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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.18.252 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR on New Testament

You broke it again, but in lieu of blocking you I protected the page instead. Please be more careful, for next time you broke 3RR the block would probably be a week at minimum. Tim Song (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Zakir Naik Article

I cannot help but laugh at the fact that the multiple accounts attacking me and agreeing with each other were all sockpuppets of the same editor.

You want to explain to me what POVs are on that page? Several people, Muslim and non-Muslim, have peer reviewed it. If you find problems with it, then show it to me rather than undoing my changes. Warnings will not prevent me from reporting you to an Admistrator I know personally.

JohnnPhilip (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Relax JohnnPhilip. He hasn't 'undone' any of your changes, nor do I think he'll be planning to without evidence of any vandalism.

Awliya (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that no one is fooled by you making multiple new sockpuppet accounts to backup yourself, right? --Ari (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Would you be directing that to me or JohnnPhilip Ari89?

Awliya (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The task you asked the administrator to perform was unfair and the rest of the editors who disagreed with your continual edits and revisions. They were unfounded, groundless, and dare I say baseless. I myself have requested the same Admin to look into my concerns. The fact you didn't ask the Admin to contact me or the other editors shows that you wish to be the only one in power over revisions. Furthermore the attacks and threats you held against me will also be used against you. I'm not going to let this happen without my say in all of this.

Awliya (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your threats are not scaring anyone. (1) No, the task I requested was fair as it locked the article to force us to discuss the changes. (2) The numerous problems that you introduced into the article, and were objected to by myself and other established editors is available on the talk page. By no means baseless! (3) I have not changed any content on the Naik page despite your claim, I have restored the neutral versions and kept the useful edits you added. (4)What attacks and threats? All I see here is you are threatening me for some reason you appear to have concocted only in your mind. --Ari (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK. Ari89, I'll admit that my edits may have contained POV.

They clearly did, as has been pointed out by numerous editors.

• No they were 'not' pointed out, as no one quoted them or highlighted them. I apologize for my undue anger.

Number 1) Are you implying that the mentioning of highly controversial and critical comments from journalists and authors solely is not a POV in itself? Why is the page absent of a 'Laudatory' section, while the "Criticism' section is well expanded. Have you restricted yourself to double-standards?

It is verifiable content. Making up a commentary on why you think Naik is awesome is not verifiable, but personal commentary.

• Of course it's verifiable content, did I say it's not? I'm pointing it out to you that you're backing up an article that you're defending as neutral though it's not neutral at all. I did not make up any commentary as to why 'I' thought Naik was 'awesome'. Can you backup your statements using the previous and final edit before you reversed edits?

Number 2) The Administrator is authorized to do whatever is deemed necessary. I discussed the issue with SlimVirgin and I am to report back to her within a week. The request you demanded was unfair in that you did not approach me about what was wrong with the organization or set of information. I made this very clear to her. Instead you threatened to have me blocked from editing any article You are obviously no Samaritan. Instead of helping the editor understand his mistakes you rebuked me without any guidance whatsoever.

No, it wasn't as I have pointed out before. It is an accepted part of dispute resolution. You ignored the discussions over the numerous issues, so instead of getting blocked the page was protected. Now we are forced to discuss, aren't we?

I don't really care for your attempt at a personal attack, so in the future don't feel the need to bother with them.

• I did not ignore any discussions. Would you like to point them out to me? Indeed, now we can finally discuss my edits. There are no conspicuous POVs, aside from the ones that Jeff pointed out to me. I corrected them as soon as he actually TOLD me rather than just reversing my edits and accusing me of POV which you did in the past. Shall we look over the numerous times you did without discussing or showing me my mistakes?

-> Make sure you visit my Talk Page and tell me underneath your threat that is was not a threat, but a friendly reminder that I was doing something wrong. You are not an Admin and have no right but to guide me. SlimVirgin did not block me as you were leaning towards earlier, therefore I do consider what you said a THREAT.

It was a standard reminder. If you violate WP policies there are consequences. Your personal misguided opinion doesn't change acceptable practice.

• Consequences? From who? You? Or from a rightful authoritarian? My opinion isn't misguided. Show me on the Wikipedia pages where any editor has the right to threat another editor with blockage :). Standard practice my foot...

Number 3) As I stated in Number 1, the article at the moment is NOT neutral. I am going to repeat you and your editors have restricted yourselves to double standards. I'm not here to upset the status quo , otherwise I would have failed to understand the Wikipedia contract I vowed to before joining. I am going to continue to edit Islamic wiki pages. If you disagree - then contact me. I am not going to contact you when I have no disagreement about the current status of the pages except that they need upgrading. Do not test my patience as I've now fully discussed the issue with an Admin.

Then DISCUSS what is not neutral about it. As I said, adding personal commentary on Zakir Naik being the greatest thing since sliced bread is only adding to a POV issues.

• I stated what why it was NOT neutral about the article above. You, however, did not clarify why my edits were not neutral. Rather than just editing my 'POVs' you applied full reversals!

Number 4) The edits that I made were not full revisions by a long shot. I had intended to go back remove any POVs that were respectfully pointed* out*.

Yet you didn't after being asked to multiple times. You proceeded to attack editors and protect your personal opinion at all costs.

• Not without proof of some sort. Jeff pointed them out to me. I proceeded to attack you because you didn't offer any advice, though it's your job to.

Awliya (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

How about we stop bickering like elderly folk and you tell me what you find to be so 'POV' about the currently reversed edit. I think the last edit was either done by myself or aplha.

Explain. I am all ears and willing to accept any mistakes.

Awliya (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi. I just joined today and looked through the obvious tantrums of a previous Wikipedian that SlimVirgin banned. It's no doubt he deserved the penalty he did, but going back to a previous page revision I see that Alia's article organization is more systematic. I corrected any non-verifiable instances, and restored some POVs to their previous states. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page.

The Well Wisher (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to ignore my inquiries about your edits on the Zakir Naik Discussion Page. Thank you. --The Well Wisher (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia: where the unfounded opinion of any ignorant hick with a computer finds a voice...as long as he has references!!! 96.22.215.70 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Apparently the accounts you were dealing with on those articles were socks and have been blocked, so I've removed the protection. If they appear again there, please let me know, as I don't have the articles on my watchlist. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and will do. --Ari (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Disruptive Behavior: Wikipedia the Game

I have taken the time to look though your edit history and found you actually surpass Eusebeus in regard to disruptive behavior. You seem to see Wikipedia as some sort of game and your block log shows you have blocked many times for Edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule, personal attacks, and reposting possibly copyrighted material. I will continue my edits in good faith, and try to ignore the fact that you delete just about everything... 96.22.215.70 (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Attacking editors doesn't achieve anything. I have asked you to discuss the edits, instead you try and scream down other editors. You are attempting to do it to me, and you have attempted to do it to Eusebeus.

So, discuss the contentious edits on the talk page. Grow up.

--Ari (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wellwisher

I am trying not to take sides in this case. After welcoming a new user - something I do frequently - I was asked for help and responded to the best of my ability, as I have done to several other requests. As I told Wellwisher, if he is a sockpuppet he should give up now, he deserves a block. But, assuming good faith (possibly to the point of naivete, I'll admit) I told him how best to avoid being blocked wrongly. Since he's happy to be checkusered, can't someone just do that and be done with it? Either way, I am not getting involved with the investigation itself, but I will continue to keep an eye on the situation and advise Wellwisher he asks again. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Along with the other 4 sockpuppet accounts it was blocked. Don't let it disturb the great job you do in welcoming users and assuming good faith where many of us fail! --Ari (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ari89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi. I would like to appeal this block for a number of reasons. Although I admit that I was in violation of the 3rr, this was by necessity in dealing with an extremely disruptive IP editor. I have gone through the correct avenues in dealing with this dispute for a very long time. I have discussed the contentious edits on the talk page in order to gain a consensus. Third parties have been involved in these discussions. However, the party that I reverted today has repeatedly refused to partake in these discussions. Instead, they have persisted in edit warring. Furthermore, I have sought a page protection to avoid edit warring. My page protection request was as follows: "Temporary full protection dispute, Myself and another user find ourselves in an edit war/content dispute. The article has been protected for the same reason between the same users on the same content. I cannot for the life of me get the user (who uses a dynamic IP to avoid blocks) to discuss the issues on the talk pages. The dispute restarted today with the anonymous editor reverting to a previous version, and in doing so they employed a false edit summary to hide the reversion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Testament&diff=363009576&oldid=363005791 This practice is continuing. Ari (talk) 3:20 pm, Today (UTC+1)" I apologise for the numerous reverts, but I have no malicious intention. It was to protect the integrity of Wikipedia, and it was the last resort after having tried to seek consensus and having requested page protection. Thankyou for your time.

Decline reason:

While this block may be a little tough, I don't think it's unfair. If the other party evades the blocks I will personally see to it that the block is extended and may seek a rangeblock, but his behaviour does not excuse yours. I'm afraid you clearly broke the 3RR, which is a bright-line rule and your reversions did not fit into any of the exceptions. In future, if you find yourself in such a dispute, seek the help of an administrator before you cross the 3RR. Sorry, I'd like to unblock you but the block is more than valid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry, but you're not allowed to remove declined unblock requests while you;re still blocked. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it Ari. You're an anti-Islamic, moronic, egotistical, self-hating bastard. Good job HJ Mitchell! Haha I've posted all your failed attempts on www.sourmath.com. I own that website, especially for fools like you.

Patriarchy

Ari, I have - quite unexpectedly - run into a conflict with editor hammy, who filed a report at AN/I (now closed0 against me and left several warnings on my talk page. Could you do me a favor an look at the edits I made to the Patriarchy article, and my explanation on the talk page (I began leaving comments perhaps a week ago. You do not have to read a lot of talk, it is just two or three sections and they are short) and tell me if I am out of line? Patriarchy is a sociological concpt although it has been used by historians and others, thus this article can draw on a wide range of approaches. I am concerned (as I always am in such cases) that an article can loose focus or that different views can be combined in ways that violate SYNTH. I'd really appreciate the views of an actual historian.

I do not want an RfC, at least not yet, but I do think that the article would benefit from the participation of more editors who know how the term is used in scholarly contexts. Any suggestions of what i can do? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)