User talk:Jlburton

Hello, Jlburton! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Esowteric+Talk 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, Esowteric+Talk 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Jlburton. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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) [reply]

Hello, Jlburton. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Good solution. Thanks. JN 466 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Citations templates and link rot

Hi JLB, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. If you're citing works, maybe have a look at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your useful and diligent contributions to Idries Shah- and Sufi-related articles. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 19:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

--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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligent research

		The Original Barnstar
		To Jlburton, with many thanks for your diligent research and help with Idries Shah's books. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 11:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jlburton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jlburton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]