User talk:Curious bystander

Please don't be mean to me, I'm the new guy! I'll try to be good, but if I haven't been, please leave me a note. Curious bystander (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama article size

I see you attached a toolong tag, and someone reverted. If you expand the FAQ at the top of the talk page Talk:Barack Obama, question #3 regards article size. It points out that the 60K limit is for main body content, and we're well within that limit. What makes the markup version so long with so many bytes is all the references. That's considered okay. Our mission is to make it a good article for the reader, not the editor. We editors just have to suffer with all those citations. (note - I revised the answer slightly before pointing it out to you). It probably could be trimmed here and there, but the editor who reverted you probably agrees with the FAQ that the problem isn't so bad that it needs the tag and the more urgent action that implies. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome Skyline!

That has to be one of the most impressive pictures I have ever seen. Thank you for sharing it with us.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I regret that I didn't take it myself, but I've seen that sort of view many, many times. I had a fabulous little studio on Central Park West that was rent-controlled from the '70s. Passed down to me from a kind older gentleman who was on his way to a retirement home and saw me being evicted from my old place, because I couldn't afford the rent! Those were the days. Curious bystander (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice from Curious bystander

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, please stop edit-warring on the Barack Obama article. Take it to the Talk page and reach consensus before making these edits. I have been watching this page for weeks and WB74, while troublesome, is not entirely to blame for the acrimony there. You haven't been entirely civil yourself. Curious bystander (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It's a nice place; a good way to get started is by familiarizing yourself with some of its guidelines.

I can't help but notice from your edit history, that your edits have consisted largely of restoring material added by WorkerBee74, who has been repeatedly banned for edit-warring, and has used frequent sock-puppet accounts over her/his edit career. You might want to be careful in editing pages that have seen frequent edit conflict, and have been plagued by WP:SPA's. All the best, LotLE×talk 01:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to kick in here:

So far I count one recent reverse (hardly to connect to WB74) [1] and none else in his/her history.

Where are the other one's you're talking about, Lulu? I just don't get it and if you can point them out for me and of course to Curious bystander it would be helpful. Don't let it end up as an baseless accusation (of meat puppetry) of another editor. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits have "largely consisted" of articles about homosexuality and the history of GLBT rights (and the oppression of sexually unorthodox people) in America. A review of his history shows that LotLE has been blocked several times, and warned numerous times, for his failure to adhere to WP:CIV. I'm not a sockpuppet, and I resent the accusation. If you feel strongly about it, and that you have sufficient evidence to support it, there's a way to resolve it. But Floridianed is right; I've only restored material added by WB74 once, and it was because LotLE was edit-warring — in violation of another policy. Curious bystander (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page edit

Please self-revert your last edit immediately. You have replaced comments that have previously been removed at the request of an administrator. MY response was placed in the correct section ("involved editors") and I do not appreciate you singling it out in an edit summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please consider self-reverting this edit,[2] which reverts material removed by a couple editors as being out-of-process in the RfC. WorkerBee74, after stating his case, asked that further RfC discussion be limited to people who had not previously edited the article. Although dubious, that request was initially honored by all but WorkerBee, who responded a couple times. Three editors removed his subsequent comments, and asked if he objected - he has not (see User talk:WorkerBee74). Subsequently, some editors began commenting in a separate section created for involved users. If WorkerBee74 wishes to complain he can; and if he wants to comment in the "involved" user area he can too. Your reinserting his comments in the "uninvolved" section and adding yours there will likely cause the process to break down. Therefore, please remove his comments again, and if you wish to comment add your own in the "uninvolved" section. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since so many involved editors have ignored WB74's request and commented, there is really no excuse for leaving WB74's comments in the deletion bin. Since I didn't participate in the months of acrimonious debate you people have waged, I feel that my comment is in the correct section. I'm really new to this process, and to the debate on Talk:Barack Obama, so it's possible that I could be wrong. But I'll let an administrator decide if you don't mind. Best regards — Curious bystander (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You can do what you like with your comment, but please remove the WorkerBee74 comments immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my reason for restoring them, and it's a very good reason. If you don't like it, Rick Block appears to be available to resolve this dispute. Best regards — Curious bystander (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the comment on your behalf. No thanks are required. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(to Curious bystander) If you're truly new to this process you may want to consider avoiding becoming part of the acrimony so quickly, and keeping some willingness to consider the effects of your edits once experienced editors have cautioned you that they are provocative.Wikidemo (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My main purpose here is articles about homosexuality and the history of GLBT rights (and the oppression of sexually unorthodox people) in America. See my comment above, in response to the fairly hilarious claim that I'm a sockpuppet. If you don't mind, I'd like to get back to that. But what's so provocative about it? His comments were deleted because involved editors weren't supposed to participate according to his request. Then several involved editors, including you, decided to go ahead and participate anyway — a decision which I find genuinely provocative. Since you've decided to ignore his request and participate, I see no good reason to leave WB74's remarks in the deletion bin. I do not care for this bullying by the two of you. If you don't like it, take it to Rick Block and let him decide. Curious bystander (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody "participated anyway" except WorkerBee74 himself,[3] whose edits were removed, then Looneymonkey, whose comments were quickly put into a new section for "previously involved editors",[4] and now you. By restoring WorkerBee's comments against the wishes of at least three other editors (without, I note, restoring a complaint about them[5]) you're gaming the system and breaking down whatever process there had been. You triggered a revert war on the RfC talk page in the process. Your edits and WorkerBee's stand as the only two substantive breaches of the request - and now mine in response to the obvious breakdown in process. Further, in the middle of the RfC you're now accusing two editors of "bullying" over this matter[6] - please refactor that comment at once. If you're going to participate on such an important page, please be more more careful to avoid clashing with other editors. If you want to be argumentative about process, this is not a good page to do that. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some real criticism?

I wanted to ask you what you mean by this comment in one of your last posts[7]:

...adding some real criticism.

Please do not take this an attack or anything, but I would like to know what you mean by adding some "real" criticism? Brothejr (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and please consider removing a comment

Hi Curious bystander,

Thanks for the compliment. I think I'll just keep my background info where it is though, partly because I'm on one side of this. I'm concerned about a comment you put on the page that I think is turning up the heat too much: Since the consensus vote seemed carefully timed to occur during WB74's block, it's obvious (at least to me) that he was deliberately excluded. We've had a lot of problems keeping cool on that page, and it would really help if we try to stay away from comments that don't focus on the proposed inclusion and are directed at editors' past conduct. That comment won't help us get to any consensus and it will just make editors less likely to be flexible about their own opinions. Would you please redact it? I think it would help a lot. Noroton (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom report

Please note that I have added this account as a party to the ArbCom report filed by 74.94.99.17. You may find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Barack Obama. Additionally, I really would appreciate it if you could remove your accusatory comments from the Barack Obama talk page, and desist from unarchiving the WP:RfC on that page. RfC is a preliminary dispute resolution step, with WP:RFAR being the final step. Now that there is an arbitration request, there is nothing to be gained by further discussing the same issue on the article talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. After a review of the Arbitration Committee's documents, I've learned that they carefully avoid deciding any content disputes. A review of their recent cases confirms this. But RfC is expressly designed to resolve content disputes. If you don't mind, I'll add this to your User Talk page as well, to be sure that you see it. Curious bystander (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no need - I'm watching your page for any reply, and the article talk space obviously. Do you have any intent to withdraw the accusations you have made on the talk page? Wikidemo (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A note about the role of admins

Hi - It seems from this thread above that you're a little confused about the role of admins here. In content disputes, admins have no more authority than any other editor. In particular, my participation at the talk:Barack Obama page is as an editor - with no more (but no less) authority than any other editor (admins generally have a lot of experience editing here, so tend to know the ropes). I'm certainly willing to give advice if asked, but admins have no authority to resolve disputes. The mechanisms for resolving content disputes are discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)