User talk:Jlburton

Reply About Rushbrook Williams
Dear Jlburton,

The article in question has been formed incorrectly, therefore raising suspicion of a hasty fan creating an article. You may want to improve your article (Wiki Clean-up). Let me know if you have further questions.

Oh, and please sign your posts by adding ~ at the end of your user talk page posts, especially on other's pages. It was difficult for me to track down your page to comment. DylanIloveYou (Talk) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

However ...
Hiya, re this edit, note that we should refrain from adding conjunctions like "but", "however" etc. that are not present in a source.

Basically, the idea is that any logical opposition, parallel etc. drawn to the reader's attention should be based on a source pointing out the same opposition, or parallel. For more background, see WP:SYN and WP:Editorial. Of course, it cannot always be avoided, but where it can, it should be. In this specific case, for example, the "however", combined with the upgrading of the reviewer's person, has the effect of framing the review as a positive and authoritative review, whereas it could also be read as a slightly negative comment, or an amused or ambiguous comment. For example, if I replaced "however" with "likewise", the reader would interpret the review negatively. Neither "however" nor "likewise" are present in any cited source. In cases like this, where we can't read the author's mind, we should leave the interpretation to the reader. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, -- JN 466  02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

i read it as a positive review, so i thought it should be distinguished from the clearly negative review.Jlburton (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton
 * I read it as amused, with a tinge of criticism and warning, as well as appreciation of the storytelling. -- JN 466  21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good solution. Thanks.  JN 466  21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Gibb and Ali Shah would have known each other. Both were members of the Royal Asiatic Society, and contributors to its journal.  JN 466  21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, see, this is my problem with all this 'third party' stuff... a person who knows nothing about nothing can do a review and it's considered "objective", simply because he got it published and his 'bias' is unknown. but a person who "works in the field" is looked at as biased if he knows the person he's talking about. the result is a kind of paranoia and suspicion, where moving in the same circles as the 'experts' becomes a detriment. meanwhile, someone who only cares about grammar, punctuation or what the correct way of spelling persian/arabic words in english is considered an important third party source! it's kind of crazy...

anyway, do you think we should try to organize the reviews and reception in chronological order of when they were written/said or does it not matter?Jlburton (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton
 * There is no problem of bias with Gibb; I mentioned it more because I thought you might be interested. Gibb's publisher is reputable and neutral. Einstein knew other top physicists as well; that doesn't mean we'll regard positive reviews from them as biased! On the contrary, if you're good, you get to know other people who're good, and they compliment you. Relying on Octagon publications for praise of Ali Shah however is more of a problem. It's his son's publishing house, and his son had a vested interest in making his ancestry sound illustrious.
 * Chronological order is often useful; it prevents arrangement for effect. Cheers, -- JN 466  23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, i'll do it later... i sent you a draft in yahoo mail.Jlburton (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

ok, it's pretty much strictly chronological now. i think it's more neutral and reflective of the variety of responses over the whole period.Jlburton (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton

when you get a minute do you think you could add this photo to the gallery? i tried before and it didn't work:

http://wayofsecretpeople.blogspot.com/2009/11/pilgrims-in-mecca.html

Jlburton (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)jlburton
 * Thanks for rearranging ... I wasn't checking my mail today, was working. As for adding the photo, we can't; I believe it's still copyrighted. If you tried to upload it, it would be deleted on sight ... unless you know something I don't. I think you'd have to get Shah's estate to release it into the public domain first. -- JN 466  02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations templates and link rot
Hi JLB, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. If you're citing works, maybe have a look at Link rot and use the cite web, cite news, cite book or cite journal templates, rather than using bare or titled URLs? This will save a lot of work in the future, should material become unavailable. It will also help maintain articles' "good article" status in the event of reassessment.

In the article Idries Shah, which you've recently been editing, you'll find many examples to guide you.

Here are links to the citation templates: Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book and Template:Cite journal. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  09:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. They seem complicated but I'll try to use them from now on.Jlburton (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, the documentation look complicated! Most of the fields will not be used, so what I originally did was find a "good article" like Idries Shah, find examples of citations, go into the source code and copy and paste the citation to a Notepad document. Then I use this as an example and just substitute the fields when I need to add a citation. Some editors lay the whole thing out horizontally on one line, though I prefer to lay the citation out vertically.  Esowteric + Talk  08:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You won't go far wrong technically if you follow User:Jayen466's examples. Keep up the good work!  Esowteric + Talk  08:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. When you recently edited Idries Shah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kemal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Formatting in Idries Shah
Hi, I've fixed the paragraph for you. I removed a leading space at the start of the paragraph. Easy when you know how. :) Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  20:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work
Hi JLB, you've made a lot of useful progress with the Shah articles. Please don't be disheartened by minor stumbling blocks and niggles: there's really no need. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  19:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idries Shah, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paul Anderson and Enneagram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idries Shah, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anthony Blake, Alexander King and ISHK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idries Shah, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rational and Intuitive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idries Shah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cults (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Idries Shah
Hello, I am hoping you will know the answer: I had happened upon and began editing List of pen names article; it mentions both Lefort and Daraul as being pen names of Idries Shah; do you think either should be deleted from there? I understand Lefort is not proven to be Shah but do I understand that Daraul is? In that case should we not keep his name in the lead of Shah article? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --Hi, I agree that it should be removed from the pen names article, because it's only a rumor and no one has ever corroborated it. Moore writes "The persistent rumor (and reasonable inference) that Shah himself is Rafael Lefort was first publicly bruited by Nicholas Saunders in Alternative London (Nicholas Saunders, 1970) p. 109." So even using the Moore source we cannot say that it's a documented fact, only a documented rumor and "inference". (Personally I've heard from 'insiders' that it was written by a group of people, but again, that's just a rumor-- in this case, an unpublished one!). On the other hand, the Estate of IS has listed Arkon Daraul in the list of Idries Shah books on Facebook. --Jlburton (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Jlburton
 * Hello, that's great to know; I have removed the Lefort name from Shaw in the List of pen names article; thanks for the information. I notice you restored the other pen name; looks good. I assume the Saunders reference that you shared with me is notable and is a reliable source ... if so, I notice it has not yet been added to the article ... I encourage you to improve the Idries Shah article by adding interesting information from this Saunders reference to the article, going ahead and sharing with all readers the true fact that Shaw has both real and rumoured pen names, citing this Saunders. Perhaps a few sentences in a new paragraph? Cheers.  Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. The former entry in List of pen names said Rafael Lefort is an anagram of "a real effort". Interesting. Prhartcom (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Caravan of Dreams
Thanks a lot for rewriting the article on Caravan of Dreams. Now wikified. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  12:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)