User talk:Pointe Drive
Welcome[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Thanks, Pointe Drive (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013[edit]
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Category:United Kingdom law enforcement biography stubs with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Pointe Drive, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi Pointe Drive! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Somme edits[edit]
Greetings, why do you keep increasing the size of the thumbnail pictures? They expand when a reader clicks on them.Keith-264 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It's sort of the way wikipedia images are going all over - a move towards generous sized images for the readership within the articles. Pointe Drive (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thumbnailing keeps the page from being cluttered, which makes larger images pointless. I wouldn't bother copyediting the Somme page anyway, because much of the text overlaps with the seperate pages of individual battles (see Battle of Passchendaele and Battle of Arras (1917)) and needs to be cut to a paragraph for each one. I've been revising the seperate pages backwards from Ancre and have something like User talk:Keith-264/sandbox in mind, once I've finished revising Guillemont and Ginchy. What do you think?Keith-264 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a good idea - I was wondering when I was editing the Somme page "where are the individual sub-battles"?. Its good that you have a plan to insert them. Remember to emphasise reader utility, re; more paragraphs, so that readers aren't facing a dreaded "wall of text".
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wall%20of%20text
Pointe Drive (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ginchy is nearly ready but it only makes sense paired with Guillemont, which is proving even more complicated to write than Battle of Morval, due to the sources being all over the place. Is the Western Front your bag? Keith-264 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The last stage is equalising the paragraphs....Keith-264 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how you do it, WW1 is a seriously heavy subject. I was reading an article in a British newspaper online at some point in the last couple of years, about one of the Pal divisions getting wiped out, leaving a single town devastated. I've got a copy of "The Great War" by Les Carlyon here and some other texts, but I don't like reading about WW1 too much because it depressing - so much waste of life. I'm a generalist about WW1 and history overall (Cold War history & WW2 are probably my favourite areas if I had to pick something), and I know that with the centenary of WW1 coming up next, there will be many curious readers. So, I'm checking the WW1 articles for ease of reading, reading comprehension ability, etc. Got to go now, see you later, Pointe Drive (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Chile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Palace of Justice
- Francis Drake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Portobello
- History of Russia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Peter I
- Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to South Kildare
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph splitting[edit]
Please stop splitting coherent paragraphs into choppy 2 or 3- sentence chunks, as you have been doing at High Seas Fleet and elsewhere. It is not at all helpful. Also, do not add material without a source. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Did you listen to anything I said? If you refuse to discuss this matter, you will be reported for edit-warring and blocked. Please stop. Now. This is your last warning. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Iran Iraq War[edit]
Hi,
I have largely (but not completely) reverted your good faith edits to the Iran-Iraq War article, because I took issue with several things:
1. Much of the info that you put had already been covered during various points of this article.
2. You put info stating that Iranian troops allegedly carried "Plastic Keys to Paradise". Your source was Khomeini: life of the Ayatollah By Baqer Moin]. However, in your own source, it debunks that very claim (on page 316 it explains that the so called "keys" were actually prayer books called Mafatih al-Janan (Keys to Paradise) by bestselling author Sheikh Abbas Qomi, which all soldiers were given). According to the Wikipedia entry on it, it is a widely used prayer book, and almost every Shia household has one. The practice of giving those books to soldiers was distorted by opponents of Khomeini, which was quickly picked up by the foreign press.
3. You also wrote that Iranian tactics during their human wave attacks would be to march forward in straight rows. Iranian tactics are explained by Stephen Pellietiere, in this book/source "The Iran-Iraq War: Chaos in a Vaccum", writing that Iranian troops advanced using 22 man infantry squads, which were assigned to specific objectives. He also explains that when the squads moved forward to carry out their missions, they were sometimes mistaken for a single wave of men. The human waves were in fact supported by mechanized forces and artillery, according to Kenneth Pollack's "Arabs at War" (another source in that article), however due to rivalries and poor coordination between the IRGC and Army, on multiple occasions they charged alone. Of course, it doesn't make the tactic any less brutal or change the fact it is in essence a human wave attack, but the specific tactic you described is incorrect.
4. The picture you posted has already been posted in this article, in the infobox.
5. You posted a personal account of an Iraqi military officer, whose reliablity should be questioned considering he was an officer in Saddam Hussein's armed forces. You also copied and pasted another personal account (from journalist Robin Wright) which was already posted in the "Dissimilarities from other conflicts" section. The latter account should also be re-evaluated because of the widespread antipathy towards Khomeini's Iran, but in my opinion it is most likely plausable.
6. Certain portions did seem to contain original research and POV bias, although they may have been derived from a source that I did not notice.
However, I kept several of your points, including the plastic key part (after also added info debunking that claim as well, and putting it in the Dissimilarities section), tens of thousands of deaths, and the Basijis physically clearing minefields. In the process, I also elaborated a little more on the human waves. Thank you, and I appreciate your contributions to this article.Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:United Kingdom crime history has been nominated for discussion[edit]
Category:United Kingdom crime history, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Category:Historical red-light districts in the United States has been nominated for merging[edit]
Category:Historical red-light districts in the United States has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)