User talk:Intothatdarkness
Food for thought...from :53 on.
 | This editor has joined the opposition to the targeting of editors by the politically-correct and ideology-driven so that we can keep this the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the one that only those who haven't yet done something unacceptable to the easily-offended can edit. Don't let the octopus of the easily-offended bring down the entire project! |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Extending the Olive Branch
[edit]Since it seems we got off the wrong foot, I wanted to reach out and establish that I am genuinely seeking to cooperate in good faith to improving whatever pages we clash on. I was willing to work with Kajmer and quite a few others across different pages, so be assured that there's no hard feelings going forward.
I'd be great to have the dialogue open, and have everyone relax a bit. Although the one caveat is Keith has clearly turned bad faith about this. Him aside, hope we can cooperate on this if you're interested.
Looking forward to your response, Wahreit (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- As I explained on the article talk page, I don't find your proposed changes especially helpful. Verdun was a long battle, and presenting a mish-mash of numbers in the info box doesn't add anything to the article itself. Also, you rely heavily on older sources. It's better to have a wider range of scholarly attribution for something like this. Intothatdarkness 13:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- The original sources are older, but they were sourced from recent scholarship (secondary sources) by Meyer and Mosier who judged as historians their weight and value. It seems appropriate to put them in the body at the very least, and then use them as a range.
- I will also add as a word of caution about the adachi guy who randomly joined the convo on the page. From what I recall from a long while back, he relied on aggressive tactics to bully other editors off multiple pages, and seems not to like me because it didn't work on me. Given how he entered the Verdun page immediately after trying to insult me on a talk page about a major wartime atrocity, and the content of his reply, it seems fair to assume not so well intentions on his end. Wahreit (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing 100% clean hands anywhere, actually. Valid points have been raised about both the additions to the infobox and how you added the new section to the casualties section. That's what I'm interested in. I have my own opinions about the conduct that's occurred during this. Intothatdarkness 16:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- As context, by the time you stepped in things had already gotten heated between me and Keith. It seems all are in agreement for fixing the article, and I'm all for compromise and everyone taking a chill pill, but it needs to be said that there is bad faith present, especially with the adachi guy stepping in out of the blue.
- Also, adachi's watching literally everything I do (which is why a Japanese WW2 "history enthusiast" with no presence on any WW1 pages suddenly popped on a WW1 talk page I just happened to be arguing on to offer support just to oppose me) because it seems he wants revenge for some alleged slights. Hey Adachi, I know you're reading this. Let it go.
- Besides that, happy to discuss on that page and here. Wahreit (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- As you can see below, I'm bowing out of the entire discussion. Life is too short to waste it pissing around with Wiki-policy stuff. And now that a major policy warrior has dealt himself in it's even more pointless. Intothatdarkness 16:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing 100% clean hands anywhere, actually. Valid points have been raised about both the additions to the infobox and how you added the new section to the casualties section. That's what I'm interested in. I have my own opinions about the conduct that's occurred during this. Intothatdarkness 16:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
voorts (talk/contributions) 06:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Unnecessary. I've decided I don't give two shits about the discussion based on the antics of the two main players. I've removed the article from my watchlist as well. Intothatdarkness 16:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 237, January 2026
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)