User talk:Guccisamsclub

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)
 * . 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)

Edward S. Herman
I notice you have contributed to the Edward S. Herman page. Would it be possible for you to help build a POV consensus on the page? There is currently an NPOV dispute. Prop9 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)