User talk:Lightspeedx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Lightspeedx! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Erica Andrews shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Coffeepusher (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop it[edit]

Don't falsely accuse other editors of being vandals [1] just because they are quite correctly reverting your non-policy, purely promotional edits. If you keep up your WP:EDITWAR over this, you are headed for a block. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Falsely accuse you? Your actions speak for themselves. No need for anyone else to say anything. You are a vandal when you cannot collaborate, LISTEN, and partner with ANYONE. Too bad you are too small to understand what the word vandal means. Go destroy more articles and keep your little self busy doing that. Seriously get a life. You sound like you desperately need one or something to fill your empty time to have to use an article to get your rocks off. Don't threaten me with a block. Wikipedia is not your private playground. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop falsely accusing others[edit]

Stop falsely accusing others, as you did here [2]. I edited the article in question ONE TIME in the past 2+ weeks--that is not edit warring. In fact, YOU are the one warring on the article, which you should also stop doing at once. You are a highly disruptive editor and I think you should be blocked, and soon. Qworty (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Lightspeedx may need to make good on their claim to take this to arbitration and see what happens. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I hope the WP:BOOMERANG comes with the pretty bling-bling colors that Lightspeed would appreciate. Qworty (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well it looks like you have taken it somewhere...but that isn't the administrators noticeboard like you said it would be.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Mediation? LOLOL. I was hoping, at the least, for a nuclear blast up the ANI on this one. I guess we'd better all sit on the ground and link arms and start singing kumbaya, chilluns. This is going to take months to resolve. By the time mediation is done, Lightspeedx will have long been blocked for policy violations. It'll make for some interesting writing on the cave wall--if anyone were interested, that is. Qworty (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Let it take months or even years and maybe even go ahead and delete the Erica Andrews article for maybe you can even prove that she was nobody of importance and doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. I'm sure if you want to argue and find reasons to support your convoluted cause, you can find grounds for it. Go ahead and keep issuing your threats to block anyone who disagrees with you and even speaks the truth to your very ugly and immature actions. Wikipedia is NOT your private playground and it never will be. Nor is it your private domain to bully others no matter what your status is within Wikipedia. I have done nothing to harm Wikipedia as much as you have with your rudeness, inability to be civil to others, inability to listen and inability to talk politely to anyone. All 3 of you obviously need to get a life away from Wikipedia where real world and real people don't act like that. Maybe if all 3 of you really had a real life away from Wikipedia you might not need a virtual world to get your rocks off. I have done nothing to Wikipedia to warrant a block, never threatened it, never harmed it, never vandalized it, never threatened anyone, and have always contributed positively for many years. And yes, I've called you 3 as vandals because you are based on your actions. When someone rampantly deletes information without weighing what the information is, or when they call for sources but merely idle and sit there demanding for it as opposed to helping discover additional sources and when no matter what someone tells them and they refuse to listen, that person is classified as a vandal. That person is classified as a person who has no ability to listen, no ability to act orderly. You obviously have no concept of collaboration which is at the center of the Wikipedia philosophy. Thankfully there are so many civil authors on Wikipedia who do know how to work with others, how to collaborate and listen and work to research and discover new information together. I have worked with many of such Wikipedia authors on articles and have enjoyed learning from them, and enjoyed the collaboration to learn. You 3 are what makes Wikipedia negative and bring it down, not up. Your actions speak negatively for yourself. I don't need to say anything else to anyone who is watching what you have done. So if you can and want to convince Wikipedia to block me because I have stood up against your unruly actions, because I have contributed to an article and have voiced heavily of my concerns that your deletion was harming the article and because I have called you a vandal due to your unruly behavior, go ahead and do it. I'm certain that other civil-minded and fair Wikipedians will see through your behavior and my overall Wikipedia contributions over the many years to realize that I am not a vandal, I am not a trouble maker and yes, I have defended the Erica Andrews article and have repeatedly asked you 3 authors who are so keen on deletion of content to go help perform research, find additional sources of information to support addition or deletion and then come back to collaborate together. You have FAILED to contribute by doing research to help, failed to listen, failed to collaborate and very quick to try to intimate others. Your failure is so jarring that only the 3 of you with your biased views cannot see through how you have failed the entire Wikipedia community, Wikipedia's philosophies and yourselves. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow. You should be blocked and permanently banned on the basis of this abusive fit of hysterics alone. I hope you are, and soon. Qworty (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You should be blocked based on your total rudeness and the way you let "power" get to your head which is so against the Wikipedia tenets and rules on engagement. Seriously for your own good, you need to get a life outside of Wikipedia where you don't need to use a virtual world to try to be rude to people. You obviously have a personal problems and for that, I do hope you will move on to other people and other articles and leave me alone as I don't want to and don't have the time to deal with you. Unlike you, I do have a REAL life outside of Wikipedia where I don't need to be rude or feel I need to rule over others. I am most sorry that I have met you on Wikipedia. I have been on Wikipedia for many years and never have I met authors or people like you. Most Wikipedians are very nice, fun to collaborate with and to learn from. You are a total opposite of this. You truly represent the very worst of Wikipedia and do not help to raise its reputation. I do hope you will find your peace within yourself and maybe grow up somehow. I am fully confident that there are wiser people on Wikipedia who can see through your charades and abuse of "power" here. Wikipedia is and always has been thankfully a much more democratic and tolerant place than you are, where people don't ban others just because they speak up against you. As said, I have never vandalized, never harmed any article or anyone and have always positively contributed to Wikipedia for MANY years. I stand by my words that you are a vandal for the way you had acted over the Erica Andrews article. Perhaps other authors who have come across you may feel the same. Judging from your talk page, there are many who probably feel the same because of the way you have behaved on other articles and with other authors. So it's YOU who should worry about defending yourself. Lightspeedx (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. This, combined with the abuse you've spewed on people's talk pages, and your constant edit-warring, and your perpetual disregard for established Wikipedia policies governing content, makes for the clearest indication that you have nothing positive to contribute. Qworty (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Some friendly Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia advice for you. Do find yourself something else in your life and even on Wikipedia to do and keep yourself busy there. Maybe instead of deleting content, try to spend time researching to add to content. Find the time to dig for info, learn and come back with information to add. This is Wikipedia, you're not paid to do this. I'm not paid to do this. Somewhere on Wikipedia, I remember even reading a reminder to authors on Wikipedia about this. That if they can't agree with someone and are warring with them, then it's time to step back away from Wikipedia because it's obvious that losing perspective is hurting them. Surely you can use the time that you've been battling with me and over the Erica Andrews article to spend on yourself or your family. You know, it's interesting you should accuse me of spewing when you are the one doing it on my talk page based on your thinly-veiled method of trying to monitor and help with an article. Seriously, you haven't helped with any research on that article. You did not add anything to it and in the process, you learned nothing out of it because you didn't bother to research or educate yourself more about the subject/person. You got for nothing of it getting your desire to delete information. Fine, go ahead, delete away. I don't own that article or Wikipedia. We are all here Wikipedia to learn, to research, to contribute and enjoy collaborating with others. If you can't do that, then you have lost perspective. In the end the Erica Andrews article is just an article of someone who has passed away who probably has no significance to you. It's also interesting that you are accusing me of an edit war when you have done it. Really, please take a look in the mirror before you accuse me. I truly don't have the time to argue with you or continue with this discussion with you. As said, I have better constructive things to do on Wikipedia, learning, reading and working with others than continuing with this with you. You can go do whatever you wish to do to me on Wikipedia. As said, I know there are much wiser and cooler heads on Wikipedia who can see right through your problems. Good bye. Lightspeedx (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Erica Andrews". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and keep with your lies about me. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

John, thank you for the note and guidance. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perot Museum of Nature and Science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dallas County Courthouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Hello Lightspeedx, my name is Howicus. I'm a volunteer at WP:DRN, and I wanted to let you know that I've responded to your DRN case here [3], and I've asked you a couple of questions there. Please respond when it's convenient for you. Howicus (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Erica Andrews, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

re Request for Your Help on Erica Andrews[edit]

Sorry I'm a bit busy with other quality improvement drives right now, so I don't have time to look into this. Good luck to you in your quality improvement efforts. I'd suggest you read WP:BRD, WP:Dispute resolution, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:Article development. — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)