User talk:OlEnglish/Archive 6

Answer to Job
After taking the Father Victor White Article page to a decent level now. It leaves Answer to Job, the much harder to work on page! Being versed on the Book of Job is not easy in itself and the correspondance that produced "Answer to Job" is not easily available!

Is it OK to try? It means seeking out the latest on "Answer to Job", i.e.: the most recent publication. And can you help?

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's ok to try. You don't need to ask my permission. Not sure how I could help though.. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The correspondence between Father Victor White and Jung lead to this publication and getting hold of it is going to be the hard bit!

Thanks for getting back to me!

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear OIEnglish, Marcusmax has dug out some very useful sources. This is by no means an easy study, and unfortunately the access to the correspondence that led up to the publication is not at hand!

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Blonde article
You reverted my edits and you don't like me. Do you think this picture is good for the article; if it isn't I don't know what is. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whaddaya think? Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine, I have no problem with it being used in the article. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahah how'd you make the TM sign in your name? Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See Help:Advanced editing -- &oelig; &trade; 07:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How Could You?
My page on the Wikipedian Game was like a child to me. Like a child. You've essentially killed my only son. You murderer! How could you? How could you? Jonny4026 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Enough trolling. You've had your fun, now please consider making productive contributions, else go play at Uncyclopedia. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Androgyny?
File:Blonde hair Daniel Christensen.JPG Maybe it could go there. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


Re:
Yes, that was me. No, I have no clue who started it - I barely remember last month let alone four years ago! Rebecca (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Any idea why that person would name you as the originator? -- &oelig; &trade; 04:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

World's Greatest Magic
Thanks for your help! I was tired that night! Buddpaul (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review
Are you still up for your offer for reviewing three editors at the Editor review. I already did one and want to know if you are still willing to give me a barnstar if I review two more :). Btilm  03:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, just link me to the 3 reviews once they're done and I will take a look. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal tutor / deleting and removing
In the talk page of ACEOREVIVED, a note was made to the deletion of this person's article page : Personal tutor, on the grounds that there was one already.

The qualifications of ACEOREVIVED on that person's page indicates their qualifications. If anyone is qualified to write on this subject it is surely them!

I ask again for a new policy on deleting and removing.

Help!

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) {You can wish me a happy birthday, I've been on Wikipedia 1 year, and conributed 1,038 entrants!}


 * Well happy wiki-birthday! :) You needn't worry about Personal tutor, the speedy deletion was declined and the page was redirected to the existing article. And there is already a fully-formed deletion policy which covers everything, including this situation. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, OIEnglish,

And a Very Happy Christmas! Keep up the good work!

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

review
Okay. I reviewed three people. Krazycev13, Michaelkourlas, and Belinrahs. Btilm 03:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!!!!! I might even review some more if you are still willing to reward me will extra barnstars!  Btilm  15:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Epistemology
Dear OIEnglish,

I have encountered another situation, that you may be able to help on.

I have been making comments on the Talk page of Epistemology. The page, the Article page, is out of date and does not cover the complete field. This point has been very well outlined by a very studied and clear comment in the talk page at point 15; "Epistemological Theories and Irrationalism". I have made comments to the same end but received only one comment that was dismissive.

A good page on this topic would be key to the status of Wikipedia.

Could something be done to attract top people of this field to correct/ or make a new page.

Again Thank You,

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you can try to be bold and expand the article yourself to bring the article up to date. Or, to attract a subject matter expert you can try placing the tag Expert-subject with the related subject as a parameter, ie: . --  &oelig; &trade; 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't feel qualified enough in modern thought on this, although I have studied Existencialism. I would love to speak to the originator of point 15: Epistemological Theories and Irrationalism, and invited them to speak. I will speak to ACEOREVIVED on this.

Once again Thank you.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The originator of the post was User:Brizimm, as can be seen with this edit. You can try contacting him at his talk page, but unfortunately this user has not edited since July 17, 2006 so you might not get a reply. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * However, see this edit where he provides his full name, title and several email addresses where you can reach him! How's that for helpful? ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was right to vote for you, and second your nomination, you deserve your position. Well done.MacOfJesus (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew (Fader), said it was'nt him, and suggested me! I was'nt in Wikipedia then! However, he too, said he is'nt qualified. I'll speak to ACEOREVIVED. Thanks again. The one who asks the question is'nt necessary the one who can enter on the Article page!

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Andrew Fader? who's that? The guy's name was Brian Zimmerman. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on both pages: Brizimm and Andrevan, it looks like they are the same person? You indicate they are one and the same! He leaves a message not to speak about his change of name! Pardon, if I've made a mistake!

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh! no no, User:Brizimm simply left a message on User:Andrevan's talk page explaining how he can be contacted, I was NOT indicating that User:Brizimm IS User:Andrevan. The person who wrote the study WAS User:Brizimm who WAS Brian Zimmerman. and in this message to Andrevan he explains he how can be contacted. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Clear. OK. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What about next point? From all angles I do think this is an error. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to. Please clarify 'next point' and what you think is an error. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Next point is; Father Victor White, the name of the Article page has been changed from "Father Victor White" to "Victor White (Dominican)". This is an error as I explained in the "next point", under heading "Father Victor White". (I'll explain under that heading).

Father Victor White
Dear OIEnglish,

Sorry to have another thing to sort out!

As you know I have written on the Article page of "Father Victor White" on his correspondence with Jung. Now the article page has been changed to : "Victor White (Dominican)". This is not correct as Jung corresponded with him as "Father" not as a Dominican. Father White studied Classical Theology and Classical Philosophy for his Priesthood, and it was in this capasity the correspondence originated. As you know in the Dominican Order has both Brothers and Priests and the training for each is utterly different. It is therefore essential to the Article page that the "Father" remains. Jung knew him as "Father" not necessarly as a Dominican.

As you know I have had to study to write on the Article page of Father Victor White. This is unlike, for instance, Paul of Tarsus, as he became Saint after his death, as in the case of all Saints. Father Victor White was in the letters and correspondence of Jung in this capasity from the beginning.

Hence, can it be reversed?

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Article page, one will see that the correspondence was with "Father" V. White was just that, not as he as a Dominican. As a writer of the article page together with ACEOREVIVED I can say that this change from "Father Victor White" to Victor White (Dominican) is incorrect.

Can it be reversed?

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, anything can be reversed. I'm unfamiliar with the subject so I can't say either way which is right but hopefully you can work it out with another editor if you write your concerns on the talk page. I'm sorry it took so long to respond here, I just take a while to respond sometimes ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, OIEnglish,

I've done that. Every line of the article page indicates that the title should be reversed. The very conflict was over the Nature of God!

In my entry on the Article page of Father Victor White, I deliberately kept to ordinary language and words avoiding (where possible) the jargon of the experts. It should be easy to follow. The only unusual conceps are: privatio boni, and empirical thought.

privatio boni, simply is one of the principles of Classical Theology which explains evil as the absence of good.

empirical thought, is that thought that we know emphatically, that we know without reference to anything else. That, for example; I exist.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at "Answer to Job", and The Book of Job and the Wisdom Litrature again preparing an entry in Article page: "Answer to Job". However, I am reluctant to progress, at this stage, as the error of naming the Article page Father Victor White remains incorrect. This error spills over onto the source of conflict: "Answer to Job".

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dear , Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;) Love and best wishes, Meaghan - Merry Christmas!  - 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Merry Christmas to you too :D &oelig; &trade; 05:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


December21st2012Freak  Happy Holidays! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. December21st2012Freak  Happy Holidays! 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks you! Right back at ya :) Merry Christmas! -- &oelig; &trade; 05:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jung/White
I am looking at "Answer to Job", and The Book of Job and the Wisdom Litrature again preparing an entry in Article page: "Answer to Job". However, I am reluctant to progress, at this stage, as the error of naming the Article page Father Victor White remains incorrect. This error spills over onto the source of conflict: "Answer to Job".

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nihilism
I take very strong exception to the edit summary which accompanied this edit. I would like you to point out a single edit I made to that article that was anything other than reverting vandalism, removing uncited information and commentary, or, in one case, restoring an earlier version of the lede that had been completely rewritten without any discussion. None of this indicates "ownership," the offense of which you accused me. Furthermore, your edit summary for 11:48, 28 December 2009, "Music: don't have a citation but it's very evident," is bollocks and you know it. I removed the statement with an edit summary requesting a citation, and reverted an anon. who readded it. When you "reverted," you actually added references that back up the statement, but you did not say so in your edit summary, instead you made an unfounded accusation against me, which seems utterly gratuitous. As an admin., I should think you'd know better. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I retract the accusation I made against you. Looking back on the incident now I see it was silly of me to quickly judge you the way I did. I was probably just a little sore that I got reverted; you were right, I should've added a citation right from the start. Please accept my apologies and I hope we can work together in the future. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Cheers. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Section on High Court Judge ruling removed ???
Why did you remove the section on the High Court Judge Ruling?? Is it not important information to know that the film contains 9 proven scientific errors ??? I am not giving my opinion by citing the judges assertation...

Censorship by wikipedia ????

Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.65.230 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is important. That is why it is already mentioned in the "Controversy" section. You were adding redundant information. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Batlló Crucifix image
Thanks for adding the image to the article on the Battló Crucifix. It really improves the page. Imervard (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Dismas
Dear OIEnglish,

In this Article page, the first I've written on, I have place in on the references the tributes to the 4 sources to the work I placed in, and attempted, to indicate which source was to which writing. I thought I did this OK? However, now the sources are dublicated and triblicated, although they indicate correctly to the particular writings. I am not familiar with the cleaning-up procedure, and would rather leave it to an experienced Editor such as yourself. If you wish I can reaffirm which source to which writing. Help!

I think the page is one to be proud of now!

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like another editor already tried to clean up the footnote referencing. I furthered refined it, everything looks fine now with the references, they are formatted properly according to the Manual of Style. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, OIEnglish,

That is what I had in mind. It is now good. This is the way it was, I think, apart from the "< >". I was a little reluctant to do this myself in case I got lost!

This Article page Wikipedia can be proud of!

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Athanasius
In this Article page, I have placed in a quotation from Cornelius Clifford, in the Biography, (last year) and now, placed in the full reference to the quote in the reference list, but could not add to the Notes with the relevant No. as this seems to be blocked to me? Next I will look up his work on Sardica.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Industrial design
Thank you for your endorsement here. --<font face="Times" color="#4590ff" size="2">AlainR345<font color="#ffb000">Techno-Wiki-Geek 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How to initiate discussion for blocking an IP user
Hi OE, thank you for your welcome. For the most part I have been able to figure out WP, but I have run into a problem. I was on The Tonight Show host and timeslot conflict when I noticed vandalism by 98.212.224.178 How would I go about blocking this user from editing? First, the editor in question has made several edits, all of which were in some form vandalism, and continued to do so after appropriate warnings and over enough time to know that it is a static IP. The user seems to fit all the requirements for at least a temporary ban, but all the articles are unclear as how to start a community discussion on the user to get a consensus and effect such a ban or block. What do I need to do? Thanks, Somedaypilot (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Answered at User talk:Somedaypilot. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Saint Athanasius 2
I have placed in the full reference number and name in the notes at the end and in the list of references. It may need an Editor to standardise the links, and place, in the correct position, the source in the Notes List, in article page Saint Athanasius.

Thanks again.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have placed in the No: [32] for the cited work manually, as I do not have assess to "The Notes" for entries, so placed at the end, of Notes. This links to Cornelius Clifford's work in the 1930 Encyclopedia. This is for the Article page: Saint Athanasius.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 187 in popular culture


The article 187 in popular culture has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No reason given to why the number 187 is any different from any random number.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sole Soul (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jung: Influences
In the Article page of Jung, underneath his photograph are a list of people who influenced Jung. In it should be Father Victor White. According to the Father Victor White's article page he had a profound influence on Jung, which (as you know) I made the entry together with ACEOREVIVED. This is a part that I cannot edit. Can you make the entry?

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Carl Jung article? Why can't you make the edit yourself? It's not protected, you should be able to make the edit. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank You, OIEnglish, I did that, putting in Father Victor White, The Oxford Group / The AA. (The Oxford Group was the forerunner of the AA). {Hope you had a good break}.


 * I made a mistake; I meant the Oxford Group, not the Oxford Movement.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did have a good break. Thanks :) -- &oelig; &trade; 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Colorful nobility
Growing old I am. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha! np, happens to me all the time.. the growing old thing I mean ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 09:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Athanasius 3
On this article page, I have attampted to Edit "Notes" and place in links to citations for the work of Cornelius Clifford, but it would appear that I am unable to Edit "Notes".

I left the cited reference at the end of "Notes" with the No: 32 to his work. I placed in approx. 4 references to his work.

It now just needs a good Editor to cite correctly the references. OK? Thanks.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. To learn how to do this yourself, a good start would be to read Referencing for beginners. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)