what the official response was. The question then becomes, unfortunately, whether an "official" response is sufficient to say that there was no misconduct, just that the court didn't rule there was misconduct. And I don't think the Vatican archives will necessarily be required, and source which meets WP:RS should be sufficient to give cause for its inclusion to some degree, so long as it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. John Carter ( talk) 13:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear John Carter,

Early in the year 343 he went to Gaul ! He went there to consult the saintly Hosius, ( Hosius of Corduba), the great champion of othodoxy in the West. (On his page The Council of Sardica is referred to as a fruitless Council, bias surely!). The two together set out for the Council of Sardica which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff's wishes. His innocence was reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, the other to the bishops of Egypt and Lybia, in which the will of the Council was made known. The persecution against the othodox party broke out with renewed vigor, and Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempted to re-enter his see, he should be put to death.

May I have concensus to place this (or an abreviated version) into the main page? The source is 1930 Catholic Encyclopedia, contributer: Cornelius Clifford. And also may I challenge the comment on the Hosius page which said of the Council of Sardica that it was a fruitless Council, (Yet, this Council did what it was asked to do by The Pontiff and also, if it were so fruitless, why did it have such a reaction in the world of the time.)

He also states, Cornelius Clifford,: Pius X, (he died 20/Aug 1914 (today)), now Saint Pius X, said in a letter to a philosopher-friend and correspondent in the closing years of his life (Epist. lxxi, ad Max.): "Let what was confessed by the Fathers of Nicaea prevail".

(When I have the transcripts I'll be in a better position to challenge Barnes' work).

MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

What I think would probably be the best thing to propose, over on the article talk page, is the possibility that Barnes' opinions might currently be receiving WP:UNDUE. We can unfortunately really only directly "challenge" any source's material with material sourced from other reliable sources. But it might be reasonable to perhaps start a request for comment regarding how much space in the article should be given to Barnes' material, and how much of that material might be better included in one or more articles on either Barnes himself or his books. If his statements don't have much support in the academic community, then too much information on them may well violate undue weight guidelines. John Carter ( talk) 13:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I will do that.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I replied to your message on User talk:OlEnglish#Christanity in Korea. Cheers,  Chzz   ►  01:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I wish to thank all for your help in making the Saint Athanasius' page a more historical event ! All those who challenged me and made me study and research afresh. The truth reigns.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Bernard! Because I notice you seem very knowledgeable on the topic of hagiography, I invite you to comment on this discussion which may interest you: Talk:Saint Lucifer#Requested move. -- œ ^™ 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear OIEnglish,

I don't think I am knowledgeable on that subject. Saint Paul, "what sufferings I endured"(2 Tim 3 10-13), his life, his insight beyond the normal, I do take seriously, though. His journeys, too. He followed the path of Christ, the path of life. (I'v just written on his discussion page).

If you have ever come across the person you mention, in a battle situation, you would'nt give this light of day.

Sincerely MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I do wish to thank all who challenged my words but who took them seriously enough to respond. The person you mention has a link to Saint Athanasius, and others on his page. Do study these and you will see the relevance.

Even though I may put things bluntly and speak my mind directly, I do take everyone's response appreciably, and evoke all to study and know more of the subject in question. Pax.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

If you think that I am a little brash in my comments, take a look at Saint Paul's letter to The Corinthians: 2 Cor 10, 11 & 12 "...I am not a polished speechmaker,..."

MacOfJesus ( talk) 00:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

"Not only that, but I believe nothing can happen that will outweigh the supreme advantage of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For him I have accepted the loss of everything, and I look on everything as so much rubbish if only I can have Christ and be given a place in him." (Philippians 3: 8).

MacOfJesus ( talk) 01:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Ths page listing how such things are supposed to be done is at Wikipedia:Citing sources. It doesn't look bad so far, although adding ISBN's to the various sources would probably help. There is some sort of bot thingy which can find them at WP:ISBN. I hate having to add references, particularly citations, to articles myself, but agree that such things have to be done, so that we know what is and is not sourced. John Carter ( talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

btw I replied to your messages on my talkpage too :) -- œ ^™ 05:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I cannot lay my hands on the books just now, when I do I'll put in the ISBN nos. The last 2 on the list are periodicals and are linked to pages already on Wikipedia.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 11:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have put in the external web page for the publishers of the two books I placed on the article page at the reference request and their nos. on the books, i.e.: tan books and loreto publications.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I wish to thank all for responding to my comments on Saint Augustine's Conversion History, which I think is not dealt with properly in the appropriate article pages. I look forward to a better account of this.

I thank all for challenging me and making me study afresh, it had good results.

My I encourage all to study the original confessions with references to his other works, and his writings as bishop of Hippo.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'v left an note on the talk page of the article page Addiction.

I think Saint Augiustine's conversion holds the key to a cure (complete) of addiction, and dependancy.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have attempted to place reference-connections to the article page of Saint Dismas, where statements of the Saints are used. The numbering to the publications in the reference section is used to indicate the appropriate source/s.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 11:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It was Hilaire Belloc, I believe, that coined the phrase; The Dark Ages, to refer to the period The Middle Ages when chaos reigned in Europe.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your informed and educated comments on your opposition to the deletion of the article on Father Victor White. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I only met one student/professor of this study who studied at dept these letters, that were lent to him via a University (Conditions Prevailed), the letters between Father Victor White and Carl Gustav Jung.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your further comments on my talk page about the need to keep a page on Father Victor White. Yes, I am quite happy about everything you say - by all means quote a synopsis if you have seen the Jung-White letters, which were edited (in part) by Adrian Cunnigham of the University of Lancaster (I used to know Paul Heelas when I was there, who did inform me about Adrian Cunningham's interest in Jung). I think the article stands a better chance of being kept now I have added some references. I have some biographies of Jung in my house and could look to see what they say on White - and add some information. I am quite happy for us to share the responsibility of enlargement of this article. I wonder whether you might like this website:

www.innerexplorations.com

It is very good, and has a lot of information on the Jungian/Christian diaologue.

If the article gets proposed for deletion in the way that some articles do, I hope you will join me in taking the inclusionist view on this one. Many thanks indeed for your interest in this one - good to see a like-minded Wikipedian. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) A little postscript - I see you sign your name as "Mac of Jesus" but when I click on that I get to a userpage with a different name. Did you wish to share how this came to be? I can keep information in confidence. I am not against anonymous editing of Wikipedia - reply

Citizendium has not being editted anonymously, but does not appear to have produced a superior encyclopaedia. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

When I signed up for Wikipedia I was asked, if I wished to use a nick-name, which I opted for, so you will find it brings up my name, which I am proud of. The nick-name because I'm sold on Him! (there is no where to hide though in Wikipedia, the world knows!!). I'm in the old world like you! (If I were to leave my forwarding details the world will know!)

Saying that I definately oppose a deletion of that page, and with the enthusiasm of Saint Paul support you. They may want to remove the "Father", which I'll oppose too, for it was in that capasity Jung wrote to him.

I have very little on Jung, for I studied the Philosophy, Theology, Sociology, Scripture, Dogma & Moral Theology, History and Patrology, and the related subjects. I work with the addict and their carers and use Jung often. I am writing on Saint Augustine and his Confessions which, I believe, contain steps/keys to the complete cure of addiction, but I can't find anyone on Wikipedia who knows the original Confessions and his works to come in on this topic!

So Jung is not my forte, but may become so, with time and effort!

Thanks.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your most recent messages on my talk-page, it is good to see that at least one other Wikipedian has an interest in Father Victor White! I was at the University of Lancaster between 1988 and 1992, where I knew Paul Heelas, and now I teach at a university in central England. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, that was me who referred to the 1955 review by White, in the article on Father Victor White. You can always check who has edited a Wikipedia article by clicking on the "history" at the top of the article. This also has a hypertext link called "Page view statistics",which enables readers to see how many times an article has been accessed in a given month. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• If you guys need any future help just ask, im here everyday. - Marcusmax( speak) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks
MacOfJesus (
talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
reply

I have added another bit to "letters", but the reference list, I don't think I can edit? I placed the source at the end. Help MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

How did the box appear? Magic? MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I see that you have done that. But is (2) the correct source? MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You are right I made a mistake, but I have corrected it now. See my last comment on Talk:Father Victor White for information on how to easily reference this like I do. - Marcusmax( speak) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Is it space key? 
MacOfJesus (
talk) 11:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
reply

Yes it was me who put quotation marks in, If the words are copyrighted then I would think quotes would be better then no quotes, but then again I could be wrong. - Marcusmax( speak) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey I have done some research on " Answer to Job", and the latest version I found was from 1984 (a preview can be found here) and here is a list of potential sources to help out:

• "Jung's Answer to Job: a commentary"
• excerpt from "A heart of wisdom: religion and human wholeness"
• excerpts from "Mythos and logos in the thought of Carl Jung: the theory of the collective"
• [Men, religion, and melancholia: James, Otto, Jung, and Erikson A chapter in "Men, religion, and melancholia: James, Otto, Jung, and Erikson"]
• A chapter from "Jung and the lost Gospels: insights into the Dead Sea"

Thats all I can find for now but will keep looking. - Marcusmax( speak) 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I've got to study the original "Answer to Job", I don't think it is possible to be priveleged with the correspondence that led up to it, so I won't look.

Once again thanks. MacOfJesus ( talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been looking at the "here" above; a copy of the book itself but only the first 18 pages! Is it possible to access the remaining pages, Marcusmax, and thanks. MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't write that, and I don't know that much about contemporary epistemology. I took an introductory philosophy class and we did Cartesian internalism and foundationalism among other things but not the stuff that anonymous author refers to, whose contribution can be found in the history if we look hard enough. My first impression on a cursory glance is that you wrote it. Andrevan @ 08:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comments, and a very Happy New Year for 2010 for you! Sorry it has been a while since I was last in touch - I went to see my parents over Christmas, where I did not have an internet connection. I agree that to say "Father White (Dominican)" would be a little superfluous for the title of the article - the insertion of "Father" should avoid confusion with any one else of that name. About epistemology, I shall have to think about that one - my training is psychology rather than philosophy, but I do come across philosophical questions in my work.

While I am here, do you know any one who knows about the Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama? I started an article on him in 2008, but few people seem able to edit it. Many thanks and all the best for 2010, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I have left a fuller comment on your talk page. I will make enquiries re the theologian. The page was "Father Victor White", which has been changed to: "Victor White (Dominican)". On reading the article page again, I feel very strongly that this is an error.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I have just received your message about the Athanasius article, and I would like to thank you for correcting the misunderstanding. Please note that quotations should have quotation marks (in the case of short quotations) or block indentation (in the case of long quotes). I corrected the word "hither" because I did not realize it was part of a quotation. Additionally, the footnote system is the preferred method of citation in Wikipedia. The paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph in question demonstrate this.

As regards your message, in future would you please leave messages on my User talk page? Thank you very much for your work, and I hope to engage with you again very soon. ZoomaBaresAll ( talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment. There is no infringement of copyright involved here as the source is 1930. The work involved was immence and the credit is given at the end of the paragraph to Cornelius Clifford. I wish to concentrate on the article page and am more familiar with fountain-pen and ink. If you wish to put this correction in then by all means but return the "Hither". The whole work in getting the transcrips of the Council of Sardica is immence and was missing. The research meant that the previous entries of Timothy Barnes was removed, in which he held an accusiation of murder for Saint Athanasius, sourced from the Obisius Faction.

The reson why I did not place the source at the end is that this entry is unique and valuable in it's place.

Now the Article page is one that Wikipedia can be proud of.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message. I've made some appropriate and sourced edits to the article. Mamalujo ( talk) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I take your point about the "Jung and politics" section on the article on Jung - the article does not say much on this. There has been a lot of controversy about Jung's political views in biographies of Jung - defenders of Jung denying that he was anti-Semitic, opponents of Jung going as far as claims that Jung was pro-Nazi (Frank McClynn, for example). A more balanced view is provided in te book "Jung and Politics" - but this was a book I read a long time ago,and I shall need to check the author (I expect it can be found on Amazon). ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I find it very had to imagine such a free thinker to be anything other than a sceptic regarding anything that would threaten control of our thoughts. Thanks for coming back on this!

MacOfJesus ( talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Good I'll have to check by a look at the progress made, I haven't looked in a while! - Marcusmax( speak) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well as long as what you have on the page is well written, no one should delete it. Plus it can't be easy to expand an article on a book from BC. - Marcusmax( speak) 19:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thats quite odd that no one had attempted to write the page yet? And it seems like an important Jung topic. - Marcusmax( speak) 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know... The Dove vs Pigeon question was asked by a user who is not allowed to use Wikipedia, so the question was removed. Your answer is now strangely attached to another question. -- kainaw ™ 17:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you!

I was wondering what was happening! I'll remove my message.

MacOfJesus ( talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message on my talk page. Actually, I was the one who created the Woman with seven sons article, and I had already thought about whether it belongs in List of names for the Biblical nameless. But that article seems to be working on the idea that Bible = Hebrew Bible + Christian New Testament, and so the Deuterocanonicals aren't included. (They are not in the Hebrew text, only in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.) So we really need to have a discussion about the scope of the article, and I'm glad you've raised the issue on the article's talk page. StAnselm ( talk) 23:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It does look like we've failed to obtain a consensus at this time. My personal preference would be to close the discussion per WP:CLOSE so we can all get on with our lives. StAnselm ( talk) 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

re: your message

Hi Bernard, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69 ^talk 21:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Mac, I'm going to ask that you please stop using the Reference Desk for prostletyzing, as you did on the question about faith in science. Providing your view once was fine, but the repetition really goes over the top towards preaching, which is not what the RefDesk is for. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 12:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

For the Record:

I have responded to this request, but not here. All the things I've "said" can be substanciated and have been sourced by me in my previous study. MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am now back on line again, as I managed to purchase a new Dell computer - a laptop. Thank you for your interest in Father Victor White and also in Carl Gustav Jung. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your message. Feel free to drop a message on my userpage regarding any input you wish to share with me. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the message which you left on my userpage. Did you know that Kurt Godel produced his own version of the ontological proof of God's existence, as put forth by Anselm of Canterbury? Something on Aquinas would be of interest to me - part of my job involves teaching the history of psychology, but we do not cover medieval psychology in depth. Copleston's book on Aquinas is an excellent source on this. Thank you again for the message, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bernard Mc Nally. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Bernard Mc Nally. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Bernard Mc Nally. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Bernard Mc Nally, where did you really get File:Saint Pope Pius V.jpg? "Vatican" is a bit unspecific. -- Túrelio ( talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Turelio, for taking an interest..... This image was given to me from an unknown source..... I was hoping that a scholar on the subject would pick up the inferences and point to the origin of the image...... Saint Pius V, life history shows that for a short time on the Chair, achieved so much. So I was hoping you would tell me. MacOfJesus ( talk) 23:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The source?? It, I believe, comes from the Protestant Huguenot mentioned in the Article Page. The background details tells. They accused St Pius V of being uncompromising on Lutheranism. They accused him of bringing about the Inquisition. However, with the lack of print in the public sector, what he gave "his ok to" was not what materialized. MacOfJesus ( talk) 19:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I highly recommend, a short booklet named: St. Pius V, by Professor Robin Anderson a TAN book: ISBN: 0-89555-354-6...It has a forward by Card. Ottaviani.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

{{ adminhelp}}

I need an administrator for help. Please advise. Thanks! Please see the following page: Deaths in 2011. Also, please see the following two Talk Page sections: Talk:Deaths in 2011#Stupidity and Talk:Deaths in 2011#Images. Also, please see the edits / reverts of the following user: B-Machine ( talk · contribs). Can some administrator intervene, as this user is ignoring consensus and engaging in edit wars? I am not sure, administratively, how such matters are handled. Please advise. Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)) reply

The Administer to help, as I found him very helpful is: User:OlEnglish. Find his talk page and at the end leave a message. Leave this whole message at the end of his talk page. I know he will not mind. MacOfJesus ( talk) 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks. I am still planning to get back to you on the Bible issue. That is on my "to do" list, and I shall be in touch shortly. Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)) reply

If you like I'll leave a note on his talk page and direct him to your page and difficulty! MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, please do! Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)) reply

I've done that. OLEnglish spelt: (OlEnglish) welcomed me a year-and-half ago and has been a big help ever since! MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Great ... thank you! I will wait to hear from him! Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)) reply

Hey :) Looks like that user has been told about it, and I'll keep an eye on his edits for a while :) [ stwalkerster| talk 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

User:OlEnglish, has received the talk on his page and even though on leave will look into it. Hope it works out. MacOfJesus ( talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. I am cleaning up old messages from my Talk Page, that I had not tended to as of yet. Sorry for the delay. Belated thanks for your help in the above matter. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi... Thank you for your message... [still here]... MacOfJesus ( talk) 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Athanasius of Alexandria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raison d'être ( 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) 08:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I will correct it now....... thank you..... MacOfJesus ( talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I am looking for the remaining references needs and will place them when I have them..... MacOfJesus ( talk) 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I have researched the last Gospel and it's relevance to the the topic page; St Athanasius. St John's Gospel is immensely significant here. Hence, a reference to it is needed. MacOfJesus ( talk) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I have re-worded the entry to this with references making it clear, what I took for granted, the significance of St John's Gospel. The references give witness to the use MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Lixxx235 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!

-- L235 ( talk) Ping when replying 02:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for excellent defense of articles on Christianity-related subjects. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:John Carter submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Bernard Mc Nally as Editor of the Week for ... his long-standing efforts in helping maintain some of our designated vital content. Bernard has been an editor for some six years now. In that time, he has logged roughly 3,000 edits, including some 500 to the various reference desks. He has also been one of, if not the, primary maintainer of one of our more central Christian articles, Athanasius of Alexandria, one of our listed vital articles, and has logged over 300 edits on that article and talk page. I know from some little experience with that article how the subject has been in recent years subject to some rather speculative and perhaps less than completely responsible discussion in academia, and how there have been longstanding attempts to perhaps give undue weight to content related to such matters. I think such long-standing and dedicated effort to maintain one of our vital articles in reasonable shape is deserving of the community's recognition of his efforts

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Bernard Mc Nally

Athanasius of Alexandria

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 25, 2015

Continuous attention as the primary maintainer of one of our more central Christian articles, Athanasius of Alexandria, one of our listed vital articles and maintaining equilibrium on its talk page.

Recognized for

Focussed effort

Notable work(s)

Athanasius of Alexandria

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! God bless, Go Phightins ! 03:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Your efforts are appreciated. Buster Seven Talk 14:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you...... MacOfJesus ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you, taking on Professor Timothy Barns and others was not for the faint-hearted....... MacOfJesus ( talk) 14:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Taking on an academic is never an easy task. You earned this. John Carter ( talk) 17:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Congratulations! -- L235 ( talk) [[User:Lixxx235/sig

info|Ping when replying]] 18:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for thinking of me.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Is OLEnglish still in the House...??.. He was the one who welcomed me and aided me to get beyond the threshold.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

______________________________________

May I have a consensus to restore this key statement from the researching Historian; Cornelius Clifford....... As so many, it appears, do not like the Old English wording..... may I attempt to reword it in a way that truly reflects the History..... ? I quote here........ and to restore the reference of Mother Forbes to Pope Saint Gregory the Great......

What you will find that it is truly impossible to "Secularise" the life of Saint Athanasius, no matter how one tries......

"Early in the year 343 we find the undaunted exile in Gaul, whither he had gone to consult the saintly Hosius, the great champion of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for the Council of Sardica which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff's wishes. At this great gathering of prelates the case of Athanasius was taken up once more; and once more was his innocence reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared, one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, the other to the bishops of Egypt and Lybia, in which the will of the Council was made known. Meanwhile the Eusebian party had gone to Philippopolis, where they issued an anathema against Athanasius and his supporters. The persecution against the orthodox party broke out with renewed vigour, and Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempt to re-enter his see, he should be put to death. Athanasius, accordingly, withdrew from Sardica to Naissus in Mysia, where he celebrated the Easter festival of the year 344."

Quoted directly from : Athanasius, Saint, Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church, Cornelius Clifford, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, 1907..... MacOfJesus (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistakingly, I said it was from the 1930 publications.... but it was from the 1907 editions..... which I have in front of me.... MacOfJesus (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Does "Editor of the Week" extend to this????

MacOfJesus ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

What I wish to change this key statement to:

Early in the year 343 we find Athanasius had travelled from Alexandria, North Africa, to Gaul nowadays Belgium / Holland and surrounding areas, where Hosius was Bishop, the great champion of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for Sardica. A full Council of the Church was convened / summoned there in deference to the Roman pontiff's wishes. The travel was a mammoth task in itself. At this great gathering of prelates, leaders of the Church, the case of Athanasius was taken up once more, that is, Athanasius was formally questioned over misdemeanours and even murder; and once more was his innocence reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared, one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, the other to the bishops of Egypt and Lybia, in which the will of the Council was made known. Meanwhile the Eusebian party had gone to Philippopolis, where they issued an anathema against Athanasius and his supporters. The persecution against the orthodox party broke out with renewed vigour, and Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempt to re-enter his see, he should be put to death. Athanasius, accordingly, withdrew from Sardica to Naissus in Mysia, where he celebrated the Easter festival of the year 344.

I think this change to modern English would help to clarify the issue.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 21:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Also,

"When the Bishops of the Church assembled to elect their new Patriach, the whole Catholic population surrounded the church, holding up their hands to Heaven and crying; "Give us Arhanasius!" The Bishops had nothing better. Athanasius was thus elected, as St. Gregory tells us..." This is the full quote of F. A. Forbes work.....

All I wish is to put this in with the clear reference to Pope Saint Gregory the Great's work..... The Pope would have full access to the Archives.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

This point is important as from another section in the page, some have indicated that Athanasius was too young or usurped the post..... MacOfJesus ( talk) 13:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I put in a few minor edits.....references to Hosius of Cordoba & to the Council of Sardica..... I did not realise I hadn't signed in.... the reference is 5.65.147.10..... MacOfJesus ( talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. Click the following link for more details: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations. Please send me an email (jmatthews@wikimedia.org) for instructions on how to claim your shirt. Thank you again for all you do! -- JMatthews (WMF) ( talk) 22:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I'll e-mail now..... MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I have today, 31 of March 2015, received the T-Shirt...... Thank you...... MacOfJesus ( talk) 10:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I am still trying to research and make this page tops..... Alban Butler's work 1860 ... is significant and I feel has a lot to offer the page.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 08:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I have added to the page the references to Pope Liberius and to St. Jerome's testaments..... I think it makes a difference to the page.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 08:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

On researching St Athanasius, I have un-earthed quite a few references to the Bishop of Cagliari and a new section in his page is called for....... MacOfJesus ( talk) 07:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I have made entries on the Article Page, Lucifer of Cagliari. I think they help to place the history in context...... St Jerome was adamant with the Lucifarians...... But the Arians were; " really, something else...." in modern idiom..... MacOfJesus ( talk) 08:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hence, I find it hard to blame Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari and the Lucifarians of "holding-out" on even the repentant returning from Arianism, even though they were coerced into it at pain of death...... MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Rome did not Canonise him because of this conflict with Saint Jerome.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 17:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Not only were they, The Arians, "something else", but in their accusations of others, Athanasius, we see what kind of people they were...... Other Historians never even mentioned what they accused Athanasius of and glossed over the episode with: "The case of Athanasius was taken up again." They accused Athanasius of murdering or bringing about the murder of a man called Arsenius and using his body for magic and even exhibiting his severed hand...!!!! This in contrast tells us about them and the standards they held and thought Athanasius held, too...... MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I can research and find a clear reference to the accusations of the Arians here for the Article page: Athanasius of Alexandria...... or is it necessary??? MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I have un-earthed a clear reference for the reason and the source of it's beginning..... & Pope Liberius' stand in afterwards accepting the Arian position...... MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The Section of Quotes is now completely removed. A student coming to the page to understand Athanasius and his stand in the 3-4 Century will find it hard to put in context.... Some of the quotes I placed in. The other deleted parts I did not write..... If the Article Page is to remain an A1 Page then it does need this section.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to vote on candidates....... However, not knowing the people makes it impossible to choose.......

The criteria for any editor should be: 1./ What is the best for the Article Page..... not necessarily: How can we get a cross-section of the World's people to be editors..... 2./ The best Article Page is one that is well researched and referenced and gives the student or viewer the best possible view of the subject....

MacOfJesus ( talk) 21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for asking me to nominate candidates.......

However, I have not met any I can recommend....

MacOfJesus ( talk) 13:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bernard Mc Nally. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

The Article Page Council of Sardica in 343 to 344 is in need of being re-written....

It is necessary to know the background and the reasons of this key Council, to understand it....

It is key importance to Article Page Athanasius of Alexandria...... where a full account is given.....

The authors of Council of Sardica page suggested uniting it to Philippopolis Council.....

This reveals a lack of understanding of the Council....

I request that the Page Council of Sardica be cleared to begin again....

Today, I am 8 years here.......

MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The change to: ".....and sent back to his See to enthusiastic demonstrations of the populace,..." from Encyclopaedia Britannic in NOT a Neutral statement........ In fact it is quite patronising to the people of Alexandria..... It is suggesting that they are "Plebs"....

This confirms why I do not include desertions from the Encyclopaedia .....

Not it appears that that is a statement by Cornelius Clifford......

This Article Page took a lot of research and only the best / researched was used......

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This change is unnecessary and was quite adequate with the wording of Cornelius Clifford.....

MacOfJesus ( talk) 19:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I have restored the brackets to show clearly which reference is which.... Necessary to keep the Page tops....

MacOfJesus ( talk) 16:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	In recognition of your eight years of effort here. John Carter ( talk) 16:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you, John Carter... MacOfJesus ( talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The Article Page: The Council of Sardica...... is in need of expanding and historical accounts added....

As it stands only the bare agreement points are given.....

The significance of this Council is key.....

I have added before to the Article Page but it is reverted to a Ghost Account....

MacOfJesus ( talk) 16:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you,

I have nominated... John Carter.....

MacOfJesus ( talk) 10:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

There are two Article Pages of the subject where there should be just one. The School developed and grew greatly and was joined by many from East & West. It was in existence before Pantœnus, but he made it famous... The Article Page needs to be re-written. The historical beginnings and development is obscured in the two Article Pages.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The two Article Pages are: 1/ Alexandrian School & 2/ Catechetical School of Alexandria.... The origins of the one School go back to St Mark, Second Gospel writer, according to St Jerome....

Such an important School that developed into a seat of learning and excellence to be shrouded in obscurity gives credence to many Universities and Colleges refusing their pupils to use anything from Wikipedia... MacOfJesus ( talk) 16:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

 I now have written on the Article Page: 
Catechetical School of Alexandria.... using very reliable sources ....   However, I wonder is there anyone here to notice...??? 
MacOfJesus (
talk) 12:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
reply

Hello, Bernard Mc Nally. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  I do not know any one of these candidates....... 
  What worries me is that many Universities refuse their Students to use anything on Wikipedia..... There are so many Article Pages in my Studies that are in need of being    re-written.... I will continue to challenge and write on these..... 
MacOfJesus (
talk) 10:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
reply

Dear Wikipedians,

I have researched and made entries for Catechetical School of Alexandria keeping to reliable and trustwordy accounts..... as there are so many untrue accounts and inaccurate, as each faction gave their own accounts.....

The point I'm making is there anyone here to notice...??

MacOfJesus ( talk) 12:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bernard Mc Nally. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Simple question:

Not meant to be a Philosophical discussion on life,

But, How do I change my Password, please.... ???/

Bernard.....

Sorry for the question.....

I found it....

......

Is there anyone here...????

Is there anyone here interested in Philosophy, Epistemology, Psychology, Ancient History, Religion, Early Christianity, Patrology and other related subjects....????

MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear Wikipidia,

I am surprised that on the Feastday of such a great figure of Early Christianity not one mention is made of him on the title /front page of Wikipidia....

Perhaps I am the only one here...???

MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. I saw that recently you edited on Portal:Current events/2020 May 2 which seemed to be unconstructive. Earlier in April, Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events became active again. I wanted to invite you to the project, as we can teach what to add/remove from Portal:Current events. Hopefully you will consider joining. Elijahandskip ( talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you...... I have concentrated on the content of Articles and I was wondering if there were anyone of the same ideas.... I have researched for Father Victor White O.P. and Carl Gustaf Jung.... Athanasius of Alexandria... Alexandria the City.... and related subjects.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 12:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I am not familiar with the Candidates... MacOfJesus ( talk) 09:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I noticed after some of the quotes and references from my library / Citations, a flag has been raised to say [page needed]..... This has occurred in the Article Page: Athanasius of Alexandria..... Could you be more specific in your request and explain why.... These books are in my Library / Libraries.... MacOfJesus ( talk) 12:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Is there and Article Page on this subject/s.... MacOfJesus.. ??? MacOfJesus ( talk) 08:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply