User talk:Byronmarchant

Hello, Byronmarchant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Christ myth theory, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing sourced material. By now, it should be clear that there is no consensus for the changes you insist on introducing, so please use the talk page to discuss instead of just repeating the same disruptive edits. Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeppiz. I Byronmarchant made a change and Wtmitchell asked me to give a reference, which I did. Now you seem to have another suggestion (or complaint). My changes were for the goal of accuracy. Why don't you read the source material, Christ and the Caesars (Bloomington IN: Xlibris, 2015), before you insist on deleting my changes? If my changes (edits) are considered "disruptive" by you, maybe you can learn to live with it, they certainly are not intended to be disruptive, only illustrative and productive for the sake of accuracy, and from the point of view of a skeptic of what you have called a "consensus" opinion. I understand that Wikipedia prefers accuracy to consensus. Byronmarchant (talk). Thanks.

Hello Zarcusian. You wrote: "This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Zarcusian (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 19 September 2015 (Undid revision 681817489 by Byronmarchant (talk) Per WP:BRD, please open a discussion on the talk page, and cease edit warring. Thank you.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version." Is there any chance you might give some detail to your decision to apply "...the current revision..." to my recent changes made to the "Christ myth theory" website?Byronmarchant (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, my edit summary stated per

talk) 20:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I get it, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle is a place where consensus (voting on the talk page) determines (over accuracy) what gets to be placed on the webpage. Isn't that (WP:BRP) just another antidemocratic word for censorship (by the masses, or asses)?Byronmarchant (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because, although you might not get this, accuracy is open to the interpretation of individuals. Honestly, where possible, I prefer to go by what is said in the best recent reference works regarding a topic to determine matters like

WP:CONSENSUS is by definition one of the cornerstones of a collaborative environment such as this one. If you can produce independent reliable sources which indicate that the changes you wish to make are an improvement, please do so at the article talk page. Honestly, given the amount of people who have the pages watched, it can reasonably be argued that the number and variety of individuals who will take part is probably effectively enough to ensure the content is fair and accurate. And, not knowing the situation Zarcusian is referring to myself which causes him to raise COI concerns, I guess I would have to second his request that you review it, and, if it is applicable, act appropriately.Regarding the rather stupid and mindless insult you choose to level at those who may disagree with you, the less said about that by anyone, including you, the better, although you might also wish to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Mr. Carter, your friend Zarcusian has never, after my invitation, offered any specifics about COI. Your defense of him confirms my statement: "...the masses, are asses" (yes, you seem to be one of them). And for your "rather stupid and mindless..." comment; yes, it is quite "stupid and mindless" for you to attack my posts here. Get a life and stop with the "personal attacks" against my participation here.Byronmarchant (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to see that you feel that way Byron, it seems as though you may be able to contribute to the Wikipedia quite positively, however, at this point you seem to be taking a confrontational stance which is unfortunate. I rather doubt that you've read

talk) 23:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Zarcusian, I read all your stuff, part of which is: "Cycle. When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." Now I can tell my acquaintances that Wikipedia has no interest in allowing thoughtful information that is "unacceptable to all participants" (the masses, are asses). I just spent six years co-translating Bruno Bauer's Magnum Opus and, I assure you, I know more about the so-called "Christ myth theory" than you will ever know. After your intrusion through your ignorance into this matter, now you say "...I have nothing further to offer here, best regards." We'll see.Byronmarchant (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to

Thanks Vanjgenije for the insight. I have made some changes (edits) to the mentioned Wikipedia website but doubt that they were made while being logged out. I'll be sure to pay attention in the future (as I have in the past) to the point of your message. Thanks.Byronmarchant (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an edit to

Chillum, I will edit the contribution and reinsert it into the Christ myth theory article. Let me know if my new changes will, in your opinion, require further redaction(s).Byronmarchant (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia articles are written from a third-person perspective,
  second person ("you")
  .
• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required
  .
• Always cite a source for any new information
  . When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• we're not here to promote any ideology
  .
• Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well
  .
• Reliable sources typically include
  : articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view
  . Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited
  . If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• the center of the universe
  .

Your edits to Christ myth theory keep being reverted because they fail many of the above policies and guidelines. The best means of editing is to find a reliable source (in this case, a professionally published, mainstream academic work) and paraphrasing and summarizing portions of it -- rather than writing whatever comes to mind and adding pseudo-citations after. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian, thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately you failed to give any specific problems (according to your long list of editing rules at Wikipedia) that I have proposed in my contribution. I will wait for your specifics and then apply them to the edit. Of course, if you don't respond I will do my best to look at what I have done and fix it (to conform to your comments) on my own with another application, after which I will appreciate any suggestions you might wish to offer.Byronmarchant (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among other issues, this edit:

-

used first person instead of third person

(the first point listed),

-

gave unclear or inadequate citations

(second point listed),

-made claims that are

not covered by any sources

(third and fourth points listed),

-

sources about other positions

(multiple points listed, but especially the last three).

Again, did someone else make that edit, or did you just not read anything I wrote before replying? Because some of those things (like the use of first person) were obvious problems in that attempted edit. If

you need someone to explain how to apply general principles to every specific instance, you should probably stick to simpler topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that first person issue was pointed out to you already, and you acknowledged the message, before using first person in the article again. The only conclusions anyone can draw are that are that you either:

-don't know what "first person" means

-don't understand that the encyclopedia does not use first person in the articles (something that Chillum's post explained)

-

refusing to listen

(which some of your other posts on this page seem to support).

You can politely respond to every message, but if you keep acting against the policies, guidelines, and consensus that multiple editors have taken the time to explain for you, the best you can hope for is a lack of support on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian, I'll get right on that.Byronmarchant (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ian, Due to my experiences here on this Wikipedia edits discussion page, it has occurred to me that a Wikipedia section by the name of "Wikipedia Lingo" might be useful. Do you know of any such tool? For example, all those (and there must be thousands involved) people who spend their valuable time giving advice to new users like me--Inductees, for lack of a better term--would be able to simply refer the uninitiated to a Wikipedia webpage that laid out all the necessary and sufficient set of Wikipedia expectations for becoming an editor. Just a thought.Byronmarchant (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, Since I have been censored by Wikipedia, I won't have any interest in making any more changes. As I see it now, Wikipedia is a cult. Like other cults (Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism...) I will do what I can to destroy it/them, since cults are dangerous for the general welfare. I will, of course, be happy and most willing to accept an apology (but, of course, cults don't generally voluntarily offer sincere apologies).Byronmarchant (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See

talk) 15:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Is that an apology (sorry, I don't have time for your games)?Byronmarchant (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with cults is that they don't bother to try to understand others with different viewpoints. Zarcusian wasn't playing a game, he was reminding you of one of the site's policies that was specifically created to allow editors of a variety of backgrounds to edit without conflict. We have Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Deists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans who respect each other and the work they do here because they tried to understand that this is not a pulpit to preach any particular belief from.

That you accuse us of being a cult when you either are

unwilling

to try to understand how this place works is beyond ironic. That you think you could possibly have any effect when we've had far more zealous and knowledgeable persons devote themselves to "destroying" us fail to accomplish anything is beyond pathetic. That you're so self-entitled to think we owe you an apology leaves me with no hope that you'll ever be useful.

If you really wanted to change the site, you'd enter academia. You'd do good research, submit it to peer reviewed journals, and get published by university presses. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Byron, I've removed your previous post because it included a completely unacceptable

With all due respect, your only purpose in editing Wikipedia appears to be for the purposes of promoting your self-published translation of Bauer. You've been instructed multiple times to please visit appropriate talk pages to discuss your proposed edits. You have not done so. At this point it's appropriate to consider this both a matter of

Give me a break, Zarcusian; you Wikipedians swarm like the bees of a beehive, to protect those who, like you, are defenders of the Wikipedia cult leader [I guess that's the queen bee]. Your operation is so desperate to retain the fools who do your editing that those in it can't even approach such issues with any amount of logic. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your Bart D. Ehrman Tautology (and continue to expose yourselves to the world as the fools that you are). And your remark about me [us] "promoting your [our] self-published translation of Bauer," I don't suppose you might decide some day to learn something about Early Christian History and read Bauer's masterpiece: http://bookstore.xlibriscom/Products/SKU-000740888/Christ-and-the-Caesars.aspx [to see the link, you will need to put a "." between xlibris and com] would you? But then you wouldn't likely know if the publication is a quality translation or not. By the way, I don't object to the policy of rejecting self-published works, just the crude way in which the Wikipedia cult goes about promoting that policy ["...Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist..."]. As for your co-cultist, Ian.Thomson, here are a couple of zingers you might read through:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ian.thomson/Sandbox

and 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians

Now, that's a man on a mission.Byronmarchant (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what would that mission be? Satanism? Woooo, spooky.

is bothering to try and improve the List of demons in the Ars Goetia

article should be a pretty good indication that this is just a hobby for me. The same cannot be said for you.

Last warning on personal attacks. If you don't want to

be a grown up about it, leave the site, and get your work properly published. We're just a summary of mainstream academia, and if you want your work here, you need to prove to them that it's worth mentioning. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Per above: "As far as I'm concerned, you [the Wikipedia bees with stingers] can keep your Bart D. Ehrman Tautology (and continue to expose yourselves to the world as the fools that you are)," I've "been there done that."Byronmarchant (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there are people here who don't yet know what the "Bart D. Ehrman Tautology" is, the following lays it out both, as the tautology that it is as well as in terms of an example of Aristotle's Syllogism:

If there is no meaningful first century evidence of an alleged first century, New Testament, Jesus Christ, of what use is any second century evidence of him?

Bart D. Ehrman Tautology

According to Webster’s Dictionary, the word tautology is defined thus: “a statement in which you repeat a word, idea, etc., in a way that is not necessary.” I guess that means redundancy:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tautology

Regarding my proposed “Bart D. Ehrman Tautology,” in a book he had published in 2012, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth:

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443

he seems to have argued in the following Wikipedia webpage in two ways. First, there are no real scholars (Ph.D.s, serious scholars of religious history...) who have argued as proponents of what Wikipedia calls the “Christ myth theory”:

“The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet,” Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? (NY: Harper Collins, 2012), p. 4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Second, later in the same Wikipedia webpage, it states: “Ehrman also notes that these [“Christ myth theory”] views [by proponents] would prevent one from getting employment in a religious studies department”:

This Wikipedia webpage then goes on to quote (including a footnote) an article written by Professor Ehrman (posted 03/20/2012 and updated 05/20/2012), from The Huffington Post: “These views [that there was no first century Jesus who ever existed] are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on[e] in a bona fide department of biology”:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

In other words, no proponent of the so-called “Christ myth theory...” teaches in a reputable school and, if they did, they would be out the door (much like Bruno Bauer was escorted out the door by Lutheran educators, or propagandists, in 1838). If you have a better label for what I call the “Bart D. Ehrman Tautology,” I will appreciate hearing what it is.

Byron Marchant

Syllogism

Proponents of “Christ myth theory” views would be prevented from getting employment in a religious studies department.

and

There are no real scholars (Ph.D.s, serious scholars of religious history...) who have argued as proponents of the “Christ myth theory.”

therefore

“Christ myth theory” proponets are not scholars (no matter whether or not their arguments have any validity, where logical validity means: so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction).Byronmarchant (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there are individuals here who do not know the proper and acceptable ways of using user space pages, I suggest that they read

Ah, so, another example of a bee with a stinger. Wikipedia, the cult, created the problem (Bart D. Ehrman Tautology) here; and, oh, John Carter, your threat scares me to death. It seems that people don't trust the accuracy of Wikipedia because of people like you. May I suggest that you begin "to help build a [Wikipedia] encyclopedia" by rising above your obnoxious cult "rules" and regulations. Byronmarchant (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really think that you're doing anything to help build an encyclopedia, and that John Carter hasn't done millions of times more work than you? You really are self-entitled to the point of delusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you, Ian.thomson, believe I should be in awe of John Carter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter or something? Let me know when someone here wants to come through with an apology. In the meantime, maybe you can discuss the problem Wikipedia has over the Bart D. Ehrman Tautology with the individual members of your cult's swarm (a cult I'm obviously not interested in joining).Byronmarchant (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, what we believe, and by that I think I speak for both of us, is, despite your all-too-apparent high opinion of yourself and low opinion of this site, is that if you wish to continue to abuse your user talk page in the fashion you have done to date, your behavior will be submitted for administrative review and there is a very real chance that you will be blocked and/or banned from editing. In fact, and I think @Ian.thomson: will probably agree with me on this, I don't see any reason to allow your misconduct to continue without such review. So, please, consider this your final warning for your misuse of this page, and may I strongly suggest that you start engaging in some activity which actively helps build an encyclopedia, rather than self-serving comments here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe whatever you wish to believe. With people like you and Ian.thomson messing with Wikipedia, I expect it to continue to be known as an offense to literary excellence (maybe that's the intention of those who are in charge here). There are plenty of ways to deal with abusive behavior (like you two and some others here have demonstrated); backing off is certainly not one that works for me. Keep up your bullying and see what consequences you and your so-called encyclopedia (cult) will suffer. America (and some other countries) has no tolerance for such bigoted behavior. By the way, as far as I know I'm already still banned (from making any editing changes) until near the end of October. Byronmarchant (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today I received this message on my computer screen: "Dear Wikipedia readers, We'll get right to it: Today we ask you to help Wikipedia. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need. We're a small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take one minute to keep it online and ad-free. Thank you." Please tell me, John Carter and Ian.thomson (or any other member of the Wikipedia cult), why would I, after the shoddy treatment I have received here, have any interest in contributing something (dollars or pennies) for the advancement of Wikipedia? Byronmarchant (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None at all. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 22:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your experience here hasn't been more positive. Perhaps you should retain the $3.00 and use those funds towards financing your next German to Klingon translation of Bauer? Ultimately, it would end up being of more benefit to the project, and indeed, the universe...

talk) 00:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

How so: "Sorry your experience here hasn't been more positive"? Learning how Wikipedia works (doesn't work) has been delightful. Exposing a fraud is always delightful. You ought to try it sometime. One positive about this exposure is that not only has the fraud of the Wikipedia cult been shown to be what it is, so has the best selling Professor Bart D. Ehrman's poor logic. And trying to put a support under him (to buttress him and save him from his weak logic) will now become more difficult for those who support his garbage, including for those of you at this rag, as long as those running Wikipedia refuse to put you and your kind in your places. Byronmarchant (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia. We are not here for general chit chat or for you to engage in your hobby of exposing fraud. Right now it seems like you are not here to make an encyclopedia. Users not here to create an encyclopedia are generally not allowed to continue to participate. I see you have already been told this so this will be the last warning. HighInBC 01:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, @HighInBC:, he has already been given a final warning, by me above. Quite a few posts ago, actually. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I should make myself clear in my own words prior to taking action. You are of course welcome to act on your prior warning. HighInBC 01:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are, nor do I care. I assure you that exposing fraud is not merely a hobby for me. If you're interested in "building an [reputable] encyclopedia," there are several here who have a strange way of going about it (including John Carter). Maybe you're one of them. Byronmarchant (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I left the warning I had not seem that your stated goal was to do what you can to destroy our project. Based on that I have blocked you. Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia, if you wish to destroy our project you will have to do it on your own website. HighInBC 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon opening the ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), it appears that a so called editor has defamed me and with the use of quoting me "out of context," distorted the obvious, even to the point of admitting having made accusations against me before even taking the time to read the user talk posts. Since I have been blocked from responding there (against the attacks on me), I came back here to defend myself against his scurrilous nonsense. When the Administrators want to discuss it, they can let me know. Byronmarchant (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your obviously exalted view of yourself notwithstanding, the likelihood that any admin other than the blocking one will ever even look at this page is virtually nil. If you want someone to review the block, please follow the comparatively simple instrunctions detailed in the block notice below. Otherwise, should you continue to use this page for commentary which in no way serves the benefits of the encyclopedia, the chances that your ability to edit even this page will be lost are rather high. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HighInBC 17:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would just wish to point out, so that you understand this. Given that you are currently blocked from editing, as per our policies and guidelines, the only really acceptable use of this page by you, Byronmarchant, is for appealing the block. Should you continue to misuse this page, I think it reasonable that your ability to edit it may be lost as well. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appeal the block and await your (the administration's) contact. Byronmarchant (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the appeal instructions in the block message. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, are you an administrator? More precisely, are you the administrator who will be handling this matter? If not, please put me in touch with him/her, as I want to know some personal and professional information about them, in order to avoid wasting my time as I have been with those I have been dealing with so far. Thanks. Byronmarchant (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin and will potentially be handling your unblock request. That's all the information you will get. If you do not put forth a proper unblock request I am also prepared to remove your talk page access. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I read your response, you can't give me any more information about yourself, so I am supposed to trust you. Wow. And your threat to me: "If you do not put forth a proper unblock request I am also prepared to remove your talk page access" sound like you are a COP with a badge (cops with badges often believe themselves to be Gods). It sounds to me that your ability to communicate is no better than those with whom I have so far been dealing. Byronmarchant (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your talk page access as it seems you will not be using the standard unblock request process. Please see

WP:UTRS for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Unless you address the reasons for the block you are unlikely to be unblocked. May I ask why you want to edit Wikipedia when you say it is cult that you want to work towards destroying? HighInBC 01:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's easy. It would be nice to have an online encyclopedia (similar to Wikipedia) that does a good job, instead of one run by people like you and your kind (you and your friends have been in the process of destroying this website, apparently, for a long time) who are ill equipped at doing the job you are doing. Wikipedia is used by educators and students; do you find it of value when there are so many avoidable mistakes on its pages? I don't, in fact, I find it at least close to criminal. As long as the conversation here is working toward improving Wikipedia, instead of avoiding any criticism (as you and your cohorts have been doing) of it, we'll get along just fine. Isn't Socrates credited with saying something like, "The unexamined life is not worth living"? As long as Wikipedia can't take criticism (refuses to be examined), those people who use it are being fed false information (garbage). As they say in accounting and the computer world, "GIGO: garbage in, garbage out." I hope that answers your question satisfactorily. Byronmarchant (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can always host your

own copy of Wikipedia and decide on whatever rules you like. We are happy to hear criticism, but when people declare their intention to destroy our project that is the line. Nothing you have said addresses the reason for your block. HighInBC 01:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, a review of your history rather clearly indicates that your subject of interest is specifically,perhaps exclusively, the question of Bruno Bauer's ideas regarding the historicity or lack of same of Jesus and the modern academic view of such matters. Concerns relating to someone with the name Byron Marchant being the recent translator of one of Bruno Bauer's books as can be seen here are also I believe reasonable.

Speaking for myself, I would very much want to see all the content related to the areas of religion, history, and philosophy covered better than they are here. I have personally started, I think, all the pages in

Gautama Buddha

, for instance.

If he does have interests other than perhaps promoting the beliefs put forward in a work which he has recently translated, or if he were willing to recognize the possibly very real chance of his having a rather clear problem regarding

WP:COI, I don't think that there would be much objection to an unblock. Alternately, however, if his purpose would be to continue to engage in the form of sermonizing and frankly stupid insults to all and sundry that he has indulged in here, I would have to say we are probably better off without him. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

His talk page access was revoked, so he won't be responding anymore here. From his edit history, I don't believe he's going to change. There's

assuming good faith, but there has to be at least some indication of it being reciprocated. This user has not displayed that. Quite the contrary in fact. So if TPTB decide to unblock him, great. I'd be surprised if that happened, but then, stranger things... --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 14:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]