User talk:BuckRefvem

Hello. I've responded to your comment on Talk:Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Haploidavey (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Athanasius

The section on this Article page in which I researched and placed in the quotation from the famous historian and patrologist, Cornelius Clifford, was his words quoted exactly and was the part that was missing, the reports from the Council of Sardica.

Would you like to do this to Shakesphere?

One cannot modernise history. "Hither" implises movement and a tence that is not present in modern English. It is we who must understand history, not history us!

Unless you understand the development of the Article page from what it was to now, and understand the Patrology of Saint Athanasius, then leave alone!

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm not that familiar with the computer more with fountain-pen and ink.

I left a comment on my talk page in response. I am so sorry, I thought I was in your talk page!

The quote from 1930 Cornelius Clifford is so unique and valuable that I think it should be where it is. This section was the bit that was missing and if you follow the talk page of the article you will see how important it was, and is.

Getting the full transcripts of the Council of Sardica is going to be an-up-hill battle, I am still waiting for them. Rome sees time in centuaries.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have no objection to the quote, as such, as long at it's properly cited. ZoomaBaresAll (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Athanasius 2

I have left the full reference to Cornelius Clifford in the references of this article page, both at the quotation and in the list. However, the notes are blocked to me so I cannot place the reference nos. in. I will attempt to look up his further work on Sardica.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do that?

Don't mind me, but aren't your edits to User_talk:ZoomaBaresAll against some sort of rules? Isn't it against Wikipedia policy (see bottom of section) to use or edit another person's user or user_talk page (even if it's not registered)?

Since it is an "alternate account," I suggest you:

register that name so an admin or bot doesn't investigate, and
Place a notice that it is an alternate account (Well, that's what I would do)

That way an admin won't take action.

I found the page from the Double Redirects page, so it's almost guaranteed to be found by a bot, and then by an admin.

-B1KWikis (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while Wikipedia may condemn sockpuppet accounts, they do have a list of legitimate sockpuppets (e.g. creating the account, then putting an "alt account badge" is perfectly in line with the rules) -B1KWikis (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomaBaresAll is my old username for this account. I haven't edited the talk page since changing it. BuckRefvem (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]