User talk:Lightburst/Archive 11-2-19

A cup of tea for you!

 * User:DBigXray The RFA closed so this is moot. But my rationale: I believe administrators are here to protect content creators and protect the encyclopedia. So an administrator should have experience as a content creator. The candidate was on the project for 12 years and only started 16 articles - and three of those were deleted. In addition Mainspace participation was 38.5% which I consider very low: IMO 50% is a minimum.Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the question remains unanswered. It was, "what according to you is a good number of article a candidate must start before opting for RfA to get your support."-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DBigXray I answered on another RFA for Bradv. 10-20 per year at a minimum. You can see that the majority of editors do not agree with my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering. Indeed, you should also include me among the editors who disagree with this opinion of yours. An admins fundamental role is policing and clean up. Creating new articles is not a job description of an admin. On the contrary a candidate who created tons of stubs and fails to add useful info there gets downvoted by the community at RfA. IMHO, there is a strong case for "enough" mainspace edits, which I think is required. But if an editor has more than 10K mainspace edits and his RfA is opposed on the basis of not reaching XX % (where X is as high as 50%) of total edits seems more like bickering to me. I hope the Bureaucrats discount such opposes. If you survey the successful RfA candidates, I doubt you will find many (any? ) who pass these criteria. Community expects an RfA candiate to be active in a lot of areas, such as AfD, AIV etc, all of which are useful work and help to gauge the candidate's understanding of policies.
 * I feel that your criteria for RfA is much stricter than what the community currently agrees upon. It is always good to have a perfect RfA candidate with an all round experience, but as we all know a perfect RfA candidate doesnt really exist. IMHO it is too harsh to expect an editor who has an interest in gnoming and wants the tool for gnoming being denied that due to lack of experience in something he does not intend to work in. This ultimately harms wikipedia because folks who are otherwise fit for mopping dont get it and burdens the existing admin corps, leading to delay in mopping which affects everyone, including you and me. I hope you will think about the point I am trying to make. cheers.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Bad form", huh?
Oh, so making a completely erroneous report on me on ANI is "good form", then? You're really something else. Here's the diff in which you called my trimming "bad form". I'm not "diminishing" the O'Donohue article if there are no reliable sources that prove it. Which reliable source specificially states O'Donohue's middle name, as well as his birth year? Why don't you go ahead and revert the other editors for "diminishing" the article too? But fine, have it your way - I'll leave the article as well as its AFD alone and just patiently wait for the outcome. Whatever the outcome may be, I shall accept it with grace. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop hounding me


Jesus. How many editors need to call you out before you give up this harassment campaign? Let it go already. If I MFD Contributor copyright investigations/Lightburst will you leave me alone? I'm sick of it.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly told you not to post on my talk page. I have enjoyed the last few weeks of you leaving me alone, and then I noticed that your tendentious harassment campaigns against Andrew D. Perhaps you could focus on building an encyclopedia. Your hounding is not productive. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

AfD question
Is there any particular reason why you've !voted keep on a number of articles I've either nominated or !voted keep on recently? Looking at your user contributions, you've specifically !voted on a number of different disparate AfDs right after each other that I've all been associated with. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)