Mullerb

Spam

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Izehar (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Mullerb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 20:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus link

Hi Mullerb,

This is the link I removed from the Jesus article (look at the red text on the left, if you are new here; that is what was removed by my revert) [1] --it was a link to something called "Derf of Many Worlds" which was a Wikipedia article, a nonsense/vanity website for a band, which was added to the lead paragraph to the Jesus article. The nonsense article has since been speedily deleted. I did not remove the link you reference.

You need to look at the article history ([2]) to see who did what when. My edit was 58 minutes before yours. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bernard,

If you believe that your link is in compliance with WP:EL, i.e. presents significant information about the subject which is not present in the article, and is not commercial or self-promotional, then go ahead and re-add it. You might want to buttress your case by leaving a note on the article's talk page as to why the link will be valuable; external links tend to get removed quickly, especially if the editor who adds them does little other editing. At first blush I think it's a good link, but I'm not a regular editor of the Jesus article so I don't know the dynamic there. And yes, unfortunately, you are "at the mercy" of all the other contributors since this is a wiki. But by all means stay and edit things in the areas of your interest! Best wishes and welcome to Wikipedia. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Jesus, a historical reconstruction

I noticed you removed a link I posted on the Jesus page; it is called "Jesus, a historical reconstruction". First let me tell you I spent seven years developing this website.

It is:

- not commercial in any way, not trying to sell anything

- low-key concerning the author, therefore not self-promotional

- presented only as A reconstruction

- fully researched and utterly documented

- the size of a small book

- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus

- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not

- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity

- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google for years

- without hate against anyone

- hotly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides).

- offering a different approach, between "historic" and fully fictional earthly Jesus

Here is the link of the front page: judge for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html

I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. It is strongly promotional towards the author, who uses it to sell his own book (I do not). Another link "Overview of the Life of Jesus' advertises book for sales (I do not) and carries Google ads (I do not). Another website which sell stuff is "Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ" (I do not). Several other sites promote a religious faith (I do not). So I am very perplexed about your standard of rejection or acceptance.

---

Now here are excerpts of comments from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)

"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."

"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."

"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."

"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."

"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."

"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"

"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."

"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."

"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."

"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."

"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."

"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."

"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."

"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."

Best regards, Bernard

Hello. Please place a notice of the link on the article's talk page. I'm not familliar enough with the material, but that would satisfy me. Incidentally, you probably should seek a more professional-looking host than geocities (this will greatly reduce the risk that the website will be removed by someone later on, even if you establish consensus for the link). Thank you. Best, El_C 10:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bernard: Thanks for the note on my page. Your site seems very well researched and seems to contain a good deal of valuable information. The problem is that the WP definition of "Thou shalt not spam" includes - for good or ill - linking to your own websites. I think that El_C's suggestion is excellent: take it to the Jesus talk page and gain a community consensus. That would seem the best strategy. Thanks...KHM03 19:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Even celebrities are not allowed to edit their own pages on Wikipedia- they must have someone else do it for them. The rules are the rules. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the link; we'll see what happens. KHM03 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your e-mail

I have responded to your e-mail BTW - I'm telling you in case you didn't know ;-) Izehar (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Note

Your welcome, have a nice day. Johann Wolfgang 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: link on Jesus page

Hello, I cannot believe my website "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" is turned down. It is certainly more researched, more objective than most of the links of the Jesus page. I have two opponents (see talk:Jesus for details), one saying somebody else other than me should implement the post (that's OK, that can be done, but the rule is rather naive). The other, who is truly anonymous, does not want to have a "link farm" and always takes me out, whenever he/she has the chance. But recently two new posts appeared and no deletion. I feel unjustifiably picked on and my opinion of wikipedia is very low at this time. What do you recommend? Thanks, Bernard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerb (talk • contribs)

Bernard, your website "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" is very impressive, I have to admit. But keep in mind that Jesus is a very general, top-level article. We have other, more specific articles for specific aspects of Him and His life. One such article is Historicity of Jesus, where the exact aspects with which you deal in your website are addressed. I was about to move the link to your site to that article when I discovered that KHM03 already beat me to it. That page only has 8 other links, so yours will certainly stand out more. Anyway, I'm glad to see KHM03 already took care of this; say what you will about Wikipedia, but at least we are consistent. I hope you do stay and continue to contribute here! Owen× ☎ 13:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see OwenX has taken care of this, however your website is a good link and is not (as I see it) spam, as mentioned at the top of this page. I hope this has been resolved and you are satisfied with the outcome. Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your website

I do not have sole say over what links are allowed on pages or not. I suggested that you post a WP:RfC in order to get more opinions. I'm sorry I do not have the time to personally address all of your concerns. I have expressed my opinion. That is all it is, my opinion. I do not have the means, not the desire to effect your webpage's ranking on Yahoo. I'm offended that you would accuse me of something like that, and I'd ask you to keep me out of this debate in the future. Let the community decide. Take it to the village pump or RfC, but please, leave me and your accusations out of it.--Andrew c 03:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)