Jump to content

User talk:122141510

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pincrete (talk | contribs) at 07:42, 10 June 2024 (Naming discussion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome AVNOJ1989!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,367,113 registered editors!
Hello, AVNOJ1989. Welcome to Wikipedia!

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:
The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia
A Primer for Newcomers
Introduction to Wikipedia
Wikipedia Training Modules
Simplified Manual of Style
Creating a new article via the Article Wizard
When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly
2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources
3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources

Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia
Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia
Help

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)[reply]