"

 User:Slrubenstein and other's falsifying and defamatory edits 

User:Slrubenstein who obviously does not like the word 'theory' (and didn't like the article from the beginning) has repeatedly edited the article adding falsifying terms like 'proposal' instead. Nowhere does Carotta ""propose"" or ""claim"" anything. Already in the Introit of his book Jesus was Caesar it is clearly stated that: To anticipate the result: Jesus proves to be Divus Iulius, the deified Caesar, passed down in tradition. The word he uses for this finding is 'disclosure'. So it is wrong to write he 'proposes' or 'claims'. 'Theory' was therefore the best compromise, but the respectable User:Slrubenstein and other distorters don't like that. It should be noted here that User:Slrubenstein has not bothered to explain and discuss on this talk page why he egomaniacally altered the status quo and threatened other users who maintained 'theory' with blockage which was later carried out. He has not answered the questions raised by someone above concerning his problems with this article either.

Now this excellent User:Slrubenstein has even gone so far as to ""protect"" (i.e. block, prevent editing) the article altogether. I think everyone involved in this or just reading here should seriously ask themselves whether User:Slrubenstein who canvassed against the article, voted for stong delete and most emphatically defamed the author as ""crackpot"" (this might be actionable), is the right person to further work on this article let alone be an admin in control of it.

User:Rbreen who also voted for strong delete and who has already been convicted of lying and destorting scholarly statements above, now thinks he is the appropriate authority to judge on Carotta's undeniable and never before denied classical scholarship. He obviously knows better than reputable scholars like Piñero, Canfora, Kavoukopoulos, Simon and others. Here's your typical Wikipedia editor.

Nothing new can be said of User:Iblardi either. He helps wherever he can to degrade the article and defame its subject.

User:EALacey is not even capable (or is he not willing?) to correctly translate the word ""Wissenschaftsparodie"" into English. The correct translation is ""science parody"". Another typical WP editor, it seems.

I don't even want to talk about User:carl.bunderson. Some quotes from the Gospel come to mind...

The long and short of all this is: Extremely biased and unjust editors like those mentioned above, who with the exception of   "