Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 17 April 2015

Charles Armitage Brown‎

Not a problem at all, your article is shaping up nicely. Before I forget, welcome to Misplaced Pages!-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)

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/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. Misplaced Pages 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. ( ). --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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

The Mint Las Vegas

I noticed you re-added the material about the origin of the name, with an edit summary that you heard it from the owner. Unfortunately, this does not meet the verifiability requirement since it is not published in a reliable source. Remember, Misplaced Pages does not report truth, only what is verifiable. If you don't mind, would you please remove what you have added or put in a citation to a published reliable source. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

— kikichugirl  21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

or on the reviewer's talk page.

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rinaldo Paluzzi has been accepted

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

However, the article does need additional documentation. In particular it needs references for the individual works that are in the permanent collection of the major museums listed--each one needs a reference--the museum site is ideal, but other sites will serve if necessary. As anyone who disagrees can take it for a discussion at AfD, I;d suggest adding as many references as you an as soon as possible. By the way, if you have any connection with the artist, you need to declare your conflict of interest on the article talk page or here; preferably both. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What you have requested has been accomplished. Thank you for your suggestions. Sirswindon (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JNW (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additionally, you haven't supplied any references to support the edits you're trying to make. Thank you, JNW (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sirswindon, what I've tried to explain at the talk page for Abstract Expressionism is that the encyclopedia can not call an artist an Abstract Expressionist just because you say he is. I believe you wrote other editors that a museum director said he was an Abstract Expressionist, but we can not accept claims based on a personal conversation. There need to be published reliable sources to support content. Those sources exist for most of the artists you've mentioned, but thus far I have not been able to find any for Paluzzi. If you have articles or books in which he's described as an Abstract Expressionist, please add them to his biography first. Thank you, JNW (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)