User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/October

WP in the news :)

 * 20 Wikipedia articles up for deletion, in the Telegraph, including 'Teddymandering'. Enjoy,  Esowteric + Talk  16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thank you!  JN 466  19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Encounter group/T-group
Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page. You're right in thinking I'd forgotten about these articles - I wouldn't have noticed your comment if you hadn't drawn my attention to it. Having looked again, I agree that they don't seem to be covering quite the same subject, although their subjects are clearly linked to one another. A merge may not be appropriate, but I would prefer if the differences between the two topics was made clear, and covering them in the same article would be one way to do that. Unfortunately, I am entirely unfamiliar with the subject, so I couldn't do that myself; until there is someone who can, we may as well remove the merge tags. Perhaps Expert would be more appropriate here. Robofish (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German Border
Good article, isn't it? I've left him some suggestions on the German project page, and he's looking for a peer review at MHP. did you have a chance to look into the Cologne War battles? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, jaw-dropping. I think it's even longer than your German unification article; we'll have to pull our fingers out to make sure the article finds reviewers willing to read the whole thing. The peer review page is here: WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Inner_German_border If the peer review is done properly, we should be able to support at FAC without much further ado. I've done the nbsps already and will do the n-dashes etc. as well.
 * I haven't looked at the Cologne War battles yet (got sidetracked into other things), but I've noted the redlinks in the Cologne War info box ... -- JN 466  22:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * take a look at my comments on the germany talk page; they cover the dashes etc. He's done a magnificent job, although it needs MINOR (very minor) tweaks.  What do you think of the images?  Will this get bogged down on issues of OR?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Be CAREFUL or you'll be a major contributor, not a reviewer....! He uploaded the page intact, so he only has 64 edits.  Let him do the hyphens, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okeydoke, I guess I got carried away. :) Placing dashes is just donkey work (which I quite enjoy doing sometimes). -- JN 466  01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the pictures should be alright per NOR.  JN 466  01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yes, you were carried away. I did one section, so he could see.  You'll need to be able to support at FA, so keeping your contributions within some kind of limit would be sensible.  :)  Oh, have you seen Bee's article on Lent?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

38 metres = 120 feet?
And can you tell me why the convert template converts 38 metres into 120 feet? 38/.3048 = 124.67, i.e. it's really much nearer 125 ft than 120. -- JN 466  23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are only two significant digits in the metric value ("38"), there should be only two significant digits in the imperial value. Thus the question is whether to use "120" or "130", and "124.67" is closer to the former than the latter.


 * If you were to input 38.0 m there would be three significant digits and the convert template would output 38.0 m. But I think the source says 38 rather than 38.0, so I'd leave it as it is. Gabbe (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't known that the number of significant digits was the relevant criterion in metre–foot conversions. I understand the logic, but where one of the units is in a different order of magnitude, this currently makes for some counterintuitive conversions:
 * 36 m 37 m 38 m
 * 37 m 38 m 39 m
 * Note that for ft–in or mile–metre conversions, we do allow the smaller unit to have more significant digits:
 * 3 ft 4 ft 5 ft
 * 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi
 * I might raise the point on the template talk page.
 * I do realise there is a manual fix, using the sigfig parameter:
 * 36 m 37 m 38 m yields:
 * 36 m 37 m 38 m
 * -- JN 466  10:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Things are more complicated than I thought; there is a related discussion on the template talk page already. See Template_talk:Convert.  JN 466  11:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Other articles like that
Pssst! I shouldn't get involved, but here are some refs that might be useful:



The first one is quite relevant, unfortunately, SP Times has recently switched to pay-access for archive full text versions. Here's the synopsis. Other Germany refs. AndroidCat (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks ... will look at them ... Cheers. -- JN 466  01:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the early 1998 timeframe that might have German officials directly commenting on Bill Clinton. Unfortunately a straight search on Clinton in my article archive returns too many false hits (other stories in a sidebar, etc). If I get a chance, I'll look for ones with Clinton AND Travolta, which should find any that I've missed indexing. AndroidCat (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hate it when that happens (thinking one has read something, and not being able to find it again).  JN 466  10:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche article
I'd like to encourage you to keep editing the article, because your edits seem carefully neutral, and otherwise the process is dominated by disputes between Mr. Beback and myself over article neutrality. --Leatherstocking (talk)

Edit conflict
Sorry for the edit conflict just now. No risk of another one if you want to continue editing: I am now back to catching up with my day job. :)  JN 466  22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems. Took me a while to work out what to do, as we had edited very closely, but I think (I hope!) I got it right! I'm actually off to bed now. I sometimes stay up late fiddling on Wikipedia, but I've been working this evening on a slightly overdue article for What's Brewing, so I'm a bit knackered, and I have my house-husband duties to do tomorrow, so I need my sleep! Enjoy your day job! Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal Fogg
Hi Jayen, I hate to spoil a good jape, but if you have a spare minute, can you verify any of the references or book titles in Hannibal Fogg? Cheers,  Esowteric + Talk  14:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well done. Looks like a complete hoax. The cited book on Balliol College is visible in google books; no mention of "Fogg" anywhere in it. I would consider taking the editors involved to WP:ANI.  JN  466  14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayen, and for added the suss hoax category. Will leave others to deal with the article and editor/s as they see fit. Had me fooled until someone else at caravansarai actually followed up on the references. Will Z. also ran a whois on the Society registration ... Guess who?  Esowteric + Talk  15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize you have RL commitments, J. Maybe just take to ANI and let them decide if it needs moving somewhere more appropriate? Just a thought. Many thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as things go, I've just spent another hour on it :( ... Special:Contributions/Patrick_H.Ingram is involved too. Basically anyone who edits Robert Twigger (friend of Shah's) seems suspect. I've chatted to Durova about it (User_talk:Durova); I am at a loss to figure out what the best venue is. But yes, I suppose WP:ANI would fit.  JN 466  18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

 * Thanks; I'm so glad the article made it! And congratulations; you worked very hard on it and well deserved this. -- JN 466  09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment to Happy
Danger, danger. You are opening to door to that typical FLG modus operandi. The movement has a record of protesting and insisting on a right of reply to each and every thing they have a problem with, and the article as it is will end up full of repetition or otherwise become a quote-stuffing competetion. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you are against having that note, I will back you up on that. -- JN 466  14:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Defender barnstar
Hi J, many thanks for the Defender of the Wiki barnstar. Since Jon at caravansarai originally questioned the references in the article and I eventually cottoned on to what he was inferring, I'll strike out "discovered the hoax" bit: that's only fair. And you certainly deserve one for all the hard work in ferreting out the truth of the matter. Cheers,  Esowteric + Talk  13:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, granted, you had help (don't we all). Best, -- JN 466  13:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, you still discovered it, even if it was through the comments of a person offsite, because you then looked at the edit history etc. No one here would have been the wiser otherwise. -- JN 466  13:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You did all the hard work, I just had to put on my Wikipedian hat, so it's only fair to share this, J. :)  Esowteric + Talk  13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would not have been necessary. :)  JN 466  13:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for Inner German border
I have nominated Inner German border as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your earlier feedback on the article - please feel free to comment at Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 on its suitability as a potential featured article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Shah family removals
Hi J, someone has just removed entries from Template:Shah family that don't have a wikipedia entry (except for generations 2 and 3). Just want to mention it to you, as I'm not sure whether or not you agree with these changes. Cheers, eric.  Esowteric + Talk  12:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eric; I think I am okay with that. Cheers, -- JN 466  13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources award

 * Please feel free to tell me more on how to achieve such good performance. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! :)) -- JN 466  18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

UN link
Hi, any thoughts on how can I get hold of this document: UN Special Rapporteur on Torture? I tried to search for "UN Special Rapporteur on Torture" and for G0810697 on http://www.un.org/en/, but that did not help much. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry the link did not work. Here are alternatives:
 * 
 * 
 * I originally got the document from this page: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/7session/reports.htm – on this page, click on the English-language version (E) of document A/HRC/7/3/Add.1 – that will take you into the pdf I linked.
 * -- JN 466  01:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Your instructions are very helpful! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Makinti Napanangka
Thank you for your comments at this article's FAC. I have checked and responded to one of your points, and made a slight editorial change in response to the other. I would welcome further comments. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal Fogg
Hello, You messaged me requesting that I change my edits regarding Hannibal Fogg. Having looked at the HF page I can see that it has been put up for deletion on the grounds that it is supposedly a hoax. The main evidence cited seems to be that a writer, Tahir Shah, is writing a book about Fogg. I am indeed a fan of Foggs and would like to see more authorative material available in the public domain, but I have no connection and indeed, had not previously heard of Shah. I would like to see a more thorough response to the complete set of sources referenced on the Hannibal Fogg page before it is deleted and am concerned that the attack on the article seems to centre on the fact that a new book has been proposed about Fogg. User:BarnardKnox —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks, it is good to hear from you. However, the references you quoted do not appear to exist. I have searched the books in question, and they do not contain anything related to a figure named "Hannibal Fogg" on the pages indicated, or any other pages. Some of the books themselves do not exist. Nor do I see any evidence that any other book ever published contains any mention of "Hannibal Fogg", apart from the one to be published, by Tahir Shah.  JN 466  19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have just advised you on your talk page, you can find an analysis of your sources at User_talk:Durova. Best,  JN 466  19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, what concerns me most is the edits you have made to so many other articles, dropping in unsourced and in my estimation most likely spurious mentions of Hannibal Fogg. The articles concerned are Richard Francis Burton, Shaolin Kung Fu, List of Balliol College people, Wellington College, Berkshire, Wellington School, Somerset, Fogg, Kris. It would be really lovely if you could be so gracious as to remove these unsourced references again, just as you did in Around the World in Eighty Days (Verne novel), where you had previously also inserted such a reference. Doing so would be evidence of a good-faith interest in advancing the interests of this encyclopedia. -- JN 466  19:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks very much, Chris. (I guess there will still be a little bit of work to be done in the daughter articles. :) ) -- JN 466  14:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my edit to "Keeping Scientology working"
i wanted to add the most infamous quote from this document to the article, where it belongs. Like Cirt, you claim that it is unsourced and keep removing it.

how can a quote from the document called "Keeping Scientology working" be unsourced in the article "Keeping Scientology working"?

and is deleting my edit really the right thing to do? why not add one of those small "citation needed"-things? then i would NOT need to write about this and post it on different Anonymous forums, i would NOT need to make a youtube-video about this case of censorship on wikipedia, i would NOT have to call on as many people as possible to make sure that this article contains the information that Scientology wants noone to see. i would NOT get suspended, but now i guess i probarbly will lose this account and get a few IPs banned, because i will NOT stay silent about this case of censorship. Kurtilein (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Commendable energy, combined with complete inexperience and a total misjudgment of what this is about. -- JN 466  22:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * THANKS!!! hooray :) your recent edit to Keeping Scientology Working is great. Now it looks like the disputed quote can stay in the article. Actually i learned a lot from this. After my edit got removed for the first time, i should have reintroduced the edit either with sources or with a "citation needed"-tag, should have opened a discussion on the articles talk page, and should have pointed out that nothing in wikipedias policies says that sources and citations cannot be added a few days later. Tagging apparently does the same job that deleting does in cases like this, except when the person that got his stuff deleted does not come back, or doesnt want to start an edit war, in that case deleting has the effect of censorship. I admit that i really am quite inexperienced on wikipedia. I still think that just deleting edits that could be turned into something useful is unnecessary because there are alternatives, and that it is rude because it is unnecessary and somehow still tied to censorship. Maybe i also overreacted, i could have reacted in a much better way, but if i would not have continued to fight the deletion of my edit then the quote might never have ended up in the article. For me, it was about content all along. I think i will also add this to my statement on the arbitration request for enforcement against me. I hope im not the only one that learned something from this, many people had to waste time because of this, and none of this would have happened if someone would have considered using of those little "citation needed"-tags at the right place and time. Kurtilein (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You also could have pinged Cirt on his talk page; Cirt is no Scientolgy sympathiser, and I am sure you would have found Cirt willing to look into this, given the promise of some reliable sources backing the material up. But I am glad you are happy with developments. :) -- JN 466  00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually i did contact him on his talk page, i think i need to apologize for some of what i said over there (tomorrow, when i have sufficiently calmed down), but that didnt stop him from keeping deleting my edit and filing that arbitration-thing, which is, as i have by now figured out, the very very very last recourse after all else has failed. And there are many other options that would have worked. Now some of the most important people on wikipedia will have to take a look at this issue. Maybe it will even lead to some policy changes, reverting edits is a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach that should be discouraged. Kurtilein (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Request related to your actions
, I note that you have showed up at the WP:AE thread that I filed relating to the ArbCom case Requests for arbitration/Scientology. I have noticed that you seem to be following me around with relation to articles on the topic of Scientology, and also related to dispute resolution pages on Wikipedia. In light of your presentation of evidence against me from the above-cited ArbCom case, this could be seen as a bad-faith action on your part. I feel I must politely request that you refrain from such activity in the future. Do you think you could please do that? I am sure there are plenty of other wise editors that are able to provide comments in your absence. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC).
 * I am sorry you feel this way; I thought I was backing you up. I removed the same unsourced content you had twice taken out, and tried to explain (above) to the other editor that he should assume good faith with you, and that you were acting with the interests of WP in mind, rather than those of Scientology. I still believe that to have been the case, but will refrain from commenting further at the AE thread. Good luck sorting it out. -- JN 466  02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is true that I reinserted the quote later, but that was only after I found that it was quoted in a considerable number of German press articles critical of Scientology; so it plays a notable role at least in German discourse. Among English sources, the only one I found quoting it was Kaufman. -- JN 466  02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border alt tags
Do you suppose you might be able to resolve the remaining alt tagging issues raised at Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1? I've changed the gallery format and put in placeholder alt text, but you're clearly much better at writing the text than I. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to, but right now I am snowed under with RL work (burning the midnight oil). I can get around to it later in the week though. Same with the refs reorganisation. -- JN 466  00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo is willing to help with the bibliography formatting. He says just ask. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ruth, he has done some work already, which is very welcome. I'll let him know that it is. -- JN 466  16:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Magnificent work on those refs... I've stolen your work for a couple of the subarticle's book sections, and will slowly get around to all of them. I'm not so sure on the newspapers / other material requiring a bibliography there.  Again magnificent work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Fifelfoo. -- JN 466  11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Randy from Boise
Thanks for the amusing link. Here's another one which you may or may not have seen ("How to Win a Revert War"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war I know it was meant as a satire, but apparently people are really using these techniques!--Dking (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, had not seen this before. :) -- JN 466  11:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

sorting out comments
J would you have a look at the comments and the Cologne War article. Eurocopter wants additional 43 citations, which seems excessive. Let me know what you think, please? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. I've made some clarifications, etc.  Maybe you'd be willing to support now?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * take a look now? I think it's in pretty good shape.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

J, it looks in pretty good shape now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in France
Hi J, maybe you've seen this? Scientology in France conviction for organized fraud. Cheers, eric.  Esowteric + Talk  10:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also on the BBC.  Esowteric + Talk  10:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eric, brill. -- JN 466  11:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the barnstar! I really enjoyed reading about Makinti and am glad the article made it. -- JN 466  10:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to The Establishment :)
Hi Jayen, get a load of this: Purge. Either I'm going crazy or someone's digging a hole they might not be able to climb out of. :) Good wishes, eric.  Esowteric + Talk  22:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Popcorn, anyone? :)) -- JN 466  22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RT edit war
Hi J, have been watching RT article as you asked. Have reverted the user twice, but the warning templates I added to their talk page (level #2 and #3) have gone unheeded. I haven't added or warned after the latest deletion of the cleanup templates by the user.  Esowteric + Talk  20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

sirdar ikbal ali shah
hi jayen,

i wanted to thank you for fixing up the 'technical issues' on my contributions to the entry on Ikbal Ali Shah. that's the first time i've ever added anything to an article so i'm still learning how to use the features.

i am curious though as to why you deleted the following part, which i had included at the end of the piece to counterbalance the attacks on the Sirdar's character (which claimed he was a 'swindler'):

Describing Ikbal Ali Shah and his family, Sirdar Faiz Mohammed Zikria, Afghan scholar and former Minister of Education of Afghanistan and Afghan Ambassador and Foreign Minister, in a notarized Declaration for the scholars of the world, stated in 1970 that, "The Musavi Saiyids of Afghanistan and Khans of Paghman are recognized as the descendants of the Prophet-- May peace be upon him. They are recognized to be of the most noble descent of Islam and are respected as Sufi teachers and erudite scholars. Saiyid Idries Shah, son of the late Saiyid Ikbal Ali Shah, is personally known to me as an honourable man whose rank, titles and descent are attested and known by repute." ("Spirituality, Science and Psychology in the Sufi Way" in Sufi Studies: East and West, edited by Professor L.F. Rushbrook Williams, E.P.Dutton & Co., 1974)


 * Hiya, welcome to Wikipedia :) The Rushbrook Williams book was previously discussed here; I had used it in the Idries Shah article, and another editor voiced concern over it, mentioning among other things that Shah had been accused of organising his own symposium in honour of himself. (I'll ping the editor to see if he wants to join us here.)
 * I have a copy of the book's first impression; rather unusually, it does not list any publisher at all, only "Printed in Great Britain by Tonbridge Printers Ltd., Tonbridge, Kent". The book's copyright is to "Sally Mallam", who was an associate of Idries Shah's (and the illustrator of Idries Shah's children's books). Given that the book's third-party status is thus somewhat suspect, I was wary of citing too much of the reception section to it. See WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB. Of the various paragraphs we currently source to this book in Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah, this particular one seemed the weakest: it doesn't really contain anything but unfalsifiable flattery (recognized by whom? respected by whom? attested where? known by whom?), and even that is mostly directed at Ikbal's son, his father being mentioned more in passing. Best, -- JN 466  11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing I forgot – I forgot to thank you for your contribution to the article. It was skewed too much to the negative aspects of his reception, and your edits have rectified that (I was pleased to be able to remove, finally, after many months, the unbalanced template). Cheers, -- JN 466  12:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sam Weller pinged:  JN  466  12:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see your email. Shah announced the symposium some years before it was published. I wasn't aware that the first edition was privately printed. That would explain why Jonathan Cape didn't publish it alone, but issued it 'in association' with Shah's Octagon Press. Sam Weller (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

hey jayen, i agree the quote was somewhat out of place and involved over-quoting from one source. But in general i do think that is a valid source, regardless of how it was published. At the time, the Shah family-- their background, sources and reputation-- was being criticized by some people who considered themselves 'experts in the field' (and whose criticisms are still being recycled, as in the Moore article.). The contributors to the Rushbrook Williams volume are equally 'experts in the field' (which is why i felt the need to include all their titles and such) who were willing to come out publicly and counter the accusations with their own opinions. After all, there's no reason why the opinion of a British Ambassador about Ikbal Ali Shah's character should be superior to the Afghan ambassador/ Foreign minister/Minister of education, since even if the latter is biased, the former could be equally biased. We know that James Moore, for instance, is totally biased. Whether these people (in the Sufi Studies book) came out on record due to Shah's request seems less important than that these people were willing to come out and stake their reputations on making these statements. If, for instance, a scientist came out with a new discovery, theory, and/or method, and he was being criticised by 'experts', and he made a request for help from other scientists (some of which might be friends and colleagues), to weigh in on the discussion of his research and work, the only thing that matters is who are the people commenting, what are their credentials, and what are they saying. at least that's how i see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlburton (talk • contribs) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou
Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions to multiple Scientology pages. You have taken a very fair and even minded emphasis to the articles which has greatly improved their quality. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtss (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for noticing and saying so. Cheers, -- JN 466  12:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)