Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 4

message: We note that some people are still trying to use the preserving information argument. Well lets see how that ones stands up. To get two equiverlent versions lets use the ones when there was the edit war going on. The version with the photo at the top   was 10.07 KB acording to firefox page info. The version with the photo at the bottom was 10.26 KB acording to firefox page info. In short putting the photo at the top was destroying information.Geni 08:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Data 

message: See, I'm really not sure about archiving live and unresolved discussions (I know there have been lots of comments made in the last few days).  I want to add a comment here, about the discussion and vote that was going on about having Baha'u'llah's picture here.  I guess I'll just add it there, and cc it here?  PaulHammond 11:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I looked into Geni's comment to Cyprus, for example:
:: for this article only? - --Cyprus2k1 17:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are getting caught up in the wider conflict over imagesGeni 17:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I reverted the removal of the picture by an unknown user as this is not within any consensus. The options discussed are linking/re-positioning or leaving it in place. Refdoc 17:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AgreedGeni 16:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: no right now this is a really bad idea. We will mearly get people voting as part of the wider conflict.Geni 22:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Not active at the momentGeni 22:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Arbitration is not ment to deal with disputes over contents mealry behavoiur. As for you comments wikipedia style please show me exactly where Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) says that images will not go at the bottem.
We have already agreed on a truce, which is good.  I will add a  template to the top of the page to inform potential editors that we are discussing this issue. Cabhan 21:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Nice but there are a couple of problems:1 there are at least 4 versions being dissputed over although only 3 of them have any real chance, 2 The one you are showing the diff of isn't one of the 3 that has a real chance, 3 there is not current diff for the most popular version picture at the bottemGeni 22:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting caught up in the wider debate on images 

message: wjhonson writes in the article "...it is instructive to review part of the letter from the Persian government to the Turkish authorities that the Babi headquarters may be removed to some more distant place:..." It may not be worthwhile including the long quotes here, although the wounding of Mulla Aqa of Darband would be a serious allegation. Presumably the language of diplomacy would deter the Iranian government from admitting any alternative explanations such as the growth of an influential Babi community so near to Iran's border. The point is that there are lots of debatable issues like this, but there is only a relatively short space in which to write them. How should such issues be addressed: through debate on the Discussion page or in another, more detailed article? --Occamy 20:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always felt it important to have as many articles as you can. The only reason why you'd consolidate them into fewer articles would be if, at this time, each of the articles haven't been filled past a stub level. I guess having a short, relevant quote with a summary of the rest with a weblink to the full document. -- Tomhab 13:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including Detailed Quotes 

message: Amir has claimed there was a vote on the inclusion of the image.  I was not able to find this looking through the Discussion page. Can someone tell me where this is?  
: Talk:Bah%E1%27u%27ll%E1h/Archive_Picture#Vote here - --Cyprus2k1 09:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Cyprus...How about appeal procedures or for arbitration? Brettz9 10:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on Image?