User talk:Ari89

State of the CMT Article

"Source request

Do we have a recent high-quality mainstream source who makes a distinction between the Christ-myth theory and biblical minimalism? SlimVirgin..."

I have a feeling that our good buddy Slim will attempt to merge the CMT article with another article, or attempt to equate it with the minimalist stance and add minimalist content to make it appear credible. NJMauthor (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read that wondering about what ridiculous plan is in store. I cannot think of any RS that puts them together for the reason that they are very different. What is bothering me right now is that Christian scholars publishing in academic press can no longer be trusted. Truly ridiculous. --Ari (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be patient. All of these issues can, and will, be addressed. They just need to be addressed in an orderly and proper fashion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|as far as I can tell, this should have expired a few hours ago}}

user:SlimVirgin and wp:3rr

• Revert 1. [1]
• Revert 2. [2] ;
• Revert 3.[3].

Real life identity

I have mentioned your speculation on a editors real life identity on ANI. Whatever the justification it is not wise to do this on a public talk page[4]. Sophia ♫ 10:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, however, Is there actually a policy against that? --Ari (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OUTING, which is typically an automatic indef (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was not malicious and the user did post their own name on the talk page and numerous references. --Ari (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Block Status?

Has the block expired? Just curious. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The block that arose by an admin filing a phony incident report should have expired a few hours ago but it has not. --Ari (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You were still autoblocked, but I lifted that since the block on your account has expired. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Ari (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a movement over at the CMT article to go into mediation. My understanding is that you have academic credentials. If you have the time, your input I think will be invaluable in resolving most, if not all, issues. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am quite disillusioned with the article right now seeing the POV push and underhand tactics against editors in every attempt to circumvent mainstream scholarship. Although it is a busy time of the year for myself, I will make an active effort to keep up with it..--Ari (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Don't miss this. Just a heads up I don't know what this guy is trying to do. SpigotWho? 18:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Err... --Ari (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the CMT fringe

That has offered three unscary alternatives for opponents (if there be such) to meditate on. Please feel free to keep this conversation going if you want. But, can I just say I think it might be good to let the others reflect on this issue for a while? Totally your call, of course. Anthony (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ari89. You have new messages at Supertouch's talk page.
Message added 12:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Supertouch (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Islam

Yes I did misread the talk page, however, WP:UNDUE is sufficient reason to remove the material. As I mentioned on the talk page, in-line mention is the most this group is worthy of.--Supertouch (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, could you put back the reverted oversized picture i included in Resurrection of Jesus by making it smaller? i dont know how to do that. thanksIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ari: I think your revert was a good revert, and I have left a message for the new user. History2007 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christopher M. Tuckett

The article Christopher M. Tuckett has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reversions to the New Testament article

Dear Ari (if I may),

I thought you'd be interested to know that I adjusted your image of the Byzantine lectionary so that it now fits in the proper section.

There are (in all but two cases) some major problems with your reversal of my editing, and I assumed you were making the revisions in good faith, though perhaps without having looked through my revisions carefully, or having overlooked something, or perhaps simply being unaware of the subject matter. But it's difficult to know what you're thinking or your reasons for reverting back to earlier forms of the article when you're not discussing your revisions on the discussion page. If you think there is a good reason to remove or reverse an edit I've made, I'm all ears. But I haven't heard anything from you apart from warnings about my reversals of your revisions.

I restored around 90% of your edits which were great as I spent a long time going through each of your edits. You have not assumed good faith, and you have constantly attacked myself. That will achieve nothing. Simply, problems were identified and removed whether they be stylistic or expansions outside the scope of a growing article which already has problems.

Please take a few minutes to look at the discussion page. If you have any questions--whether it's about Coptic, the disputed Paulines, secondary literature, anything--I'm more than happy to discuss them. But if you don't discuss them, and you simply re-introduce factual errors and remove useful information from the article, then you do give people the impression that your edits are merely vandalism (even if that's not your intent).

Point to the factual errors that were re-introduced.

We're on the same side, Ari: we both want to make this a good, accurate, useful article. Let's not work against each other.

91.46.191.162 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

please message me again, i want to waste your time. 69