User talk:Stmdup
March 2021
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Robert Badinter, Starlight (The Supermen Lovers song), Claude Buffet, and Capital punishment in Lithuania. I'm especially concerned with the aggressive tone in those edit summaries: [1], [2], [3], [4]. [5]. However, almost all your edit summaries seem to skip the regulations we have on civility (See WP:SUMMARYNO). Assem Khidhr (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think you understand what "assuming good faith" means. To take the first of the links you've given as an example: "Someone who did not know how to use pronouns has been writing here". That is a factual statement, which contains no assumptions of good faith or bad faith on the part of anyone, and is entirely civil. Do you object to any criticism of quality on Wikipedia? Stmdup (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is yet another example of ad hominem: instead of merely discussing my objections, you went on to question my own "understanding" of policy. Responding to your overly simplified strawman question, however: no, I don't object to criticisms of quality, but as WP:IJME states, even if a voluntary contribution appears to be severely lacking good quality, one should be
gentle
andrespectful
while addressing it. Calling grammatical mistakescultural vandalism
surely fails that. Trust me, I've seen editors, arguably even good content editors, before being blocked from the site for failing to conform with civility in this manner. Assem Khidhr (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is yet another example of ad hominem: instead of merely discussing my objections, you went on to question my own "understanding" of policy. Responding to your overly simplified strawman question, however: no, I don't object to criticisms of quality, but as WP:IJME states, even if a voluntary contribution appears to be severely lacking good quality, one should be