User talk:AVNOJ1989

Welcome AVNOJ1989! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 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.

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.

 Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:WelcomeVisual/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

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)
 * What is not being acknowledged here is this. Someone in the position of wanting to retain the title 'Srebrenica massacre' because they feel it downplays the severity and magnitude of the event is not to state that outright and declare their bias, but to take a subtler, more tactical approach. Admitting the event was a genocide in the talk pages is all good and well because most people do not read talk pages, and if that concession is part of a set of negotiations where playing at being a neutral third party on a talk page no one will read so that the title of the article (which people will read) which is currently preferable to someone with such a bias -- it is effectively losing a battle to win the war. Likewise, leading both the conversation on the talk page and then the rename proposal format and framing the conversation so that the proposed rename might be 'advocacy name' and the current name as simply the 'status quo' is an incredibly brilliant way of framing the matter so that no one considers that the existing name has not been and always has been a 'revisionist name' is, were I someone who wanted to downplay the event, exactly how I would approach it.
 * What the other editor you are alluding to overlooked, and I alluded to in my last reply to you on the proposal section, is that this is the effectiveness of this approach is that it makes it is nearly impossible to differentiate between an intelligent operator with a motive, and an entirely well-meaning editor without pre-existing bias. If you are the former, you are executing the job brilliantly. If you are the latter, then this could all sound like fantastical accusations bordering on paranoia. Of course, if you are the latter and you have been in the corner of Balkan Wikipedia as you have been for quite a while, you might appreciate there are individuals with a "pro-Serbian PoV" who have been far more effective operators than those in the other "camps". My observation has been that the latter is usually too quick to jump to emotional argument and believes that passion will make an impression on neutral or unaware third parties, whereas the former, again, has learned that the more effective approach is to 'weaponize the judiciary', if you like.
 * Whether you have a bias or not, I do not have enough information to determine, and to accuse you of motive without information is not going to get me very far. I cannot condone the other editors' actions, but I completely understand the underlying elements that created the dispute. Again, since you've been around, I'm surprised you wouldn't also be familiar with said elements? It's not like any of this is new to this corner of Wikipedia. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Assemble
User:Paper9oll is being unconstructive on the edit history of Assemble (EP) and in their talk page admits to deliberately "testing" me by refusing to cite rules. There is a fair question about interpreting some of the rules and policies being sited and their approach is to selectively cite rules and policies in a belittling manner and accuse me of whataboutism. (See also their accusation of trolling here;, after admitting they were intentionally uncooperative towards me as a "test"; ) Clarification would be appreciated. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I received guidance/advice in the IRC. Thank you for your time. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Previous Response to the old ANI you proposed:
I'm sorry if you felt I was miscommunicating with you. However, most of the time, I can only edit via mobile. Given that, I want to remind you that "Wikipedia is not a forum.".

I wasn't trying to WP:SPA you.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really sure what you were trying to do. By that point in the ANI it became obvious there was no interest – or maybe even an active antipathy – on Wikipedia's part in addressing the concern as raised. I read a collective attempt to dismiss raising the concern at all as entirely invalid, which is reinforced by the closer dismissing someone bringing up a good faith concern with entirely ridiculous rationale. It is rather like an immune system which, recognizing it previously failed to defeat a parasite to the point it is now completely ingrained the host body (to a point of perfect symbiosis), is now obliged to defend that same parasite. I had limited interest in questioning your individual motive so much as to articulate how a wider audience is going to read the actions of senior editors and administrators in that ANI. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
There is currently a discussion at Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is ABC News (United States). Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)