User talk:143.58.173.57

Operation Epsom

Greetings, I reverted your Epsom edit because you included a primary source which, while interesting, is original research and unWiki. You'll need to paraphrase it and associate it with a Reliable Source (if this is possible). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not original research at all. Historian given and the book. The extract is from the official Order.

ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0811705897

ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0811705899 143.58.173.57 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ahem! put it back. Is "The intention in the Order was to seize Caen if possible on D-Day, but if resistance was high ensure that the enemy does not use it as a means of counter-attacking, giving the job to the RAF of eliminating the German occupiers. Caen was not a prime D-Day target. In the Overlord Operation possession".... a claim by a writer? It will need a cite too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

All after the ref is mine, interpreting the Order. The Order was inset to differentiate it. 143.58.173.57 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't interpret, we must describe what RS contain. That bit will have to go unless you can cite it to RS. Regrets Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza‎ for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article as it is poor and full of pov or theories being presented as fact. I am going to the Talk page to put it about, then improve the article. I believe that is the aim of the Talk page.

You are attempting to stifle discussion on the Talk page on the poor aspects of the article and further theories being added.

This 'reliable' sources you are on about means you do not agree with a source being against how you view matters - stifling. You need some objectivity. 143.58.173.57 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE. I acknowledge that you were able to find some sources that agree with your view, but that does not make it significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Hypnôs (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

---