" 

 ::I am someone who could accept either measure: photo at bottom, or photo linked to the article, and think that the latter would probably be best. I just performed a revert of an anonymous IP to this article. To contend against this person's obstinance I would assert that I don't have a problem with accepting most conventions, and established rules in their proper place: I do have a problem where one person or perhaps a few people try impose conventions on everyone else, whether they are appropriate or not, and try to imply that it is an established rule, that everyone else must obey. I've peeked in at this place from time to time, but not gotten involved since my initial remarks here several weeks ago, but I am speaking up now as someone who does not belong to the Bahá'í traditions, that the persistent insistence that this photo belongs at the top, without regard to their sensibilities is simply a callous and despicable rudeness, by apparently one person, or perhaps a couple, whose ultimate argument and contention seems to be a personal will to irritate and insult Bahá'ís. 
 :: I am certainly not someone who is offended by seeing Bahá'u'lláh's image at the top, of the page. I am offended by the contentious, rude and callous insistence that it '""belongs"" there against the clear consensus of the majority of editors of this article. It is quite apparent that one person is posting this image wherever he thinks he can most offend  Bahá'ís by doing so. It did not belong on the Bahá'í faith page and it does not belong on the Bahá'u'lláh's family page, and the clear majority of editors here feel it does NOT belong at the top here. Looking at the histories of these pages, and the style of edits and comments I have no reason to believe otherwise than that  is merely a sockpuppet of  (who suddenly quieted down here quite a bit once ""Martin2000"" suddenly took over the campaign of vehement railing against Bahais), and that the various IPs that suddenly and  ""strangely"" begin editing and calling people rude names for reverting to having the image at the bottom all seem to belong to one extremely bigoted person. The last comment I read before beginning this assertion of my own assessments read: Revert  no way. There is NO REASON to make and EXEPTION for this one article. The picture belongs to top just like all other similar Wikipedia articles. I assert that there is no reason to make an exception to the consensus rule for this one rude contentious person. I believe that the developers and perhaps the stewards here can examine what IP a user is logged in from, and as have indicated I would not be greatly surprised to find that Martin2000, Amir1, are one and the same source of almost all the hostile comments and edits over the previous weeks and months. ~  "