User talk:PaulHammond/archive2
Break time
[edit]Oh I'm really not keen on getting involved. I burnt myself through in that week when I tried to have a say in everything. Have fun man and good luck (with both real life and trying to stay away from wiki-life). I've recently been concentrating on random articles that need tid bits changing where I can't start fights. I'll still be keeping an eye on the debate going on the Baha'i pages, but Cyprus seems to be holding the fort remarkably well.
Go forth a live on - Strictly speaking its not your fight anyway so don't let it stress you.
Oh and don't you mean Brettz9 annoying not refdoc? -- Tomhab 15:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good luck with your move. Occamy 16:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back
[edit]Urrrgh, I'm telling you've not missed much. I think you saw our vote which sorted out the whole Baha'u'llah's pic on the Baha'i page.
- I'm not back yet, Tom. I've still got to move - it's just that I was having a look around during my lunch break. I move this weekend, and then the settling in begins in earnest. I'll be on dial up for a few weeks too PaulHammond 22:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
If you want to find the biggest issues going on... to summarise for you:
- Martin's little rant that you've noticed on restrictions on personal freedoms... The page has pretty much settled apart from that.
- Matin going on about Baha'is changing it from Baha'u'llah being banished to being exiled. Contraversial or what? Oh except if you look up wikipedia for Banish and Exile they both link to the same page... Could they be synonymous? Urrrgh if we had genuinely intelligent people to deal with life would be so much simpler
- Oh, that's what the exile thing was - banish is just a posh word for exile, can somebody get him a clue?
- Baha'u'llah's passport says he intended to visit the Shi'a shrines. I need to start looking for an independent source that he was banished (the common Baha'i view is that he was told to go into exile but went under the pretense of visiting the shrines in modern day Iraq). Would make things a lot simpler if I could find that.
- "when his father passed away, he was asked to take his father's position". Martin points out that this implies that he was to be given a place in the court. Although I knew that Mirza Buzurg was dismissed from his position my time scales were muddled. Its unclear what position he was offered to take on. I need to read more of that Maulana book...
- Same old same old about his picture. We've not done a RfC because of the wider debate on images used on wikipedia (see autofallatio and clitoris to know what we'll be getting into if we do... A lot of people believe in no censorship without even thinking about what it is they're censoring).
- I notice the Baha'u'llah page has two pictures on it right now - and the one at the bottom is enormous. I think something should be done about keeping just one of these. But, I'll get back to that in a couple more weeks. PaulHammond
- The whole controvery section... Argument is its not really contraversial as no schisms at the time really occured cuz of it (can you imagine what a field day anyone trying to discredit Baha'u'llah [and there were a lot of people trying to] would have with his three wives issue if it was). Should it just be labelled "confusion on facts" or what.
- Gawhar was pregnant... you could describe it as character assassination as its complete speculation, and the only source talking about it is one that hasn't been translated out of Farci (so I can't check it) and Ahmad Kasravi - rather a contraversial figure. Do a google search for him. He pissed off just about every religious group in Iran in the 1930s and was assassinated after the clergy declared a fatwa against him.
- Picture of Baha'u'llah on it... To be fair it does have his name on it, but could it be seen as pointless since we already have his picture on the main page? I'm not touching it until we decide what to do with the image on the Baha'u'llah page and that might take a while
- Nice work on this page, btw - I noticed that you basically started it, and it is a good place to take all those details that some people think are so important, but aren't actually that interesting to the uninformed reader. PaulHammond
I think thats it. If you're wondering why I've written so much its cuz I'm procrastinating to avoid an assessment due tomorrow...... hehe back to work -- Tomhab 14:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeaaaah... I did put the ground work for the Baha'u'llah family page. Was good fun actually. I knew enough to blag the Asiyih family with the odd source. The others were interesting. Using ocean mostly as there are no more than 10-15 different bits about each person. Muhammad-Ali was a pain as there were a lot more (people disproving his claim and all). Wjhonson (or whatever his username is) provided a lot of extra stuff which was nice. Did take a fair amount of time. I was fed up with people doing 2-3 word edits then bickering about it and needed a break.
- I've given up on pics for now. Mind you no more additions. If it appears on the Baha'i or some other random page then I'll kick up hell all over again.
- Good luck with the move -- Tomhab 23:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think we've got consensus for that. Picture on the person Baha'u'llah article is under discussion. Picture on the faith article is a definite no (pictures of other faith leaders do not generally appear on those articles) -- PaulHammond 11:48, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm that would seem logical wouldn't it... -- Tomhab 13:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User Martin2000
[edit]I am fed up with him (Well I was a long time already) I have asked him to go in mediation with Geni re teh picture and have also raised a request for comments (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martin2000) in order to create some fire on him for his continously unreasonable and inflexible approach. It woudl be good if you could add some comments. BTW I do not bear malice re our mini "fracas". I think you were quite pushed about and i really only added to things. Refdoc 22:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)