I'm going to be a bit firm here, but I want to push for a more
peaceful way of interacting that's more likely to lead to productive
solutions. Both RK and Jtdirl are valued contributors in their own
right.
Robert, I really think you should moderate your tone, because I
think that doing so will make your comments more effective.
Robert wrote:
For reasons I do not understand, Jtdirl is being
dishonest
about my work on Wikipedia.
It would be better to say "For reasons I do not understand, it seems
that Jtdirl has misperceived that nature of my work on Wikipedia."
'misperceived' leaves open the question of a moral judgment: was it
deliberate? Was it an oversight? Was it stupidity? Was it
forgetfulness?
'seems' leaves open the possibility that with further discussion, it
may turn out that you were wrong. 'seems' has you only expressing
your current understanding of the situation, as opposed to a formal
and final judgment.
Making a moral judgment in a case like this is likely to turn people
off. And, really, it runs a very strong risk of being _not true at
all_. It strikes me as more likely that jtdirl is mistaken, rather
than actively dishonest. Or that you are mistaken.
"rv yet more RK censorship. Does he ever stop?
Does he have
a clue what NPOV means?"
I would also recommend jtdirl to avoid such terms as 'censorship' and
'does he have a clue'? These are inflammatory and likely to give rise
to hard feelings rather than productive co-operation.
Better would be 'rv RK. RK, I'm unconvinced that your edit here is
NPOV, can we chat on the talk page to reach a compromise?'
--Jimbo