User talk:122141510: Difference between revisions
Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW) |
→Naming discussion: new section |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Sincerely, [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) <small>14:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <span class="plainlinks"><small>[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit§ion=new&preload=Template:WelcomeVisual/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]</small></span></div> |
Sincerely, [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) <small>14:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <span class="plainlinks"><small>[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit§ion=new&preload=Template:WelcomeVisual/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]</small></span></div> |
||
<br> |
<br> |
||
== Naming discussion == |
|||
Replying here as off-topic discussion often 'clogs up the arteries' of RfCs. |
|||
I am indeed defending the status quo name - or at least pointing out what needs to have happened and what needs to have changed ''(basically COMMONNAME) ''for a name change to occur. I don't in the least apologise for pointing out that UN resolutions and moral arguments ''(RGW if you like)'', in this context are so much fluff. |
|||
When you have lived with an article a long time ''(I have watched this one for quite a few years)'', it can be difficult to bring 'fresh eyes', so basically I've said I won't support or oppose the name change until evidence is provided. Yes, my default position is that there is nothing wrong with the present name and that the proposed name ''WAS'', but may no longer be, primarily an 'advocacy' name. I don't apologise for any of that, neither do I take offence unless someone ''(as another editor did)'', seeks to impugn my motives as being that I am somehow denying the basic facts of a calculated, planned, cynically implemented mass-murder of around 8000+ men and boys at Srebrenica. |
|||
There are countless examples where commonname may not be optimum, for a variety of reasons. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:42, 10 June 2024
Welcome AVNOJ1989!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| To help get you started, you may find these useful: | When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
Naming discussion
Replying here as off-topic discussion often 'clogs up the arteries' of RfCs.
I am indeed defending the status quo name - or at least pointing out what needs to have happened and what needs to have changed (basically COMMONNAME) for a name change to occur. I don't in the least apologise for pointing out that UN resolutions and moral arguments (RGW if you like), in this context are so much fluff.
When you have lived with an article a long time (I have watched this one for quite a few years), it can be difficult to bring 'fresh eyes', so basically I've said I won't support or oppose the name change until evidence is provided. Yes, my default position is that there is nothing wrong with the present name and that the proposed name WAS, but may no longer be, primarily an 'advocacy' name. I don't apologise for any of that, neither do I take offence unless someone (as another editor did), seeks to impugn my motives as being that I am somehow denying the basic facts of a calculated, planned, cynically implemented mass-murder of around 8000+ men and boys at Srebrenica.
There are countless examples where commonname may not be optimum, for a variety of reasons. Pincrete (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)