User talk:Slazenger/Archives/2017/August

Uncivil Language
Greetings,

I agree that in general such language is inappropriate. However, the user added an antisemitic canard which I cannot accept was made in good faith to an otherwise afaict accurate (as far as is possible) article. To wit: The addition to an article about the indisputably Jewish murderer of vom Rath H. Grynzpsan as having joined the nazi party ( in 1932 at the age of 11 no less!) was difficult to respond to civilly inasmuch as the addition was apparently made solely for purposes of misinformation.

If there is a better way to deal with such nastiness, please let me know. Surely it can't be simply saying, I believe the information you added to the article is inaccurate. I assume that you sent this message to me because the person who modified (Malayedit) the biographical article notified you, complaining that he was ill-treated which certainly shows some chutzpah indeed -- sort of like the murderer of his own parents asking for mercy from the court because he is an orphan.

Regards,

jrm2007


 * JRM, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I cannot speak to the matter or subject of which you two were involved in an edit dispute, as I am by no means an expert in the field, but I was strictly referring to the uncivil discussion between you.  I Came across the other editor's talk page in relation to a matter I was pursuing and wanted to reach out to offer my experience and perspective in order to help you with your endeavors on Wikipedia.  The old adage, "kill them with kindness" is applicable to the dispute between the two of you.  You disagreed with the content of the other editor's edit to the article, but you were the initiator in a discussion with Malayedit regarding his addition to the article and immediately went on the offense, threatening him with admin intervention for nothing more than making an edit.  I strongly agree that his edit was inappropriate, as an unsourced inclusion in a biography making strong claims that are counter to known information, but all that was required was a simple change with a helpful edit summary.  If the change was made again, you could open up a respectful dialogue on the editor's talk page and ask them to include a source, attempt to assist, or provide them with useful information on how to better contribute to the project. If it continued, you could open up a discussion on the article's talkpage or seek admin intervention if it was becoming edit-warring or distracting to the article. The user has a reasonably large number of edits within the mainspace and no history of vandalism or anything else, so there's no reason to attack an editor - assume they were attempting to better the article first and go from there, no matter how outlandish their claims.  Hope this helps, you've made some great contributions to the project and I hope you continue with your endeavors!   --Slazenger  (Contact Me) 09:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)