User talk:Soibangla

Wiliam Barr

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

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)

Stephanie Grisham

Hello Soibangla. The mediaite reference refuting Stephanie's Op-ed 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)

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)

@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 "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)

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)

References

Discretionary sanctions alert concerning BLPs, please read

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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 11:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: On what basis do you send me this? soibangla (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

@Doug Weller: Are you suggesting there is a problem with my BLP edits? soibangla (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@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)

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)

I suggest these alerts be used sparingly and only if a specific problem is evident. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

That would be a good addition to the template. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Please strike

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)

Springee I did not call you or the other editor a liar. soibangla (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Then who are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 16:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

You said "including here." That's pretty direct and unambiguous. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Economic policy of Donald Trump

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)

Anastrophe I added language to connect the dots soibangla (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dramatically better. Thank you very much!! Anastrophe (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"Enforced BRD" rule violation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"faithful" to part of what he said...you 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)

Nope. Your reading of what he said is incorrect. Period. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agree, it's UNDUE and will add CRYSTALBALL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

reFill 2 problems

First, Thank you for your contributions!

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

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)

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)

reFill continuing to leave errors. X1\ (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Mandruss and Soibangla; check out this example of reFill 2 junk, too. X1\ (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

soibangla, I have been think along those lines also. X1\ (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have pinged you to my talk page so we can deal with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd like to be done with the matter. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping we can do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding adding content to leads only

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)

Investigate the investigators

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)

Content, not contributors

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

@Awilley: Please refrain from calling me "clueless" for raising legitimate questions about an ambiguous policy. soibangla (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Awilley (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

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)

Donald Trump

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)

OnetwothreeipWell, if it says persistently, don't we need to show that with multiple refs? soibangla (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Trump derangement syndrome

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

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

Epstein

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

LOL! soibangla (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Concise writing

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)

Snooganssnoogans Please would you provide an example of me "overdoing it?" soibangla (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=901743453&oldid=901705201 . Four sources don't seem necessary here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

I diligently strive for concision. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

"nothing more?" I strenuously disagree. soibangla (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. ~Awilley (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Interleaving comments

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)

It's threaded, it efficiently makes it obvious who is responding to who, about specifically what. soibangla (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Trump characterising the economy

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)

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)

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)

Far-right conspiracy website mentioned you

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

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

CrowdStrike

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)

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)

@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)

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: 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. 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)

8675309, take it to the relevant Talk page so everyone can scutinize it soibangla (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf 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)

8675309, Please stop talking to me here. Take it to the article Talk page. soibangla (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

Hunter Biden salary

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)

RonaldDuncan, I oppose your proposed addition. soibangla (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Nomination of Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory for deletion

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

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)

Image without license

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

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

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 ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Biden talk

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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

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)

DS alert refresh: AP

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)

ANI

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)

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)

To be fair that is just MastCell though, so take that for what it is worth. PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

A request

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

P.S. I'll fix it. No extra charge. I appreciate your making the effort. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

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)