Jump to content

User talk:Bookku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Jinn issue

Hope you have not abandoned the Jinn RfC. It would be a shame to abandon all that work. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Louis P. Boog I am not sure present RfC is addressing your questions. Still, I suggested all you three to write summary of every talk page discussion section uptil now first - since most users would not understand nuances of the issues you are trying to maintain, for example other users would not understand difference between why some thing is essential but not central and that essential deserves more coverage (in your opinion)- and then prepare for RfC of your (LPB's) own questions.
The reasons of delay: All you three are not around at the same time that seem to slow the pace. Also @VenusFeuerFalle noted here if discussion getting settled by silence then don't enflame, so discussion facilitator's role is not to enflame, hence my silence until your comment. Anyways, your edits are self evident issue is not settled. Bookku (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of not enflaming. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louis P. Boog, The discussions up til now, you have shown great amount of patience and I have lot of appreciation for you.
Here I was explaining my own silence for a while and VFF also was also referring to their own silence for a while, that's it. Bookku (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else to do before the RfC? ... and will the RfC wait until July 31?--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Shouldn't the sentence added to the lede in sandbox proposed changes

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.[1](p33)

be one of the Proposed additions of text on the talk page? Or am I missing something? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louis P. Boog :) It's your sandbox talk page after all feel free and help yourself to add more. I left 5th slot blank for such purpose only. You add it I shall check it once you add.
Another important thing is decide for yourself chronologically you wish to take it on first number or last one? My suggestion, this one being in the lead, to take it up later or last. Bookku (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
added to the 5th slot. Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louis P. Boog
  • I understand we get little fatigued by repeating same references among ourselves and in further mentions we tend to overlook whether our ref links are properly opening or not, but for uninvolved users visiting RfCs it can be 'put off'. I suggest (always) fill ref links properly so not to appear broken after some one clicks it.
look OK now? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it's high time to start first RfC, but before that
1) First impression is best impression: See if you wish to open a new section at Talk:Jinn relisting your and Eagle's list of academic reliable sources (emphasis on academic) which support claim "important scope exists to increase the weight, without it being undue." The list is already there with you, suggesting just a relist since 'Ready relisting' will save RfC user's search effort.
not sure what you mean. relist? "ready relisting"? "The list is already there with you"? Do you want me to make a list of all the citations used in the "proposed additions"?
2) (I know it's there in the sources still) Include or Be ready with original source quotes that support wordings like "Many Muslim scholars", "an integral part", "completely accepted", 'prominently featured'
attempted to add a cite to Proposed additions of text 1 and now it won't open. Can tell me how I messed the code? --22:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Correction. checking the history I found earlier Proposed additions of text 1 do not open either! Can you fix this?? --00:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
3) I suppose, most preferably, you should be available for at least couple of weeks once we launch RfC Please confirm you are not planning on any long wiki-break, so we can start the first of your RfC. Bookku (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wikibreaking aug.2-4, Sept.1-6 Louis P. Boog (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the time comes I'd like to be able to make a slight change to "User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight." ... adding something like "with concise statements". I don't want to sound like a windbag. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you describe 'the sentence you expect' with little more detail? Bookku (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a phrase Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Louis P. Boog,

2) Continued from above: (At your sandbox talk) Some excess templates seem to have remained in Proposed additions of text 5, which I have cleaned up now. Idk, May be excess templates in last subsection created difficulty while opening /saving from top? difficult to say -any ways I cleaned up remaining excess templates from subsection 5; Also try now editing subsection Proposed additions of text 1 and keep me informed.
  • Important:
a) In sandbox talk You seem to have added additional ref at 'Proposed additions of text 1' Ali Olomi' -i)add page number to the same and ii)also update Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1
No page number in google books, but 1) included chapter and 2) link takes readers to the page. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
b) Also provide page numbers to Encyclopaedia of Islam citations at Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 (as suggested by User:Slatersteven)
Brill, the publisher of EI, is "temporarily unavailable" in The Wikipedia Library (it was last time I check also). --Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louis P. Boog as I suggested at your talk page try for page numbers from WP:REREQ. Bookku (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
c) After confirming you have provided page numbers reply User:Slatersteven stating you have done so at Talk:Jinn#Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion
1) For you I initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 since it's already pending since long, but ideally I suggest Section or 'Subsection to previous section' with heading like "List of academic sources" before Talk:Jinn#Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion.
What should consist of?: "a list of all the citations used in the "proposed additions" yes! + all other academic sources (of course with page numbers) that support your contention "important scope exists to increase the weight, without it being undue."
I'm still unclear. We have Reflist for Proposed additions of text 1 and Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1. Isn't that enough? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant positive presentation of addition of 1+2+3+4+5+ any other strong academic sources together. Just matter of positive presentation, It's not must, you can ignore this suggestion then no issues. Bookku (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which other academic sources you already have? I analyzed some of sources from your sandbox in More Jinn page dispute, exclude those which I analyzed as weak and see which you can include of the rest (from your sandbox) for your support. Besides may be you or Eagle mentioned relevant academic source at Talk:Jinn or WP:NORN discussion or you know academic source but you have not listed so far.
If for some reason you do not want to include other relevant academic sources for any reason then at least "a list of all the citations used in the "proposed additions" will help put the discussion on right track, as I suppose.

Basically it's about you present your case in best possible way. Bookku (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

collapsible boxes

The collapsible boxes are all fine on the Jinn Talk Page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Louis_P._Boog/sandbox/Jinn_sandbox_4-20-2024. Thank you for the technical points/explanation. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rescinding

Once again thank you for all your work on this. I am onboard with a simpler RfC starting Monday. Are there any model RfC? Examples of good RfC? I tried to find one in Help section but did not. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Example of an RfC at WP:RfC itself seems simplest.
  • Take care of technical aspects and importance of time stamp already told you. You get time stamp with your signature or ~~~~~.
  • Present section heading "RfC: Proposed additions of text 1" was okay but did not have question mark. May be you wish to try some thing like "RfC:Should the following sentence be added?" in section heading.
  • Then "In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?" this question is okay, then the sentence you are proposing to add and your You get time stamp with your signature or ~~~~~.
  • After heading {{rfc|reli|soc|hist}} but before The question. Or may be you wish to request Redrose64 or WhatamIdoing or Robert McClenon help in adding the tag. (Technical note: to display this tag as example, open this section with 'edit source' and the way tlx is used - otherwise any where you use the tag Bot will consider that as RfC so be careful)
  • The WT:RFC discussion seemed to suggest not to have anything more than this to keep it simple. May be you wish to read that discussion again, if needed.
Happy editing Bookku (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC) ‎[reply]
@Louis P. Boog
I suggest avoid collapse templates this time for RfC.
Though our intention is to provide relevant useful information in concise manner through collapse templates, users are not used to such usage may be. Bookku (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Enlight710 (13:49, 28 June 2024)

Hi! I hope you are doing well! I have created a brief profile for myself, and uploaded it more than once. So far, it does not show. I don't know why. It is supposed to be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbas_Tashakkori&action=edit&redlink=1 Any advice is appreciated. Abbas Tashakkori --Enlight710 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting Admin review clarification.

My first attempt to get an admin review was Gaismagorm (24 June) who I found when they had replied to a post on WP:ANI. He replied to me "I am terribly sorry, but I am not an administrator." I went to the pages of some other editors who had posted on WP:ANI and saw no indication they were admins, (or state they are not admins, as in the case of an active volunteer Robert McClenon) so after that I picked names from List_of_administrators/Active --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nünlist-2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bookku&oldid=1238112767"