User talk: Pincrete

Thanks for the thanks!

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

credit

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

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

Precious anniversary

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

Nation of Islam

Hello Pincrete. Hoping that things are well with you. As someone who keeps a firm eye on the Nation of Islam page, I just wanted to let you know that I'm thinking of taking the article to GAN in the fairly near future (although there are some additions and changes I'd like to make first). I just thought it was best to let you know, to see if you had any input prior to me taking that step. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

=

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 06:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Australia on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 01:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian war casualties

I'm interested in why you don't want to accept the ICTY's casualty figures. An example is in the war in Croatia, the use of three sources for the number of Serbs killed, with different dates and determined numbers of victims. The source that I used for the Bosnian war. It is research conducted in 2010 for the Office of the Prosecutors at the Hague Tribunal, headed by Ewa Tabeau. This figure also played a large role in the judgments of the VRS, HVO and ARBiH generals who committed crimes. The same is the case with Russians and Ukrainians with different sources, but unlike them, this is not a Pro Croat, Serb or Bosnian source, but an assessment by the Hague Tribunal. Note that I have not deleted the RDC figures source for the death toll. Thank you. Red Spino (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Spino, we customarily put a range when there are disputed figures, and I recognise that there are many conflicts where 'final scores' are not possible. In the case of ICTY/RDC, the RDC are later, employ similar but more vigorously employed methodology to eliminate wartime 'overcount' (the accidental duplicate reporting of deaths by relatives/neighbours etc). The RdC project literally names each dead person and gives basic biog info about almost all of them (place and DoB, place and DoD, circumstances of death etc). Tabeau is one of the people who officially examined and endorsed the RDC account. There are acknowledged, but relatively minor, flaws in the methodology of the RDC, but it is now pretty much accepted as the 'gold standard'. I think this is an instance where the ICTY figures are an earlier attempt at an accurate figure, which countered the wilder over/undercounts of the various factions, but which are simply earlier attempts, rather than alternative figures. One of the (book) sources we use literally makes the point that given the circumstances, ICTY should officially update its estimates. AFAIK, it never did. I don't see the point of putting two figures in the infobox when the chief statistician of the earlier figures, Tabeau, has endorsed the later figures.Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]