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

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

	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]

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]

If you find time for it you can take a look at the article Gustav Laabs that I just created. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

	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]

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

Regarding your edits of Charlie Gard case, I suggest to review MOS:LQ. Wikipedia's style is to include the full stop within the quotation marks in cases where a full sentence is quoted. Please see MOS:LQ. (I also suggest awareness of MOS:QUOTEMARKS and MOS:APOSTROPHE, in case you're not familiar with those.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof my understanding of "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." Would mean that my edit was correct. These quotes were partial sentences. Were there some where whole sentences were quoted? If so I apologise. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were some. One is "... or its staff from prosecution.", another is "... which is contrary to Charlie's best interests.", another is "... better for the child than making no order at all.", another is "... share a common view that further treatment would be futile.", another is "... could not undo structural brain damage.", another is "... but the alternative is that he will pass away.", and another is "... and is therefore plainly in error." Part of the wording from MOS:LQ that you quoted is a bit confusing – I find this example helpful to clarify it: Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo." In that example, the full stop applies to the whole sentence as well as the quote within it, but it is included within the quotation marks because it is a quote of the complete sentence. The explanation found at Logical quotation also seems helpful. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But California is a hotbed of political correctness this time of year. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both are UK spellings. See WP:ISE. I think a lot of people are unaware of that. Confusing. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I did know about the 'Oxford -ize', though I first heard about it here on WP - from a US editor! I was born only a 2-minute walk from the centre of Oxford, and brought up and educated there - yet never once encountered this OxEngDict and OxUnivPress perversity! It's an aberration rather than an indication of general UK use.

At least Noer Webstah had sound reasons for seeking to simplify, rationalise and standardise spellings along more phonetic lines. To the classical pedants of OUP, "The Oxford spelling .... is favoured on etymological grounds, in that ‑ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, ‑izo, of most ‑ize verbs" Now isn't respectiong the Gk ending of a latin or non-classical root, uppermost on everybody's mind when spelling! I'm sure Pullman would reserve a special dept of the Magisterium to rule on such weighty matters.Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Actually that sounds very British to these American ears. On the other hand, I do like the Oxford Comma. You've inspired me to find [1] and [2]. Now that I'm retired and don't have to watch my spelling, I seem to vary widely between colour and color, etc. Although those articles don't mention it, I still think that the British spellings are a French influence. I mean I barely remember my high school French, but I do know that you don't pronounce "centre" or "theatre" "center" or "theater" in the US - there we know how to pronounce foreign words and don't pronounce the j in "junta" either. Have you read any of his new trilogy? I just hope he's able to finish the third book. The second one was finished when the first was published, but I'm worried that illness may prevent us from ever seeing the third. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for bothering you. I just wanted to tell you that on January 2nd I will leave for Antarctica, so if you could answer those few questions by January 1st it would be great! Alternatively, after January 1st you can send replies to my colleagues' e-mail addresses (but not mine, because I won't be able to read e-mails, being isolated). Thanks, and happy new year! Bye, --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 21:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Bosnian War article, was this removal Edit proper? Thanks. PortalTwo (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PortalTwo, I had/have no strong feelings either way. On the one hand the quote was giving prominence to one sides PoV and neither supporting any text, nor especially relevant to anything. On the other hand, I would not have bothered to remove it myself. Not a very helpful reply I'm afraid. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit caught my eye. I don't want to jump in on the talk page and add confusion, so I'll comment here -- take it for whatever it is worth.

The English, both of the removed content and the remaining content, is a bit fractured and I'm not familiar enough with past discussion of the details to quickly figure it out. However, the remaining content says that on 16 July (the day before the MH-17 shootdown) the second of two S-25s was shot down at an altitude of 8,250m by an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-29 jet from Russian territory. That is supported by two cites, and the second one supports that but gives a date of 18 July; that surce cites this source, which dates the incident 16 July. This sourcee, which appears to be, or to be related to,the mentioned Dutch Safety Board final report, has a box on page 14 which appears to be about this 16 July S-25 shootdown, but gives an altitude of 6,500m.

This doesn't resolve the confusion, I know, but it may throw some light on where the confusion is coming from. If so, perhaps a note re the differences between the accounts in these sources is called for. If not, my apologies for adding to the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell, until about 72 hours ago, the English of this article was as clear and coherent as any technically complex article can be. A sustained assault on almost every portion of the article in the past few days has made the English highly problematic and the content less coherent, but a great deal more Kremlin-ophilic than it previously was. My response to the edit you linked to above is this, the Dutch Safety board report is a long, complex, balanced, primary document which should only be used to support uncontroversial claims, not interpreted at all, but in this instance it simply does not say what the text claims it does, which is to imply DSB concluded that there were Ukr lies. There certainly is some confusion all round, inc by DSB about altitudes, but no suggestion by them of lies. If you take out the accustaion of lies, I'm not sure that anything worth recording remains, except that no one seems certain about altitudes of OTHER aircraft shot down previously. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]