User talk:Cubdriver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WSJ page

Thanks for your above candid assessment about your Wikipedia feelings. I have discussed the "David Wessel" issue on the WSJ Talk page. You have reverted without comment. This is bordering on vandalism. Either discuss it on the Talk page, or desist. Eleemosynary 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-edit at its finest: perpetuate a falsehood (in this case, that the Journal has no regularly scheduled liberal commentary, while ignoring or denying that Mr. Wessel's page 2 Thursday paeans to the welfare state constitute just that) and then cry vandalism! when the lie is corrected. So it goes in Wiki-dom. The winners is he with the least to occupy his time.

Wrong on all counts. But bitter, nonetheless. Eleemosynary 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry you feel letdown...

Hi Cubdriver. You're obviously a good writer as your goodbye message indicates, and you know my feelings towards the edit we were in conflict over. Your writing is worth a lot more than the trim I made and your feelings are worth a lot more than Wikipedia. Jonathan F 08:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a Wikipedian passing by...Cubdriver, your monkey analogy is largely correct. I think

that your only fault is attitude. Why?

Yes, many on Wikipedia can be considered monkeys that hold certain articles hostage. But,

• I don't feel you would consider yourself a monkey.
• I wouldn't consider myself a monkey.
• I know other wikipedians who are not monkeys. In fact, some who I know to behave very badly

regarding a certain article, behave wonderfully with regard to most.

Conclusion: If we all strive not to be monkeys (Be nice, and constructive, rational and

persuadable), then Wikipedia will work.

Message me if you have a response, question, criticism.

--Zaorish 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)