User:Kostisl

Your removal of my link http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html

I want to tell you the links I proposed are well-researched, very thorough, contains no hate and would be an asset to Wikipedia. My question: did you read them before removing? Try that short one: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html , an introduction for my many pages. Note: that site has been posted as a link, for a long time (please don't remove it!) on Wikipedia pages about 'historical Jesus', 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth'. Maybe I am not a registered scholar, but I thought Wikipedia was not all about propagating the work of professionals. I consider myself more of a critical & investigative amateur historian, with burning (but not blinding) passion about the history of very early Christianity. And my approach (and background) should be commanded in a field "controlled" by many scholars (most of them on a payroll) with very different opinions & theories (which would prove that scholarly works, in this specific field, may be the problem, not the solution). I must admit I am very annoyed when my pages are rejected, mainly because some existing links are of bad quality, very biased or totally irrelevant (Check the last link on the 'Ignatius of Antioch' page --'Ignatius of Nerdtreehouse'). (BTW, I would love to attract your attention on these bad links, after reviewing them, of course). I did participate about one year ago into editing the 'Jesus' page. But that was very discouraging, with my work being often chopped down by evangelical Christians, even after some very long discussions. Doing so, I declared my own name (as I do on my website, with my personal email) and I had my own Wikipedia ID (which I forgot). I hope to be in contact with you. Please note I can have my sites posted by someone else (in compliance with Wikipedia policy) and my webpages are ad-free. Bernard Muller, mullerb@shaw.ca