User talk:Guccisamsclub

The Black Book of Communism

Moved to Talk:The Black Book of Communism#WP:TAGBOMB

Disappointed

Very disappointing to see that you cite your misunderstanding of my remark -- which we amicably worked through with little effort -- as some kind of counterpunch or rationalization at Arbcom Enforcement. I suggest you strike that or provide the follow up that invalidates your belligerent statement. I have no present intention of getting into a squabble there, but as I'm sure you're aware, that diff from you could be read as an example of exactly what I was talking about. Little did I expect that you of all people would do something like that. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking well of me, but I was practically forced to provide some context to Steve's selective quotation. And that's all I provided. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You know that these things are free-for-alls. That was the point of my comment. I will show up to defend my honour if necessary. It's nothing personal, just the way of the world. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I will show up to defend my honour if necessary No doubt about that. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Threatening litigation" ??? Have some pride. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Aspersions? Is that like when you accuse a user of 4 non-existent DS violations in order to get them blocked (in retaliation for nothing, I might add)? Or does that count as "defending one's honor." Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

One day, you'll realize that it would have been easier to read the link, benefit from what it says, etc. etc. (or not) than try to make a clever clueless remark. Your choice. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's easier to just ignore. Thanks for the reminder.Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Hi Gucci, it seems that the same user who kept adding that Julian Assange "promoted conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and John Podesta" on Assange's personal page has posted the same exact thing on the Wikileaks page. VasOling (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Logan Act

You're edit-warring and this is content related to ARBAP2. There may be a policy-compliant way for you to provide whatever context RS tell us is relevant to the content, but your edit-warring is not acceptable. I am providing this explanation in lieu of the required template. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was only the US election. Ok, don't really care. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: can you please stop "thanking" me for edits I'm forced (by you) to make. It's obnoxious. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. I thought you were being collegial. Fie upon you! Better? SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation

Please note that you violated 1RR rule on the page [1],[2]. Also note that the subject is under discretionary sanctions. As about content being challenged, I checked the discussion [3], and can see that no, another user started this discussion to challenge your unilateral removal of sourced info. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No you violated the rules by reinstating an edit that has been challenged by reversion. There is clearly no consensus as of yet to include this crap. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So, you are telling that your 1RR violation was just fine and you are going to continue the same? My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are telling me your WP:ARBAPDS violation — which I reverted — was just fine and are you going to continue with same? Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you insist, I think it will be best if admins would look at this. If they tell that your violation of 1RR rule on the page was OK, I will apologize. Hence I reported it to WP:3RRNB. No, I am not going to revert anything. I am going to listen what admins tell. My very best wishes (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, you are free to argue your case here, Guccisamsclub. Please submit evidence in the form of diffs if you choose to do so. Incidentally, I noticed that a warning that the user was listed on AN3 was absent, My very best wishes. Please remember to include such warnings on any future listings. Thanks. El_C 06:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@G. I quickly looked at these pages because you pinged me. As about this editing restriction, I think it is unhelpful and only causes confusion. It is frequently difficult to tell who actually violated WP:Consensus on the page - the person who unilaterally removed well-sourced and relevant information or someone who restored it. This is complicated and opened to alternative interpretations. We need a bright line here, and that is 1RR. This is rather obvious from AE discussions, and not only for me [4]. Sorry, but I am too busy at work. My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that on the behavioral guidelines pages discussing the general WP issue of reverts and edit-warring, it's clear that best practice is simply never to get close to the line. Don't worry about which version is "right" or which view is temporarily in the article. Just find a consensus so that nobody will revert the ultimate consensus. (Of course BLP violations or vandalism must be removed immediately.) SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

On a page with 1RR restriction everyone is very "close to the line" and people frequently cross that line unintentionally. That's why I asked G. to self-revert. However, when he refused to follow 1RR at all, I had to report it. G. posted below his argument. OK, I think he argues that any user can unilaterally remove any information on these pages and demand "consensus", no matter how important and well sourced that information could be. I am sure that acting this way goes against our core policies, such as WP:NPOV that requires all important and well sourced info be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:, I agree that core site policy must always be observed. That's our primary responsibility, and the removal of obviously Verified, RS content should not be removed. I would say that any attempt to game those core principles is itself a violation of the purpose and spirit of these ARBAP2 sanctions. Some editors may not have read the entire Arbcom case with evidence and principles. Actually, it was that sort of edgy behavior that I intended to say we must scrupulously avoid. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Block

Hi. You've been blocked for 24 hours due to 1RR violation of post-1932 politics of the United States discretionary sanctions. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 06:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• @El C:: I'd have been blocked for doing what My Very Best Wishes did. In fact, before I knew about this policy, I was given a big fat warning by SPECIFICO about it a while ago. The policy in question — known as ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES — is stated at the top of the relevant talkpage: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

So what happened?

• First user Casprings boldly added a new section to the article on on 17:46, 17 February 2017;
• Casprings edit was challenged by JFG on on 19:49, 17 February 2017 (disagreed with the inclusion of rumors about a living person);
• The challenged edit was reinstated by Casprings on 19:51, 17 February 2017 (the editor was well aware that this was a violation);
• I reverted the challenged material again on 20:01, 17 February 2017, citing specific policies: " BLP smear, recentism, synth, and a violation of AE.. I also immediately responded on talk to Casprings, who had started a thread about the challenged edit on 19:53, 17 February 2017
• While the discussion was ongoing, with several editors objecting to the material, My very best wishes reinstated the disputed content again on 03:12, 18 February 2017 (on the grounds that it was "sourced" and that he was "not sure" — not very strong reasoning IMO).
• My very best wishes's edit was not only a clear policy violation: it was also made in flagrant disregard for the very principle of seeking consensus. So on 03:42, 18 February 2017 I reverted My very best wishes for making a blatantly disruptive edit which he unambiguously had no right to make. I was tired of one side consistently and successfully violating ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES, while reporting the other side for violation of same (actually, kind of the opposite: for reverting the other side's unilateral removal of long-standing text without consensus).
• Instead of familiarizing himself with the ongoing discussion and the relevant policy, Wishes reports me for 1RR.
• I am the one who gets blocked.

Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that inserting-reinstating breaches 1RR. The edit may, indeed, be off topic (also constituting recentism, etc.), but don't see it rising to the level of an actual BLP breach. The sources cited seem reliable. As such, whether it is or isn't offtopic (etc.) is subject of a content dispute. I am unable to infer what the consensus is, but I am able to identify when the 1RR discretionary sanctions are to be invoked. Those, barring BLP violations, for our purposes, are set in stone. El_C 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't breach 1RR -- clearly breaches ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES and arguably BLP too. But since the block is only 24 hours, don't really care. I just didn't think the block was fair.Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you deem it unfair. I must, however, caution you about that interpenetration of 1RR, because any future 1RR blocks will be considerably lengthy. El_C 16:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, there's procedure for a block appeal, and this doesn't appear to be a block appeal, so I will comment: On numerous occasions, Gucci has been warned -- and he's been warned and beseeched by many editors to moderate his disruptive conduct -- and Gucci has responded, as can be seen on this talk page and its history, with denial, snark and argumentation. And now instead of addressing the facts, he is still speaking in WP:battleground video game mode. The history of this talk page speaks volumes about the current situation. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS, speaks volumes indeed. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It can serve as a block appeal, which other admins may review and comment on, as far as I'm concerned (I'm not too formal when it comes to that). But you are also free to comment, though I do discourage use of potentially inflammatory terms such as battleground video game mode. Thanks. El_C 16:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I re-reviewed your findings, and found them to be of merit. I, therefore, applied discretionary sanctions to Casprings and My very best wishes: they are both admonished and are topic banned from the article for 24 hours (including talk page). I still don't see that as license to breach 1RR, but your point is taken. Sorry for the delay. El_C 22:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Carr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are repeatedly reinserting primary-sourced content that has been removed by others and discussed on talk. Please read the documentation on primary sources. A link to an article or blog post does not establish WP:WEIGHT to include the fact that article was written. Please undo your latest round of reinsertions and engage on talk. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You've already been reverted by 2 separate editors and admonished by 3! YOU are edit-warring and randomly (as opposed to carefully) deleting sources. Now you're making threats because I reverted you ONCE. Why are you doing this???? Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please strike personal disparagement at Russian intervention.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

You can do better than this [5] Please remove it. SPECIFICO talk 04:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop. Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your amusingly resourceful user page Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I should probably cut down though. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey Carr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB (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) 10:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Hello, I'm BrxBrx. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to WikiLeaks seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 23:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: You're welcome to clarify what you mean or retract it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

[6], [7] make explicit claims that are not substantiated, with an overtly critical tone against the subject of the article, that have not gained consensus. If you want those edits to stay, you'll need to build consensus for that wording on the talk page. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 23:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: Bias against Wikileaks? I never thought I'd be accused of that. Give me an example. Take a look at this edit, where I removed the false allegation that Assange/WL spread "conpiracy theories" about his planned assasination via drone. (Note: My edit also removed some other text from the "conspiracy section" by accident. But I can't fix that until we stop edit-warring). The title of the section dealing with Russia-bias was long-standing it seems. I don't think the new "Anti-Western bias" title is a more appropriate, given the contents. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh crap more spam. @BrxBrx:, can we please sort this out finally. Your revert actually reinstated spurious allegations against Wikileaks, which I tried to delete. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR report

After reading your comments on JFG talk page, I realized that every violation should be officially reported. Hence I did it with regard to your editing on WikiLeaks. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok nice work. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is all for the best, as it may put an end to the angry denials every time a polite 1RR warning or request is left on the user talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR block

Hi. I cut it down from a week to 36 hours, since you did end up resolving the dispute with at least one of the participants. Please be more careful once your block expires. El_C 00:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Batista article

I was wondering if you could help me clean up the Fulgencio Batista article soon. In the lede it states that he killed "20,000", a number I found that originated from Fidel's own government and was later used by Western sources. If we're going to apply the same standards to Castro's article, why not Batista? We could remove the numbers from the lede and make it more NPOV. Sorry about the previous edit I made about "3 legal executions", like I said I'm still looking into Cuba.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that a while ago, but then forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder. The problem with 20,000 is not that it comes from the government (it actually comes from the venerable Bohemia magazine, and was later adopted as official truth), but that it's not based on anything, as the author of the figure later admitted (it was pure invention). The numbers in Fidel Castro of 1000-4000 killings by Batista during the period of insurgency are the ones that modern scholars accept. So the lead should read that Batista killed 1000-4000 people. Just don't delete 20,000 entirely because then some people might get angry with you and argue that it's "well-sourced." Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind though, that these figures relate only to the years of insurgency. Interestingly enough the Castro government was also faced with a CIA-backed insurgency in the early sixties (the so-called Bandit War). Quite a few people were killed on all sides there too. In fact the Communist govt lost 3,000 people in that war, but only the insurgents were recorded as "executed" martyrs by the Cuba Archive. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: I don't think a "war" would equal executions or murder since its two way fighting. Also, I thought it would be better saying what happened in the lede instead of "X amount of people were killed". If we put in the lede of Castro's article "X amount of people were killed", that would be reverted pretty quickly. I don't even see a mention of executions in Castro's lede.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We could say "including combatants". But these people were killed by Batista's forces during the period of insurgency. I'd keep it in the lede for now and reduce the number. This actually improves Batista's image, since a lot of people think he killed 20K. I don't see the relevance of Castro's bio, since there is no moral equivalence. Killing torturers and killers is not the same as killing those who want to overthrow them, and it's not treated the same in the scholarly literature. I am not saying that all executions under Castro were justified, just that they are not necessarily comparable to killings by Batista. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to decide whose life is worth taking or not, or that it is up to how it happened. If we can mention it with Batista, Castro is just as guilty. You understand? Both allegedly killed thousands, both had disputed human rights records. I think if we are going to be truly NPOV on Wikipedia, Batista should have a similar article as Castro. Or does Castro get special treatment?--ZiaLater (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Batista should have a similar article as Castro ... Castro is just as guilty You can have your opinion, but that's up to RS and the major actors involved to decide. Clearly Kennedy, the CIA, anti-Castro exiles, Cuban Communists, and numerous other observers all thought that Batista's terror was totally unjustified, counterproductive and a pretty big deal. In Castro's case, it's mainly Cuban exiles and the American observers who think so. They continue to think so, despite the changing reality. The Cuban government has probably executed dozens of people since 1970, not thousands. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding "Eastern" sources who believed Castro was "totalitarian" and a "dictator" as well. Any other comments? I'm just trying to understand what makes Castro above the law while Batista is not. Sure, Batista did not have friends in the US too, but to keep it POV is not the right thing to do in this case. All the scientists (sources) in the world can tell me that the sky is green, but my eyes (the reader) can see that it is blue. So, my eyes see that there is a clear bias in the lead of Batista marking him as a "dictator", "public executions", etc. Other readers can see this as well. Does this make it neutral? No. My argument is you can compare Castro to Batista. Neither of them are Holocaust causing or gulaging dictators, they killed thousands, they assumed power without elections and pulled the strings of Cuba at their will. Western sources can be used to call Batista a dictator and such, why not Castro? None of this makes sense if we are going to be truly neutral. Hope I'm not coming off rough!--ZiaLater (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's too long to explain. Read the RfC. You can create an RfC to dispute Batista's description as dictator from 1952—59, but the Castro RfC will tell you why that may not be a very good idea. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The Batista article is still pretty shitty, and has plenty of POV problems that you can work on. However the dictator label is not one of these problem in my opinion. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I didn't bring up any "Western" sources (EDIT: oops, actually I did... I think it's a combination of North/South, East/West, with a heaping tablespoon of USA/World), so I'm not sure what "Eastern" means. Vehement anti-Castroism is mainstream only in the US, particularly Miami. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

All the scientists (sources) in the world can tell me that the sky is green, but my eyes (the reader) can see that it is blue. That's very wrongheaded in general, and on Wikipedia in particular. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's very wrongheaded in general, and on Wikipedia in particular. Mentioning how clear the bias is in the lede if you compare both articles. Also, I read the RfC and a lot of the discussion seemed like it was "only Western sources say Castro is a dictator".--ZiaLater (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion

Gucci, what the hell were you doing here? [8] I guess I'll assume good faith and assume it was some kind of error. But accidental or on purpose, let me warn you that if you ever do that again I will block you myself. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Should flagrant hypocrisy ever be pointed out? Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I think probably shouldn't be editing that page. I've already spent way too much time there and have nothing to show for it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines RE: Russian talk

Please see WP:REDACT. Once an editor has responded to your post on an article talk page, you should strikethrough rather than delete your words, so that the thread retains its meaning for other users. Please undo your deletion and strikethrough. That way, your intention to deprecate your words will be clear, but the subsequent reply will also remain clear. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-fascism edits

Although I don't 100% love your recent edits (eg. you removed the only mention of Trump policy, which obviously relates to perceptions of him), I do support the edits and especially glad you made it sound more concise. Good luck battling all of the trolls who think that if you think trump is shitty then you must be a violent anarchist!

Mjleone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(wikipedia policy = WP:CAPS) You have to follow WP:RS to a tee. The problem with the whole section was one of WP:RECENTISM. The contemporary US really has no antifascist tradition or cohesive "antifascist" movement (not even a marginal one). So the talk about "anti-fascism" in the US was all largely premature, not the sort of "facts" you want to place in an encyclopedia. Other problem was troll magnet. Best to leave it out for now. Guccisamsclub (talk)

At least it's better than I originally found it. Sorry for my sarcastic last edit, I couldn't help myself :P Have a good one

209.6.77.135 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Endless bludgeoning....

Per WP:BLUDGEON, please don't nit-pick others' argument and engage them in tedious debates.Whilst I understand the passion behind argument-ing each other at an AFD, expect others to disagree--even if their opinions seem outright irrational. My advice is to not reply to every single opinion/!vote in the process and adding one comment in a while that may address any or all of the concerns expressed by others.If you feel you are being bludgeoned, please don't repay him/her in the same coin--inspite of however attractive it may seem!Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The issue here is one of WP:PRIMARY / WP:SPS. Essentially, by including primary-sourced comments form unreliable websites, we are acting as judge and jury in deciding whether those statements are significant, and we are also presenting them without any framing from a reality-based perspective. If commentary on Infowars is significant then a reliable independent third party source will cover it, and that's what we should use. If no reliable third party source covers it then we should ignore it, because Alex Jones is a crazy man and he runs a crazy website full of crazy people saying crazy things. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@JzG:. I get your point about the need for more secondary sources. However, Russian state media are not equivalent to CRANK.COM, and they are not WP:PRIMARY or WP:SPS. They are just not any of those things, in point of fact. They are major outlets, with far more reach than the the obscure denial literature cited. Would citing a secondary source like this (on Borisov) assuage your concerns? Also, why did you delete this information, which provides important political context for the section? Seems like the deletion was a little hasty on your part. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You might want to check the WP:RSN archives around RT. It is a propaganda outlet and not considered reliable. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:LISTEN and answer the questions. Is the secondary source I gave good enough for you? Why did you delete the report of the polling firm on Ukrainian opinion? RT's reliability is not the issue here. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Undue denigration of Louise Mensch

You are repeatedly inserting denigration from opinion pieces by marginal sources and commentators at Louise Mensch. This violates our BLP policy. WP must not give undue weight to such material, even where it is published in print or on the web. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm inserting Mensch's own words as quoted by sources that are not at all marginal in the context of the topic. Most of the sources are well-established magazines and newspapers. If you want to take incontrovertible quotes cited in Rolling Stone to RSN — be my guest. I also see you're piggybacking on a totally unrelated thread, and it is unlikely that you have the faintest notion of what that thread is about. This has the effect of smearing me as an editor who is in the habit of pushing fringe and poorly-sourced material. Was this your intention? Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)