User talk:Martin2000

You have 24 hours now to read No personal attacks. I also removed this edit of yours. Future personal attacks may cause longer blocks. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith page
While the Baha'i Faith page is protected, it is a good time for contributors to settle currently contentious issues through constructive and rational NPOV debate. So much time is wasted through the edit wars yet--over the scale of months--they have little impact on the overall page. We should all use this time-out opportunity. Cheers. Occamy 12:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'u'lláh
You are in violation of the three revert rule on Bahá'u'lláh. Please stop before you are blocked from editing. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Adming Geni is the one who abuses Wikipedia to force his stupid personal taste for just that one particular article. He is an admin and tries to make just one article out of line with wikipedia standards and style.  Instead of bothering me, go ask that idiot why he tries to make Wikipedia articles inconsistent.  Martin2000 02:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * if you object to any actions I have taken as an admin you my bring them up on WP:AN/I or if you feel the case merritys it WP:RFAr Geni 14:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
I would suggest that you will seek mediation with Geni and the others. This editwarring is clearly rather pointless. Refdoc 16:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfC
To give you some incentive to try mediation i have started an RfC Refdoc 20:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Just checking that you know people have started a requests for comment about you yesterday. There's a space there where you can put your side.  PaulHammond 15:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you are back the RFC is still open.Geni 15:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
You have engaged in extreme and foul personal attacks, wildly exceeded the Three Revert rule, employed at least three sock puppets for reasons unknown, and used open proxies to continue your campaign. I am blocking you for six days (24 hours for each offence with the sock puppets taken at 24 hours each). Each further offence will start the clock ticking again, with 24 hours added up to a maximum of 14 days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I can be reached by email on minorityreport@bluebottle.com --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Another sock puppet, another day on your block, and the clock starts ticking all over again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martin, you'll find I'm ever so nice in email. Do respond. I'm not blocking you for putting a picture in the "wrong" place--I'm not a Bahai and I don't give a monkey's where it goes--I'm blocking you for extreme incivility, wildly excessive reverts, and repeated evasion of prior blocks by the use of sock puppets and open proxies.

If you think it's possible that you could ever edit on Wikipedia without continuing with the bad behavior for which you are now blocked, please email me and we'll discuss it. You'll be amazed at how nice I can be. I'll listen to all your complaints and I won't tick you off at all. I'll reduce your block period to zero if you undertake not to misbehave again. Wikipedia does not like to give up on an editor.

So, email minorityreport@bluebottle.com  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If that's too personal for you, try wikien-l, the English Wikipedia's mailing list. But be nice. They apply pretty much the same rules of civility to that mailing list as to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the block for now since all the articles on which your behavior was problematic are currently protected from editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addressing PaulHammond in edit comments
Martin, if you have a question for me, I suggest you ask it on my talk page - though since I'm actively watching your attempts to vandalise the Baha'i articles and evade the 3RR by using an ever increasing succession of sockpuppets right now, I guess I'll see it there just as easily.

You asked me why Baha'u'llah's picture on one of the sub-articles (Baha'u'llah's family) didn't bother me "for months". If you really want to know, I've actually just moved and haven't had broadband for most of the last month. I put up a notice on my User page mid-feb saying I was on wikibreak from Baha'i articles, and now that I'm back I believe I mentioned it there. I know you've recently seen my user page, because you went and vandalised it a couple of days ago. I guess you just didn't bother to read it before you replaced it with the version calling me a faggot.

As to other reasons why I think it is appropriate to revert you at Baha'u'llah's family now, whereas it wasn't earlier - well 1) you are currently actively engaged in vandalism, and everyone should revert vandals, but beyond that, 2) when the picture of Baha'u'llah was up at Baha'u'llah's family before, there was an unresolved discussion at Baha'u'llah regarding how to handle the image of Baha'u'llah. That discussion has now been resolved in favour of a consensus for putting the picture at the bottom of the article, with a warning to Baha'is at the top. Someone mentioned that they thought, since the picture was available at Baha'u'llah, it didn't need to be on the sub article, and I agree with that view.

Personally, I think the number 2 is the best reason, since it has more to do with what should and should not be in an encyclopedia. But right now, the most important issue for you is to stop behaving so childishly because people don't agree with your agenda.

If you have any further questions to ask, please direct them to my talk page rather than an edit comment. Thanks. PaulHammond 16:43, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours
You're back and still using very inflammatory edit summaries. I'm blocking you for a bit to give you the opportunity to reflect on your counter-productive behavior. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)