User talk:Sirswindon

Charles Armitage Brown‎

Not a problem at all, your article is shaping up nicely. Before I forget, welcome to Wikipedia!-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Laval

I am happy to see you've made great strides with Pierre Laval, particularly the coverage of his trial. Is there any chance you could expand upon Laval's movement to the right? I assume (but it is perhaps not apparent) that the varicose vein's which had led to his discharge from the army precluded him from serving during the war. I would assume also that his view of the military changed from the extreme which is mentioned (from 1913) - some coverage of his political activities 1914-1918 would perhaps be welcome. Regards, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

List of futurologists

You may be interested in this proposal. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sirswindon

I recently looked your 2 articles, and I must say I am impressed at how far those pages have come along! ---BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this is happening, but there is a way to get at those vandals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revert_vandalism#Warnings Each time a vandal strikes, give them a little warning, but if this persists, an admin will block that user/IP. Best of luck with the rest of your articles! -BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Laval

I have reverted certain edits you performed on Pierre Laval, as they deleted material that was properly sourced, and included a statement which argued a non-neutral position. I applaud your efforts to improve the article, but this particular sequence of edits was less than productive. If you can demonstrate by reference to reliable, verifiable sources that your edits were proper and appropriate, feel free to re-include them with references that support them. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

People who have an unreasonable dislike for Laval post these so called reliable sources. However when you go to these sources they are based on hearsay and not facts. If you will not allow a caution to be posted than better to eliminate the items. No matter what you personally feel about Laval, many Frenchmen understand his motivations were to save France and not to allow it to be taken over by Germany. I met his son-in-law in London in 1948. I have read everything written about Laval since the 1930s. He was no angel, but he was not the man, as some have pictured him. Wikipedia represents objective and fair biographical material. Let us leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 February 2011

Aside: Two tips, Sirswindon: When you reply to someone on your own talk page, a) it's still worth signing with ~~~~ (so we can tell who-said-what-when), and b) it's worth letting them know you've replied, with a quick note on their talk page. You can use the {{talkback}} template - as I've done, here.  Chzz  ►  02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clear you've put a great deal of time and effort into your work on the article. This may prove to be a two-edged sword, however. The work you've put into it, as described on the Discussion page, may have pushed you into the original research arena. Rather than continue along an avenue I am ill-equipped to explore myself, I'm going to recommend that either a third opinion be sought regarding the veracity of the Fishman reference, or that the dispute resolution mechanism be brought into play. I, personally, remain unconvinced that one reference work "trumps" the other, but without having a reference library ready to hand, I'm unable to compare them directly.

At this point, I don't see a compelling reason for me to remain involved in the matter, as I don't feel qualified to comment further on the accuracy, completeness or neutrality of any of the sources being considered. I am therefore stepping away from the article and any direct involvement with it, although should it appear on my recent-changes queue, I will examine it for obvious vandalism. Best of fortunes to you. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is quite clear from reading Fishman, that she only quoted another source, who then also quoted another source. She also included a line which was not in the other source. When I arrived at the original source it was not there as well. So all I could do is eliminate her quote in full.Sirswindon (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you never answer to my contributions in the talk page of the Laval article ? I was actually looking into this point but for the second time my contribution has been totally ignored. ([1] [2]). --Anneyh (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize but I did not think I needed to supply an answer. I have a copy of Marrus and Paxton in front of me and it is clear they did not do original research, they only quoted the Paris pamphlet you pointed out. Nowhere that I can find is there verification for the Boegner-Laval "so-called" conversation. What if in that Paris pamphlet it had been written "Laval replied: kill all the Jews" and Marrus and Paxton had quoted that, would you want it included in the Wikipedia article?Sirswindon (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you're questioning: even in the academic world, if a first person writes a mistake, it is very likely that this mistake gets copy and pasted in further works without any verification. I also find it exciting to make this kind of detective work in looking for sources. On the other hand, Wikipedia's base of work are secondary sources and the discussion on which sources to consider or not and what to write into an article and what not belongs to its talk page. --Anneyh (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago I was taught that poor scholarship was as serious an offence as plagiarism --- "Scholarship demands thorough research; examining many conflicting sources then weighing the evidence and explaining how and why it was weighed as it was; also objectivity in assessing the validity of the material and attempting to present an unbiased credible summary with detailed citations. Holding a doctorate degree is no guarantee of being a scholar; scholarship depends upon what one does after completing the Ph.D."Sirswindon (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your answer... I was actually kindly inviting you to get back to the Laval talk page. I'll check back the article later today and will try to give reader feedback on how we can improve the article. --Anneyh (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Trelawny

Thanks for the help on the article! This was the first article I've worked on where I had to deal with biographies contradicting each other, so that was tricky. I actually managed to track down a copy of Prell's book, it was pretty helpful with some of the details. I'll make sure I take another look through it. I'm hoping to bring the article to Did You Know and maybe Good Article if I have the energy. I have a lot of copyediting to do, as well.

I tried not to only cite Armstrong for basic facts, I bought her book before I realized the depth of her scholarship. St Clair really did paint a pretty negative picture, I hope my first draft of the article didn't come across quite that negative. I'm about 1/3 to 1/2 of the way through Gryll's book right now, it seems like a pretty trustworthy book. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your latest edits at Pierre Laval

Dear Sirswindon, your characterisation of Paldiel and Fishman at Pierre Laval constitutes your personal opinion. This is against Wikipedia policies. Wikiepdia is about verifyability not truth WP:V. Please kindly revert your edit or provide references to reliable sources. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the picture of Hans and Sybil Eysenck. I think it is very precious :) have a nice day WissensDürster (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Hans and Sybil Eysenck.jpg

Hi Sirswindon. Could you please add the year the photo was taken? Thanks. --Leyo 12:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Leyo, I wish I could date the Photo. I first met Hans and Sybil in 1949 when I drove them in my Renault from London to Bristol to attend a British Psychological Society conference. I keep in touch with them after they were married, right up until Hans died. It could have been in the 1970s, but that would only be a guess. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the reply. You might also add a decade or range of years to the file description page. --Leyo 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

There is a discussion concerning an issue you have been involved in here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Paul_Magnussen.2C_Sirswindon.2C_and_InigmaMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.10.133 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I happened to see your October 22 post at Talk:Hans Eysenck: "As long as I am part of editing this Article any reference to Eysenck having written something about Freud will not be included in the section entitled: “Alleged relationships with far right groups.” Sirswindon (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)." Please be aware that this could be interpreted as a promise to edit war. To avoid a possible negative reflection on your editing, it would be helpful if you would post in the discussion at WP:AE and agree to accept whatever consensus is arrived at by the editors working on the article. You must be aware that since this article is covered by arbitration sanctions under WP:ARBR&I that the behavior of editors is closely scrutinized. You already come across as somewhat of an enthusiast for the reputation of Eysenck. Since we emphasize neutrality here, you should avoid appearing to be a watchdog who is on the alert to remove anything negative about Eysenck. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your response here is not adequate. We expect you to follow Wikipedia policy. People are requesting sanctions against you and you don't seem to be taking the matter seriously. You should formally agree to accept our policy. You risk getting a warning under WP:ARBR&I. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

ref tags

Hey, your ref tag at AE wasn't closed so it kind of broke the page, but I fixed it and I fixed the same error at the Hans Eysenck talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Notified under WP:ARBR&I

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Per a discussion at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)