User talk:Intothatdarkness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your opinion sought

The above has bled over to here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 15 See move request for bits. Montanabw^(talk) 18:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Commented there. I'm not against some broad categories (but that's the cataloger in me talking), but what was evolving was way too specific and convoluted. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for better organization (that's the anal-retentive in me talking!), but it has to work! Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But we are where we are...the anti-organizational paradise. Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Montanabw, what you really mean is that something has to work for YOU, and only you have the supreme knowledge that anyone else lacks, "delusions of grandeur".Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My talk page is NOT a free fire zone. Please take snits elsewhere. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Intothatdarkness, your right, sorry for that, anyway if you have any ideas about adding any good referenced military saddle info to the saddle article it definitely could use some help, the military saddle section does not list many types. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I may work on saddles at some point. Right now I'm working on Vietnam stuff, and it's taking up most of my time here. And I haven't decided how much more time I want to waste here, actually. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of FSB Mary Ann

I made some minor edits and added some cross-refs, but generally I think its in good shape. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, I'm not done working over the Battle section and the Legacy/History section, but it did need a ton of work. Thanks for the read-through. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Intothatdarkness/U. S. Army Remount Service has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/U. S. Army Remount Service, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hotel Baxter

I've started a draft on this Bozeman landmark at User:PumpkinSky/Hotel Baxter. Feel free to edit directly. I'll move it to main space when it's ready.PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved to main space and nom'd at DYK. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks really nice! I may dig around and see if I have anything RS enough to add to it (aside from "I remember when X was there). Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

U. S. Army Remount Service, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

• 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sarah (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Any thought if it should be named "United States Army Remount Service"? Just wondering. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will come along and change it anyhow...:-) MilHist tends to use either, and if I tag it for MilHist someone will tweek the title if they think it doesn't work. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Do you want to nominate the Remount article for DYK? Need to do it w/in five days. I can if you don't want to take the lead. Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got more experience with that stuff, so I don't mind if you take the lead with it. I just write stuff... :-) It does look good with the images. And as a note, the source I pulled from listed the Kellogg place as a "nursery." Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL! That is the first time I've heard that word. I'll see what I can do for a DYK. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done: Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Army Remount Service Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks! Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

6th gen

6th generation Montanan? Just how far back does your family go in MT? PumpkinSky talk 12:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1860s. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sons and daughters of the Pioneers, eh? I can only trace back to about 1920, and family in the US only to about 1880, when Great-grandpa was alleged to have been a 14-year old stowaway on a steamer out of Hamburg... but he died in Montana, I think that makes me 4th gen, but all 4 grandparents born outside the state, so not sure how "generations" get counted (if 20 years in Montana makes you a "Montanan," then Grandpa counts for sure, but Great-Grandpa kind of on the edge...) Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We missed the S&D cutoff date by one year according to the family stuff (1866 as opposed to 1865). Used to make my great-grandmother furious...set her muttering about snobs and horse-thieves and such... We're actually 5th gen if you go with when folks were actually born here, but 6th if you go with when the first family member settled in Montana. Had an interesting discussion with someone from Vermont the other day...they said that the standard there was how many generations were "in the ground." If that's the case, then we're definitely 6th generation. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't go back near that far in MT, but in the USA, both sides of my family go back to the mid 1600s, one side was Yankee, one Johnny Reb in the Civil War, so I'm a half breed. My most recent immigrant was an 1880 German guy that stowed away to avoid the German draft. Of course, with a Thai wife, I have more recent immigrant connection ;-) PumpkinSky talk 17:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think ours in the Boston area goes back that far, too. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take "in the ground." Of course, the people here who are Blackfeet or Salish or Crow sometimes take offense at the whole "Native Montanan" thing amongst us white folks. They kind of have a point, I guess. I sure know that being in the same 4th through 12th class in Bozeman as a kid who was a direct descendant of Nelson Story sure made me feel left out when the "native" thing got started on the local level. Living in Montana all my life; trumped by not living in the same town all your life. (phooey). Oh well, still fun to discuss roots! Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. But that gets into the whole "the Sioux were the original tribe in the Black Hills" mess, and we don't want to go there... Or how the Story family is reputed to have made some of its money... Them there pioneer days were often about who managed to get the contracts first. But it is fun to chat about. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I LOVE digging up the old dirt, that's the best kind! If it's a BLP we call it "gossip," but if the people involved are 100 years dead, it's "history!" Yay! On the native note, I once got into an argument with a Blackfeet guy over the Algonquian roots of the Blackfeet people. He told me I was totally full of shit because it was Napi who brought the people up through the earth in the Badger Two-Medicine. (Hey! redlinks! More articles!) OK, so maybe he was also right. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I may get around to those redlinks. I've been working more on Vietnam stuff of late, although I did find some real train wrecks in the Old West stuff that may swing me back. Maybe once I get FSB Mary Ann and ARA up to speed I'll move back. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Army Remount Service

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "B-class reviews" of "First Battle of Adobe Walls" and "Battle of White Bird Canyon

I suffer minor distress about your assessment of these articles as "start" class. "Start Class?" The writing is clear and precise; the references are from impeccable sources; the illustrations are good and enhance the articles. Most of all, I believe that the articles offer the reader reliable information. In my opinion that's what writing an encyclopedia should be all about. Reliable information is priority number one -- and for priority number two, see priority number one.

Could the content of the articles be improved? Of course. But what you've got now is pretty damned good. Do you have any substantive criticisms about the content of either article that might be helpful to writers and editors? Smallchief (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The template defaults to start if it's missing any areas. It's a flaw in the B-Class stuff as near as I can tell, not the articles themselves. I can give you some feedback on both if you like, so there's no cause for minor distress. Intothatdarkness 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I would appreciate the feedback. Smallchief (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

[ec]I added comments to White Bird Canyon. The main issue there for me was sourcing. But I can't see what your complaint is about the First Battle of Adobe Walls. I rated it as a full B. Prior to that it was just Start. Intothatdarkness 22:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address them in a few days. On Adobe Walls, I thought you had assigned the "start rating" under the US project label, but looking back at it I see that you rated it a "B" for for the Military history project. That's fine. No complaint. Except for the question as to how an article can be "start" for one project (US) and "B-class" for another (Military history)? Wouldn't it be more sensible for an article to have a single rating applicable to all projects? Why multiple ratings? (That's a rhetorical question. I don't expect you to know the answer.) Smallchief (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

[ec]I was actually doing these for MilHist, although I am on the Old West thing as well. I suspect the ratings split has to do with when people decide to look at them. If I recall, no one from MilHist had reviewed Adobe Walls prior to my looking at it (or it had been some time since they did). I agree it's odd, but I'm sticking with the MilHist ratings for now. And maybe someday I'll go near that Comanche Campaign mess. Intothatdarkness 22:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What Comanche articles are in need of revising? I might tackle them. I wrote a rather presentable article (B-class) titled Comanche-Mexico War and I've been contemplating an article about Comanche-Spanish relations (lousy title, I know). Smallchief (talk)

It's the Comanche Campaign article, although the Comanche Wars article isn't good, either. The Comanche Campaign is a creation of the US Army's lineage system...it doesn't really exist anyplace else. Your article on the Comanche-Mexico War is good...maybe we could get the Comanche Wars one deleted and redirect to your article, which is better-sourced and more appropriate. Intothatdarkness 13:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Your B-class review of "Area 25 (Nevada National Security Site)"

Could you elaborate on your ratings ? The grammar seems fine to me. As for coverage and accuracy, I don't see what more we could do than describe the activities that took place there, and to my knowledge all important activities are mentioned, and everything is cited. What topic does the article fail to cover in your opinion ? Bomazi (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Help help! :-)

Finally doing an article on W.R. Brown. See User:Montanabw/Sandbox 4. I have a source claiming he was a "remount agent." No question he had an interest in breeding Arabians for the US Cavalry and proving their endurance abilities to the military. Consider this a sandbox invite to see if you can add anything from your military resources on this fellow and his experiments -- trying to find anything on him that isn't some glowing tale from Arabian horse breeding sources is a challenge... Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now live, still welcome input. William Robinson Brown Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Was Brown a remount agent or a member of the Remount Association? The Association was the volunteer civilian auxiliary for the Remount Service. I'm guessing from what I've seen that he was a member of the Association and not an actual agent or employee. Intothatdarkness 18:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That is PRECISELY what I don't know, all my horsey sources say "remount agent." And when he got the stallion *Astraled, the horse had been a remount stallion, and the record is unclear if he actually bought him from the remount service (the horse was 23 and only lived another year) or if he got the remount to provide him the horse. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When did he get that stallion? In any case, many of the remount studs were donated by horsey folks. The whole system was a bit of a dual track. But I'll look around and see if I've got anything on it. Intothatdarkness 13:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Astraled was imported to the USA from England in 1909, but bopped around all over the place for years, siring few purebred get, eventually landing with the remount and posted to somewhere in Idaho. Brown brought him to New Hampshire in 1923 and got one season's stud service out of him before he died. Records are unclear if he bought the horse or just got the remount service to give him the animal. Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 03:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I don't think I did that much. Intothatdarkness 13:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello. Thanks for your GA review on School of Advanced Military Studies. I appreciate your time and effort. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. It's my first, so other opinions might be a good idea. I am concerned that it's so similar to the history of SAMS article. It might be worth proposing that it be merged with the main SAMS article (or deleted, since it's such a close copy). Intothatdarkness 13:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

They are similar. I wrote them both. I tried to sum up "History of" article in the "History" section of the SAMS article using summary style. Perhaps I added too much from the History article though. Thanks again. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I read your review on this. I think User talk:Airborne84 has fixed and improved many of the problems with the article. It might be worth looking at it again to see what you think. Casprings (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a second look. The prose is better in some cases, but I'm still concerned about the number of red links in the notable graduates section, the boxed text, and the duplication between this and the History of SAMS article. Those are, admittedly, my concerns. A second reviewer might have different opinions. Intothatdarkness 20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I added some comments on the GA review you added. I addressed the reason why I included US 3-star generals and why I think they are notable. I'm not sure that the similarity between this article and another one runs afoul of a GA criterion. I think articles should just get compared to the GA criteria based on their merits, not merits or concerns with other articles (IMO). I'm also hesitant to remove more boxed quotes until some other editors weigh in. There's certainly a line to be drawn between context, flavor, and avoiding POV. If you're still not sure, could you please fail the article at the GA page and close out the review? I've nominated it at the Military History page for a review and will get some additional input from there as well. Thanks again for your time!--Airborne84 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done enough of these to be 100% sure on protocol, but if it takes a fail to push it to another editor for review, I'll go ahead and do that. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent revert of vandalism

Hi Intothatdarkness! Thanks for your anti-vandalistic revert on the article Fetterman Fight where new IP editor User:98.93.242.153 vandalized it. Unfortunately, you did not warn the editor on their talk page, which as I am sure you know is standard operating procedure that allows us to judge their further efforts, should they be additional vandalism. Perhaps it was an oversight on your part, and I have gone ahead and issued them a warning. Needless to say, please make a note on the talk pages of suspected or undeniable vandals that their edit was reverted by you, and why. I am sure you know that leaving warnings really helps down the road if vandals continue in their ways, and allows for their blocking when they persist. Thanks again for your continued work in helping to protect the encylopedia, Jusdafax 00:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, Jusdafax, you don't really have to put a warning on every vandal revert, only a warning if warning is deserved. Also, the automatic window that is supposed to open to allow warnings to be placed doesn't work in all browsers (including Safari). I see you are warning a number of good long term editors about this, and it is not necessary. "Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention." If it's a one-off IP, then warning everyone every time is a waste of time. Lots of things we hit the rollback button for are not always vandalism, sometimes they are just test edits or other small brain farts that don't warrant the big bad template. Plus, we can get into trouble for overuse of templates. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Said warning also doesn't always come up when reverting changes (which I tend to do in preference to using Twinkle). Intothatdarkness 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

request for article Review

Hello, I have made some edits to the Battle of Pensacola (1814) article. It is not clear when, and by whom, but a while ago, the article had met 4 out of 5 criteria. It could be the case that the failing criterion (Referencing and citation) has been remedied in the mean time.

I came across your user name on the "United States military history task force" page. I have not seen anyone dealing specifically with the War of 1812, hence I approached you.

Hope you are able to help, and find the article of interest!

Regards Keith H99 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I can take a look at it. 1812 isn't my strong area, but I've done some class B checklist stuff before. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just took a quick look. You'll want to add citations to the last two sections...just having one isn't enough IMO. There's enough information in the Battle and Aftermath sections that could use citing (Jackson's strength, the British commander, and so on) that it should be easy to round out. Intothatdarkness 14:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Although there are now some sourced elements, as you have pointed out this is primarily for the first section, and the Battle and Aftermath sections could do with some touching up before making a further formal request for a review. Thanks for having taken the time to share your insight. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Reviews, William Robinson Brown is up for peer review pending a nom for FA, can you peek, and also, one of the PR folks asked some good questions about remount agents, can you peek at the PR and give me any ideas where I can source more about civilian remount agents? Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I'm not sure I'll be able to add much. The remount agent question is tricky, simply because of the existence of both the Remount Service and the volunteer auxiliary (for lack of a better term). It looks like the volunteers actually did quite a bit of the heavy lifting when it came to breeding programs and such.Intothatdarkness 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be true of Brown. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And in a lot of other cases. Sadly, I think you'd have to go to issues of Cavalry Journal from the '20s and '30s to get a feel for who some of those auxiliaries were (in other words the dreaded OR). The book mentioned in the PR focused more on the horses than the actual agents. Intothatdarkness 22:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

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) 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I'm at work and your reply at Editor Retention made me laugh out loud! You're gonna get me in trouble! Enjoy the cookie and have a nice evening ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't pass up a good "Life of Brian" reference. Intothatdarkness 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

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) 09:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to take a second ...

... to say that I've seen a lot of your comments about the project, and I am truly impressed. You speak with a calm wisdom that is truly impressive. (I should probably work on having "impressed" and "impressive" in back to back sentences rewritten - but since it's not an article, I guess I'll let that pass. :)). — Ched :  ?  21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Ched. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to myself, since calm words seem to get lost with great frequency here... I've always admired your work here as well, along with your willingness to take a stand based on principle and not policy and to do so in a way that demands respect and attention. Intothatdarkness 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also just saw your post on the editor retention project (the first one, haven't lloked to see if there were more) on the Malleus thread. I agree. You are not just well spoken, but made excellent points.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I chime in from time to time, but like I said I find the prevailing culture here rather off-putting which keeps my article contributions limited. Intothatdarkness 14:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey there ITD ...

I hope the holidays are treating you well too. Looks like there was some major drama going on the last few days, hope you didn't get caught up in it. Kinda glad I missed it. All my best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed the drama...taking a look around now. I tend to avoid this place during holidays. I'm a big believer in just checking out at times...putting down the tech and just reconnecting with the outside world. Intothatdarkness 14:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) - Ok...I've seen some of the drama of which you speak. Not surprised in a way...too many generational and community conflicts here that simply cannot be resolved under the existing framework. Intothatdarkness 17:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Intothatdarkness. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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) 07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

TY

A bit delayed, but I did want to thank you for your comments on my talk recently. Hi Into, I always enjoy reading your words of wisdom, and wanted to say thanks for the encouragement. Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I enjoy your writing as well. All's ok here...still disappointed in this place, but that seems to be normal. Intothatdarkness 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

LMAO

Master say good one!! rrRRAWRRR :-D — ChedZILLA 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

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) 04:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I take it you're approaching anyone who opposed lifted restrictions. I took a look at your talk page, and my feelings on this are close to those articulated by ColonelHenry. From what I've seen, the events that led to the restrictions were serious enough that restrictions should remain in place. There seems to have been little acknowledgement of the damage to the encyclopedia that may have resulted from this abuse of DYK, and I've also seen little remorse aside from the "it's a shame someone figured this out" variety. Granted I haven't followed the discussion closely, but from a sideline view precious little has been done to address concerns about paid editing and some of the other ethical issues involved here. Until that's done, in a meaningful and transparent way, I'll remain opposed to lifting restrictions. Intothatdarkness 14:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

When you refer to "ethical issues", are you referring specifically to Gibraltarpedia or more generally on Wikipedia? If Gibraltarpedia only, what specific changes would you be looking for? Prioryman (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved issues surrounding the paid editing aspect of the whole thing...the lack of transparency between the DYK push and Gibraltarpedia and any possible COI there...as well as the possibility that lifting restrictions will result in another avalanche of Gibraltar-related material leading the a repeat of the original problem. Intothatdarkness 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that there wasn't actually any paid editing, the "DYK push" was the result of a contest to write articles, which ended in December 2012. Would you therefore be looking for some kind of assurance that there would be no future contests to spur DYK nominations in this topic area? Prioryman (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to get into a prolonged discussion with you about the paid editing aspect of it. There are still enough questions out there that it remains sketchy. And, frankly, I'd want more than assurances about contests...I'd say a guarantee that such contests would not happen would be a start. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your struck-out comment

I'm not sure why your comment on my talk page is struck out, but I thought I'd pop by and say hello and give an answer.

Here's what you need to understand: the original questioner is not honestly trying to get to the bottom of something but offered me two alternatives which are completely irrelevant and which each was dripping with innuendo, looking for a 'gotcha'. He already got more of an answer than he deserved. The situation is really quite simple: Rauan is a great Wikipedian. He's working in a very difficult country where freedom of speech is under serious attack on a regular basis. He's working in a country where the degree of government control over everything is much higher than even in, for example, China. His organization decided to accept a grant (with no censorship strings attached) from the sovereign wealth fund of Kazakhstan. I think that wasn't a good decision, but I understand why it was made. It's bad because of the questions it raises, not because anything actually bad has happened because of it. Making the award to Rauan was the right thing to do for a number of reasons, and I would gladly do it again now.

The exact details of what Ting reported and when are absolutely irrelevant to anything. I don't remember exactly and it would take me hours to reconstruct the details. And for what purpose? None that I can see.

I'm always happy to answer good-faith questions that have a relevant purpose. I'm not willing to satisfy a critic who is just looking to twist my words negatively no matter what I say. I think you can understand that!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I struck the question because I realized that it was likely to be twisted in some way (but I'm also aware that deleting things can lead to debates and such). It's been my observation that many of the mechanisms and ways of doing business here seem to be optimized for a smaller, less visible organization, and as things grow the organization needs to change. My comments are aimed more at that particular issue than a single event. Thanks for taking the time to reply, though! Intothatdarkness 17:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So, of all the Wikipedians in the world, you picked the one who has a professional history as a government propagandist, and takes funding from a repressive regime for the Kazakh Wikipedia, as the "Global Wikipedian of the Year". No better Wikipedian anywhere in the world? If you don't see that that choice kind of looks odd, you can't be helped. The whole "Wikipedian of the Year" thing feels like a charade, especially as the year after you didn't even bother to notify the winner ... he remained blissfully unaware of the award you gave him last summer until January this year, didn't he. Andreas JN466 18:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the LinkedIn profile of Jimbo's "Global Wikipedian of the Year." [1] He may be a fine fellow, a super guy, but he has for more than a decade given loyal service to one of the most repressive governments in the world. [2] And this is the person Jimbo Wales, the great champion of freedom of speech, picks to be the Global Wikipedian of the Year? Someone whose entire career has been in the service of a government currently ranked 160 out of 179 in the world's press freedom league table? --Andreas JN466 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Intothatdarkness, I am saying this here on your talk page, rather than on Jimbo's, because Jimbo, as a great champion of free speech, has banned me from the latter. Thanks for your hospitality. Andreas JN466 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand, Andreas. It's just one of the many interesting things I've noticed here and, frankly, keeps me from contributing more. Intothatdarkness 13:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also worth a read: "In order to increase the attention of society and especially young generation of internet users Wikibilim started to administrate Kazakh Wikipedia." The chap whose picture is shown at the top of that page is Karim Massimov (a fact that Jimbo is well aware of). Even so, all that WikiBilim gets is praise and accolades, year after year. [3] Andreas JN466 21:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fetterman massacre painting

I don't know if you noticed but the last incarnation of this painting you reverted is now on Commons claiming a CC licence rather than the Wikipedia version which still says it is fair use so your edit summary may not be accurate (if he really does have permission to release it to Commons). But I agree that the image is not a good addition to the article in any case. SpinningSpark 18:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going off the last couple of revisions of this thing, so didn't notice the Commons thing. In any case, it's not an accurate painting of the fight by any means. Intothatdarkness 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Help test new SuggestBot design

We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

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) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

support
Thank you for fighting silent battles in creating content, reviewing, defeating vandalism and supporting civility, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 107th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Intothatdarkness 13:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Gerda on ITTD talk? Cool. Small world. <Ched waves at Gerda o/> — Ched :  ?  19:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...I doubt that I've done anything to deserve the honor, but it's good to see her here. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

edit conflicts

I was going to email you, but don't see that link for this account. Anyway - yea .. you're not the first person to run into that situation with an editor continually refactoring what they're saying. — Ched :  ?  19:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I know. I've watched that editor go back over and over to mess with comments....keeping others from being able to chime in. Not one of my favorite flavors, honestly. I'm waiting for the inevitable Admin run. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John J. Tolson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Cavalry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I wanted to stop by and apologize for my intemperate closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young. I've now given it a proper close, which I should have done initially. It was very frustrating to be the (seemingly) only person who felt it was critical to remove the COI content immediately, but I should not have directed that frustration at my fellow editors. I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia for a while, but I didn't want to log out before trying to make things right with the participants at the AfD. Hopefully we will meet again under happier circumstances. Best, 28bytes (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but there's simply so much COI scattered about that I didn't see anything about this particular article that it more special than the others. That's my only dog in that particular fight. So no worries. Intothatdarkness 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

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) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)