Welcome to Wikipedia, World's Lamest Critic! Thank you for your contributions. I am Govindaharihari and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Govindaharihari (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the weirdness over at Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia). Rather than trying to push talk page notes into Ottawahitech's user space, why not just follow standard practice and create an archive? VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An archive would make sense if they were discussions about the article, but they aren't. They are one editors notes. I have created a page in his userspace for them, in case he wants to make use of them at some point. I'm sure you're trying to help, but Ottawahitech has been here for 10 years so he knows where to go if he has a problem. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think your characterization of the page as "notes" is relevant. We have established talk page norms for a reason. VQuakr (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read WP:TALK and was unable to see how what was on the talk page was following those guidelines. Maybe you see it differently. I'll take your suggestion and archive the "talk page notes" as you called them in your first post here. Thanks for your guidance. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. Again. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment, I'm letting you know that you and the other party can both be blocked under the edit warring policy. I urge you to reply at the noticeboard and agree to stop reverting the set of notes until a consensus is reached on where to locate this material. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint has been closed with warnings to both you and Ottawahitech. You are risking a block if you add or remove the disputed talk page material again until consensus about it is reached. It's good that you promised to stop reverting. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could be because a 26 year old mid level government employee who hasn't even yet been confirmed is hardly notable, also because it bears the handiwork of a VMI grad who has been vandalizing The Citadel articles for some time. If anybody thinks he is notable due to being accused of sex abuse be advised that was 5 years ago, charges weren't filed because there was no evidence and the accusers were found to have been lying and were charged with an honor violation. Oh and given that I am an alumni who helped write this article and have managed it for 7 years I just may be more qualified to determine what constitutes 'notable' than others with questionable motives.Bob80q (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information to the article. I don't know who or what "a VMI grad" is, but it wasn't vandalism. I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you don't have any special privileges because you went to that college. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

===Please cite rationale for adding, as stated previously this person clearly does not qualify as a notable graduate and I have deleted numerous names that have been added to the list for the same reason. And just who are you? Obviously not a grad because you don't even know what year he graduated. Its not up to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the world to decide who qualifies as a notable graduate of the school; will be happy to take this up with editorial board.Bob80q (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the current situation involving Bob80q.Strgzr1 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. One does not argue lightly with our most senior admin and arbcom member. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean, but I think it's safe to assume that it was either insulting or accusatory. Nice to meet you, too. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are querying the intention of my comment is another indication of you perhaps needing a lot more experience before working in a collaborative environment at the level you are attempting. I neither accuse nor insult, but I do not mince my words where there is a possibility of interference in serious matters however well intended. I suggest you read my reply to you on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I would hate to have to put such a keen new user under sanctions to prevent any disruption." World's Lamest Critic (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 06:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Ymandelbrot's talk page. Ymandelbrot (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware of the signs of the MO of Orangemoody-style extortion. If not, please read WP:Orangemoody. Please report them to one of the the experienced editors or admins who is working on the cases at SPI and/or COIN, or if you know how to, feel free to add them to the case page yourself. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like run of the mill vandalism to me. I would expect to see a lot of that on the article for a female video game journalist. Perhaps it would be a good idea to semi-protect that article? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely how the Orangemoody system operates.

Do you happen to have any explanation as to why 50.232.248.97 (probably probably a shared IP) should be posting on my talk page? Until I examined the account, discovering more typical Orangemoody-style comments , and blocked it, AFAIK I had no involvement with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess that someone is deliberately trolling you and/or me because of our recent interactions. I suspect this may clear up a thing or two. As for the "Orangemoody system", I find the whole idea hard to swallow. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need to tell you that orangemoody is based on very clear evidence; I have personally seen it, and other appropriate people have also. If that scheme is still active, or if others are trying the same scam, you would do much better to help us supress it than to do anything that might encourage it. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree about deleting articles that may have been created by paid editors. Really, that's it. I'm not encouraging anyone nor impeding anyone. I am just expressing my opinion. That opinion, if it wasn't clear, is that we should think of what is best for our readers. If someone is getting paid to write well sourced articles about notable topics, I don't really care. As for the extortion claims, I will remain skeptical until I see some evidence myself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

arb com does not publish this sort of evidence, but you might start with the article on it DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I wasn't asking for arb com to show me anything. I have read WP:ORANGEMOODY. In the case of Lisa Foiles I saw an IP add something about bedwetting so I removed it and warned the IP. I'm not sure what else you would have me do. People add nasty things to biographies here all the time. I don't assume they are extorting anyone. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello World's Lamest Critic -- Now that we're lumped into a common dispute, I came here to get to know you. I see another has written about you thusly:

:::TonyBallioni, I'm not sure that World's Lamest Critic, with their extremely low edit count and being a new user, is sufficiently informed of our policies and guidelines in the above context . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an argument from authority. It's a logical fallacy.

I like the brevity of your response this morning -- much better than my long-winded response. Things will get worse before they get better. Rhadow (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello World's Lamest Critic,

Can you please send me an email ? I would like to clarify the changes on Viki Sater's profile. I apologize in advance, I'm not very familiar on wikipedia edits.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyCosmo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't. For reasons that I do not know, some editor removed your email and had it actually removed from the history of my page by an admin. They should not have done that. I you want to leave it for me again be aware that it will be visible on this page. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain: This is standard practice when we have a user that is new and admits they don't know how Wikipedia works, and don't realize that by posting their email address on Wikipedia they are preserving it forever in the revision history for anyone to find even if the text is removed from a page. This is especially the case when it might be possible to connect a real person to a Wikipedia account.

I saw the word email by a redlinked user as a change, looked, removed it, and contacted the oversight team to determine if it merited suppression. They felt it fell under the oversight policy and the material was oversighted, which is a step above standard revision deletion and is used in privacy cases. Since the user in question has their email enabled, you can contact them by using the "email this user" feature on your sidebar when you click on their contribs if you want to contact them by email. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have email enabled so they can't contact me that way or vice versa. If they choose to leave their email again now that they know the situation, leave it. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Viki Gutsko, formerly known as Viki Sater. My facebook, instagram and my business' website shows my name. I am no longer married and actually, I don't live in Port Washington, I live in New York City now. Would you be so kind to change the wikipedia page to reflect that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyCosmo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really would like to help, but here's the problem. There are good sources that say Viki Sater's name is Viki Sater (not Viki Gutsko) and that she is married to Felix Sater. There are no good sources that say Viki Sater now goes by Gutsko or that she is not married to Felix Sater anymore. By good sources I mean reliable third-party sources, so what someone goes by on Facebook is not useful. The last time I looked, I think Viki Sater's personal Facebook page called her Viktoria (Gutsko) Sater, but it might have been changed since then.

If you are Viki Sater, you can contact the Wikipedia volunteers who handle such things (here), but first read WP:RS first. What you really need are good sources which confirm that Viki and Felix Sater are no longer married. Otherwise I'm not sure how anyone can help. My advice to anyone in this situation would be to talk to their publicist. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Viki Sater article has been deleted at my request. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for being considerate. I have a question for you, for Felix's page, I'm still listed there as his spouse when I'm not. How would I go about having a credible source for this ? RockyCosmo (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming that the photos File:Right to go topless.JPG File:Topless protest.JPG and File:Right to go topless cropped.jpg are Raelian events. It's a topfree protest, the claim that this is a Raëlian event is unsourced. If you have proof then add the sources. Otherwise it's your opinion. Just because someone is wearing a piece of jewellery that you claim is a symbol for the group does not mean that the even was a Raelian event. Discuss it on the talk page and see if there is consensus for your change or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I have already asked you not to post on my talk page. If you an issue about changes on Commons, which is a different site with different rules, take it up with someone there. Now go away and stay away. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making comments against me. You' kept on attacking me. I am not attacking you because you attack me first. You are the meanest user. Please, I am talking to a strong administrator for resolving this issue please do not continously make edits. I did talk to a strong administrator and I am not making screw up edits. And I am waiting for a strong administrator's response. Just leave me alone do not reply me back and I am waiting for an answer with a strong administrator. And a strong administrator is expecting to talk to you. Just leave me alone! 2001:569:70DD:7500:AD32:14F3:95E:E66D (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to show you why what you are doing is wrong. Please read the template documentation. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THAT'S IT!! I am ignoring you and you lie to me!!! Do not talk to me back ever!!!! 2001:569:70DD:7500:AD32:14F3:95E:E66D (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just wanted to clarify, because I see that you were getting frustrated with the situation, that the original explosion on September 14 occurred while I was away from Wikipedia for several days and didn't see any of it at all — but by the time of your followup request on September 17, the IP in question hadn't edited Wikipedia at all since the 14th and so it didn't appear that there was anything for me to actually do. When the IP posted another followup response to that post, however, it was clear that they still hadn't dropped the stick, which is why I responded at that time. Just to clarify that I wasn't actively ignoring you, the whole thing just started while I wasn't here to see it, and by the time I was back here it appeared at first to already be over. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help and the note. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your post on BLPN about how I should consider whether I'm "stalking a high school girl", and it really got to me. I apologize, because I had no intention of doing any such thing, or of doing anything other than creating an article with reliable sources. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I could have phrased that better. I meant that if one has to resort to sources like high school newsletters and dig out archives of deleted pages, that should be an indication that one shouldn't be writing a biography yet. I am sure you meant no harm by writing the biography. Thank you for bringing it up for discussion at BLPN. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [regarding this edit]
• points to remember

Regarding the above edit on BLPTP, Rather than leave a canned template message, I'd like to refer you to the above policy which advises against the use of language which may be perceived as aggression by some users. Typically, referring to another user as a "pedant", and their content as "bullshit" would be advised against on talk pages, where it's better to comment on the proposals made by editors rather than the personal qualities of the editor making them. Abusive slang, while not prohibited from use should also be carefully considered, especially when using it while addressing an editor or directing it at the content created by an editor. When leaving edit [[wp:summary|summaries] especially, it's also better to leave very neutral comments about the nature of your edit as these pieces of info cannot be reverted, so simply writing, "bullshit" as a summary is both potentially offensive and not helpful to the other editors who might want to know what additions have been made to the page.

Don't worry, I'm not offended. And as I said, the use of this language isn't strictly prohibited. I'm just leaving this note to let you know about the policies regarding general civility and hope that we can continue to collaborate to create better articles. Edaham (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to leave me this note. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, World's Lamest Critic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly specified your theory as to which wiki-id Joshua Boyle used, when he was a wikipedia contributor. This is in violation of the policy on outing, and I am going to request to have your edit supressed at WP:ANI. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Geo Swan, DO NOT, request that at ANI. Follow the email instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT if there is an issue. Note, I am not sure if there was a violation or what edit was being talked about, but ANI is not the place for discussing potentially oversightable material. Also WLC, sorry for butting in on your talk page, but requests for oversight at ANI are something that we try to avoid, and wanted to get ahead of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Boyle's Wikipedia account was identified (Redacted). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I would highly suggest that next time there is a question regarding OUTING that you lead with the link first rather than after everything is suppressed. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have done it any sooner than my first edit since this was posted? Not only do I get falsely accused of outing but I also get a bonus scolding for not doing something that it was impossible to do. Nice! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)Actually, whenever you are linking off-wiki persona to on-wiki-user-ID, please provide some reliable source (preferably the subject himself) that definitively links the two or some diff where the user has outed himself/herself.And, if this case caught the eyes of some trigger-happy-sysop, he wouldn't have even given you the benefit of doubt.WP:OUTING is sacrosanct.Winged Blades^Godric 16:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct your comments to @Geo Swan: for making false accusations. I find it hard to believe that he would not have read that New York Times article about his friend back in October. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or the WO one eh? ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyBallioni, Primefac, you both suggested I should have used email to report an OUTING. Are you among those who read email requests to oversight outings? If so, may I ask if you don't think WP:OUTING should explicitly inform those concerned over an ongoing outing which mail address they should use to report that outing? Do you think it would be a good idea to do so in OUTING's first paragraph? Buried in the 6th paragraph is advice to privately email an administrator or arbitrator -- but only in the context of a COI incident. The last paragraph has a link oversighted -- but in the context of accidental self-outing... It does not offer any advice for what I thought I found, someone deliberately outing a fellow wikipedian who wasn't in a conflict of interest.

  No, even if World's Lamest Critic is incapable of believing it, I did not see the NYTimes speculation over which wiki-id Joshua used.

  If I am not mistaken, we would not allow potentially damaging or embarrassing information about an individual to remain in article space, based on the speculation of a single source, so I will send the email you say is the correct path. still think this edit, and any similar edits, should be oversighted, even if repeating the speculation from a single source isn't, technically, an OUTING. I won't confirm or refute the speculation, but I do believe Boyle, a private person, would regard attempts to identify him as a violation of his privacy, and, since he is not accused of a conflict of interest, there is no need to try to identify him. Geo Swan (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. Primefac is. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, the second paragraph says Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Plus, the email for OS isn't hard to remember - oversightwikimedia.org. Even if you emailed me personally, it would be better than drawing more attention to it by posting it at AN (or ANI). I do agree that last paragraph could use some updating, but that's not something to yell at me about - I think you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment regarding the wording.

As for the content itself - I hardly call (Redacted) to be "speculation". You're welcome email Oversight or ArbCom to discuss this further, but unless Boyle has a major issue with the case there's really nothing more to do.

As for WLC's comment - I wasn't scolding you, but any time you say "person X is user Y", unless it's backed up by a public post somewhere, is considered outing, which is why I suggested that in the future if you feel like connecting names you consider also giving the source of your knowledge. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boyle's username wasn't a mystery so why would I even think of offering a source? Taking a couple of minutes to Google it before oversighting it it would have been prudent. Please enjoy your dose of Geo Swan. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Can I get an explanation of why the identification of Joshua Boyle's username from an article in the New York Times has been redacted (again)? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we do not know if the NYT author was told by Boyle their Wikipedia username, and because OUTING says Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia (emphasis added). While I agree that it's not a huge leap to do a search and come up with NYT and WPO posts about the connection, neither of them are explicitly "Boyle said" commentaries, and since he has not posted his real-life connection using his Wikipedia account it calls under the "on Wikipedia" part of the outing rules.

Of course, if Boyle did tell the NYT reporter his Wikipedia login that would be a different story, but as the oversighters looked deeper into the article it isn't explicitly clear that's the case. In such instances we prefer to err on the side of caution. Primefac (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]