User talk:Biblaridion

Help me!
Please help me with... I would like to find out why my minor edit was undone by contacting Yaniv Horon

Biblaridion (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There are three issues here. First of all, your username is the name of an organization and implies shared use, which is not permitted. It thus violates the username policy. Please take a moment to request a change of username to one that complies with the username policy and clarifies that this is an individual account to which only one person has access. Secondly, this is not a minor edit since it adds significant new content. Minor edits are trivial changes like type corrections or improvements of formatting. Please make sure to only mark such edits as minor. Thirdly, the source for your edit does not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. It looks like a scholarly paper, but for all I can tell it is not published in any scholarly journal and has not been subject to peer review. This last issue is why your edit was reverted. Your username also indicates that you may have a conflict of interests regarding the source. Huon (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What??? Biblaridion is the name that I have chosen....it is not the name of an organization. I write under this name, it is not a commercial name and not affiliated to any commercial activity. OK...so it is not a minor edit. My bad. It was only one sentence and I am new to this. It is a scholarly paper...written by me. It is posted on Academia. Just because you do not agree with it is no reason to dismiss it. Facts are facts and the fact is that the epithet is 666 and the patronymic 616. What conflict of interest? I think you make the rules up as you go along. Very disappointed and a difficult site to navigate.Biblaridion (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact the paper received an endorsement by a renowned OT scholar (I am not going to name names). Anyway, looks to me like someone does not want their "hero" Bar Kochba besmirched. Matters not to me. I will make sure it is widely circulated....you cannot block the truth or original research no matter how hard you try.Biblaridion (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well wrong on both counts "Biblaridion media" is merely a "pen name" it does not exist as an organization and it does not exist as a webpage therefore no conflict of interest. As to content, many of your references do not represent "consensus views" you do your readers a disservice when you practice censorship and insult their intelligence when you stifle original content-let them make up their own minds. Why don't you write your own article disproving what I say and add it as a link? You obviously know Hebrew. It seems to me that you are using your power to shut down anything that besmirches your hero which even the Rabbi's acknowledge is the "son of a liar". Like I said I have had an endorsement by a well known and respected OT scholar (but I refuse to drag her into it) and the paper is being "peer reviewed" although in my estimation that counts for very little. People always resist new material until it becomes the "consensus view" Like I said, It doesn't matter to me....I will make sure it still gets "out there". If you want Wikipedia to be behind the curve rather than a "goto" source no skin of my nose.Biblaridion (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now I cannot even post comments in the "Tea House" even though I have been "invited". Apparently my IP was blocked by Huon. I am now officially persona non grata after my first Wikipedia attempt. It is rather pathetic. It is difficult enough navigating this website as a first timer without being pounced on. It is not exactly logically structured. I was going to re-edit my entry and take away any reference to biblaridion (as it seems to give Huon a case of the vapors) even though it is only a "pen name". I hope blocking me makes you feel all powerful. Anyway, it reflects the age we live in with the curtailment of free speech and deification of petty bureaucracy. You are obviously happy to settle for the mediocre and do not want anything that is challenging. Oh vey!Biblaridion (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, once again a half truth. I deleted the hyperlink as I realized it was not appropriate (according to your rules)---I was blocked after that. So I did make changes. Now I am willing to delete biblaridion name and/or change my username but that is no longer possible. And all this has nothing to do with the CONTENT.....i.e., Is the content valid or worthy? (It is). You are not here to help me or add relevant new material - material that refers to Bauckham,Weinel, Buchholz and a number of NT and OT scholars. Material that has been acknowledged as "very good" by an SBL Biblical OT scholar. You did not offer suggestions or constructive advice to guide me through the process ---simply posting a "catch all" of so called infringements is not good enough. Could you not have said....If you remove this word or add so and so....or do this...it will be acceptable. No, you go for the nuclear option. Very unfriendly. Very disappointed. You obviously want Wikipedia to be mediocre and reflect consensus views - because if the herd believes it it must be true. Well I can draw up a list of consensus views from the past that are totally rejected nowadays. So where do I go from here? I don't know. I do not have the patience to figure out your complex "appeals structure". You can probably revert my blocking at the touch of a button. But even then how do I know that I will not be blocked again (if I am not helped?). You need to raise your game and offer proper guidance...it is rather pathetic.Biblaridion (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if this is correct (meant to go to I dream of horses) Here is what I sent Huon:

Well, once again a half truth. I deleted the hyperlink as I realized it was not appropriate (according to your rules)---I was blocked after that. So I did make changes. Now I am willing to delete biblaridion name and/or change my username but that is no longer possible. And all this has nothing to do with the CONTENT.....i.e., Is the content valid or worthy? (It is). You are not here to help me or add relevant new material - material that refers to Bauckham,Weinel, Buchholz and a number of NT and OT scholars. Material that has been acknowledged as "very good" by an SBL Biblical OT scholar. You did not offer suggestions or constructive advice to guide me through the process ---simply posting a "catch all" of so called infringements is not good enough. Could you not have said....If you remove this word or add so and so....or do this...it will be acceptable. No, you go for the nuclear option. Very unfriendly. Very disappointed. You obviously want Wikipedia to be mediocre and reflect consensus views - because if the herd believes it it must be true. Well I can draw up a list of consensus views from the past that are totally rejected nowadays. So where do I go from here? I don't know. I do not have the patience to figure out your complex "appeals structure". You can probably revert my blocking at the touch of a button. But even then how do I know that I will not be blocked again (if I am not helped?). You need to raise your game and offer proper guidance...it is rather pathetic.

Here is my reply to horses:

You're reply suggests that I show some sort of penance or contrition for being a "naughty boy". (LOL) What do you suggest I do? I am not Catholic so I can't go to confession. I admitted I got it wrong and removed the hyperlink. How about some HELP rather than posting "infringements" and sending (half true) emails? How about being constructive? I know that you are the "gatekeepers" but be careful that what you protect does not become irrelevant.Biblaridion (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you are going to refrain from promotional edits to be unblocked. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  02:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello...followed the link to your talk page and was not allowed to post a message (LOL) that about sums it up. Is the above a serious reply or a computer generated message? I have already said that I removed a hyperlink and will change my username and remove biblaridion media (even though it is a pen name)from the reference. Is that not enough? Please offer constructive advice don't keep repeating the same message. What do you actually want changing? Examples please. I must conclude that English is perhaps not your first language - let me know and I will use Google translate. What do you want me to do? Take an oath that I will never ever do it again? Tell me what to do don't just keep repeating the same bumpf.....give advice...be CONSTRUCTIVE =HELPFULBiblaridion (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

OK Here are some concrete questions (answers please) 1. How do I reference an article elsewhere on the internet without a hyperlink? 2.How do I reference an article without using the name or pen name of the author? Biblaridion (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Finally, how can I refrain from "promotional edits" when I am already blocked? What you say makes no sense and is utterly confusing. At the moment I can do NO EDITS as I am BLOCKED. So how can I refrain from them? This is not just semantics it is nonsense. Has anyone ever made a "promo edit" while they were blocked? Anyway, stop repeating the same useless message AND GIVE ADVICE.Biblaridion (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, there is absolutely no need at all to ping me three times over twelve minutes and once more before that in the last two hours. It certainly doesn't help your case in anyway whatsoever, because you need to prove you can control yourself.
 * My native language is English. I'm not a computer. Don't project your lack of understanding onto me.
 * The fact that you can't edit right now is because it's been determined that you can't seem to refrain from promotional edits. The fact that you can't edit is the point. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  07:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well sorry about the pings but I am on the other side of the world and usually it takes hours to receive a reply unless you are in the same time zone. You have still deliberately "refrained" from answering my questions or giving advice. What you say is untrue. I ALREADY REMOVED A HYPERLINK. Why can't you give me advice on further improvements? How can I prove my goodwill if you will not allow me to make changes and will not tell me how to make those changes? This is beyond Kafkaesque, I defy anyone not to lose control when the same answer is constantly posted without accompanying advice. Go on then...tell me what to do. I am a newbie. I need help.Biblaridion (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You've already been given constructive advice by Huon. Perhaps you should've followed it. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  08:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You gave the same answer again! (LOL) Like an old vinyl record stuck in the same groove! Well I give the same reply again (see above). You have achieved your goal. You are not worthy of my contribution and as you will not offer help or advice I cannot go beyond this point. So no point contacting either of you again (what a relief). However, I have downloaded this page and will make sure it is posted on a website with an explanation about the way Wikipedia moderators do not offer help in resolving conflicts. Do not make a mistake on Wikipedia as you will never be forgiven. It is not three strikes and you are out....but one strike. And we do not have to advise you anymore on how to overcome your problem....you naughty boy. That about sums up your attitude after I acknowledge that I could have done better and after I asked for further help. Shame. On the other hand...thank you....no such thing as bad publicity. This could be very helpful.Biblaridion (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Huon (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're aware that you listed the source you provided as "P. Wyns, The Shema and Bar Kochba: the false messiah and 666, (Biblaridion media, March 2018), p.9". Usually that would mean that "Biblaridion Media" is the publisher. Whether it's a "real" organization or merely the name of a website, its use as a Wikipedia username is not permitted. What the conflict of interest is should also be obvious: You were pushing your own work on Wikipedia. A peer-reviewed scholarly journal might be interested in your work; Wikipedia is not. Huon (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...Huon blocking my IP....you make it all very complicated. I do not think I am being fairly treated. Prepared to make changes and re-edit but how can I when I have been blocked?

Biblaridion (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC) IF I change my "username" and delete "biblaridion" from the reference would that help? How about trying some CONSTRUCTIVE advice rather than blocking. Blocking is easy....any bully can do it.Biblaridion (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you acknowledge that you've done promotional editing, or other admins aren't that likely to unblock. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @  07:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The block message contains instructions on how you can contest the block; before you do so, you may want to read the guide to appealing blocks. You have the option to either argue that your current username is permissible under the username policy (if you feel that I'm in error) or to suggest a new, compliant username (if you feel I'm right or just think that arguing that point isn't worth it). You'll also need to indicate what kinds of edits you intend to make if unblocked, particularly in light of Wikipedia's policy against original research.
 * Regarding "CONSTRUCTIVE advice", I gave you constructive advice and only blocked the account when you dismissed that advice. Huon (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)