User talk:CBDunkerson: Difference between revisions

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Does the 'C' by any change stand for Conrad? ;) Morwen - Talk 12:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Yup, I'm me and all that. :)

Username stands for Conrad Bertrand Dunkerson.

Are you the Morwen of AFT / RABT, wielder of the CHOKLIT sword?

No. I used to post to AFT/RABT but not under this handle. ;) Morwen - Talk 13:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, well good to see you. I've actually dabbled in Tolkien topics around here off and on for a couple of years, but the earlier edits are under various IP addresses.

I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I think you've contributed in many very positive ways to the development of the Plame affair article. Your comments in the discussions are helpful and well stated and the edits and organizational work you've done have also been really good. Thanks for helping to make it an informative article that's interesting to work on. My best, Calicocat 05:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of keeping inane chatter off the Coulter talk page, I am responding on this page to your comment, following:

Illogical. It is just as possible to 'stalk' an IP address as it is a username. Heck, you can just click on it to get a list of other edits. Thus, your reason for remaining anon does not achieve its stated purpose. Even slightly varying IP addresses only offer limited impediment. As to slander... well, technically this is written so it'd be libel and... what do you call your accusation that Eleemosynary has no interest here but to edit war with BD777? That's assumption of good faith? Mr pot... meet mister kettle. --CBDunkerson 14:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, I have been watching this discussion at Coulter, while taking a break from editing that article. Take a look at Elee's behavior and tell me you really believe he is acting in good faith.

Whatever the faults of Big Daddy, Elee seems to be totally out of control. Some people think good faith is like a bottomless cup of coffee. That's a very foolish outlook. Many at that page have betrayed their bad faith, sometimes in ways they do not yet realize. We all have our tells; they have theirs. Many have cracked out of turn in this con.

I have no idea what your edit history is like. But please be careful not to step into the trap that so many others have stepped into. Engaging in this little Coulter/BigDaddy war is doing neither side a lot of good, and it is leaving Wikipedia the worse for it. Both sides are to blame for that. Your credibility here is the only thing you really have, and to not notice what Elee has been doing and saying means you are not paying attention. Just a word of friendy advice, to protect you. paul klenk ^talk

Paul, I have no idea how these 'user talk' pages work so I dunno if you are notified when I respond. I'll just assume you are checking back in.

I believe that Elee is reacting badly to provocation... note however, that is different from acting in bad faith. I agree that Elee is largely out of control, angry, violating civility, et cetera. However, all indications are that he is doing so in reaction to BD777. The claim that his ONLY interest in the Coulter page is to fight with BD777 seems quite inappropriate to me. I don't doubt that Elee >believes< he is trying to stop vandalism. No, I haven't been paying attention to every twist and turn, but I have seen nothing to suggest that Elee's PURPOSE is to be disruptive / bad faith.

As to 'good faith', I brought it up because the anon poster who made that comment about Elee has repeatedly invoked the need to assume 'good faith' in regards to his own actions... most recent about three paragraphs higher on the page.

Thanks for the 'friendly advice', I'm certainly as prone to reacting in anger as the next guy (ok, more), but in this case I feel the comment needed to be made. --CBDunkerson 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your civil response. Elee is not being "provoked," however. One can insist on receiving good faith, even while accusing others of bad faith, as long as there is good evidence to support the accusation, and the accuser has clean hands with respect to AGF. Also, I have watched the edit wars on Coulter very, very closely. A lot is going unnoticed by many; when I choose to pay close attention, I really see a lot, including some highly correlative behaviors by logged in users that smack of sock puppetry.

Anyway, I appreciate your getting back to me. I just don't want everyone at that page to sacrifice everything for the sake of "not much." Ciao, paul klenk ^talk 15:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I've taken Karl Rove off of my Watchlist. No consensus can be reached there until people try to focus on the article (and Wikipedia in general), rather than racking up attack points against other editors and squatting on the article. Honestly, it appears that people are editing with the perspective that this article is the only article in the Wikiverse, and that Wikipedia has somehoe morphed from an encyclopedia into something akin to the Associated Press. It really doesn't help that there are few sluggishly applied consequences for violating Wikipedia policies these days. Pretty much you get a 2 month free pass as long as you've registered to wreak havok and totally drain editors time. It is too much like work to edit in such an environment. I didn't come to WP to be a cop *sigh*. Good luck. --NightMonkey 21:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CBDunkerson,

I’m going to be bold and start a new entry dealing with the Plame CIA Grand Jury Leak Investigation aspect of the Plame Affair. Very bare bones. After I finish, we can decide if they should merge or stay separate. Plame Affair is not current and some of the information is strong POV. A new entry is the easiest way for me to sort out the grand jury timeline, update the witnesses list, etc. I wanted to let you know what I’m doing because you did a wonderful job on the entry in the past.--FloNight 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of your recent edits, I can only assume that you noticed the source of some of the statements you were correcting. (Heck, you were probably able to guess who had made those changes even without looking at the edit histories or talk pages.) Have you also looked at the discussions that he and I had on, say, Talk:Middle-earth, Talk:Middle-earth canon, and Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien? I simply haven't had the time (or desire) to hold up my end of what could have turned into an edit war, especially without any apparent support from the rest of the community here. (And I really don't have time now!) Also, I'm hesitant to proceed here until I've resolved my committment (wise or not) to finish a revision of that essay/debate summary on the Uruk-hai that I posted to the newsgroups a few months ago. But in any case, I'm quite happy to see you involved here too. Just don't let it sap too much of your time!--Steuard 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Thanks for your helpful and interesting answer on Talk:Plame affair#operative/agent. So what you're saying is that an "operative" in this context is more or less like a "field agent". And does it mean that Novak should have suspected that Plame was covert? eman 13:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback about this article. I'm trying to keep it lean and to the point. So far, so good.--FloNight 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent work that you did on the ballet section, and also for your other work on the article. Figaro 13:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]