User talk:World's Lamest Critic

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]

Geo Swan wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the article to include details about what a prolific editor his friend Boyle was, but he does not want Boyle's actual username to be included. The New York Times has identified his Wikipedia username. I don't think that Boyle's role as a Wikipedia editor is relevant to the article, but if it were we should have no hesitation using that source to cite his username. Whether Boyle volunteered his username or the NYT discovered it elsewhere would not be a question. To argue that our internal policy trumps identification by a reliable source turns the project into a farce. @Primefac:, is that the final decision? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading through that article, I think it needs some serious trimming to avoid a rather unnecessary amount of information unrelated to the kidnapping itself. His "prolific editing" would be part of that.

As for the link between real name and username, the outing guidelines are pretty specific that unless a user has posted their real name on Wikipedia or otherwise disclosed said information, it should be considered outing (there's even a section in OUTING regarding "opposition research" and how it can be considered a form of harassment). I do not think erring on the side of not revealing someone's personal information should be considered "a farce", and to be honest, I'm not sure why connecting the two is so important to you. Does the connection really make a difference? Do we treat the article any different? No. Thus, there is no good reason to insist on connecting the accounts.

Now, if it becomes a question of undisclosed COI, the matter can be revisited, but given that Boyle is in jail and the alleged account he is linked to has been inactive for quite some time, I don't think that will be an issue. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's undisclosed COI editing, but that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand. I identified the Wikipedia account of a biography subject (based on a reliable source) on the talk page of the article. On Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting there have been several mentions of the accounts of perpetrator Adam Lanza. Since Lanza is dead, we know he did not voluntarily provide this information to those reporting it. And yet, no one has cited WP:OUTING or asked for oversight. Here's a Signpost piece about Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia account. Again, not voluntarily provided. And you probably remember Grant Shapps? Just a few examples. I'm sure there are more. So, yes, we do treat this article differently. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Jimbo's page. Feel free to jump in. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm Greg Kohs over at Wikipediocracy is also obsessed with the connection between Boyle and Wikipedia. How odd that you are as well. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Really? You think I'm "obsessed" with Boyle's connection to Wikipedia? How do you figure that? I have argued that it shouldn't be included in the article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a third opinion on our disagreement over linking to the Friends of Freddy on this page. Kevinwparker (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally people wait at least a little while for discussion to take place on the talk page before asking for third opinions. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to revert my edits, despite your inability to give any arguments why you deleted the section.

May I remind you that just because the article title is 'woman on top' does not mean that this content doesn't belong on the page. It's even mentioned in the title that another name for it is the 'riding position'.

I don't know why you so strongly object to the inclusion of a little section that isn't worth it's own page? Would you rather prefer if I make a separate page? Because if I did, I think it would rather quickly be nominated for merger into the current page.

You are also engaging in edit warring by reverting my changes, yet you accuse me of the same.

If you wish for this dispute to go anywhere you should take this to the article talk page before you remove the section you have already attempted to remove multiple times. Dialogue is the only remaining option.

This is my last request, If you do not attempt to go into a reasonable discussion with me I will request assistance from a third party.

Civciv5 (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother with a 3RR warning, WLC, but I'm sure you know even if it's the WRONGVERSION that 3RR shouldn't be breached. Discuss it here or on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what does 'WLC' mean? I can't find any info about this acronym.Civciv5 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the talk page you're commenting on. I already left you a note. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Civciv5: Do you happen to live in Belgium? I only ask because three Belgian IP editors added the same ridiculous section ([1] & [2] & [3]) before you started edit warring about it. Did you happen to notice that the article is called "Woman on top"? It's about clitoral stimulation, sex during pregnancy, and that kind of stuff that pertains to women. Just start a new article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was probably me while I was logged out. And it is not a 'ridiculous' section, it makes no sense to make an entire separate page just for such a small text. Also I am not interested in conducting research in order to gather enough information to create such a page. A better idea would be to make the lead gender-neutral and rename it so that it's less weird. Also, all articles titles that are gender neutral or specific to males redirect to this page. Civciv5 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want to make it a gender neutral article, you can propose that on the talk page, but it's not likely to happen since it's not an article about what you call "cowboy position" it's an article about 'all sex positions where the woman is on top. If you don't want to do the work necessary to make a separate article that's not a justification for adding it to this one. Is any of this getting through to you? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote in originally to Admin page because that's where other help wiki pages lead me to post for help; because the Governments Wiki page for Prescott Valley, AZ, has been updated several times, but it keeps reverting to a very old version.

Response that occurred instead is that you deleted the new pics for copyright issues, although the individual has given all his submitted work to us as public domain and as a courtesy we added to credit his work/his name, to his work when it is used. (We're currently looking into a way to satisfy your needs to have it allowed on the Prescott Valley, AZ Government Wiki page, although it relies on the individual/the photographer using the web.)

BUT STILL, the whole rest of the page is reverted back to it's old version. There is no reason to update it yet again, if tomorrow it will revert back. This is an issue, since this page is supposed to represent the city/Government of Prescott Valley, AZ. Please reply specifically who/where/a link/an email, that can be contacted to fix this issue.

If there is a way/or need to discuss this through email, please provide an email address. Thank you

Hldahms (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know anything about that article or Prescott Valley, Arizona. You could try asking your question at Wikipedia:Help desk. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think through many links I finally tracked down what editor was doing it, and just wrote them. I don't know how to set this for deletion, or do I just erase all this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hldahms (talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it. And I suspect you should read WP:COI. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was pretty sure it was going to be deleted, but sooner is better than later. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the other point you were making. Maybe you should go see if they've been warned via ArbCom's BLP case. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I just alerted them after seeing this conversation. (Sorry WLC, I know we haven't gotten along in the past, but didn't think you would mind this note.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright--thanks Tony. I'm sure you saw the AfD and maybe the article. That's not cool. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, TonyBallioni. Thanks both. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about Peppermint (drag queen) at the LGBT Wikiproject talk page is off-topic, and should not be there. So, I moved the discussion to Talk:Peppermint (drag queen) per WP:TPOC #4, leaving back and forward links. I see you promptly reverted the move.

Please discuss how to improve the article "Peppermint (drag queen)" at Talk:Peppermint (drag queen). This is what article Talk pages are for. The WikiProject Talk page WT:LGBT is not the right place to discuss how to improve a particular article. It's perfectly fine to leave a request at the Project talk page with a request for opinions or feedback about a particular article, but the discussion itself should be held at the talk page of the article in question, according to the Talk page guideline. Writing an edit summary like, Thanks, but this is where I intended to post, so please leave it alone, doesn't change what the guideline recommends.

Please undo your reverts, and discuss article improvements at the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notification of the BLP noticeboard for the LGBT wikiproject. It isn't a discussion about the article. I understand that you don't like it, but it will get archived soon enough. Just ignore it and it will go away by itself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi World's Lamest Critic,

Please do not add personal information without my authorization. The outing of my real identity in the past was not of my conscious choice, but because someone was creating attack pages/accounts in my name previously and I was forced to defendmyself. I do not wish to be publicly known. As a result I have not tampered with your discussion, but I removed my name and linkedin accordingly. Your request can still be fulfilled without reference to these things. --TF92 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing conflicts of interest it is permissible to identity the identity of users to make the case. Since you identified yourself on-wiki, there is no question of outing in any case. I'm sorry that you are upset by this, but the issue is your editing in regard to your business interests. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not willingly identify myself, it was a personal attack which done it. You are "outing" me against my will. I also suspect that you have acted on anaonymous tipoff which has been sent by a specific business rival. That in itself is a conflict of interest from who reported it.- --TF92 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion on AN/I. I commented there at the time. If you have an issue with my posting, please take it up there rather than changing my post. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made my position clear on this thread. Kindly please stop using my real name when I have been outed at my own will, it is violating policy. It makes no difference to the investigation--TF92 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extortionate abuse of power on your behalf. I have a right to privacy, I have not rescinded that right, please respect it. My name is irrelevant to the case in question. TF92 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no power here. I'm just a sad little powerless person sitting in front of a dimly flickering computer screen like everyone else. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a consensus by the other editors participating on that thread that my name should not be mentioned. Please respect that.TF92 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The jig is up. Just accept it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of that page "Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email."- It is not up. This is absolutely disgraceful behaviour from a so-called sysop. It is rash, immature and against wikipedia policy.TF92 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: can you tell me why I am currently blocked? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

@Primefac: So I am being blocked for using the admitted real life name of a user involved in COI editing, but Jytdog is not being blocked for doing the same thing on ANI? Or is there more to it than that? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me deal with Jytdog. They didn't edit-war to post someone's LinkedIn profile on Wikipedia. There's connecting the dots on-wiki and there's connecting things off-wiki. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from your reply that I am blocked because I included a link to a user's LinkedIn page? This would be a lot easier if you stated why I am blocked rather than making me guess. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know why you were blocked, and I'm starting to realize based on your continued posts here that you're not going to stop attempting to break the rules. You are welcome to follow the instructions in the block notice above. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]