User talk:Pincrete

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Thanks for the thanks!

Nice to be appreciated for doing something useful once in a while! danno_uk 19:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Civility Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		For being civil in times of strife and for tirelessly discussing with the opposition when others get tired of talking.

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Hi Pincrete. Just a note to let you know the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler article has now been nominated for GA. Thanks again for your help in the clean-up. Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it has now passed GA review, thanks for helping to get it there. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

Hi Pincrete

Thanks for the message about reverting my reversion on Godot. It's so civilised to get a message of explanation!

To be honest I reverted the edit because I felt that the editor who removed the Laurel and Hardy reference didn't 'get the joke' - but you're right, its relevance to Godot is pretty tenuous. Fair enough. Keep up the good work etc. Gravender (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Belated

Hello Pincrete, belated greetings and apologies for having not turning up to see off the idiotic sock-puppet accusation by Malagurski's groupie. I presume he was up to something like he and the gang of pals always are (Assume good faith unless tedious experience has taught you better, as they say). I hope his little enterprise got seen off in the manner it deserved.

I'm afraid domestic circumstances became too pressing for me to be able to carry on wasting time on the futilities of coping with people like that and there's no prospect of me being able to return to the fray for a long while. I'm very grateful that you still have the energy and determination not to give up on the endless struggle between good and nonsense. Very best wishes, and thanks for all your efforts. Opbeith (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

credit

		The Minor Barnstar
		For not editing WP just for the barnstars. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 P. MarnetteD|Talk 12:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your copyediting work on Ukrainian refugee crisis. It's a rapidly expanding page with many contributions from newer editors, and your changes have helped keep it clean and readable. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

hi, i solicited a closure as the relisting occurred just over 7 days ago and discussion, on the criteria, appeared to stabilise on Saturday 15 June, thanks, Tom B (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Locations in His Dark Materials for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Locations in His Dark Materials, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locations in His Dark Materials until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your latest on Srebrenica genocide

Identifying and being critical of Serbian revisionism is not 'toxic' and does not violate AGF. Like a broken record, you are very fond of citing AGF over and over but seem to routinely ignore this policy for your own posts. Give it a rest. 122141510 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, when the people you 'identify' as "Serb revisionists in snide insinuations are fellow editors, then that definitely is making personal attacks on those editors and is offensive. But characteristically you are too spineless to actually identify those editors, too lazy to look at their edit history to see whether they have ordinarily adopted 'Serbian revisionist' positions. The broken record is you attempting to discredit other editors, and failing abysmally, leaving only an unpleasant smell behind. I'll stop quoting AGF when you stop insulting other editors on talk, sometimes to prop up bizarre positions (such as the claim that Srebrenica was a "military assault" - a claim incidentally which I have only ever heard previously from Serb nationalists, which I have no reason to believe you are).Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem keen to keep bringing up this idea that my identifying the Srebrenica genocide as primarily executed by the military is one you've only ever heard previously Serbian nationalists[????], a position which is entirely divorced from reality, and and in the same breath suggest you have no reason to believe I'm a Serb nationalist. So why keep bringing it up? Is there some implicit threat here that if I continue to identify Serbian revisionist edits as such you will begin to identify me as a Serbian nationalist? If not, then where exactly are you headed with this? 122141510 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510 You don't address the fundamental point, that WP:NPA and WP:AGF are core policies, there are no exceptioms. FULL STOP, PERIOD, (if you prefer) END OF STORY. You are required, not politely asked, to strike out personal attacks made about other editors on talk. That you cannot understand, or refuse to understand that simple English sentence, nor see how offensive it is that you claim that other editors have 'revisionist' views simply shows how unsuited you are to edit in a contentious topic area. How on earth do you expect other editors to work with you, or take you remotely seriously when youu obviously regard it as your right to impugn their motives based on zero evidence and seemingly not even having done basic checks of editors' edit histories? Whether it is me you are making insinuations about or others is academic, the rancid smell permeates regardless. You don't get to tell another editor to stop quoting AGF until you stop making personal attacks and strike out those you have already made, In the real world this is called saying 'sorry' when you have said something unjustified! If you don't do so, it can only be assumed that you are indifferent as to whether the accusation you are makimg is true, but regard it as your right to make it regardless.

As regards your other point, your reading of my motives is far too obscure for me to even understand. My meaning in mentioning the 'attack' text was simply to record the irony of an editor who thinks that the most notorious war crime in Europe since WWII, (possibly recently superceded in Ukraine), wasn't primarily a mass-murder, wasn't primarily a massacre or genocide, wasn't even ethnic cleansing, but was in fact a conventional military attack, despite no sources characterising it as such. The fact that the same editor has the gall to accuse other editors of being closet Serb apologists is pretty ironic! I make a point of saying that you are not such an apologist for the simple reason that I don't believe you are! Whatever your motives for that revert, they were not Serb apologist ones AFAI can see.Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You are required, not politely asked, to strike out personal attacks made about other editors on talk. I believe you're objecting to a comment I made where I identified that I notice that I tend to see the same names of editors on the talk pages of contentious Balkan articles, and that those editors tend to routinely make arguments that happen to align with the arguments or ideas often put forward by Serbian revisionists in other venues? That is case in fact. What exactly is there to apologize for on my part? That does not immediately violate WP:NPA. Those editors who are making those arguments can use the opportunity being brought up to explain how it could still be the case that they are making arguments that align without those of Serbian revisionists – presumably they feel the argument stands on its own merits. If they cannot make such an argument, then they can use it as an opportunity for themselves to reflect on what exactly they are arguing, why they are arguing, and if what they are arguing has merits. To quote WP:AGF is a hysterical overreaction.

Speaking more specifically, it's fairly obvious to me that there is no middle ground with you. Revisiting our previous conversations you have regularly misquoted me and often gone on to characterize me as saying things I didn't, and here you are doing it again. Characterizing me as an editor who {{tq|"thinks that the most notorious war crime in Europe since WWII [...] wasn't primarily a mass-murder, wasn't primarily a massacre or genocide, wasn't even ethnic cleansing, but was in fact a conventional military attack" is misreading what I've said, and I've told you multiple times you are misreading what I'm saying. Instead of ever attempting to clarify what it is about what I'm saying that you're not understanding, you instead persist in calling everything you either cannot or refuse to understand which I say as (belittingly) "ironic". As you yourself mentioned, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are core policies, and there are no exceptions – FULL, STOP, PERIOD, END OF STORY! 122141510 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You said that the 'other' discussion on Tesla On a quick glance through of the talk page in question I see some players and elements in common Who are the players in common? AFAIK, only Trimpops2 and myself had contributed to both pages. So it is difficult to accept that a personal attack was not intended, regardless of how you 'back-pedal' now.

"oh look, the editor who doth protest too much when identified as pushing a PoV which happens to align with Serbian revisionism is pushing a PoV which happens to align with Serbian revisionism again!" Who exactly is that? Whoever it is to whom you are referring, it is a personal attack. Your remark is made all the more puzzling since no one there has made anything that could remotely be viewed as aligning with Serbian revisionism, certainly not me. The discussion there is largely confined to civilly discussing how best to represent what Tesla's place of birth was at the time of his birth and where that place is now. Trimpops2 wants to insert text than implies that Tesla was born in Croatia, although the present text is much clearer and more succinct about what the regime under which Tesla was at the time of his birth (culturally Croatian perhaps, but not what we now understand as Croatia), and where it is now (Croatia). Boudica was a Briton, but not British in its modern meaning, it would be misleading and confusing to use one term to imply the other! Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoever it is to whom you are referring, it is a personal attack. No it isn't. If you cannot appreciate how it is not a personal attack, then it is impossible to proceed in conversation with you – there are more examples of you questioning my competence or suitability than me pointing out your contributions are historically illiterate or divorced from reality, but I have not accused you of violating NPA or shouted about AGF at each turn. That you CAN SHOUT AT ME AT ALL CAPS!!!! and then immediately return to playing some victim role – where you continue to misrepresent things what I am saying! – is obnoxious and there is nothing obliging me to humor it. As I said earlier – give it a rest, mate. The rest of your post does indeed once again happen to align with Serbian revisionism! and I mentioned in an earlier post and have consistently mentioned, you need to ask yourself why that is. Is it because you yourself are a Serbian revisionist? Only you can answer that. Is it because you are not actually literate or competent in the period in question, and so have an understanding that is based on something you once read from a Serbian revisionist? You might need to reflect on this. In either case you are incorrect, and I am not obliged to refrain from pointing out your contributions are incorrect because you might feel personally victimized whenever I am critical of your contributions. 122141510 (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

On what planet is accusing someone of effectively being a closet Serb apologist or speculating about whether they are, not a personal attack? You did that on our first interaction with no justification whatsoever, you do so repeatedly on the talk page and continue to do so above. I've apologised several times when my responses have got a bit tetchy. You on the other hand still consider it your right to speculate about who is or isn't such an apologist and to broadcast it on talk. It's pretty stupid as a strategy apart from being offensive to those accused. I went back to the Tesla talk page for the first time today. My how that discussion has degenerated into 'bitching' about competing nationalisms. I'l stop quoting AGF and NPA when you no longer think it is an effective way to win an argument by making such snide, spineless, evidence free accustions. Remember the ANI, how did that work out for you? Made lots of new friends did you? Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already suggested how you might take the opportunity to have it pointed out to you that you are effectively making revisionist arguments as an opportunity to reflect on that. If someone accused me of making arguments that were effectively the same as those made by individuals I didn't agree with I would pause and take an opportunity to do the same – am I misinformed? Have I internalized arguments or concepts which are divorced from reality? Am I getting lost in nuance that isn't appreciated by others? Am I outside my area of expertise? You don't seem to ask yourself any of these questions, and don't seem to pause to wonder why you are so often finding yourself in league with people who question the legitimacy of the UN because a consensus disagreeable to the Serbian partisan viewpoints is made, or agree with and I believe even yourself suggest that Croatia did not exist for 900 years – a statement which suggests that the Croatian constitution is incorrect [1]. That your implicitly suggest the current subpar state of the Tesla talk subpage is contra to your ahistorical contributions to the talk page is ridiculous, and that you continue to threaten me with ANI and even see fit to edit your comments to introduce snide [2] makes it obvious that you seem to consider yourself above the policies and guidelines you wield against me like a bludgeon.

Your contributions to the topic area are uninformed, unconstructive, and dangeous – I've made clear I recognize it crosses a line from assigning any motive to why this might be the case, and do not cross that line, but you take any criticism as personal attack anyways. You see fit to continue to comment that I am "unsuited [to] edit in a contentious topic area" and when you bring up comparisons like a Briton is a citizen of the United Kingdom, therefore Boudica was a citizen of the UK instead of more relevant comparisons like other individuals born under military administrations of a country, it shows you are not familiar with how nationality, citizenship, and ethnicity is and was understood by people(s) living in the Balkans for the last 200-300 years, which is the relevant period of time for the articles you and I have encountering each other in, and not people living on the island of England in the 1st century. I have attempted to call your attention to this and various other misunderstandings on your part and you've chosen to interpret them as a personal attack each time, which in turn has made you feel entitled to go after me with personal attacks time and time again. I am not concerned with "making lots of new friends" on Wikipedia if said friends can only repeatedly come to the wrong conclusions, regardless of what level of decorum they might observe while reaching those wrong conclusions.

It is obvious you and I are not going to come to any civil agreement on matters at any time, but this double standard where you can criticize me but I cannot criticize you is a persistent violation of decorum, regardless of how effectively you might have learned to game the system to the point you feel comfortable citing policies as threat. You may have had success in the past, but you should be wary of the fact that past performance does not indicate future results, and there's otherwise no reason to imagine you can continue to attack me while claiming to be an innocent victim might not eventually damage your own reputation and jeopardize your standing. To what end? Give it a rest. 122141510 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You ……… don't seem to pause to wonder why you are so often finding yourself in league with people who question the legitimacy of the UN because a consensus disagreeable to the Serbian partisan viewpoints is made That's because I have almost never been in the position of agreeing with Serb nationalist opinions and the only relevant dispute involving the UN is whether 'genocide' or 'massacre' is the COMMONNAME - a concept which, by definition is dictated by ordinary users of English, not the UN/US/UK etc. But it does not occur to me to either oppose or endorse views simply because they (marginally) align with pro-Serb ones. In the present context, Serb apologists dispute the term 'genocide', but in my experience , both on and off WP, most of them are almost equally offended by the term 'massacre', or by any idea that anything improper AT ALL was done by their forces during the Bosnian or Kosovan wars that was not done equally back to them. They often see themselves as the victims, not the perpetrators. But my edits here are certainly not dictated by any attempt to 'negate' such Serb apologist views. I treat extreme Serb apologists, much as I treat flat-earthers. Blind faith,and tribal loyalty, not reason led them to their views, so reason isn't going to bring them out of them. Nor is it part of Eng WP's 'mission' to oppose them. We make information available to people, not tell them what/what not to think. Politicians and advocacy groups have other missions, and I respect many of them, but that isn't WP's remit.

I have never claimed that Croatia did not exist for 700 years, nor would I do so. I have almost no idea about anything before 20th century Croatian history and relied on the info and sources provided at the RfC (almost none). But I do think that it is much simpler and more accurate to say that Tesla was born in an anomalous - directly ruled - entity called the CMF, which is now in Croatia. Anyone who wants to know what that entity was politically, historically, liguistically and culturally in the centuries before, after or even at the time of his birth are free to follow links. I would take much the same attitude to someone born in say, Estonia, when it was a Soviet republic or a former UK colony, or any territory occupied in WWII or practically any terrirory whose status has changed. We communicate succinctly the regime under which the person was born and where that is now, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, such as if Tesla had later become famous as being an advocate for Croatia, a national poet etc. None of which is the case AFAIK. I'm sorry, but the sensibilities of the local region, or the local attitudes towards ethnicity and nationality don't feature very much in my thinking. How to communicate succinctly and effectively with some notional 'average' English-speaking reader does. Sources don't emphasise any Croatian elements in Tesla's early life AFAIK, so why would we?

I believe I have always attached a conditional (an 'if') to any criticism. "If you can't edit without maligning motives/ If you can't see why speculating about who is or isn't a Serb apologist is offensive" … you shouldn't be editing. That's an extreme way of saying "Speculating about who is or isn't a Serb apologist - right under their noses" is inherently toxic and offensive and should not be done by you or anyone". Such accustions and speculations are made sillier as the hardened apologist would probably take it as a compliment, whereas anyone else is just offended by the discussion having degenerated to that name-calling level, which is more reminiscent of a playground insult than any serious discussion.

Whereas saying your contributions are historically illiterate or divorced from reality, simply leaves me wondering what I may have got historically wrong in your opinion (nothing AFAI can see since none of our disagreements has centred on historical fact ) or what is "divorced from reality" (possibly the fact that I think that 'massacre', 'bloodbath', 'slaughter' are not crimes in any jurisdiction anywhere on the planet and never have been, to which you taken great offence, without being able to tell me where on the earth, nor in what sense any of these are 'crimes'). When things like that are said, they cannot possibly be understood as anything other than personal attacks, since no factual error is being pointed out, even in a forceful fashion. It is especially ironic that I am accused of being historically illiterate by someone who accused the army of the wrong country of perpetrating the Srebrenica killings on practically the same day that they that they thus accused me, (the perps were VRS, Serbs from RS, not Serbians, who are citizens of Serbia) . I have never pretended to be a subject expert in any of the areas where I edit, I respect and acnowledge those who are, but they earn that respect by neutrally sharing their knowledge, not by demanding it or disparaging others. Whatever useful function I may perform, it isn't that of the expert. But when someone doesn't want to correct my understanding of a factual matter, and seemingly simply wants to drive anyone away from the topic area by making it as toxic as possible/ They have forfeited any right to respect until such time as they have learnt to "make their case" without being needlessly offensive. If I have been bad-mannered or offensive beyond these conditionals, I apologise. When I'm treated with a measure of human respect, I respond in kind.

I believe there is a logical fallacy called Reductio ad Hitlerum. At its most absurd it takes the form "You are a vegetarian, so was Hitler. When are you planning to invade Poland/gas the Jews?". I have actually very rarely been in accord with Serb nationalist opinions on WP ( or those of many other countries), but on the rare occasions that I have, I regard anyone who thinks that coincidence proves ANYTHING AT ALL, (apart from my ability to remain neutral and consistent) is voicing an opinion which is firstly clearly a personal attack which is void of evidence. Secondly, clearly intended to be toxic, and finally, about as ridiculous as the reductio ad Hitlerum argument above. (NB, I have no current plans to invade Poland nor to gas the Jews, I don't molest children very often, I stopped beating my wife several years ago and I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party!). Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I object to a lot of things as you've put it here. (Not everything, but a lot of it.) I don't know if any response is merited. You're the one who started this, what are you hoping to get out of it? 122141510 (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, You're the one who started this, actually it was you, look at the first post on this page, you objected to me saying that speculating about who was or wasn't a Serb apologist on talk pages about a notorious Serb crime was inherently toxic. You came here to defend your right to do so and to tell me effectively to 'shut up'. what are you hoping to get out of it? I'm hoping that you will stop making such accusations, principally about me but also about other editors. They achieve nothing, waste space and time. So far they have made you look ridiculous and have made the atmosphere toxic. I would argue that they have actually lessened the likelihood of you 'winning' any arguments, but that's your business - whether you are here to affect change, or simply to 'let off steam'.

I take your concession on the 'attack type' and your remarks above to be a willingness to 'reset'. Therefore the matter is closed AFAI am concerned.Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)