User talk:Esowteric/Archives/2009/June

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad!
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

Re: Moore

 * Hello Eric,


 * I am glad you are not put off by my figure of speech. The last thing I would want is to insult. Moore exasperates and at the same time leaves a clear marker distinguishing (ir)relevant research. The question of the hallal scandal is unsourced. The foreign office notes ? They give no detail, and are what they are...
 * Is it really a fact that Idries was his father's secretary if any "mission" there was ? Do you really trust Moore on that information ? He is the only source for that is he not ? But from his input the "fact" can not be verified, than why take it as a fact ?
 * You are also aware that Iqbal Ali Shah's introduction to Sufism dates from 1922 and not from 1933 (Islamic Sufism) as Moore would have it. And this can effectively be verified following Idries Shah's footnote to his essay introductary to "The Way of the Sufi".
 * I gave explicit detail once in a footnote to the present Idries Shah article -my note has in the meantime vanished (as has the one relating Reza Arasteh )
 * I trust you have at least seen "Islamic Sufism" and are thus able to weigh Moore's expertise. It is a fact that Idries' father already in this 1933 text appealed to future research in psychology much in the way his son did 50 years later. But facts among the derwishes...
 * Anyway, good luck and much fun with your future work on Wiki.
 * Respectfully yours
 * Lunarian (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer controversy
It seems that you disagree with my edit, since you reverted it. Could you explain why? There is no need to start a discussion every time an edit is made, but if you actually disagree with the removal, I'll gladly start one. --Conti|✉ 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed that another editor had deliberately inserted that section as being pivotal to the article and thought that especially as the matter is in the middle of a contentious Afd that the matter should be discussed. Maybe bring the issue up on the article's talk page, rather than here (my interest is only peripheral)? Cheers, Esowteric (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Have you looked on the article talk page before reverting? Without the information that you removed the article is a severe BLP violation. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do what you have to do. I just thought the matter should be raised before a unilateral deletion ... and I could be wrong. Cheers, Esowteric (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, discussion started. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think you misunderstood me. I was replying to Conti, and got an edit conflict because you were faster (that's why I added (ec)). The article must either be deleted as a severe BLP violation because we know that almost everything reported by the "reliable sources" is false, or supplemented with original research (per IAR). The latter is a compromise until the AfD has finished. This is not just me saying this; much more experienced editors think that way. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, being a relative newbie, I didn't know that's what ec meant. Oops! Esowteric (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am sorry too. I shouldn't have said "reverted" to refer to the removal. That was severely misleading. Entirely my mistake. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, if an article is a severe BLP violation without original research, then it should be speedily deleted. --Conti|✉ 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have to be an IAR deletion, and after this, admins seem to be too scared. What we have now is a good compromise, I think. (Not sure about the exact text at the moment, just in principle.) --Hans Adler (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe
Wasn't even expecting for you to read that. Hehe. Spongefrog (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Redesign
Like the new colours. :)  JN 466  23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)