This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ari89. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, you reverted my changes for NPOV reasons, but it seems to me that this article has serious NPOV problems and my changes were intended to mitigate these. In the context of this article I think it is very, very important to make clear where the criticisms come from. A criticisim from a biblical literalist scholar carries far less weight than a criticism from a secular bible scholar would. MohKohn (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Reference
I see that you deleted some of my references, you are probably right in most are not from the best sources, but I just re-applied one that comes from encyclopedia Britannica, I think that that would satisfy you as a source. (regarding Persephone/Proserpina). --Ceezmad (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Do not undo the edit again, just tell me what is a good source for you. It seems that when ever some one puts a reference, you still go ahead and delete the page. Lets talk and see what compromise we can have. --Ceezmad (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
All you did was attach fake references that had nothing to do with the claims that they were within the category. Misleading citations achieves nothing of value, and is intentionally misleading. Similarly, the POV edits you restored are not objective or verifiable. They contain an original synthesis of material, gauged in a polemical manner against the research of a group of scholars. Find scholars who make the claims, not an editors individual interpretation and rebuttal to various scholars. --Ari (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Nicholas Perrin, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Perrin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
For your edit to Nazareth linking to that article on the discovery of a home dating to the period of Jesus. Always looking for information on archaeology here, and was thrilled to be made aware of it. Merry Christmas - from his hometown. Tiamuttalk13:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Claims to be the fastest growing religion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Momo sanGespräch15:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have stopped - and have asked the other contributor to stop, and discuss the issue on the talk page. Similarly, I have proposed a temporary stop to edits so that we can deal with the conflict which has arisen out of uncited original research being repeatedly posted. Instead, the editor has continued with their POV pushing. --Ari (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't actually added any content to the article, so the claims against myself putting "false/biased/unsubstantiated" information has no truth to it. However, I along with other editors have questioned the numerous edits by Timothyn7 which fail under wp:verifiability and wp:or. I have re-added some of the cited content removed by the reporting editor without reason. I have also contacted the editor numerous times to discuss the issues on the article talk page which can be found here. --Ari (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
User has begun edit warring again. Similarly, on the talk page they have made it clear that their agenda on the article is nothing but POV pushing and religious apologetics. --Ari (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I started editing only after you modified it again.
I never harrased you or anyone as you claim. If i did, it was by mistake becuase i am new to wikipedia (and not too familiar with warnings) and I do appologize. I am at my computer all the time (nearly 24hrs unless i am asleep).. thats only reason why i have all the time to keep checking for vandalism-- not because i am trying to abuse anyone. Before i started editing, there were outlandish statements in the article. It looks much more balanced now -- although there are plenty of errors/biased statments. I look forward to working with you to make the article balanced.Timothyn7 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Now we have pretty much resolved our differences...
"Muslim apologists" is completely POV, along with the fact you had no consensus to make these changes. --大輔 泉 (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Muslim apologists is what Estes, Deedat and Naik are. They are not "scholars" as you managed to work into it the article under the false pretence of reversion. --Ari (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"They are not "scholars" as you managed to work into it the article under the false pretence of reversion" Rubbish. First of all, get you damn facts strait, I never added "Scholar" to the article, you just removed it because of your POV and I restored it based on the fact you had no consensus. Second, "Apologists" is nothing more that your POV, and it amazes me that you have actually admitted it. You either continue with this and be Blocked, or you bring it to the talk page, your choice.--大輔 泉 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Despite your obviously false claim, I never stated that apologist was POV. Apologist is what the authors listed as apologists engage in apologetics. They are not Muslim scholars or jurists. You are quite the child abusing editors, resorting to swearing and what not. --Ari (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, you have proven my point that it is YOUR POV that these people are "Apologists". Again, you have proven my point that it is YOUR POV that these people are "Apologists". And I never attacked you and I never swore. “Get your damn facts straight” is not a personal attack, and if you think it is, you are a tad sensitive?--大輔 泉 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
1. No, it is not my POV. They are self-designated apologist. That is why the scholars were separated from the pop apologists. The scholars and jurists have a legitimate say, and the apologists release videos for youtube.
2. You attacked me, and you swore - an example "it’s pretty fucking obvious that those are YOUR opinions of these people."
3. If I am the one who is a tad sensitive, why are you falsely reporting me for (1) vandalism and (2) personal attacks? --Ari (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, calm down. Like I said below. You need reliable sources for the apologist thing, and I already stated that I shouldn’t of sworn. Relax, I just got a bit over the top. --大輔 泉 (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. If you wish to discuss this further bring it to the Talk page of Islam. “Apologists” is a POV statement no matter which way we look at it. Come back with reliable sources stating they are apologists, then you would be in a better position. Perhaps I shouldn’t of used such language, either. Tensions run high ya know. If you really want something to be offended by go look at my user page (: --大輔 泉 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologist isn't a POV statement. There are career apologists such as, well, the guys listed who were designated as the apologists and not scholars. Your user page is very offensive - for one you have visited England. --Ari (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Guys, I just noticed that there was a bit of a dispute at Talk:Christ myth theory/to do. I know this article is extremely contentious right now, but it seems like we should avoid edit warring on a to do list. Could we, maybe, just leave it alone until there's some measure of consensus on the talk page? Or, maybe, we could just get rid of the to do list entirely--does it really serve a useful purpose? It doesn't seem like many people pay attention to it. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Purge it, the edit history shows that the to-do list is actually only jbolden1517's personal to-do list which has little to do with maintaining a npov or consensus. --Ari (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
it's not OR
I just re-arranged the data to be simple and readable. And the article needs more diverse sources to represent the complexity of the question. I'm the one that made the Christian Database table above what you keep wiping out. I'm not taking sides - I'm adding verifiable sources. Smkolins (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It is original synthesis of sources. Check wp:or if you disagree. Just because you created the table from the Christian Database doesn't give you a right to create your own conclusions, etc. Wikipedia is about verfiability, not individual editors interpretations. --Ari (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." I did. Perhaps you should create a table. In fact I think there is a problem with the data but since it's there I've left it. The zoroastrian growth is just insane. At a guess I'd say some group got "found" after the first data and so it looked like the group just got much larger. But I've not found any source explaining the change so I've left it alone. Smkolins (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." Again that's what I tried to do. I just used the equivalent entries from both tables and did the math. No tricks - no agenda. In fact when I originally put up the chart I only knew how to do it one way which forced a sort. Later I found how to put in the sort toggles to any column can be sorted. I think this data is particularly useful since it's more reputable than the World Christian database, though that's ok. I tried to do as little math as necessary to illustrate growth. I didn't assume population growth statistics which requires assuming most of the growth is from that approach to changes in population, I didn't even present it as a summary per year as most tables do - I went with the simplest format - the data covers 7 years so report 7 years. What's wrong? I don't get it. Smkolins (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware what you did was equivalent to "calculating a person's age". It is original synthesis of data per wp:or. If you want a table from the data, present the information provided in the sources. --Ari (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I calculated percentage change. No mystery there. Christians in 1995 and 2002 as a percentage change (growth, since positive number.) Simple. Do it yourself. Smkolins (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Society for the Study of Early Christianity, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/SSEC.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muslim population growth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Taelus (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I declined the db-g4, but in future please don't continue warring against other editors. Wait for the dispute resolution and rpp to be handled. (Incidentally, I am watching the request for protection now.) --Taelus (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You have continued to remove cited content without seeking full discussion. The other user has a talk page, you should not be debating via edit summaries during constant reverting. You have previously been blocked for edit warring thus you should know better. --Taelus (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Excuse you, but I have been discussing on the talk page and have been ignored here and here. Being blocked for combatting repeated vandalism by a disruptive editor is quite ridiculous. --Ari (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked as I asked another administrator to review, and they fully protected the page for a longer period. Please do full discussions, a couple of lines is not enough to justify another editors moves as "vandalism". Consider this a final final warning however, we don't tolerate edit warring here, especially after warnings are given and it is clear you know whats going on. Instead of using edit summaries to give reasoning, do this on the users talk page, or on the article talk page to gain consensus, then make the changes. If when the protection expires this problem continues, you will both likely be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page, --Taelus (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou for the unblock, however, although my account seems to be unblocked there is an IP block enforced on it now that does not seem to have been removed. Could this please be rectified. Thanks. --Ari (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Kudos to Taelus for the unblock. The other user is a bit out of control, no doubt well rested as he is coming off a block. I've just requested that he be blocked for his latest deletion of relevant material (and he has been -- for 55 hours, but his editing has taken all forms of vandalism/POV/non-consensus page moves/etc. Am glad that you two are keeping an eye on him -- my patience is not as great as his energy.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou for keeping track of that. The new account persona was pretty pathetic. A Hindu with a doctorate in Islam vandalising Wikipedia in such a fashion was very convincing. --Ari (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not keen on an edit war, but if you want to keep on adding "apologist" as a profession to Ahmed Deedat, please discuss it on the talk page. If you don't consider him as a scholar, that is fine, but please do not remove something that is sourced to reliable source like "Dawn" and replace it with dubious fringe souces like as you did on your last edit there. Thanks ZencvWhisper21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Academic sources make the position clear that he is neither a scholar in the convenitonal sense of a scholar within the tradition of Islamic scholarship and jurists. The Muslim Scholar workgroup also doesn't list him as a scholar, but as a write/other. Your personal opinions about him should be left out of it, and accusing me is just pathetic. --Ari (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Which academic source? Answering Islam sort of? Please try to form a concensus if you are capable of, before making such groundbreaking change which could completely alter the nature of opinion about a person ZencvWhisper23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No, academic sources like those cited (which I know you have seen) such as from theJournal of Religion in Africa. Pathetic. --Ari (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
1) If you are aware of what you are doing, you have sourced the word to a list of very fringe and extremist sources. 2) You have removed a sourced content, only so that you can introduce your POV 3) You havent tried to form a consensus before making such a change 4) Even if your "peer reviewed" source says that Deedat is an apologist, would that be enough to justify stating that his profession is "Apologist" and he is an apologist? I have opened a case against your edit warring hereZencvWhisper23:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course, peer-reviewed journals are fringy becuase they disagree with your personal stigma against what they say. My mistake. --Ari (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Historicity of the Gospels
I have been away and have just caught up on the discussion - I just want to say I appreciate your bringing a reasonable and well-informed perspective to the encyclopedia and hope you will keep contributing and improving articles. Slrubenstein | Talk22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for that. I am glad you are back so that there would be a third opinion on the article! It seems like it is going to be difficult striking a balance between contemporary debate and agenda pushing. --Ari (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It would help if you could draw more people into the discussion - it is at articles like these, that have very few active editors, where you discover that for all its size and glry, Wikipedia actually has a small base of editors with narrow expertise and not enough well-informed people or people capable of real research to work on these kinds of articles. Th only other thing you can do is be patient, and focus more on improving the article than arguing on the talk page. Discussion helps only when i tis with open-minded or understanding people, it becomes pontless when it turns into argument. Slrubenstein | Talk17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ari, I know you think you're defending the integrity of WP, but please tone it down a notch or two. Don't be an obstructionist. Let's all play nice together. Leadwind (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ari, I have been reviewing your edits. For what it is worth my opinion is 1)obstructionist-no; 2) Great Editor-Yes. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(1) It isn't controversial (it is in hundreds of sources, including peer-reviewed journals) and (2) he is NOT living. You are editing information out of the first sentence yet you have not even read the first sentence? --Ari (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Morton Smith
I was the one who found that quote by Morton Smith; I just threw it up on my talk page pending some sort of use for it. I think it will probably come up in the mediation. After all, what could be better than an intensely anti-Christian top tier scholar calling Christ myth theorist "cranks". Awesome--especially considering that the publication it appeared in was connected with GTU and UC Berkeley in a semi-official way. It took me forever to track it down, though.
Earl Doherty page
Hi Ari89. I don't understand why you have undone my recent edits to the Doherty page. You removed key portions of a quote from Professor Stevan Davies which I presented in a way that made it clear that there was much hostility to Doherty, but also that not all academics who highly respect Doherty's work are skeptics or mythicists. You have reduced the quote to remove any suggestion that Davies has such a high respect for Doherty's contribution to the debate. This information is important, surely, in a section headed "Reception".
It is simple, I cut down the Davies quote so it wasn't a long conflation of multiple points. I made sure it kept the point that Davies found it may have merit in using evidence, but not failing to mention that he himself does not claim to be a CMT. Similarly, an obscure post on a message board 11 years ago is not equal to the claim that Doherty has some how sparked academic debate.
I am surprised that the article had been acceptable to editors for so long even though it contained hostile innuendo with cites that, when checked, did not support the claims made; and also several one-sided poorly or un-sourced or contentiously sourced opinions. This is what I am attempting to address with my edits in accordance with my understanding of Wikipedia policy and NPOV. The Hoffmann quote at the end contains information that is simply wrong. It is simply a fact (admitted by Wells himself) that Doherty has simply not rehashed Wells. It seems odd that this should stand yet no allowance be allowed for a positive comment by a non-skeptic academic.
Then correct the errors you see. On the last point, no one is stopping a positice comment by a non-skeptic...?
My opening line to that paragraph is surely more apt since it begins by noting the mixed responses to Doherty. This makes sense as a leader to a section on Reception. Otherwise the section reads as if the reception is only about "skeptics" versus others, when this is simply not the case.
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}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, SlimVirgintalkcontribs15:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 | Talk14:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the fact that I am blocked for a few more days may indicate that I am not the best person to go to for procedural suggestions on Wikipedia. Hammy is quite unstable and I assume you have seen his conspiratorial rants against myself and other users. I will look at the article on my return. However, I think I may be better use to avoiding the synth issues (Hammy likes to let arbitrary sources dominate) than dealing with new content. --Ari (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
For Crying Out Loud!!!!
Ari, can you please stop getting yourself blocked!! :) I think you do great work and it's a shame that you are blocked...again. By the way, how the heck is an historian/academic able to afford a Ferrari? Have you published books that sold a lot of copies? :) Anyway, I'm looking forward to you coming back. Take care. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I cannot help it. I do request admin help before edit warring, but by the time someone actually gets to it a full blown edit war occurs. At least I try to do the right thing most of the time. To be honest, I am too scared to look at my watchlist for fear of the mistreatment of biblical study articles in my absence. I am an advanced student, not some Bart Ehrman selling controversial books in order to make a mint. That said, when I am Dr Ari in the near future the press will be inundated with controversially named yet sober scholarship :p Why the Ferrari? That is a story not for public WP talk pages ;) --Ari (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Restore Gospel of the Hebrews to version agreed upon through progressive consensus [5] and discussions. *Wondering why the anonymous editor restored the POV version through repeated edit warring despite being opposed by an admin and every other editor to touch the page.*
It is hypothetical...? But "The theoretical dating of the theoretical dating of the theoretical dating of the New Testament is theoretical..." --Ari (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't do that!
Hi Ari89,
Please read my words at Discussion of History of the Qur'an, Changes section. Please give the correct meaning of the Qur'an. I did correct but you terminated it. Why, my friend? It's your choice but also it's your responsible, don't forget it my friend. Please search word of "Umm'i" in "Lisan'ul Arab"(dictionary). May the Selam of Allah be upon you...Fatih ERGAN (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the role of Wikipedia is not to reflect your own personal interpretations, but those of reliable sources. If you have reliable sources to challenge the current position do provide them and it will be duly noted in light of weighting the verifiable positions. --Ari (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ari89,
I understand your point. Ok. Those are not my personal interpretations;I'm giving you my source my friend: Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-Arab,the most common and comprehensive dictionary of the Arabic language. Please look for "Becca"-"Mecca" or "Umm" in this dictionary. You'll find the answer that you requested from me. At least search for "umm" in the wikipedia. Umm means mother in Arabic language. But Arabic peaople uses "Umm al-Qura" for Mecca, mother of the cities. Please consider it and share your oppinion with me.Fatih ERGAN (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverting
Ari, please undo your latest revert at Christ myth theory. You seem to have reverted six times in the last 48 hours. I don't know whether they are 3RR violations, or whether you were careful to revert outside the 24-hour units, but it's clearly serial reverting, and it's preventing the article from developing. It has been going on for many months, if not years. If you won't revert yourself, I'll consider reporting it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs00:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, these are entirely different versions - a version which now encapsulates most of your version. Please look at the diffs properly, as this is part of changing the content incrementally to gain consensus, not reversions. --Ari (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That was not a revert, it was part of fusing the earlier consensus version with your bold edits. Is that not how building consensus is done? --Ari (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
I'm going to copy some of what I posted an ANEW here. Avoiding the 3RR by a matter of minutes is not a defence to edit warring, and your edits, while not classical undos, clearly meet the relevant definition of reverting, "A "revert" in the context of this rule [3RR] means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Your edits did this, and you were edit warring. The block is longer than usual because this is your fifth block for edit warring this calendar year, a clearly unacceptable amount. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|First of all, I was not in breach of WP 3RR as far as I can tell so I do not understand the block. The report showed six edits over a three day period. These edits had they been reverts would not violate 3RR, and they were not all reverts as they were presented. For example, my most recent so-called "revert" was the fusion of the consensus version (as at 04:46, 31 July 2010) and the later bold version by user:SlimVirgin. You will notice that it is not a revert, I have provided the side-by-side view of it here. This was part of consensus building per the WP editing policy (objection to bold edit, finding compromise etc). If I was edit warring, and especially consciously doing it, I would most definitely be repentant and deserve a block (I have previously reported myself for 3RR violation). However, I do strongly believe that this would be sorted out by carefully following the diffs. --Ari (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit: In light of the clarification by the blocking administrator, I would again clarify that my edits were not edit warring. I was not overriding another editors edits but finding a compromise per the editing policy that contained both the previous consensus version and the new bold editions. This is graphically represented here where I documented it on the article talk page. You can see that most of the bold content has been included, and on occasion nuanced for simplicity and accuracy. That said, I would happily comply by a 1RR on the article to avoid any mistakes, and hopefully the other editors would join in the consensus building. --Ari (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)}}
As a singular point of order, I was very careful not to block you for 3RR, rather for edit warring, related but not identical terms. That said, I'm not attached to this block, and I'll probably be going to bed soon, so the reviewing admin should feel free to do as you think best. For convenience, here's a link to the ANEW report as it was when I blocked. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out and enjoy your rest. On the note that it is edit warring, it is clear that my behaviour was not edit warring. For example, the policy page states "content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
I was not overriding the other users edits. I was implementing the new bold versions into the consensus version , following the image I provided on the talk page File:Consensus Flowchart.svg . This three column post shows the result, where I tried to find a compromise between the previous consensus and SlimVirgin's new edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Lead . I hope this clears up the confusion. --Ari (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
User has agreed to abstain from edit warring and abide by 1RR for the time being.
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Hey Ari, I would encourage you to take a breather from the Christ myth theory article. It seems that that article has a habit of getting users indefinitely blocked. There are lots of other articles that could benefit from your expertise and aren't as prone to heated conflicts. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I will be taking a breather from there. The behaviour of some of the editors on that page leaves lots to be desired.
I don't think so. The CMT has developed long-time and hardened regulars in addition to fly-by editors. Historicity generally has far less going on. --Ari (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It is fine to delete it now, and I would vote in that way but the IP block seems to still be on while my account is now free. --Ari (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't give me encouragement to see you deleting criticisms from other editors rather than responding to them (warranted or not). If someone has a dispute with you, it is better to discuss it with them rather than to simply delete it and ignore it. Otherwise you are not conveying the level of civility that is expected of Wikipedia editors. If you find that you need assistance in handling a dispute with another editor, let me know. Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Noloop has a history of harassmebt not limited to filing false incident reports against myself and other editors. As a result of these reports Nokoop was actually blocked twice and the rude accusations against myself and other editors dismissed. Evidently I do not care for novel personal attacks that have no basis in anything. If there are legitimate issues they can be raised on the talk page where I have explained my edits. Regarding the accusation of edit warring I can only assume it is a reference to the single restoring of citations. If they were legitiomate concerns by an agf editor I am always all ears but baseless accusations by an editor with a current history of such are simply that.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ari89. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
