User talk:Soibangla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the General Nature of your edits[edit]

After taking a random curiosity in one of your edits, I took it upon myself to review your edit history. In doing so, it is inevitable to conclude that you (almost) solely interact with highly contentious current political events and the people that surround them. While there is nothing wrong with a narrow band of editing interests, per se, I would also say, that many of your edits appear to promote (implicitly or explicitly) but a single side of a dualistic worldview. NPoV, as I understand it, is fundamentally non-dualistic; certainly it is not the kind of profile view which can be evidently perceived in a great deal of your edits. Overly emotive conjugation exclusively in one political direction seems to be the main issue I see, if I had to describe it succinctly.

  • sort of getting on my soapbox for a second. The fact that so few of your contributions are reversed I feel is more of an indictment of the increasingly biased state of Wikipedia, than it is evidence of the NPoV nature of your edits.

P.S. Many of the sentiments your edits convey I agree with. But, Wikipedia is meant to be sentiment free. (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternatively, ”The fact that so few of your contributions are reversed” means they are objectively true. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is anything but "sentiment-free," given the biased wording of many pages regarding political topics or figures. Additionally, the reasons for removal are vague blanket statements to practice censorship against POVs providing objective counterbalance, lest people read an actual neutral page and end up thinking for themselves. (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing about political topics is hard. It's challenging to thread the needle and there's always gonna be someone who gets pissed off. Always, no matter how words are phrased. Also, as we've learned quite clearly in recent years, there are lotsa people who hold beliefs that aren't reality-compliant, and they get really pissed off when sources don't confirm their beliefs. If people think it's all-so-unfair, the solution is the same as it's ever been: participate. As always, I encourage others to challenge my edits, but they gotta have skin in the game. No one is being censored, all anyone has to do is comply with the non-partisan rules that apply to all, but some refuse and think they're entitled to their own rules. So they come to Talk pages to anonymously shoot spitballs, which accomplishes nothing. Please see this and this regarding your specious complaint, which you were confident was an example of me removing plainly neutral content. soibangla (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rules could not possibly be more partisan. If one is only allowed to quote from left wing corporate media, then by definition Wikipedia exercises censorship on a massive scale. (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct. "Soibangla" is simply a propaganda maintainer. Truly a bottom feeder. (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would take that as a compliment, coming from someone that vomits uncivilized dribble such as yourself. DN (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drivel (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dribble is a subset of drivel. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiliam Barr[edit]

You reverted my edit on the William Barr page without looking at the discussion on the talk page, then claimed I did so without explaining why the edit was necessary. Kindly take the time to read the talk page before reverting edits. As to the article on Barr, I suggest it is being used by people simply to make the subject of the article look bad - for example, the William Safire quote, Wikipedia policy requires that articles should maintain a neutral point of view. An extended discussion on a long ago and routine pardon from 27 years ago is not necessary for the article on Barr.Princetoniac (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Princetoniac: Please note "per Talk" in your edit summary. soibangla (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen your contributions page and notice that every edit you make is about Donald Trump or Robert Mueller. This is not what Wikipedia is intended for.Princetoniac (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Princetoniac:This drama could've been avoided had you simply added an edit summary, but you left it blank. And I will choose what topics to participate in, thank you very much. soibangla (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have no objection to my reasonable edit, which was meant to improve the article, then it should be restored.Princetoniac (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Princetoniac: You asserted you had consensus for the edit on Talk. Confirm that with others there and restore it yourself. Do you actually expect me to advocate for you now? We're done. soibangla (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just take a day or two to think about whether you are using Wikipedia in the wrong fashion. If every edit is about the same subject, or closely related subjects, perhaps you are unaware of a bias in your own work. Is editing Wikipedia about improving articles, or damaging the subject of those articles? Are you pursuing a political agenda on Wikipedia? If not, why not edit an article on some other subject?Princetoniac (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Princetoniac: - To quote from WP:NPA, Comment on content, not on the contributor. At this point, you are discussing your changes on the article talk page, you need to concentrate on that. Be specific about what changes you want to make and where. It's worth breaking your edit into several separate changes, with specifics about why you think they should be made. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case you hadn't noticed, we are now living in a remarkable time, an unprecedented time, a golden age of journalism. There is a firehose of information hitting us every day about this president. I have chosen to help document this era, and there's a very good reason why very few of my edits are reverted. You can edit what you want, and I can edit what I want, and we can peacefully coexist here. All you had to do was add an edit summary, that's all you had to do, and we wouldn't even be talking here. If you persist with this nonsense, you're just engaged in harassment. soibangla (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephanie Grisham[edit]

Hello Soibangla. The mediaite reference [1] refuting Stephanie's Op-ed [2] takes the Stephanie Grisham's Op-Ed out of context and steers away from the actual point. Stephanie Grisham's Op-Ed is specifically about how White House provided the Washington Post reporters with a list, the Post article ignored most of them--including the Veterans' loan forgiveness program and the walk across the DMZ. They do not claim that the Washington Post never reported on those events at all. They claim that the posts article on Trump's (lack of accomplishments) ignored a lot of his accomplishments. Happy to discuss this more. Rtarizona (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The op-ed states the White House proudly provided it with a detailed list of the administration’s 26 most important successes. Note they did not provide the list in the op-ed. The Trump White House has a fascinating tendency to characterize as "successes" what objective observers would not interpret that way, and that's why they aren't reported, because journalists aren't the president's gullible shills. The White House is spinning, and the press ain't buyin' it. Meanwhile, the op-ed provides a handful of examples of what they claim the Post didn't report, but Mediaite links to Post articles reporting about each of them. And, quite hilariously, the op-ed actually links to a Post article about something Grisham/Gidley said the Post didn't report. Oops. soibangla (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@soibangla Thank you for your response. Agree that Stephanie Grisham could have provided the list in her Op-Ed. In fairness and to see this objectively, in the Op-Ed Grisham talks specifically about The Washington Post Report[3] "Trump's lost summer" - How the WaPo authors skipped many things including the DMZ story, which Washington Post had originally reported on. Grisham's op-ed has the link to the WaPo DMZ story to make the case that Washington Post had originally reported on the DMZ story but then choose to not include the DMZ story in the "Trump's lost summer" report. Coming back to my original request to not refer the mediate link in this wiki article - my point is that mediate article doesn't refute Grisham's Op-Ed on factual merit instead commits a straw-man fallacy by making it sound like as if in the Op-Ed Grisham is talking about WaPo not covering Trump stories over the summer, which is not the case.Rtarizona (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grisham/Gidley use sleight of hand to suggest that the Post’s “lost summer” article should have been some sort of recital of Trump accomplishments, to suggest that the Post ignored important stories, but that was not the purpose of the article. Other articles might be lists of stuff, but this one wasn’t. The fact is the Post did report the stories Grisham/Gidley said the Post didn’t, just not in that particular article they didn’t like. soibangla (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discretionary sanctions alert concerning BLPs, please read[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: On what basis do you send me this? soibangla (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the basis you are editing relevant high profile articles - anyone editing in both American politics and BLPs should have both, really. I'm not clear why you are asking me about this when you normally just remove alerts without a comment, so far as I can see. Remember it's just an alert. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller: Are you suggesting there is a problem with my BLP edits? soibangla (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller: I am aware that some partisan editors use this alert in an attempt to intimidate others into silence. Unless you have a specific complaint about my edits, I suggest you refrain from sending generic alerts without cause soibangla (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any opinion about your edits. I haven't even looked to see if you are pro or anti-Trump, for instance. If I had a specific complaint I'd have made it. No one should be intimidated into silence by an alert which explicitly says it doesn't imply any problems. I helped write some of these sanctions when I was an Arbitrator and was involved in changing the wording later so they would make it explicit that they were "standard messages" and didn't imply any problems. Have I missed something or have you also asked the same question when given the AP and gun control alerts? Doug Weller talk 18:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest these alerts be used sparingly and only if a specific problem is evident. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker)Generally they are given to fulfill the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness requirements. Pretty much everyone in the topic area gets them. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's correct. A number of experienced editors worked hard to make sure the alert did not suggest that there was evidence of a specific problem. They should be given widely, else they might be seen as suggesting a problem or being used for intimidation. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please consider changing the language to "This is a standard message periodically sent to all BLP editors..." Cheers. soibangla (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be a good addition to the template. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest that the warning include the words "Sent to you by an editor that knows more about these things than you because I suspect that your future edits may not meet Wikipedia's standards. There is nothing that you have done to make me suspect this, it is just a hunch." Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please strike[edit]

Soibangla, your post here [[1]] contains both polimic and material that sure looks like a personal attack, "I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here. " You, North8000, and myself are the only involved editors so it would be very easy to assume you are calling me a liar. If you don't remove the comment I will take it to ANI. Springee (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Springee I did not call you or the other editor a liar. soibangla (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then who are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 16:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am referring in generic terms to organized groups, to which I did not associate either of the two editors. Note my reference to the gun lobby. Also note my references to "they," rather than to "you." soibangla (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said "including here." That's pretty direct and unambiguous. Atsme Talk 📧 17:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is neither direct nor unambiguous, and your previous tone toward me should disqualify you from this matter. soibangla (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given your accusations of bad faith directed at other editors when your edits are questioned I think this falls into one of two buckets. Either you did mean this as a personal attack or you don't understand why a reasonable editor would see it as such. If the latter is true then this is a question of competency. Either way, it is a violation of WP:POLEMIC. Delete the statement or expect to defend your behavior at ANI. Springee (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Economic policy of Donald Trump[edit]

Your edit implies a direct correlation between Grassley's op-ed and Trump's rollback of tariffs. The NY Times article does not; it refers to pressure from Republicans - it does not draw a 1:1 relationship between Grassley's op-ed and Trump's actions. It's synthesis. Anastrophe (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anastrophe I added language to connect the dots soibangla (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dramatically better. Thank you very much!! Anastrophe (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Enforced BRD" rule violation[edit]

Greetings Soibangla. This edit[2] restored text that you introduced recently and that I reverted. It must be discussed first. Please self-revert and seek consensus. — JFG talk 20:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JFG As I mentioned in my edit summary, you did not provide an explanation for your reversion other than some "Procedural removal," but referred to Talk:Donald_Trump#Reversion_explanation, though this particular edit is separate from MONGO's previous edit predicated on BRD, so it has nothing to do with Talk:Donald_Trump#Reversion_explanation. soibangla (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural or not, JFG removed it here...and you restored it. JFGs removal appears to be the BRD and you need consensus to restore. I suggest you remove it and post an Rfd and gain concensus.--MONGO (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JFGs removal appears to be the BRD is clearly false. You invoked BRD for your revert, and I challenge your rationale unless you can explain precisely why the edit was BOLD rather than, say, WP:IREALLYDONTLIKEIT soibangla (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, I did not remove your newer content by mistake. My revert included BOTH the bit that has been edit-warred over by several editors (procedural revert), AND the bit that you added later (normal BRD revert). I should have made two separate reverts to make it clear this was my intent. Now please move to the discussion page, on which I have opened a section to discuss the merits of your additions. Again, I have not yet formed an opinion on your proposed content, and I'm waiting for you and other people to make their case. The most important part of BRD is Discuss. — JFG talk 06:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soibangla, you've asserted several times on the talk page that your edit was not BOLD and that the rationale for reversion was procedural BRD. These are both false. Your edit was reverted because people thought it was WP:UNDUE, and your edit was BOLD because it was the first edit in the BRD cycle...the edit that changed the status quo. You need to stop trying to make this be about process and start addressing the actual concerns of the people who reverted the edit. For example, since the main concern is that the addition is UNDUE, you might start by finding a way to word the addition that gives it less WEIGHT or by providing more sources that are more explicit about this is a major/important thing and not just the news of the day, to be forgotten tomorrow. ~Awilley (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awilley: I fundamentally disagree based on WP:BRD-NOT:
  • BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
  • BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
  • BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. soibangla (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with any of the 3 bullet points above, but don't see how they relate to the current situation. Could you maybe be more specific about what you fundamentally disagree with? Are you disputing that this was a bold addition of new material, or are you claiming that WP:UNDUE (policy) was not the rationale for this revert? ~Awilley (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it was not BOLD, and UNDUE was not a reasonable rationale for the revert. If R in BRD means "revert," what does BRD is never a reason for reverting in WP:BRD-NOT mean? The individual who reverted has not been shy about expressing his/her strong political persuasions. The real reason for the revert was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that was not my real reason. I further explained my reasoning on the article talkpage. I did however omit in my latest comments there that I am strongly opposed due to recentism issues and prognostications including what people think the future holds, see WP:SPECULATION.--MONGO (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I explained to you, CNBC used actual data, as the source states. They are not speculating. soibangla (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MONGO: Given your frequent and open expressions of your strongly-held political views on various Talk pages, I find it challenging to AGF in your actions. soibangla (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not the only editor that has reverted and or expressed disagreement with the edit(s) in question that you performed. I still suggest you post an Rfc at the Trump talkpage and gain concensus for your edit.--MONGO (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your buddy JFG says "all" edits are BOLD by definition. I strenuously disagree, in general and most certainly in this specific instance. Many editors have noted that the other individual who voiced disagreement is often nearly incomprehensible in their arguments, and in this specific case s/he insisted that I talk to you about the factual basis of the edit, which I pointed out I already had. Twice. And now there is a discussion underway about "tag-team reversions." Oh the irony. And you just made a bogus accusation that I was cherrypicking, when in fact it was you who was clearly cherrypicking. I call bullshit. soibangla (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) I am not MONGO's or anyone's "buddy". 2) There's a talk page thread to discuss the impact of Trump tariffs on U.S. consumers. Please go discuss there. 3) You still have not self-reverted this,[3] and that's still a rule violation, irrespective of whether the content has merit. I might even support it, but the WP:ONUS is on you to obtain consensus. — JFG talk 22:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you continue to assert that all edits are BOLD? Your interpretation of the BRD does not actually support it. It simply says that BOLD edits happen, not that all edits are BOLD. And it didn't happen here. The edit was not BOLD, it was not UNDUE. It's simply information that causes some to experience extreme cognitive dissonance. That's all it is. And that's why others restored it, because they saw the reversion for the bullshit it really was. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a buddy! Hallelujah! I do not know who the "incomprehensible" editor is, perhaps you'd like to insult them more publicly. The fact you only included one part of Kudlow's comments on the tariff issue is pure Confirmation bias and is textbook Cherry picking of a RS on your part. To show why I meant this is better placed in a daughter article so we can follow WP:SS I did not remove the same addition from the Presidency of Donald Trump article where you had placed the same one sided content, but instead added an expansion to help maintain neutrality here and I used the same source you had.--MONGO (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you only included one part of Kudlow's comments on the tariff issue What a total load. You cherrypicked to omit what he said. My edit was faithful to what he actually said. soibangla (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"faithful" to part of what he omitted the rest, but I added it to the article where it is better suited. I'm done here.--MONGO (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. Your reading of what he said is incorrect. Period. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soibangla, Re: "it was not BOLD". We're not talking about the dictionary definition of "Bold" (i.e. confident, courageous, daring, etc.), we're talking about the Wikipedia definition, which is basically "any edit changes the status quo". A WP:BOLD edit is not a bad thing that needs to be reverted, it's a good thing, and it's how the encyclopedia gets written. Every BOLD edit has the potential to start a BRD cycle if it is reverted, but most BOLD edits go unchallenged and go on to become the new status quo. Please accept this and move on. Everybody else gets it. ~Awilley (talk)
@Awilley: I do not see the words "status quo" on either WP:BRD or WP:BOLD page. "Any edit that changes the status quo" would include any edit, including simple punctuation. Are you saying that any edit can be challenged as BOLD? If every edit can be considered BOLD, Wikipedia would descend into a mayhem of reversions and endless Talk and the whole show would come to a screeching halt. I'm pretty sure "Everybody else gets it" that BOLD does, in fact, mean "confident, courageous, daring, etc," hence the reason it can be used as justification for reversion. And in this case, my edit was not BOLD. It simply wasn't. And again, I ask: why does WP:BRD-NOT state BRD is never a reason for reverting? This seems inherently contradictory. I submit that this policy is profoundly ambiguous, and ambiguity can be exploited to GAME, as I maintain is what has happened in this case. soibangla (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soibangla, I don't know why you're getting so hung up on BOLD. "Are you saying that any edit can be challenged as BOLD?" No. I'm saying any edit can be challenged, period. Forget BOLD. There's no contradiction. Any edit, including simple punctuation, can be challenged, but "BRD" itself, as you pointed out numerous times, isn't a valid reason for challenging. BRD is just a roadmap for what to do when an edit is challenged. Take a minute and read the "active arbitration remedy" at the top of the Donald Trump talk page. It says, "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours...before reinstating your edit." That's any edit. It doesn't say "if a BOLD edit you make is challenged." ~Awilley (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awilley So why does "Enforced BRD" mean any edit when BRD literally means Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Why doesn't the banner simply say "any edit" without reference to BRD? So it's BRD but actually it's not? And below you said I "made a bold edit that was reverted." Why call it bold, if any edit can be reverted? soibangla (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JFG, Re: "You still have not self-reverted this, and that's still a rule violation" That's not a rule violation, JFG, and you know it. Soibangla, despite not seeming to have a clue about what BRD means, is following the BRD cycle to the letter. They made a bold edit that was reverted, they discussed that on the talk page, and then they made a new edit that only added back half of the material that was removed. (They left out the bit about the tariffs being equal to a tax increase.) That's how BRD is supposed to work. ~Awilley (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to split hairs here, but Soibangla did not discuss the merits of the part they left in the article, and has instead resorted to personal attacks against editors who disagree with him/her. Not cool. I don't even care about this content, but I do care about civility, good faith, and process. — JFG talk 23:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awilley: added back half of the material that was removed is inaccurate. It was a wholly separate, second edit, then JFG reverted the whole shebang as though the second edit was subject to the same reversion justification as the first edit. Can you see how I don't see this as fair play? soibangla (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soibangla, yes, I see that now. I had missed it before. So technically that once sentence should not have been part of the "procedural revert", but it's also understandable that JFG removed the whole paragraph. I also see now that JFG was correct in saying that you are in violation of the BRD sanction. You added material, JFG challenged it by reversion, and you added it back without waiting the required 24 hours. Although the revert was only 45 minutes from the 24-hr mark, close enough that asking you to self-revert or placing a sanction would be more punitive than preventative. I've stricken my incorrect comment to JFG above (sorry JFG, my bad). ~Awilley (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awilley it's also understandable that JFG removed the whole paragraph Welp, I disagree because should not have been part of the "procedural revert". I suggest this whole BOLD and BRD thing needs some serious rethinking, it's ambiguous and contradictory, and I really don't think it's because it's my not seeming to have a clue (was that really necessary?). That's all I got. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JFG: Do you continue to assert that you merely fixed the formatting of my citation on Crossfire Hurricane, rather than fully reverted it unnecessarily, as you actually did? Do you agree with MONGO that I cherrypicked what Kudlow said in my edit, when in reality he cherrypicked? I am finding it increasing difficult to AGF with you guys, so I suggest you act in ways to induce me to and then we can all get along just fine. soibangla (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: fixed the formatting of my citation on Crossfire Hurricane, which diff are you talking about? Re:Kudlow, MONGO's version is more neutral, as it reflects that Kudlow stated both that tariffs have a moderate negative effect on GDP, and that this is a risk worth taking in comparison to other expected benefits on trade balance and domestic jobs. — JFG talk 01:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not getting the diff, you know what went down. As I stated in the edit, it is a "small or moderately negative effect," and the full context of the edit is that Trump says "up" while everyone else, including Kudlow, says "down." That's the whole point, and my edit was faithful to it. And if anyone wanted to enhance the language to their better liking, that would be the preferred option rather than make a wholesale delete. We're here to collaborate, right? soibangla (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, and enhance the language to their better liking is exactly what MONGO did (on the economic policy page, not on the Trump biography page). On your first point, I sincerely don't "know what went down". I edit a lot, you too, I don't remember each and every thing I've ever typed. If you have a concern, show me the diffs of what happened. Otherwise, case closed. — JFG talk 02:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JFG exactly what MONGO did on the economic policy page Nope. And why didn't he do it on Donald Trump? soibangla (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, that was on the presidency page,[4] and MONGO has already explained his rationale: he considers this analysis undue weight for the main Trump biography, and speculation to boot. — JFG talk 02:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, it's UNDUE and will add CRYSTALBALL. Atsme Talk 📧 12:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reFill 2 problems[edit]

First, Thank you for your contributions!

Second, reFill 2 doesn't seems to work well. X1\ (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, sometimes it appears to do more harm than good, and I try to keep an eye out for that. Mostly I use it rather than the original reFill when I cite a WaPo ref, because reFill doesn't handle them right. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At Donald Trump, at least, as long as I'm around it, you could save yourself the effort of using any script, since none of them comes close to the high standard established for that article. You could just drop in a bare URL within ref tags and I'll see to the full cite usually within 48 hours. On the other hand, the status quo works too, if you prefer it. ―Mandruss  02:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
reFill continuing to leave errors. X1\ (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to voice a complaint about reFill 2's inappropriate use of |via=,[5] but I don't know where to do that (scripts generally give you a link in their edit summaries). I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. Do you have any idea where to go? Thanks. ―Mandruss  05:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mandruss and Soibangla; check out this example of reFill 2 junk, too. X1\ (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why widely-used citation scripts should be vetted by the community. Barring that, editors who choose to use them should clean up after them rather than creating work for other editors. ―Mandruss  23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If either of you find a way to help correct this continuing and increasing problem, please tell me too. X1\ (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X1\ Mandruss I'm inclined to stop using the currently available tools altogether and just leave bare URLs. I sure wish someone could write "RefBot" to uniformly format refs sitewide so no one has to deal with this anymore. cc: BullRangifer soibangla (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
soibangla, I have been think along those lines also. X1\ (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have pinged you to my talk page so we can deal with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I'd like to be done with the matter. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I'm hoping we can do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding adding content to leads only[edit]

Hi soibangla. When you add content to article leads as you did here [6], can you please also add them to the article body? The WP:LEAD is meant to summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, so by not adding your content to the body too, the lead is not acting as a summary. Also, if people cut your content in the lead, it would be totally gone from the article. Can you see what I did to improve the article? [7]. It's just one more step. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Investigate the investigators[edit]

Hi, Soibangla! I agreed with your comment, at a recent RfD, that the redirect "Investigate the investigators" was bad because it targeted the Mueller Report, where it isn't mentioned and which it has nothing to do with. So I changed the target to William Barr#Origins of the Russia investigation. Do you agree with that? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content, not contributors[edit]

Please refrain from making comments like this and this on article talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awilley: Please refrain from calling me "clueless" for raising legitimate questions about an ambiguous policy. soibangla (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done ~Awilley (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soibangla, I've also tried to engage with MarkBassett on article talk pages and I know how mindnumbingly frustrating it can be (I was warned ages by an admin for questioning his competence). Just try to be as level-headed and robotic as you can. You do good edits, so don't get yourself blocked for outbursts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Larry Kudlow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidency of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Wray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, can you undo your last revert? The edit I did was mostly to cut down on the unnecessary amount of references. I don't mind if you want to add back "persistently", or I can do that if you prefer. I just don't want to revert the article myself because of 1RR. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OnetwothreeipWell, if it says persistently, don't we need to show that with multiple refs? soibangla (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all, one reference would have to be enough to show if that's the case. Otherwise it would be inappropriately synthesis for us to say that four or five examples constituted persistently. That's something reliable sources have to say themselves, we can't infer that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I agree, because we properly have 8 refs to support that Trump "repeatedly and falsely" asserts his economy is the best in history. If we use just one ref, some other editor is bound to say, "hey, that's just one ref saying that!" soibangla (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is also far too many references, when one or two solid references would be enough. This is why we have Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The rule of thumb is one reference per each fact that could be contested, so definitely "just one ref saying that" is a nonsense argument for someone to make. We can address those issues when we get there though, for now I'm happy to restore the word "persistently" as long as have just one source that makes that case. We can't use the existence of multiple sources as evidence of anything itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Onetwothreeip Well, I'm still not persuaded in these particular cases, but feel free to add back persistently. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trump derangement syndrome[edit]

Well, that made my day. And it reminds me of Battle Chess. PaleoNeonate – 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm however I fail to find any mention of derangement there... —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You're in the Kremlin's sights. [8] R2 (bleep) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL! soibangla (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concise writing[edit]

Hi, when you add items to Presidency of Donald Trump, could you be far more concise in your writing, and limit the sourcing to as few sources as you need? The page suffers from serious size problems, so any overly wordy content is likely to be trimmed or removed entirely, and editors can credibly claim that important items are not important enough to include, which is sometimes a shame (because those items are important). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooganssnoogans Please would you provide an example of me "overdoing it?" soibangla (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example: . Four sources don't seem necessary here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I diligently strive for concision, and I don't have perfect recall here, but I seem to remember that one needed multiple sources for some reason. I assure you I am not in the habit of overciting. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are just helpful pointers to make sure that the content you add will be kept in articles. If it's too verbose and has too many sources, the chances increase that it will be cut from that article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I diligently strive for concision. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of concision, I've seen onetwothree's edits as a good faith attempt at that, nothing more. You are welcome to criticize the substantive details of the edits, explain the problems you see, propose alternate wordings, etc., but accusations of bad faith like this are not helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"nothing more?" I strenuously disagree. soibangla (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. ~Awilley (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you say that raising an issue in Talk, seeing the issue refuted, ignoring that refutation and pivoting to another issue, seeing that issue refuted, ignoring that refutation and pivoting to another issue, seeing that issue refuted, over and over, garnering no support for your position, then falling silent for a day or two, before reverting long-standing content without consensus, exemplifies good faith editing? soibangla (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's indeed what's going on, probably not, but edit summaries and article talk pages still aren't a good place to hash that out. I noticed that onetwothree has made another revert today and I've warned them. ~Awilley (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interleaving comments[edit]

Please don't insert your comments in the middle of other comments as you did twice here. That makes it impossible to see who said what, short of studying the page history. These instances have been corrected by the other editor.

To provide context for a reply I suggest {{tq}}. ―Mandruss  00:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's threaded, it efficiently makes it obvious who is responding to who, about specifically what. soibangla (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. Correct indentation per WP:THREAD is far from universal, so it's never a very reliable indicator of context or intent (which is not to say that we shouldn't do it!). Some editors even sometimes change their indent level within a single comment, for no apparent reason. Editors are accustomed to the idea that all text between successive signatures comprises a single comment from a single editor. ―Mandruss  01:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how it's disruptive, esp when responding to long edits that cover multiple topics. soibangla (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't used the word "disruptive", although one might if you did it more often. At this point I would soften to "confusing". I think the cost exceeds the benefit, considering the acceptable alternatives, and I'm fairly confident that a majority of experienced editors would agree. If you remain unconvinced, by all means keep doing it and see if you get any more complaints (you already have two, from me and that other editor by virtue of their refactoring). ―Mandruss  01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. (Talk) pages are clunky and inefficient, trying to reuse the generic page editing approach for a multithreaded discussion. It may be possible to use it effectively, but it is very difficult to discover how to do so. (Discussion forums might be a better way to talk about articles and their content.) soibangla (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, see the fourth paragraph at WP:TPO. I was aware of some discussion a couple of years ago (and probably participated a little), but I didn't know it resulted in an addition to the guideline. ―Mandruss  04:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trump characterising the economy[edit]

Hi, thanks for self-reverting. It won't be necessary to revert the change I made tomorrow either. I've read your edit summary and this can be solved by removing the specific 28-month time frame for the statement and leaving this as a statement that applies generally to his time in office. I would be grateful if in the future you brought these objections to my attention before reverting so that I can identify these issues and find the reasonable solution. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onetwothreeip I intend to restore it tomorrow to show that his assertions have extended well into his second year, not just through Sep 2018. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't say that he makes the statements until September 2018, it just says that he generally does. The reference just happens to be published then and it's not as if we're saying these statements by him stopped afterwards, nor is there any implication of that. We obviously don't need a reference every month when we have one reference reporting that he states these repeatedly anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Far-right conspiracy website mentioned you[edit]

Here[9]. This indicates you're doing good work. Keep it up! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

haha, thanks for that. I am also "a known quantity" to Putin. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The DNC may be claiming that they received a forensic image of the DNC hardware but the Mueller Report says nothing about a forensic image analyzed by the FBI. It only repeats statements made by the DNC and Crowdstrike:

Days after the June 9 meeting, on June 14, 2016, a cybersecurity firm [Crowdstrike] and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC and obtained access to opposition research on candidate Trump, among other documents.

Mueller explicitly stated that no forensic image was given to the FBI for examination, only a redacted preliminary report made by Crowdstrike. The DNC source you quote either misspoke or is lying. 8675309 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

8675309: Mueller Report, page 40: "As part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." soibangla (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@8675309: you are violating Wikipedia:BRD by not discussing this at Talk:List of conspiracy theories instead of editor's personal Talk pages. X1\ (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Earlier I quoted Mueller. I meant Comey. Sorry for the confusion. The Mueller Report cites the "Netyksho Indictment ¶¶ 28-29" as the source for the "FBI later received images of DNC servers...". That document says nothing about the DNC giving up forensic images of its servers. According to this: [1] the FBI asked for forensic copies but received none. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) asked Comey during a congressional hearing about the forensic images:
BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate — did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
COMEY: In the case of the DNC, … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn’t get direct access.
BURR: But no content?
COMEY: Correct.
BURR: Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?
COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks — the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.
On March 20, 2017 during a House Intelligence Committee hearing and while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics:
HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI’s first notification of some potential problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on — getting on Wikileaks.
COMEY: Yes, sir.
HURD: …when did the DNC provide access for — to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?
COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system. …
HURD: …So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaksand when — youhave still been — never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were — that were hacked by the Russians.
According to Federal Court documents, Crowdstrike does not have forensic images or any evidence of a DNC hack. [2] Under the Rule of Discovery, Stone's attorneys received only redacted drafts of the Crowdstrike forensic report. There is no "Chain of Evidence" here, only redacted drafts. 8675309 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8675309, take it to the relevant Talk page so everyone can scutinize it soibangla (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Mueller Report, page 40: "As part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." The Mueller Report cites its source as [Netyksho Indictment ¶¶ 28-29]. That court document does not say anything about "images" or "FBI" or "traffic logs".8675309 (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8675309, Please stop talking to me here. Take it to the article Talk page. soibangla (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You initially responded to my posting here. Why did you attempt to rebut my information here on your talk page if it's not allowed? 8675309 (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8675309, keep your discussion regarding Wikipedia content only at appropriate Talk pages, in this case only at Talk:List of conspiracy theories. Other editors may not see your comments if you don't. It appears you are singling-out editors and not focusing on improving Wikipedia, i.e. WP:NOTHERE. Stay on content Talk pages, it is there were discussion is consolidated. X1\ (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it appears that I am being singled out and attacked on my talk and elsewhere. I am only trying to improve Wikipedia but apparently others prefer the status quo.8675309 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not being "singled out". This is what we do with everyone who adds poorly sourced contentious material to articles. Guy (help!) 13:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hunter Biden salary[edit]

I had you down as oppose in the summary, and clarified the result to show Oppose/keep is that OK?? RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RonaldDuncan, I oppose your proposed addition. soibangla (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks, I got that, I had you in the list of people that opposed when I closed the discussion :) regards RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brennan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vladimir Putin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiona Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Letter from President Trump to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — December 17, 2019.pdf[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Letter from President Trump to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — December 17, 2019.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biden talk[edit]

I suggest you ask an uninvolved Admin to review the close and its revert. Whatever is going on with this editor, he's just informed us that it is not going to end without some guidance from an Admin. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sean Hannity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Solomon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DS alert refresh: AP[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hello, here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area. Enjoy! ―Mandruss  00:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, for anyone looking for dirt on me:

Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. User:MastCell

soibangla (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair that is just MastCell though, so take that for what it is worth.[FBDB] PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read the thread. After all that concocted drama, Ad Orientem walked away with nuthin'. I didn't even have to say a word. LOL! soibangla (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request[edit]

Hey, Soibangla - would you do us all a favor and provide full reference citations, not bare links, when you add something [10] [11] to an article? At the Michael Cohen article I have been cleaning up references added by IPs, but I didn’t expect to have to do it with an established editor like you. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MelanieN, you may recall that I long reflexively used reFill/Reflinks with each edit, but a certain editor pestered me about the fact that sometimes those tools malfunction and I moved on without noticing it, so I gave up on it. I will resume doing it and show this thread to anyone who subsequently complains. If the tools are not reliable, they need to be revisited. I'm also unclear as to how some editors appear able to fix the refs without apparently running those tools, as far as I can tell. Ideally, a bot should be built to roam the site and do this automatically. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soibangla, the standard editor window has a "Cite" menu. Look at Templates. Under there you will see cite web, cite news etc. It's not quite has handy as a auto complete bot but it allows you to reliably fill in the information. Springee (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be nice if a bot would clean these up but I'm not aware of one. I do it semi-manually, using the "cite" link at the edit window. Anyhow, thanks for saying you will provide full references, and you can blame me if anyone complains. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will use reFill/Reflinks and revert it if it appears mangled, but manually filling out forms to do it is a bit much. I'm very surprised that WP has existed this long without someone botifying this task. soibangla (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean. You used reFill for three refs here, and two of the refs came out fine but one was totally thrashed. Who runs reFill? Is there anyone in charge? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I'll fix it. No extra charge. I appreciate your making the effort. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antifa (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Wray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: TRUMPECON (August 24)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nathan2055 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Soibangla! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already reverted once today (a mundane maintenance edit, but still), so I don't want to touch this myself just yet. However, it seems to me that removing the summary take of the cited source is not the right way to go. Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like MelanieN beat me there. soibangla (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, MelanieN! XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2020 Oregon wildfires
added a link pointing to Antifa
Brian Murphy (intelligence official)
added a link pointing to Robert O'Brien
added a link pointing to Antifa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ratcliffe.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked editor[edit]

The editor "Trying to reconnect"[12] was blocked for sockpuppetry. I believe the editor reverted you on several pages. You can go ahead and restore the edits that this user held up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about "reliable sources"[edit]

Hello. Recently you undid a change I made where I used the New York Post and Fox News. You called them unreliable. Could you explain how international/national news outlets are "unreliable"? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elijahandskip See article Talk page soibangla (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following Wikipedia Protocol.[edit]

When something says "DO NOT MODIFY" it means you don't edit it. 2 time you have stepped over the protocol. Please refrain from editing a close discussion. If you want to discuss it more, please start a new discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not have consensus for this major change. soibangla (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vote was over 24 hours and the topic was in the news. What is truly "Consensus". The topic of a "Joe Biden - Ukraine conspiracy" has been in international news (And 3 things listed on the Portal:Current events) over the past 24 hours. Also the notice of the split was up on the article during the entire "NY Post" problem yesterday. If any other editors wanted to put their vote, they had the chance and the notice. I even made a comment about moving it without an oppose 4 hours before the split. No other comments. I determined consensus based on all that. At this point with all the extra edits done to the new article, it was worth it to go ahead and split. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you have edited the article, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, I am alerting you to a vote. You can vote Here. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request[edit]

FBI, DOJ agree Hunter Biden emails were not Russia disinformation

Please stop posting disinformation. (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ That's a Yahoo news-aggregation link to a Fox video. Fox is not considered generally reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for political topics and this is definitely political. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dominion Voting Systems
added a link pointing to Antifa
added a link pointing to Antifa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Regarding this [13] [14] the sanction on the article requires you to wait 24 hours and discuss your edit on the talk page before reinstating it. (From what I can see you did neither.) I do appreciate that you modified your edit based on Mandruss's objections, but you should have waited 24 hours first. Otherwise you're just bulldozing over the other editor who is also subject to the same restrictions and can't re-revert your edit if they still disagree. ~Awilley (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not you too Bill Barr you incredible bias lefty. I am beginning to wonder just where exactly any last vestiges of "evidence" is coming from. Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Firestar464 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firestar464 I am fascinated that you find my conduct improper but not the conduct of the other editor. If you're gonna inject yourself into this, the least you could've done was to restore my content which the other editor improperly removed. Reverting someone's article edits is commonly acceptable, but removing someone's Talk edits rarely is. It is exceptionally improper and makes it very difficult to AGF. soibangla (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your information. I will look into it. In the meantime, please read WP:KETTLE. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firestar464, I submit you have confused reaction with action. The former would not have happened without the latter. Removing someone's Talk comments is a provocative act. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that very well. Now, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and you should not respond in kind. Simply revert their edit, warn them about it, and move on. Firestar464 (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I did. soibangla (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a heads up, the article is under the consensus required DS. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote in lede?[edit]

Hi, in case you want to chip in. All best, Zazpot (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results
added a link pointing to Mark Meadows
Peter Navarro
added a link pointing to Hatch Act

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 storming of the United States Capitol[edit]

Did you just delete archived urls from a bunch of sources? ...why? RexSueciae (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea what happened there, I'll undo soibangla (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it was already done soibangla (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fox News on DC storming[edit]

I noticed that you removed the mention I added of them criticizing media coverage of the riots. I know that their talk shows are unreliable for facts on politics, but RSP says that they can sometimes be used as sources for attributed opinions, which is how phrased their comments on the article, to make it clear that it was just their opinion. However, because it says "sometimes", I'm not sure if it is acceptable to use them as a source for opinion in this particular case. It would be nice if you could clarify why you think their use an opinion source in this particular instance is wrong. I would also like to clarify that I am not a fan of Fox News at all, so I don't exactly have a bias in adding them as a source. X-Editor (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X-Editor, given RSP language, you raise a reasonable question that I think deserves a broader discussion on the article Talk page, and perhaps beyond. Fox News is reporting what their own paid employees are saying, people who work squarely and unambiguously on the opinion side of their organization, and who have for years consistemtly supported the Trump agenda during Fox News primetime. In this light, they are arguably (and I would argue strongly) "agents" of the larger Trump political operation, and as such should be excluded in this case. If you like, you may have the first word by starting a topic on this on the article Talk page, or if not, maybe I will in the next day or two (or...several? I dunno). soibangla (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soibangla, thanks for your response. I would prefer if you started the talk page discussion on the DC storming article since you were the one that deleted the Fox News content and brought up this issue in the first place. I also agree that the issue is interesting enough to warrant a bigger discussion as well. I'll be on the talk page of the DC Storming article to discuss the issue if you decide to create a discussion surrounding this. I also noticed that the RSP language is vague on Fox News when it comes to sourcing it as opinion in politics and that the language should definitely be clarified, which in and of itself is worth an entirely different and bigger discussion on RSN, which I would suggest you set up as well. P.S. I don't really care too deeply what decision is made on this issue either. X-Editor (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X-Editor, upon further thought, if your sole objective is to restore your content, BRD says you should initiate the article Talk discussion. That said, since we agree the RSP language may need clarification, either of us or anyone else can take it straight to RSN for resolution, though I think the best approach is to discuss on article Talk, see how that goes, then consider going to RSN from there. soibangla (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soibangla My sole objective isn't to restore the content, it's to get consensus on this issue. I'll set up the talk page discussion on the article's talk page soon. X-Editor (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soibangla: Yes, Fox News mostly supported Trump, but they called the election for Biden quite soon. Since then, Trump hasn't been happy with Fox News. See e.g. [15], [16]. We should still be careful with opinions aired by Fox, but I don't think they must be completely excluded in this case. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, pardon the intrusion, but I've noticed you use reFill a lot. Do you use it from the webform or is there a script or something that one can use instead? I'm on Firefox on a Mac, and I'd say it works for me without stalling/timing out maybe half the time I try to use it, so I'm looking for a more reliable method. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, I use the links under Tools in the left sidebar of articles, but yes, it stalls a lot. It sometimes seems to work more consistently after waiting a few seconds to allow the article page to fully load (that’s my theory, anyway) soibangla (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix Citations on Michael Ellis article, please[edit]

Soibangla, the edits you did to Michael Ellis (Trump administration official) seem to have some citation errors. When you get the chance can you clean them up or, heck, tell me how to and I will. Cuz, you know, a person as careful and caring about his community as Mr. Ellis would do the same ;). Thanks. HighAtop94 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HighAtop94, no worries, I'm not done yet. soibangla (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 storming of the United States Capitol[edit]

Please consider the section I have opened at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Refs in lead and 'Prior intelligence' section (Oath Keepers) and discuss this. I agree that the pre-Oath Keepers' pre-planning should be mentioned somehow from the first. Qexigator (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your comment at Talk, and have seen your next edit and its removal, as recorded at the Talk section. I am minded to redo my earlier edit (additing a few words with the references), which I hope you would find more acceptable than nothing. Please reply at Talk, as before. Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's merge our insurrection options in the table somehow[edit]

idea #1: Insurrection at the United States Capitol (year inclusion discussed later)
idea #2: 2021* Insurrection at the United States Capitol
  • year inclusion discussed later
idea #3: 2021 Insurrection at the United States Capitol AND/OR Insurrection at the United States Capitol
Maybe it's pointless, but maybe it's a good idea, what do you think? — Alalch Emis 02:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't fit the charges given out by the feds though. Can call it a riot. Ive seen no insurrection charges though. MisinformationFix (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:TRUMPECON[edit]

Information icon Hello, Soibangla. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:TRUMPECON, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

100% formal apology to you[edit]

I don't want to have any more negative feeling between us, so I want to be completely clear. I am sorry for the blog and it was never intended to smear you. It was deleted a long time ago, so hopefully you can find it in your heart to forgive me and let us move on from the incident. If you really accept this apology, we can have almost like a re-do between us. Forget everything that happened in the past between us. I want to try becoming friendly towards all the other Wikipedians. So in short, will you forgive me? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reaganomics Intro[edit]

Just a note: I was essentially deleting something I (originally) wrote (because I think the other guy put it better). But I don't feel strongly enough to revert your change at this time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:TRUMPECON[edit]

Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "TRUMPECON".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QAnon/Ever Given[edit]

You've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia doesn't repeat gossip or nuttery like that, except in exceptional circumstances. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acroterion and Moriori, perhaps the edit may have been better received had I done a better job of making clear the "speculation" was false. I thought that was evident, particularly given the reference. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could explain why you would add "speculation" to Wikipedia even if you explained it was false. Moriori (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moriori and Acroterion, I honestly don't understand what the controversy is here. The edit simply described yet another false narrative spread by QAnon followers. Maybe the edit was inadequately explicit is that respect, but any suggestion of improper behavior is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need not repeat and effectively amplify every lunatic claim - we already know that the Clintons are major targets, we don't need to include every grossly offensive BLP-violating detail. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Acroterion, are you saying I made a BLP vio? soibangla (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinton Foundation and DNC paid for steele dossier[edit]

Please stop editing verified news MisinformationFix (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MisinformationFix, source does not mention Clinton Foundation, nor does any other because it's false. soibangla (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First paragraph of the article

"Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee" MisinformationFix (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MisinformationFix, campaign, not Foundation. soibangla (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing it back up now as this article verifies the Clinton Campaign was involved. Thanks. MisinformationFix (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MisinformationFix, your edit is incorrect. Campaign, not Foundation soibangla (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine, i'll change 1 word. Was that all you had a problem with? You removed my NYT and the other AP edit as well saying no Trump collusion. Or are you just going to edit anything you politically disagree with? MisinformationFix (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you discuss this on article Talk first, not here. soibangla (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be AFK for a short amount of time[edit]

As someone I know is regularly active on the Ukraine articles; can you keep an eye on Burisma and Zlochevsky articles if you are around and / or add them to your watchlist. IP was adding lengthy attributed content to Hunters book with sizeable BLP implications. Big ol' WP:SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See this. I made a mistake first time as a US president is more notable for time in office than lifetime. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Great Shaker, I don't think your changes are necessary at all. soibangla (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read WP:SDDATES. The Roosevelt dates were wrongly formatted in any case because you only use ccyy–yy for adjoining years, as for a football season. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No Great Shaker, then please do it right. The way you did it was quite peculiar. soibangla (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way I did it was as per SDDATES which specifies "[Office description] from startyear to endyear". Nothing "peculiar" about that at all. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Great Shaker, WP:SDFORMAT says keep it to 40 characters or less. Barack Obama is the only person who is the "44th president of the United States". There is no reason to add DOB or term of service in a short description. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Muboshgu. That's fair enough, given the length of the description, but dates are normally encouraged. As you say, the US president has an ordinal and so each one (except Cleveland, ha!) is unique. British prime ministers don't have an ordinal so they need the dates per SDDATES. I was tending to think in PM terms. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No Great Shaker, but that's not the first way you did it. You used Obama's birth year and made it seem FDR became POTUS in 1882. soibangla (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Barr reversion of LikkerdySplit‘s edit[edit]

Hello Soibangla. As to your recent reversion to the William Barr edit @ 05:13, 31 May 2021, I am compelled to agree with LikkerdySplit. I believe that not only was there a problem with your position regarding WP:NPOV generally but, in particular, I submit that it violates WP:UNDUE. Also, I don’t believe the lead section conforms to MOS:LEAD in any event (I hope this may be corrected by someone in the future). Of course, please keep in mind WP:WAR. Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quaerens-veritatem, I see no reason to admonish me about edit warring on my Talk page. I disagree it is POV or UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Barr nom for GA or FA[edit]

I noticed you're a major contributor to the William Barr page. After looking over the article, I think that after some light touch-ups, you should totally nominate the page for a higher rating if you want. The page can certainly attain good article status or maybe even featured article status. Of course this is completely optional and only serves as a point of pride for yourself, so you don't have to if you don't want to.

I figured I'd put the onus on you though since it's generally not appropriate for someone who hasn't really contributed to the page, like myself, to nominate an article for higher rating. Curbon7 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curbon7, thanks for your comment, but I'm really not very good with such things. soibangla (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Article Reassessment for Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump[edit]

Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlson reversion[edit]

The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for this, since I've disputed its inclusion. Do you plan to do that? These "In [date], Carlson said [something controversial]" are usually always contentious and most often end up without consensus for inclusion once a larger group of editors has weighed in. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tucker Carlson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Scientific Adviser.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just wanted to say hi. Cwater1 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Mark Milley. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! You reverted four of my edits, but not all of them were disputed. Please revert only where there is a dispute. Normchou💬 14:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted an edit with substantial WP:SYNTH with edit summary of 'nah'[edit]

You recently reverted an edit of mine removing material that was presented inaccurately through Synthesis. I changed the word 'conspiracy theorist' to 'conservative commentator' which in hindsight should be 'thought leader' on this sentence:

 In May 2021, Human Events announced that conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec had been hired as senior editor.

There is no source material that states Human Events hired him because he is a conspiracy theorist, to infer this is original research WP:OR. Of the three cited sources,there is this HE article that covers his hiring as a thought leader. You have a WP:GUNREL Daily Beast article that talks about him being hired at Turning Point USA,(No mention of Human events) and lastly a NYT articlethat has no relevance to Human Events hiring him. So why is it being used as a citation source in the Human events article?

The correct resolution is to remove the 'conspiracy theorist', replace it with 'Thought leader', plus remove the bogus unrelated articles. What do you think?

  • Side-note,H:FIES has this to say about reverts.:
 'It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.'

MaximusEditor (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit doesn't say or imply Human Events hired him because he is a conspiracy theorist, it's just that he happens to be commonly described as a conspiracy theorist, which is consistent with his lead, which characterizes him as neither a "conservative commentator" nor a "thought leader." The Beast and NYT refs are there simply to show he has been characterized as a conspiracy theorist, not to support that HE had hired him, which their included statement makes clear. I concede my edit summary could've elaborated on that. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an article about Human Events, which has no history of Conspiracy Theories. Yes, you are correct,the original edit does not imply "Conspiracy Theorist", it blatantly states "Conspiracy Theorist". There is no WP:RS that connects "Conspiracy Theory" with Human Events. So, this is problematic because exactly what you just described is WP:SYNTHESIS, Pulling from Posobiecs lead or not.(Which is a whole other problem on its own)
Here is what Wikipedia describes Synthesis as:
 "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"
  • No source listed says "'conspiracy theorist' Jack Posobiec." The Source *DOES SAY " hiring of the extremely talented and influential Jack Posobiec"
 "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research"
  • Also you have only one article that says he is a conspiracy theorist that is the WP:GUNREL Daily Beast Article, that third source, while coming from a WP:RS (LA TIMES), it doesnt actually call him a Conspiracy theorist anywhere (unless you account the WP:HEADLINE breach, which explicitly says *Not to count headlines as WP:RS), it says he was spreading a 'conspiracy theory'. Not the same thing, again WP:OR.
 "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
In review, there is not any WP:RS material that calls him a conspiracy theorist, or more importantly that Human Events hired a "conspiracy theorist". Which is getting into BLP infractions. What is presently on the article needs to be changed period. Removing conspiracy theorist seems to be the most accurate way to keep it in compliance with Encyclopedic tone. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there is not any WP:RS material that calls him a conspiracy theorist Yes there is, see Jack Posobiec. There is no source material that states Human Events hired him because he is a conspiracy theorist...or more importantly that Human Events hired a "conspiracy theorist" I already told you the edit does not say or imply he was hired because he is a conspiracy theorist. The Source *DOES SAY " hiring of the extremely talented and influential Jack Posobiec" Well of course they would say that. Take this to the article Talk page so others may participate. Please do not continue this discussion here. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Durham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfa Bank.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Presented to Soibangla on September 17, 2021 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. A true Wikipedian! -- Valjean (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you! 2[edit]

The Citation Barnstar
For consistently anchoring contentious pages with reliable sources I award you this fresh quill and well-deserved barnstar. BusterD (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you! 3[edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
Going for a record 5 in a row. 3 down...

(all richly deserved) SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kari Lake[edit]

Hi, your addition on Kari Lake from 16 October ( has been reverted/challenged multiple times. Per WP:BRD you should discuss the changes on the talk page first before reinstating. Thanks -FMSky (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FMSky, no need to come here, I saw your edit summary. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/* Defamation case */ added the decision of the Arizona State Court of Appeals, Division One[edit]

Why would you remove the decision of this case, unless you have a problem with documentation. In the decision, it clearly says Wendy Rogers was successful with getting the case reversed in her favor. What is there to object about? It is not my interpretation of the decision, but the actual decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SterlingSpots (talkcontribs) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SterlingSpots, it is your interpretation of a primary source. Get a secondary source. And you should bring this up on the article Talk page so everyone can see and discuss, not here. soibangla (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not an interpretation of a primary source, it plainly gives the courts decision. That is all. If you want a second source, here is another webpage's summary of the case: Court decisions are not open for interpretation, they are final and stand unless appealed by one of the parties involved in the case. SterlingSpots (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's simply not how we do things here. Take this to the article Talk page and maybe others will explain it to you. Don't continue talking about it here, please. soibangla (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing sources[edit]

I have noticed several times that you seem to be using some kind of bot to "fill in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill 2." However, the bot merely adds the title of the article to the url. It doesn't add the name(s) of the author(s), where given, nor the date of the publication or the access-date. The author's name helps the reader to distinguish between sources, as does the date, and both date and access-date are useful information for other editors, for example when repairing dead links (WP:DEADREF). I have fixed the aforementioned cite, and it's not a big deal, but it would be nice if you could keep this in mind when adding cites. Thanks! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I typically circle back and fill the blanks reFill leaves, but I concede sometimes I don't, especially when I moving fast. I'll try better. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few thoughts...

The chronological sequence of events in the Kenosha unrest shooting is in the lead, but there is far too much detail.

It appears to me that Rittenhouse killed a man and fled. Others viewed him as an active shooter, a killer who should be disarmed and stopped, so they pursued him and grabbed at his weapon.

Does an active shooter have a right to self-defense, and if so, in light of their actions, is that right legitimate? If the police arrest a criminal who is caught in the act, the criminal does not have a right to resist arrest, IOW they do not have a right to defend themselves from apprehension. What's the difference in a citizen's arrest situation like what happened during those events in Kenosha?

Have any RS discussed the events from that angle? -- Valjean (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Every time someone indicates that they think Let's Go Brandon is unworthy of an article on Wikipedia, my faith in Wikipedia is restored. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The WP:LEAD summarizes the body of the article. So don't inject a news item into the lead of an article without editing the body, please. Also, citations generally aren't needed in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You edit war the content back out of the article body, then accuse me of "drama" in article talk space?? Look in the mirror, bud. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT soibangla (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did, I moved it to the body (which you reverted). Only one of us is mashing the revert button and sniping personal attacks in article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact you did not fix it in an AGF fashion, I did not edit war, and I did not engage in personal attacks. Look in the mirror, bud. soibangla (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you accusing me of acting in bad faith, or thinking you were acting in bad faith? Neither if the case, of course. I did fix it; you reverted the fix. WP:CIVIL is policy BTW. VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, since you object to lead cites, presumably you'll get right on with removing all the other lead cites in those three articles soibangla (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My bad, I misread the lead and thought " It was the first House censure since 2010 and only the 24th in American history" was implying the 24th censure of any time in American history and not specifically the House. Bill Williams 23:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you kidding me?[edit]

I made the article neutral, I didn't make it say Trump was right or wrong. But you couldn't stand it could you? So much for a neutral point of view. Iamarealhumanbeing (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Soibangla. FYI, I referred to you at ARCA in this comment — not by name, but by diff. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Note that per MOS:LABEL contentious labels are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". I had removed those terms because they were not used in "in-text attribution", though I definitely agree they can be added and are based in the references, but need to be framed as such. I won't undo your reversion of my changes, but note that in its present state, those terms fall short of the MoS. SpencerT•C 06:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ted Cruz recent statments[edit]

isn't the entire last section there about Cruz's assertions? First his characterization and second his clarification. Viktory02 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"clarification" soibangla (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political BLPs and content on votes; sources[edit]

Wanted draw your attention to this NPOV discussion, and I would ask you kindly to assume good faith. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No policy has been formulated from that discussion as yet. The other day you said the sources didn't specifically mention the subject, so I got a valid secondary that did in every case, then you said a list isn't good enough, but it's perfectly fine for that purpose, it doesn't require a narrative (even though the source had one). You also objected to cut/paste, but laziness is no good reason to object, because it applies in each article. What's lazy is not making a modicum of effort to find a source, or at least adding a CN tag, but rather making wholesale removals, which I might add were in only Republican BLPs in every case, in a very significant matter. In the Posey case, you were not objecting to cut/paste, but again you didn't make an effort to find a secondary, which again took me 5 seconds, but you again made the invalid objection that it's a list, but it also has narrative. soibangla (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a "secondary source" that only mentions the subject once, and includes a parroted list from a primary source is not a secondary source. I shouldn't have to do extra research on what a vote is or why it's significant to the subject because the sources fail to do so. And narrative? If the "narrative" isn't found within the source that includes the subject, then it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be including narratives that aren't extremely relevant to the subject. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a "secondary source" that only mentions the subject once, and includes a parroted list from a primary source is not a secondary source. Yes it is, you just don't like it, perhaps because instead you are determined to make sweeping wholesale removals across numerous BLPs, seeing as you made no effort to even add a CN tag, let alone find a source, for any of those BLPs. There are countless narrative sources that mention an individual only once, and by your reasoning a source that includes a quote from that individual is "parroting." Similarly if a secondary references a primary, say, a government document, which is commonplace. I shouldn't have to do extra research on what a vote is or why it's significant to the subject because the sources fail to do so. The WP article text provides that information, the source verifies it. If the "narrative" isn't found within the source that includes the subject But it is. It's like a WP list article: narrative followed by list. Simply because the secondary's narrative is briefer than what might be found in a full-narrative article doesn't make it illegitimate. It's not as if the source is no more than a CSV text list, as you seem to portray it. soibangla (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay... but when you say The WP article text provides that information, the source verifies it, the text is based primarily off of a primary source with no synthesis/analysis of how it pertains specifically to the subject of the article. By your logic, we could potentially include any and all votes that have "list" secondary sources, no? In today's age, we can find a proper "secondary" list source for nearly any vote, so to what end? If there is not a reasonable explanation for how the vote/legislation itself is pertinent to the BLP subject, then how is adding that vote due? If it were due, then there would be appropriate synthesis and analysis of such vote and the subject. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simply because the secondary's narrative is briefer than what might be found in a full-narrative article doesn't make it illegitimate. We aren't talking about brevity, we are talking about substance and relevance to the subject of the article. I would invoke onus, due, npov, ad absurdum. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
we are talking about substance and relevance which is what we, as editors, provide. That's why we're all here. The sources verify it. soibangla (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If users are adding content that is barely relevant to the subject without authentic secondary source analysis and pertinence, that content is undue and screams onus. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If users are adding content that is barely relevant to the subject...that content is undue You might have plausibly made that argument as basis for your removals, but you didn't. You're making that argument now. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I had difficulty finding the most poetic way to articulate my argument in a succinct manner. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You couldn't simply say UNDUE? Color me skeptical. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can find policy or get a ruling that shows the source I used is not an authentic secondary source, I will certainly comply with that, but if you can't please stop insisting it's not authentic simply because you personally believe it. soibangla (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there an analysis or synthesis of information in the Mercury list source you found that are pertinent to the subjects of the BLPs we are talking about? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite your insistence that Mercury needs to provide that, it doesn't soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, surely you are aware of this. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In no way have I suggested that verifiability guarantees inclusion. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, that was my response to you saying we are talking about substance and relevance which is what we, as editors, provide. That's why we're all here. The sources verify it. Verifiable information, yes. Should all verifiable information be included, when it lacks the analysis and close connection to the subject of a BLP article? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, you just made it clear with your Guy Reschenthaler edit that you're just gonna do what you wanna do, regardless of flawed reasoning and shifting rationales. I'm not wasting any more time on this. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit[edit]

You removed cited state law regarding penalties for ignoring subpoenas (added by Kkeeran) by claiming in your edit note that it "maybe true, but we can't use it because it relies on interpretation of a primary source, namely a statute." The statute (i.e. the law) was cited in its entirety without interpretation by the user, which is as neutral as you could possibly make it. What's next, removing cited law from the US Constitution because it doesn't fit the expected narrative on the page? (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to participate:
soibangla (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Just want you to know I appreciate all of the work you do, have done, and that it really is amazing to see what you've accomplished with so much going on all the time. DN (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote out of place[edit]

In the Trump section at the Big lie article, the following quote seems out of place. Even though it's in an article about Trump's use of the big lie, the quote is about the German use of the technique, so it needs to be moved, but I'm not sure where.

Snyder observes:

The lie is so big that it reorders the world. And so part of telling the big lie is that you immediately say it's the other side that tells the big lie. Sadly, but it's just a matter of record, all of that is in Mein Kampf.[32]

Valjean (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, you immediately say it's the other side that tells the big lie dovetails with Republicans tried to appropriate the term. But yes, it's not ideal. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thought, maybe Snyder should come last in the section. soibangla (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A known quantity to RT?[edit]

Dear @Soibangla:, thank you for the edit to a BitFiEx article when you added the 2 people who were caught. I checked out your user page and you had a link to "a known quantity" article. How did you get that status by RT? Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need a meta-article[edit]

We need a grand mother article entitled Russian support for Donald Trump's presidency or Trump/Russia mutual support relationship (not the best title... ). It would collect all the threads together into a more coherent narrative from before he ran until, and including, his unsuccessful 2020 bid. Trump has expressed his welcoming acceptance of Russian support and election interference, and the Russians have always supported him. They started cultivating him as an asset already back in 1987.[17][18][19][20][21] That two-way, mutual-support, symbiosis should be documented in one place. We would keep our existing articles, but summarize them in one article, because it's all about their support, which includes more than just outright "interference" (a very narrow and limiting term), that is the point. He welcomed that support, even when he knew their military cyber operations were illegally attacking the United States. Lending support to the enemy in time of war (a military cyberattack is an act of warfare) is the classic definition of treason.

The first public expressions of support came from Russians he had met at the 2013 Miss Universe contest. Alferova's Jan 22, 2014 tweet is significant evidence that he had been talking with Russians about his plans before the American public knew of them: "Apparently she knew Trump was going to run for president a year and a half before he made his formal announcement."[22][23] This has been cited as evidence of collusion.

REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ... Volume5: "The Committee found that the connection between Trump and the Agalarovs began in 2013 with planning for the Miss Universe Moscow pageant."

The contrast between all of Trump's false denials of contacts with Russia and the actual facts would be a good introduction, with the rest of the article showing the denials were all "dead cat" lies intended to direct media and public interest away from Trump and his team's actual connections with Russia.[1]

Summaries of the following articles would be used for sections in the meta-article:

Do you see any merit in this idea? -- Valjean (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Trump and the media – Is it war or love?". BBC. March 10, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.

Thoughts on the prospect of a future RfC[edit]

Some people have suggested starting an RfC as a result of your proposal at WP:RS/N. Don't be misled by my most recent comments there: I don't support the idea of turning this discussion, already in progress, into an RfC, as it would likely result in another no consensus (or similar), but if that discussion fails to yield an actionable consensus, then I would support a proper RfC in the near future (later this year, after that discussion is archived and mostly forgotten about). That would further distance it from the previous RfC and give more time to build a better case, and Fox will almost certainly provide more examples as time goes on, if there aren't enough already.
There are lessons to be learned from this discussion and the previous RfC - there needs to be a mountain of high-quality evidence that the opposition will be unable to counter (easy enough to obtain in this case), that is also carefully summarized for the majority of respondents who will just tl;dr, and we can anticipate many of the counterarguments that will be made, because the opposition always makes use of the same tired old tropes and clichés. In particular, we know that there will be attempts to derail the discussion by changing the topic, and something should be done to prevent that. Everyone involved knows that Fox News will not be green-lit as a result of these discussions, so the opposition strategy seems to be to do things like that to force a no consensus, as it's the best outcome they can reasonably expect.
Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

soibangla, would you mind me removing the rfc tag? With multiple people on both sides of the issue objecting, and the issues of previous bolded !votes making less sense with the standard format, I'm mostly convinced that my adding the tag was a mistake. I'd prefer not to remove it without your permission, as you reverted to restore it after Springee's second removal.

Unlike MW above, I think we could immediately restart a new discussion. I would be glad to do it, but I'd also be just as happy to let you kick things off. I do think we should ping the participants in the current discussion so they can weigh in again. How does that all sound to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be glad to do it is fine by me. soibangla (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate it. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I think you've both been a bit foolish; as have I. This discussion, and any offshoots, will not be the last we as a community have on this matter.
soibangla, after the dust settles, I would be happy to do a bit of brainstorming on what happens next. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on GOP[