This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I wanted to compliment you on a fine article. It is a pleasure to read and I hope you decide to bring it to FA class status soon. Thank you for your hard work. Viriditas ( talk) 10:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was aware that the article had been at GA for nearly six months without substantial change, and I thought I'd submit it for FA once the six months are up. Best, Jayen 466 10:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominated. Jayen 466 15:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I took a look at the image source issue on the FAC. It doesn't look like so much of an issue. To me at least, it looks like the artist created an account to upload the illustration. I see this kind of thing all the time. Some effort should be made to look into whether this image exists anywhere else. If it doesn't, I think it is safe to assume good faith and accept the rationale, which may need some formatting. That's just my opinion, however. Viriditas ( talk) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, only just spotted your reply. Thanks. I'm pretty sure the image was uploaded by a member of Shah's family (see below) who holds the copyright (and may have drawn it for all I know). Looking through the 800-odd matches for "Idries Shah" available in google images, the image turns up in only a few places online, which look like they took it from us, rather than the other way round. Jayen 466 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, we may have to have Mr. Shah send OTRS an e-mail confirming the image license is acceptable. Or not. Viriditas ( talk) 06:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, you write on my talk page 'Could you keep an eye on the FAC page and help with any permissions-related queries that might come up?'

Will do: I'm almost certain the portrait of Shah will have been uploaded by his son Tahir, or at least he is the one in the position to provide details and okay its use. He represents 'The Estate of Idries Shah'. When you find out what is required, let me know what you want -- such as a specifically worded response from him -- and where that response needs to be sent, and I'll see what I can do.

Cheers, EricT ( talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Eric, good to hear from you. Best wishes. Jayen 466 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious as to how you found this source Indian Express [1] [2] ? It did not turn up in my searches of various news databases but I'd like to use it / search for it in the future. Cirt ( talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I searched the website of the Indian Express directly. Representation of South Asian papers like the Times of India, Indian Express, The Hindu in Western news databases is erratic. For example, I noticed this article on google news earlier this month. Today, it no longer shows when selecting "all dates": [3] (not for me, anyway). Because of experiences like this, I've begun to search the papers' websites directly. Cheers, Jayen 466 07:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cirt ( talk) 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I've been working on the page for P. utilis and would like to keep the section labeled as "References". My article includes direct citations as well as paraphrases that are linked to their source. Thanks for understanding. -Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgreenthumb ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there, that is fine. At one point I had made a "Notes" section with footnotes and a "References" section with an external link (which I then renamed "External links" – when I did that, I should have renamed the "Notes" section back to "References" myself. Cheers, Jayen 466 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I replied to your thread at the Village pump. Just FYI. Steve Crossin ^Talk/ _{Help us mediate!} 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, have forward an email from Tahir who asks if 'Idries Abutahir Shah' could be changed to plain 'Idries Shah', as this is causing confusion and wasn't a name used by his father. Cheers, EricT ( talk) 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, the name only occurs in Moore, as far as I know; I do not recall seeing it in other reference works. Could you ask Tahir if he holds the copyright for the pencil drawing, while you are communicating with him, and if it is fine to quote what we have quoted of Shah's works? Jayen 466 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done [4] Jayen 466 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Many thanks, Jayen EricT ( talk) 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure; always wondered whether adding that name was right. Jayen 466 19:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just got an emailed ok from Tahir, which I've forwarded to you. I just hope that folk won't request a specifically-worded response. Sufficient to add some kind of note like "reproduced with the permission of the Estate of Idries Shah"?

Thanks, will have a look. Jayen 466 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved my response and your comments to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard to keep them centralised. Hope that's OK with you? -- ChrisO ( talk) 12:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for letting me know. Jayen 466 12:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 13:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jayen -- my apologies for the stupid question, but I don't see the link to send you email. Can you tell me where to look? Thanks, Ricardiana ( talk) 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just click on "E-mail this user" on the left of this page. You can only send a text message that way, without attachments. But I'll reply to you then, and that will get you my mail address. Thanks, Jayen 466 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

'Scuse me butting in, Jayen, I can't see "E-mail this user" on the left, though I'm logged in. EricT ( talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) On the left, under the search field where you enter the article you want to look up, there are three framed boxes: "interaction", "toolbox" and "create a book". The second one of those, "toolbox", includes, as the 5th entry, "E-mail this user". If you can't see it for some reason, you can click on this instead. Best, Jayen 466 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just for your info (I can email you directly), it's not showing:

Toolbox:

What links here

Related changes

User contributions

Logs

Upload file

Special pages

Printable version

Permanent link

PDF version. EricT ( talk) 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. The reason is that you do not have e-mail enabled. That is something you can do by clicking on "my preferences", at the top right-hand corner of your screen. You then enter an e-mail address, which enables other users to mail you directly, on your e-mail address, and also enables you to e-mail them using this function (your mail then includes the return address you have specified under "my preferences"). Jayen 466 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Many tnx, that did the trick :) Esowteric ( talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Goody. Pleasant evening. :) Jayen 466 21:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I sent you an email. Ricardiana ( talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, received. Jayen 466 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I'm sorry that the Idries Shah FAC ended so abruptly with a "not promoted" assessment. I was hoping to at least see some explanation or pointers to improving the article. Thanks for your efforts. Esowteric ( talk) 13:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. But Ricardiana sent me some sources, which cover things like "scatter" (would you like a copy?), and it will take me a while to incorporate these anyway. Will have another go at FA later, and try to get clued up about the licensing issues in the meantime. Best wishes, Jayen 466 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, Jayen. There's no rush, though. Esowteric ( talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Received with many thanks. Esowteric ( talk) 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's going around changing "passed away" to "died", for example in The Sufis? Though encyclopedically correct, I actually think the former is more fitting for an article on Sufism :) Esowteric ( talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's ScribbleStick ( talk · contribs) who seems to be on a bit of a hobby-horse about this: [5]. You can always change it back once he's finished. ;) Cheers, Jayen 466 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we still don't understand each other. Can you take a look at what Collect is doing now that he's back at William Timmons, and let me know what you think? The only POV I've been pushing there is that we should report what's said about the guy in reliable sources. Collect obviously has a very different agenda. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. To be honest, I wasn't aware there was a current dispute ongoing on that page, and my comments only related to the Lennon dispute a few weeks back. If need be, I'll make that clear. Jayen 466 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The dispute restarted after your comment, possibly spurred on by it. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what your cavil is here. My big edit which you are uspet at was "The assistant to the President [Timmons] wrote back in March and assured Senator Thurmond that the government had issued direct orders to rescind John's visa. The Justice Department and the Senate subcommittee feared that John and his friends would disrupt the Republican National Convention in Miami, and other events leading up to the 1972 presidential election. ^relevant? " adding the irrel tag which I felt was fully warranted and then changing your "The lobbyists effectively had the bill stalled in Senator Abraham Ribicoff's Governmental Affairs Committee" to "The bill stalled ..." as your cite did not back your claim. Which of the two edits are you so concerned about that you seek to complain? Is either edit a major one to you? Thanks! Collect ( talk) 14:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not upset, just pointing that you're back to adding "irrel" tags on stuff that's clearly relevant (to a part of a quote from a source in a footnote, even), and removing stuff you don't like even though it's clearly supported by the cited sources. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please try and cool it. Try to focus on the article text – I think we have a version now in William Timmons that we can all agree to, so why not sit back and enjoy that for a moment. It seems to indicate that (y)our differences are not unbridgeable. Let's build on that. JN 466 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, it's fine; I appreciate your intervention. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Best, JN 466 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen,

Someone's just created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Wisdom_of_the_Idiots%22 and now has a red link in the Idries Shah article because of the quotes. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 21:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have moved the page. Best, JN 466 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you don't mind, but I merged your comments about the Katrina thread into the ongoing discussion to consolidate the topic. Several editors continue to "reboot" the discussion making the same points over and over again while ignoring my replies, so I keep pointing them to that thread. I'm sorry if this is inconvenient, but it frees up the talk page for other threads needing attention and newer topics. If you see duplication on the talk page, feel free to merge other threads so we can keep everything together. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is fine. I noticed later that there was a thread on this further up and wondered whether it wouldn't have been better to post up there. JN 466 16:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Usually, I hate refactoring the talk page, but there comes a time when an editor has to step forward and do this because some editors will intentionally reboot a discussion again and again and pretend their points were never addressed. I apologize for this. Viriditas ( talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But there is a problem. I strongly object moving my comments to another place. Biophys ( talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take your argument to Jayen's talk page. Your comments were moved to an ongoing discussion on the topic that you ignored, and replies were made. You then rebooted the same discussion again. Please follow talk page guidelines and keep topics together. Please follow up with this on my talk page, not here. Viriditas ( talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'll keep an eye on the talk page. I hope things can be worked out in a reasonably friendly manner from now on. Biophys, I hadn't seen there were comments by yourself as well. As far as mine are concerned, I was okay with having them added to the existing section where they properly belonged. JN 466 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is very simple. It's OK to move other user comment to another section if he does not object, and Viriditas was right asking you about this. However, I do object if someone moves my comment at the article talk page to a different place (I made a reference to a previous discussion, which does not make sense after the move). So, I demand that Viriditas restored my comment as it was. Why double standards? Biophys ( talk) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would have been more appropriate if Viriditas had sought your consent before moving your comment. However, I very much hope we can put these side issues away and concentrate on the substantive matters of article content. Best, JN 466 17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only he did not ask my consent, but he deleted/reverted my comment again from the article talk page when I inserted it for the second time. How can I discuss the substantive matters of article, if my comments are moved and deleted? This makes constructive discussion impossible. Biophys ( talk) 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only suggest you take three deep breaths, walk away from the article for half an hour ... everybody is getting too hot under the collar here for our own (and the article's) good. Would you like me to ask Viriditas to refrain henceforth from moving your comments without your permission? I agree it does not help the working atmosphere. He did only move your comment to a different section, didn't he, rather than delete it altogether? JN 466 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I moved his comment to an ongoing discussion with the same name and replied to it. Nothing was deleted. Viriditas ( talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Do bear in mind though that this sort of thing is likely to inflame a situation if it is done by someone who the editor has just had a disagreement with. I'd rather see us all calm down a bit, rather than get more passionate. JN 466 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with the current RfC. First of all, we need to have a simple statement that reflects the issue in a neutral manner. Second, we do not need comments by involved editors following the RFC as this attempts to persuade uninvolved editors to think about the problem in a certain way, when the very purpose of the RFC is to provide a neutral presentation of the topic and allow uninvolved editors to come to their own conclusion. The fact that the two editors who are causing many of the problems in the article are attempting to sway the RFC before a single uninvolved editor has been allowed to comment, shows that this isn't working. By sticking to the RFC structure we can eliminate this problem. We don't need to hear the opinions of involved editors again. Those are supposed to be condensed in the RFC itself. Viriditas ( talk) 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, if you have a spare moment can you maybe have a look over Octagon Press Ltd which I created and which has been flagged for notability. Have added something on reception of Shah's works, as he forms a large part of their output. Many thanks, Esowteric ( talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a treasure. Thanks again Esowteric ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As you're editing won't interfere. Just realized that khalili is a contemporary author. Esowteric ( talk) 14:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done for the moment, thanks for holding off. More sources would still be useful; it's odd that even the stuff which clearly exists – because I've cited it and seen on the papers' websites – doesn't show up in google news. Hrmph. Will still keep looking though; if we can find more, it will be useful. Best, JN 466 14:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is hopefully better sourced now, J, though more than likely in need of ce now. What's the protocol: get back to User:RadioFan and ask him/her to reconsider to notability tag, or just wait for someone else to come along and look at the article? Thanks again Esowteric ( talk) 10:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a gentle bump in case you missed this question, J. I can see that you're more than busy. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. We do have many sources now, but most of them only refer to OP tangentially (e.g. bibliographies listing books published by OP). The ref on Burton, on the other hand, does not seem to refer to OP at all. The notability rules for organisations linked in the tag require non-trivial coverage; the mentions in the obituaries barely rise above trivial, and the rest is pretty much contrived. Did no one ever do a proper write-up on Octagon Press? If you delete the tag, it is best to let the editor who placed it know, so they can reassess the situation. But at the moment, if they look into the refs more deeply, I think they'll find them still thin on the ground, and made to look more than what they are. :( Perhaps Tahir knows of any press coverage that spent more than just two sentences on OP. Best, JN 466 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see what you mean, J. Will leave things as they are. Many thanks. Esowteric ( talk) 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What I was aiming to do was to show that the contributors to the company and that the company's products are notable. Alas, without inheritance it looks like despite this the company itself is not notable. Is the wikipedia policy too inflexible here? I notice that Bantam Books seems to have been passed on the nod without sources probably because people simply know the name Esowteric ( talk) 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Have come clean and outlined the problem at User talk:RadioFan and Talk:Notability (orgs and co) Esowteric ( talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. JN 466 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I found I'd made a mistake in sourcing that Hubbard quote about the I-76 submarine on Military career of L. Ron Hubbard - I've corrected it now. For the record, this is the set of tapes and transcripts in question. The specific lecture is #7, "CRA Triangle". Thanks for prompting me to take another look at this. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's kind of you to come back to me on this. I may still disagree with you over whether the juxtaposition of these sources is OR, though. JN 466 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I have left a comment at Talk:Scientology#Membership edit reverted about your edit. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have replied there. Cheers, JN 466 21:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 ( talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem ( talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA ( talk · contribs), Grrrilla ( talk · contribs), Makoshack ( talk · contribs), Proximodiz ( talk · contribs), Su-Jada ( talk · contribs), TaborG ( talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier ( talk · contribs), Jpierreg ( talk · contribs), Maureen D ( talk · contribs), OngoingHow ( talk · contribs), Seelltey ( talk · contribs), Tturrisi ( talk · contribs), Voxpopulis ( talk · contribs), AndroidCat ( talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar ( talk · contribs), Anynobody ( talk · contribs), Derflipper ( talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 ( talk · contribs), Misou ( talk · contribs), Orsini ( talk · contribs), Shrampes ( talk · contribs), Shutterbug ( talk · contribs), Steve Dufour ( talk · contribs), Tilman ( talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! ( talk · contribs), Touretzky ( talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross ( talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi ( talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO ( talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words about my draft of the background section.. cheers! Ling.Nut ( talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pleasure, and well deserved. It just made it make sense as an intro or background section. I think the most important thing you added was the lead sentence; everything else flows on from there – or at least that's how it feels reading it; you restructured and reordered much of the content so it feels more purposeful. Cheers, JN 466 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I really really hate those talkback templates. I think they look MMORPG-ish. But thanks again for the kind words ;-) Ling.Nut ( talk) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll spare you them in future :)) (Makes mental note: never send Ling Nut talkbacks) JN 466 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Are you married? Don't answer that; it's a rhetorical question. I ask because your reply re SYN attempts to address the issue logically. However, personal issues have been raised: Awadewit seems to have been offended by your assertion of SYN. You have done nothing to address that issue. Married folks know better than to address one aspect without addressing the other. ;-) I think if you cannot establish SYN, then it is pretty reasonable for her to ask you to strikethrough your comments. Moreover, an apology would not be completely unacceptable, either. ;-) Ling.Nut ( talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. I believe I do understand your point. But before we go any further with this, and taking this one step at at time; are you aware that I did strike through my comment? JN 466 04:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Go further with what? This isn't a debate, it's a short note.. and no, I didn't see the strikethrough. Apologies if I caused a misunderstanding. Ling.Nut ( talk) 05:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise; I appreciated your message. I was just talking tongue-in-cheek, because I am married. ;) JN 466 05:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, hope things have calmed down for you on the CoS front. I've created a category 'Sufi psychology' and added a few entries, eg Sufi psychology article itself; Robert Frager; Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee; Lataif-e-sitta‎, and a small selection of appropriate Idries Shah books. Haven't linked Shah himself as that's your baby. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Will have a look. I was astonished how much press attention the Scientology arbcom decision got ... nothing about Scientology is ever normal. Ah well. Best, JN 466 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I spelt out the rationale in each edit summary. Esowteric ( talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added Shah, seems uncontroversial enough. Did you notice someone added a number of other Jan Fishan Khan descendants to the Shah family template? I think they may be correct, but it would be nice to see a source for those. Cheers, JN 466 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, J, but thought (a) you would know what to do, and (b) that they were probably good faith and maybe kosher. That's all I know :) Esowteric ( talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am touched by your faith. :)) I only just noticed the additions this minute ... I seem to remember having read something about Nasrudin Shah being a relative, but I am pretty sure it wasn't in a reliable published source. We'll need to do some digging. JN 466 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately looks like one was an IP in the Emirates, so talk page discussion won't help. Esowteric ( talk) 21:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ask Tahir? He'd probably know. JN 466 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

He's away on a long trip and seems to be out of email contact, and I've already got a query in as to whether Afghan Relief and Afghanistan Relief Organization are completely separate or are linked in any way. I don't want to push it. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. JN 466 21:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, another IP is adding to the template. Esowteric ( talk) 11:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Have added some text to template discussion page. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Aqil Hussain Barlas looks legit. Esowteric ( talk) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bibi Mehmooda Begum D/O Nawab Amjad Ali Shah article doesn't exist, sounds legit: See Qasim Jan. Esowteric ( talk) 12:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Adil Hussain Barlas also redlink (son of Aqil HB). Esowteric ( talk) 12:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the latest IP probably knows what s/he is talking about (added these three entries). Esowteric ( talk) 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Have sorted red links, bullets, etc; but haven't taken any entries out. Esowteric ( talk) 13:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you want to add Shah family to Naseeruddin Shah, J? I had a look, but not sure where to put the tag at the end of the page. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 15:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're currently experimenting, which probably answers that one :) Esowteric ( talk) 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am just looking at this. But I would want to have template be collapsed on that page; it's not the most important one of the navboxes that are there already, and they are all collapsed. Do you know how to manually override the standard appearance (collapsed vs uncollapsed) of a navbox? JN 466 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea, except that I'd most likely look for a similar one and copy that ;) Esowteric ( talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I'd want it to behave differently in different articles. In Idries Shah's article, I'd like it to appear expanded. But in Naseerudin Shah's article, I'd like it to appear collapsed. But it seems this is not possible. JN 466 16:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your idea makes perfect sense, J. Esowteric ( talk) 16:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's working now. Esowteric ( talk) 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've set it to autocollapse now; so whenever there is 2 or more navboxes, it collapses; if it's the only one on a page, it stays expanded. That means it's collapsed in Idries Shah and Naseeruddin Shah now, and uncollapsed in Tahir Shah, for example. JN 466 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"A far simpler solution for your problem would be to define |state= ... state| ... in the individual navbox in question, which can then be expanded by default on articles simply by calling ... navbox|state=expanded ..." [6]

You're a treasure! That's done it. Many thanks, JN 466 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that cleanup (I hang my head in shame at getting the date wrong in that ref). The trouble with articles about objects depicted in painting is that formulations like "a picture of X was painted by Y" are necessary to avoid the impression that X was clambering up B with a tub of gloss emulsion given by "Y painted X"; well done on finding so many synonyms for "painted"! –  iride scent 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I like the image of the gloss emulsion; reminds me of the fact that painting some bridges is a never-ending process (not unlike Wikipedia). Best, JN 466 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)