User talk:Guccisamsclub

The Black Book of Communism

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

Your continued removal of information on anti-fascism article

If you would like to add information about current conflict arising with anti-fascism in the united states, as you have stated, please feel free to do so. nobody is stopping you. But your continual deletion of current, unbiased information which easily fits the 10-year test for recentism is uncalled for. Just because you dont enjoy reading it doesnt mean you should keep deleting it.

Please contribute to knowledge instead of detract.

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Take it for what it's worth, coming from a young "deplorable" such as myself, but—as much as it pains me to admit it—you're clearly one of Wikipedia's shrewdest editors and you have already immeasurably improved numerous articles since you joined the site almost a year and a half ago. (You've even helped bring out the best in me ... from time to time.) Thank you for all of your hard work and your many original insights. Sincerely,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, thanks! You probably deserve one of these also for you work over at Ramadan Revolution. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Gift for you

WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD exists now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

More Russia hysteria at the Wash Post

At this point, you may want to consider creating a new category of "Reliable WTFs" solely dedicated to the Post. If not for the fact that this kind of yellow journalism can lead to war, it would be downright hilarious.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Take a crack at it if you wish. Off tangent, I'm actually thinking about setting up a fact-check wiki, with a bunch of narrowly-focused articles and some features that wikipedia is missing: like a reference database and semantic annotations, click-to-edit with the Atom (text editor) etc. I dunno how interested you are in wiki-tech, but this is Mediawiki-based. There's also an scarily powerful and fast wiki platform called XWiki, but it has few ready-made components for an encyclopedia-type wiki (while it's behind in that respect, you can write sophisticated extensions for XWiki in about 1/100th of the time it would take on mediawiki; plus users can actually construct their own data-driven apps and interfaces with just a GUI!). I have many gripes with Wikipedia's usability and limitations. I'm interested in hearing from a long-time user what kinds of features are most sorely missing from wikipedia, and what would be some nice to haves. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

While that sounds like a very interesting project, I'm probably not the best person to ask for advice. I don't know enough about the topic, and I've been using Wikipedia long enough that I no longer notice its imperfections.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This is more like feedback, rather than technical advice. I guess my biggest problem is that the lack of structure and the crappy tooling throughout the project. I know it's possible to get used to anything, but I don't get how anyone could try to edit an info-box and not cringe. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you there, but I still don't think I could add much to what you know already. I like to think I'm pretty smart, but to be perfectly candid I also lack creativity when it comes to this sort of thing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

A real treat to meet THE Mr. Wikipedia. Here's a pie I bought for you from Sam's Club. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hits the spot. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Russian Interference

Hello Gunnisamsclub. I reverted some text that per my edit summary I believe to be SYNTH and not directly related to the topic of the article. Per the Discretionary Sanctions notice on the talk page, your reinsertion of that text violates the following restriction:

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.

Accordingly, I ask you to undo your reinsertion and use the article talk page to seek consensus for your view. As you will note from my edit summary, I did not state that the text was not cited to RS. I stated a different policy-based objection.

Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your objection? That it's irrelevant to the subject? As I've said in my edit summary, that is simply not true. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors can disagree on content, but we are not permitted to disagree about the sanctions. Do you deny that you violated the sanction I cited above? Do you deny its validity? Do you think you are exempt? If so why? Because your view is correct? I'm not understanding your view. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any violation of policy here by Guccisamsclub. I don't see any objections on the talk page to the material that was removed, and it's pretty clear why it was removed, and you SPECIFICO insists that it not be reinserted: it quotes well-known public figures who have expressed skepticism about the case against Russia. Most of the involved editors' points of view are clear now, so I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that quotes by Scott Ritter and Jeffrey Taia were removed for overtly political reasons from the article. As usual, the editors who do so quote some policy acronym as a fig leaf. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This was actually regarding the inclusion of information about past interventions, which was meant to contextualize the 2016 issue. There was eventually an RfC about this, and almost everyone voted against inclusion. Now the article just contains opinions about how this is a completely unprecedented act (from RS Bob Baer) and how it's just like 9/11 (Michael Morell). These certifiably retarded opinions now stand completely unchallenged , but gotta live with it.Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

There is a case posted at WP:AE that concerns you. It is located here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Yup, defending your "honor" (by smearing an editor who did report or even threaten you in any way). Figures. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)