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.
P.S. Many of the sentiments your edits convey I agree with. But, Wikipedia is meant to be sentiment free.
136.244.5.39 ( talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
JFGs removal appears to be the BRDis 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)
BRD is never a reason for revertingin 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)
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)
"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)
added back half of the material that was removedis 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)
it's also understandable that JFG removed the whole paragraphWelp, 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)
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)
enhance the language to their better likingis 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)
exactly what MONGO did on the economic policy pageNope. And why didn't he do it on Donald Trump? soibangla ( talk) 02:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
First, Thank you for your contributions!
Second, reFill 2 doesn't seems to work well. X1\ ( talk) 17:30, 24 May 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)
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)
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)
Please refrain from making comments like this and this on article talk pages. ~ Awilley ( talk) 00:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Well, that made my day. And it reminds me of Battle Chess. — Paleo Neonate – 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
You're in the Kremlin's sights. [8] R2 ( bleep) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Here [9]. This indicates you're doing good work. Keep it up! Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)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
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)
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)
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!
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs 22:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
|
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)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
FBI, DOJ agree Hunter Biden emails were not Russia disinformation https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-doj-agree-hunter-biden-225219943.html
Please stop posting disinformation. 208.88.4.211 ( talk) 00:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Just a heads up, the article is under the consensus required DS. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, in case you want to chip in. All best, Zazpot ( talk) 05:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
Did you just delete archived urls from a bunch of sources? ...why? RexSueciae ( talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
https://apnews.com/article/7b7d698b9a660997f5e755d92b775d98
Please stop editing verified news MisinformationFix ( talk) 14:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
Editing it back up now as this article verifies the Clinton Campaign was involved. Thanks. MisinformationFix ( talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I just wanted to say hi. Cwater1 ( talk) 00:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC).
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)
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?
'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)
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"
"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"
"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.
there is not any WP:RS material that calls him a conspiracy theoristYes 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)
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)
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) |
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) |
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) |
Hi, your addition on Kari Lake from 16 October ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kari_Lake&diff=1050251194&oldid=1050239469) 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
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: http://www.biahelp.com/rogers-v-hon-mroz/ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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. Spencer T• C 06:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 subjectBut 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)
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)
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)
we are talking about substance and relevancewhich 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)
If users are adding content that is barely relevant to the subject...that content is undueYou 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)
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)
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)
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? 174.65.152.153 ( talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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) |
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)
you immediately say it's the other side that tells the big liedovetails with
Republicans tried to appropriate the term. But yes, it's not ideal. soibangla ( talk) 01:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
I would be glad to do itis fine by me. soibangla ( talk) 20:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Since you have started the RfC I wanted to run some things by you before talking about them over there, as not to go off-topic or WP:BLUD. (Possible off-topic question) Do you think those that find it's inclusion undue on GOP would also feel that it's inclusion on the Republican National Committee article might also be inappropriate? After contemplating and asking for clarification for quite some time now, I am still having a tough time understanding the supposed disconnect between, not just the GOP and RNC, but basic policy on what should be considered DUE and UNDUE for something that isn't even LEDE oriented, as of yet. Am I missing something? This event has had so many RS, I'm not sure how one can qualify it as fringe or WP:NOTNEWS ETC... To me, what stands out indisputably is the historic aspect as reported by ABC news and other sources. I do not subscribe to NYT, but if the cite you provided also makes mention of it, I would not be surprised. As the governing body of the GOP it seems quite easily plausible that this act will have future effects on the two figures censured, as well as the possibility of being a turning point in the way the RNC functions and conducts future resolutions for the GOP. That's my spiel. Am I coming across like a broken record ie WP:BLUD? I do hope we can find some consensus regarding this issue, so that we can finally agree on how to move forward. Thanks for any input. DN ( talk) 23:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
You broke 1RR with this and this edit. The 17th you had 4 reverts on the article. [24] [25] [26] [27] Which you were warned about on the talk page here. Please self revert. Thanks! PackMecEng ( talk) 01:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
NYT I'm trying to keep track of how much attention this is getting from RS but its difficult with soft paywalls etc... Could you take a look and perhaps provide a quick snapshot or quote of the context? If not, no big deal. Thanks. DN ( talk) 19:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't cite the assertion. Cite needed. Love your work! BusterD ( talk) 16:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Disinformation Governance Board shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bakkster Man ( talk) 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Soibangla. I am glad to see you have been editing and improving articles on American politics, and I appreciate your contributions to the article ( Nina Jankowicz) I made the other day. However, there is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia saying that paywalled/offline sources are to be removed for that alone (see WP:PAYWALL), so I do not understand edits like this. I am not particularly interested in arguing about politics on Wikipedia, but today I am planning to expand and copyedit the article, and what you're doing makes it difficult for me to do that. I would prefer if you consulted policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:RSP) prior to making reverts there in the future. jp× g 19:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 United States infant formula shortage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Customs and Border Protection.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2000 Mules. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. There are no reliable sources which do not conclude that all the allegations in that film are false. Your edit serves only the effort to create a false balance in contradiction to the sources. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
For the record, in case anyone is interested, this was the edit in question. By that time, I had written nearly all of 2000 Mules#Content and methodology to show the film is essentially trash. soibangla ( talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
it honestly feels like you are grooming me for what is a slow-motion edit war in service of WP:GAMING behavioris complete, total and absolute nonsense. soibangla ( talk) 19:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have hatted a similar discussion on my talk page. These poisonous attacks by IP2601 need to stop. The IP also needs to create an account. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
? your reason for the revert ? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&oldid=prev&diff=1088711753 RonaldDuncan ( talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I recently saw you nominate the
Hunter Biden iCloud leak for deletion. In your nominated, you stated This article, created hours ago, contains lots of allegedly and supposedly and anonymous and claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target and I suggest it be promptly removed. At most it might warrant a mention in the man's BLP, if even that
. I wanted to send a quick reminder about
WP:RAPID, which is about not rushing to delete articles. From a look at the article's edit history, it appears no PROD or Speedy Deletion attempts were made, which, based on your statement, the article would have qualified for. So just as a reminder for the future, there are alternatives to an AfD nomination, especially within the first 24 hours of an article creation.
Also, I am a little concerned about the wording of your AfD nomination, specifically the phrase ...claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target...
In a AfD nomination, it is best to remain neutral and state the exact reason, normally done through a Wikipedia guideline/policy, that the article in question should be deleted. So, for the future, I would recommend staying
with a neutral point of view in any AfD nominations.
Have a wonderful day and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Elijahandskip ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Democracy | ||
Congrats and thank you for drafting and launching the first version of Trump alternate electors controversy! ... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
You hit the press. [28] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Soibangla,
Your RFPP request asked for full protection on your user talk page - which I'm not aware of any precedent for. I did wonder if you had meant your userpage.
Given the rate of problems, I've gone with my best interpretation - full protection on your userpage, temporary AC on your usertalk page.
Please ping me asap to clarify, and any other admin should override my protection on request (or as they themselves see fit, in the absence of clarity). Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Soibangla,
I've been watching things unfold at Talk:Recession, and taking some admin actions as needed, and I can't help but empathize with you. I too have seen myself become the villain in the eyes of off-wiki agitators. (Not talking about those who participated in my RfA, but rather about banned users and outsiders who resorted to harassment, death threats, etc.)
Each of us works hard to put forward in life the image we want others to have of us. It can be deeply frustrating—in a way I think not understood by those who haven't experienced it—to lose control of that narrative and see misrepresentations and lies spread about yourself, without a way to change the minds of the gullible, the motivated reasoners, and those with confirmation bias, all of whom are readily believing whatever they're told.
And so it can be tempting to double down, to dig in, to say more, to try to reclaim the narrative. But it doesn't work that way. People will believe that they want to believe. Like there's people who will read this and believe that I'm writing it because I agree with your political views, even though I'm guessing we disagree on more things than we agree on, but there's nothing I can say that will convince them otherwise. And I've just had to come to accept that some people will always see the caricature of me.
I'd encourage you to disengage at the talkpage. You've said a lot, and some of it has served to inflame things at a time when others like JPxG are trying to deëscalate, in pursuit of an outcome that doesn't involve a long-term semi of the page.
Maybe spend some time editing outside of AMPOL for a bit. Or spend some time away from Wikipedia. You clearly offer something valuable to this project, but getting carried away in a dispute in a DS area is how a lot of editors' stories turn sad.
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has a lead with SEVEN paragraphs, some quite long. Can we pare this down? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
1 week topic ban from the current economic conditions of the United States
You have been sanctioned for treating Wikipedia like a battleground.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Given that the sentence most at-issue here was restored by Endwise 3 hours after Soibangla removed it, this comment seems tantamount to accusing Endwise of vandalism and being canvassed.
Your comments here are pushing at the edge of the TBAN you just received. soibangla ( talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
legitimate and necessary dispute resolutionor other provisions of WP:BANEX, I will block you for the duration of the TBAN. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Why aren't you talking to Endwise for violating BRD twice to ram into the lead contentious content that did not exist there for years, in the midst of a political firestorm, and nobody so much as sniffed at it?That was clearly about the dispute that led to the TBAN being imposed—a dispute that falls under the TBAN's scope. I gave two warnings. If Soibangla had any confusion about whether that fell under the TBAN's scope, they had two chances to ask. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 21:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
On 9 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trump fake electors plot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donald Trump and his attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators in an effort to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump alternate electors controversy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Trump fake electors plot), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
"I will now step back and observe my inevitable vindication unfold." [30]
"implementing RFC outcome, which never seems to have actually been implemented; reverting lead to stable version from July 14th" [31]
soibangla ( talk) 01:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
third quarter real GDP growth: 2.6%
average monthly private job creation since June: 308,000
worst. recession. ever.
soibangla ( talk) 23:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday, an IP editor suggested in a rather incivil tone of (paraphasing) "this has been repeatedly explained to you, but you just don't get it, so sit down and shut up already") when I questioned DS policy and its application. [32]]
Today, that IP editor concedes:
I fully agree that DS/GS are a complete mess, but I think that's just an artefact of it being a confused system that has grown out of 2 decades of arbitration cases. Really it needs a full rewrite - defining some boundaries on what an admin can do as an individual action and what requires a consensus of admins would be a good start (emphasis mine)
This confirms that my consistent argument has merit, after I've been told by many that it has none.
Perhaps the IP editor would like to join me in spearheading an effort like this to ensure that DS is "legislated and codified" to make it unambiguous, rather than continue being the cobbling together of "case law" over two decades, resulting in endless disputes over DS policy:
I may in the future seek policy clarification and reform. Per policy, I may be wrong. Alternatively, maybe the policy is wrong. I believe it is.
[34] soibangla ( talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Someone earlier posited to me:
the topic ban policy is absolutely unambiguous that a topic ban applies to discussions related to the topic on your own talk page (emphasis mine)
Indeed, WP:TBAN states:
For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
- discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes) (emphasis mine)
Please consider this scenario: an admin topic bans an editor without warning in an article space where no DS notice is posted. Stunned, the editor first goes to the banning admin's Talk page, then to their own Talk page, to discuss the rationale for the ban, to determine whether it was justified or whether an appeal might be pursued.
After discussing the nature of the ban, a different involved admin blocks the editor "for violating the TBAN that was just imposed, immediately after I warned you that continuing to discuss the dispute it was imposed over would lead to a block" (emphasis mine).
So, was the editor discussing the topic from which they were banned, which would be a policy violation that might ostensibly warrant a block, or were they discussing the nature of the ban, as a preliminary measure to decide whether to appeal?
If there is a clear distinction, should WP:TBAN be amended to note that? soibangla ( talk) 22:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I see you moved Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) but not the article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Why are you changinging your signature to point to User:Me? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu, Tuckerlieberman, Valjean soibangla ( talk) 01:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Template:Donald Trump should be updated with a whole section devoted to all the investigations related to him. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Please explain this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Twitter_Files&diff=1127766872&oldid=1127765625 . Thanks! Albertinon ( talk) 19:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Flibbertigibbets has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Very much appreciate your insights!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 15:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is the largest cake on the barnstar menu, but I thought I would join the party. Thanks for your good work. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For keeping conspiracy theories and debunked bullshit off Wikipedia. You know you've earned it when the liars panic and target you. Heavy Water ( talk) 04:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Bank#Bernie_Marcus_quote
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 00:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll just point you to
User_talk:RoyLeban#Hunter Biden laptop controversy for the reasons your edit is disruptive and
WP:POINTY. I urge you to close the thread as advice has been given in numerous places about steps to take and one that you won't find is make an edit contravening the established consensus and start a 99th thread on the talk page.
Slywriter (
talk) 04:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::You absolutely know better than that, and you yourself said "I was not present for the RFC and had significant issues with its conclusion, but we're bound to honor it." Since then there's been a second RFC which you participated in, and numerous talk page discussions which you also participated in. I'm in disbelief you are actually claiming your disruptive edit did not contradict established consensus.
Mr Ernie (
talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Howdy. I think you may have messed up the other fellow's post at the HBLT talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 00:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Soibangla. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:Dominion brief with Fox communications.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Trump alternate electors controversy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 16:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1154964333
Time for you to work your magic. The reactions to his meager report will be interesting. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
John Durham’s Investigation Has Disclosed Corruption: His Own. The Barr-appointed special counsel was supposed to reveal “the crime of the century.” All he revealed was his incompetence—and worse. [1]
It would be good for the Durham special counsel investigation and Russia investigation origins counter-narrative articles. Somewhere there is a source that early on called Durham's efforts an attempt to "cover-up" (or "coverup") Trump's misdeeds. We need to find that source. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
References
While the Durham report is sketchy, it isn't totally worthless. I just discovered a common error made by some RS, and carried over into the Steele dossier article. That is the idea that when Trump stayed at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in 2013, he actually stayed in the Presidential Suite, where the pee tape was allegedly filmed. The Durham report says that hotel records show he never stayed in that room.
So here's what really happened. He did stay at the hotel, but he "hired" the Presidential Suite, as that's where Obama had stayed. I've had to rework some of that content now. The dossier itself never says he "stayed" in the Presidential Suite, only that he "hired" it. So this is one time the primary source was accurate, but vague, and some RS got it wrong by assuming something not explicitly stated by the primary source. This doesn't really change anything about the allegation, but it does refine our understanding of the geographical context. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Andrew C. McCarthy, while a conspiracy theorist, is/was a good researcher, and here he was right:
In his report, Durham waxes long about how Danchenko and other sources lied to him, but Danchenko's lies did not change the facts he was reporting, only the attribution of the source(s) of the allegations. Danchenko was just doing what agents often do, they seek to slur the identities of their sources to protect them. He, and likely Steele, did that with the identities of some of their sources, but that does not affect the accuracy of the allegations. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Now editors who are clearly NOTHERE are attacking the Steele dossier article again. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
References
the exuberance over Durham's indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated. ... Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus, ... [but] His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham's prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false. (italics original)
Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Trump alternate electors controversy".
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. When 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! 22:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi soibangla, I hope you are well. I was a bit taken aback to see this group of edits. They're not disruptive per se, but also not productive. I'd appreciate if you can provide an argument or go through the proper delete/move process next time. I know you posted that very soon after the page was created, but it could have been a lot more productive. The void century ( talk) 01:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I certainly understand the points people made. I try to see the good in people, even rude IP editors. I myself get pretty frustrated with the intransigent editors. I got even more frustrated when I was basically attack when I finally responded to people who were attacking me routinely. That doesn't excuse rudeness or IP editing, but it does make me want to see the points, not the rudeness. I prioritized WP:TALKO over WP:NOTFORUM and it does seem those policies are in conflict. (Also, WP:NOTFORUM is not quite so explicit that it is unquestionable that the IP editor's comments would violate it — they did make some valid points.) Somebody should address the conflict between those two policies, or at least add a cross-reference, and perhaps clarify WP:NOTFORUM too. RoyLeban ( talk) 08:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments like these aren't particularly helpful when someone proposes a change to an article with an explanation of their reasoning. If you don't like a change, telling us why would be nice. I'd recommend reading WP:SQSAVOID: the chief characteristic of legitimate status quo defending is substantive discussion regarding the change. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 16:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
To that end, I think this would be a better formulation: "Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, making various false allegations that he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office...
so you're saying Trump did not make various false allegations? is that the substance of your change? but he did
I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family".
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. When 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! 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Please stop adding original research into articles. In
your contribution to the laptop article you conduct original research by using two sources that don't mention the laptop. You were also responsible for adding the original paragraph, which consists of improper synthesis: one of the sources doesn't mention the laptop, while the other mentions the laptop in different context you imply. When you were confronted
on the talk page, you didn't even substantially defend your revert, and instead said "I have not been involved in discussion of the paragraph I added weeks ago. you have not reached consensus to alter or remove it."
In other articles, I have several times encountered your original research. Sometimes I have reverted your edits if it's obvious that the content cannot rescued. Sometimes I have altered your edits, but I don't time to fix everything. For example, at the House investigation article you added a background section that uses many old sources that obviously don't the reference the article topic. Please remember that all material involving living persons must strictly adhere to NOR policy (+ NPOV and V).
Repeatedly adding original research is a sign of tendentious editing. Please stop. Politrukki ( talk) 13:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
"I disagree with your interpretation", do you refer to TE or NOR? If it's about the latter, please expand.I have complained about your OR editing before. Back in the 2019 you insisted that I should prove an evidence-free claim. In the article talk page discussion another user explained you how OR works, but you didn't give an inch. Now, this case and the cases I mentioned in the opening post are different because now you have used at least pseudo-reliable sources; sources that have been published by respectable publications, but that don't directly support the statements they are attached to. Politrukki ( talk) 15:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I have complained about your OR editing beforeYes, once. 4.5 years ago. I've improved a bit since then. If you believe I persistently demonstrate improper editing, I suggest you seek to have me sanctioned. In lieu of that, you can revert my edits that seem problematic to you and we can go through BRD. soibangla ( talk) 17:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I lost track of the talk page discussions and your fixes on that page. In trying to revert the IP, I made some other tweaks which didn't take account of your previous version. A few problems remain with that text. I think business cycle is unnecessary and assumes all kinds of things that are not necessary to the definition of a contraction. I think also the text now says a demand shock may be due to a supply shock. That would be confusing to a lay reader. Somehow the less common, but recently very significant, possibility of a supply shock would better be isolated from the list of demand shocks. Thanks for keeping an eye on this page. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't been so thrilled since the first time I saw my name in the phone book.
https://www.rt.com/news/581379-hunter-biden-wikipedia-edits-consulting/
SPECIFICO Objective3000 Neutrality soibangla ( talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This is in re: "Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration"
You make your political affiliation quite clear in your edits, which is fine... until that conflicts with the core ideas behind Wikpedia; like completely removing someone's genuine, fair, good faith contributions. I think if you be honest with yourself it's clear that the change you made was unfair and it's frustrating to me to see my work deleted. I hope next time, you give pause before removing the work someone else did to improve Wikipedia in their spare time. :( 2601:648:8800:3B70:438:8F2E:7B2A:D5BD ( talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Valjean/Why_Crossfire_Hurricane%3F
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Durham said there had been inadequate predication to open a full investigation in July 2016, but that only an assessment or preliminary investigation was warranted by that time. Although the report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor", it did not find political motivation or a "deep state" plot.
I'm curious, have you by chance ever looked into the history of the term deep state? What's so weird and unusual, is that Trump and his alt-right minions (or at least the ones writing his talking points, like Bannon etc.) stole the term "deep state" from the left to use it against them. In other words, the American left previously appropriated the term from Turkey, and used it to describe the military industrial complex and the anti-democratic overtones of unelected bureaucrats who promoted a kind of slow, incrementalism that held back progress. The irony, is that this usage refers primary to the American right wing, particularly around the concept of dark money and disinformation networks that worked from the outside in, as authors like Naomi Oreskes Jane Mayer, Anne Nelson, and Nancy MacLean described it (albeit without ever using the term "deep state"). I should also point out, this is not the first time Trump & Co. borrowed a term from the left and used it against them. The most famous example of this is Trump's use of the term "fake news", which the left used to describe right wing misinformation like Fox News. Like the term "deep state", Trump took the term "fake news" and inverted it, using it instead to describe factual news sources. Just wondering if you have ever given any kind of thought to this, since you are actively editing around the subject. My personal take, is that this was one small part of Steve Bannon's overarching "Leninism", an attempt to destroy the conservative establishment by employing the tools and weapons of the left. In case you think that's somewhat crazy, there's a lot of supporting evidence. One of the most notable and observable aspects was the merging of left and right and conspiracy theories during 2020. That's when we saw the rise of conspirituality, a big tent fringe movement that allowed people on the left and the right to mingle together and join a wider movement, suffused with a kind of nebulous extreme right wing tinge that the people on the left within that movement were unable to recognize. This is exactly what happened when Trump used terms like the deep state and fake news. In many ways, it was ingenious, as it brought people from the left to the right without them knowing it, and used their participation in an attempt to destroy both the left and establishment right. It has Bannon's fingerprints all over it. Viriditas ( talk) 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, you recently undid my edit to Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden. It is my understanding that the names of the sources should be used in articles like these.
Tangentially, I find it unsatisfactory that you have removed the new york times as a source to the article, after I went through the effort to add it.
Peace and love 96.227.223.203 ( talk) 21:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing Active Club Network, which has a good amount of plagiarism per Earwig's copyvio detector. Please ensure that you are not paraphrasing things too closely or forgetting to quote things that should be attributed to another source. Best, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I am certainly no expert on Earwig's copyvio detector, but from what I can tell by running it on the article version through my last edit prior to this notification [36], the tool compared all my edits to all references and returned "Violation Unlikely" in every case. Here is the permalink [37] to the scan of that article version, which I had restored [38] for this scan.
So I am a bit confused by the tag now at the top of the article saying my edits "contain significant copyright violations."
I received this notification less than 5 hours after I created the article, while I was still on my first pass, before proceeding to a second draft to tighten things up. soibangla ( talk) 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Racial views of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blood purity.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement 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 until the discussion has finished.
– Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that my recommendation for the change on the Hunter Biden laptop question, is different than what was discussed months ago. I am NOT arguing that the information should be removed entirely, just that it should be reworded. Epachamo ( talk) 19:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. — SamX [ talk · contribs 23:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Readers can assume "to date" means when they are reading it because I'm pretty certain that if the republicans find anything in their mudracking that someone will edit it in almost immediately. The alternative is people constantly updating that section and adding new sources on the end and then someone else has to come along and decide which sources have to be removed. Not ideal. TarnishedPath talk 07:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Howdy. I adjusted the closing part of your hatting. I presumed you hadn't intended to hat the rest of Trump's talkpage :) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) GoodDay ( talk) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
BTW - An RFC at 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign page, is considering the option of creating a 'new' page to house Trump's rhetoric. This, might effect your RFC about Trump bio page. GoodDay ( talk) 04:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I finally got around to updating the article and moving it. Now we need to update the links to the old "blog" location: /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Lawfare_(blog) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Please reply at User talk:Andrevan. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
July-Oct. 2016
How can I keep that from breaking up at a line break? I want it all to remain together as a unit. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
{{nowrap|July-Oct. 2016}}
. ―
Mandruss
☎ 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Your ethic and edits are exemplary, so I think this is long overdue. DN ( talk) 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
Thanks again. I appreciate the advice from earlier. I've been running out of ideas on how to mitigate that issue. If you have any other suggestions, by all means, please let me know. Cheers. DN ( talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Soibangla, you’re doing this again - adding new information into an article's lede without adding it to the article's body.
WP:LEAD is clear: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Your
recent edit at
Tom Parker (judge) is assuredly is not a basic fact. Please try not to do this again in the future.
starship
.paint (
RUN) 09:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trump fake electors plot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
P.S. Many of the sentiments your edits convey I agree with. But, Wikipedia is meant to be sentiment free.
136.244.5.39 ( talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
JFGs removal appears to be the BRDis 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)
BRD is never a reason for revertingin 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)
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)
"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)
added back half of the material that was removedis 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)
it's also understandable that JFG removed the whole paragraphWelp, 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)
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)
enhance the language to their better likingis 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)
exactly what MONGO did on the economic policy pageNope. And why didn't he do it on Donald Trump? soibangla ( talk) 02:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
First, Thank you for your contributions!
Second, reFill 2 doesn't seems to work well. X1\ ( talk) 17:30, 24 May 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)
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)
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)
Please refrain from making comments like this and this on article talk pages. ~ Awilley ( talk) 00:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Well, that made my day. And it reminds me of Battle Chess. — Paleo Neonate – 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
You're in the Kremlin's sights. [8] R2 ( bleep) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Here [9]. This indicates you're doing good work. Keep it up! Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)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
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)
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)
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!
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs 22:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
|
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)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
FBI, DOJ agree Hunter Biden emails were not Russia disinformation https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-doj-agree-hunter-biden-225219943.html
Please stop posting disinformation. 208.88.4.211 ( talk) 00:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Just a heads up, the article is under the consensus required DS. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, in case you want to chip in. All best, Zazpot ( talk) 05:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
Did you just delete archived urls from a bunch of sources? ...why? RexSueciae ( talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
https://apnews.com/article/7b7d698b9a660997f5e755d92b775d98
Please stop editing verified news MisinformationFix ( talk) 14:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
Editing it back up now as this article verifies the Clinton Campaign was involved. Thanks. MisinformationFix ( talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I just wanted to say hi. Cwater1 ( talk) 00:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC).
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)
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?
'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)
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"
"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"
"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.
there is not any WP:RS material that calls him a conspiracy theoristYes 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)
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)
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) |
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) |
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) |
Hi, your addition on Kari Lake from 16 October ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kari_Lake&diff=1050251194&oldid=1050239469) 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
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: http://www.biahelp.com/rogers-v-hon-mroz/ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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. Spencer T• C 06:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 subjectBut 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)
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)
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)
we are talking about substance and relevancewhich 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)
If users are adding content that is barely relevant to the subject...that content is undueYou 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)
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)
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)
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? 174.65.152.153 ( talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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) |
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)
you immediately say it's the other side that tells the big liedovetails with
Republicans tried to appropriate the term. But yes, it's not ideal. soibangla ( talk) 01:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
I would be glad to do itis fine by me. soibangla ( talk) 20:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Since you have started the RfC I wanted to run some things by you before talking about them over there, as not to go off-topic or WP:BLUD. (Possible off-topic question) Do you think those that find it's inclusion undue on GOP would also feel that it's inclusion on the Republican National Committee article might also be inappropriate? After contemplating and asking for clarification for quite some time now, I am still having a tough time understanding the supposed disconnect between, not just the GOP and RNC, but basic policy on what should be considered DUE and UNDUE for something that isn't even LEDE oriented, as of yet. Am I missing something? This event has had so many RS, I'm not sure how one can qualify it as fringe or WP:NOTNEWS ETC... To me, what stands out indisputably is the historic aspect as reported by ABC news and other sources. I do not subscribe to NYT, but if the cite you provided also makes mention of it, I would not be surprised. As the governing body of the GOP it seems quite easily plausible that this act will have future effects on the two figures censured, as well as the possibility of being a turning point in the way the RNC functions and conducts future resolutions for the GOP. That's my spiel. Am I coming across like a broken record ie WP:BLUD? I do hope we can find some consensus regarding this issue, so that we can finally agree on how to move forward. Thanks for any input. DN ( talk) 23:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
You broke 1RR with this and this edit. The 17th you had 4 reverts on the article. [24] [25] [26] [27] Which you were warned about on the talk page here. Please self revert. Thanks! PackMecEng ( talk) 01:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
NYT I'm trying to keep track of how much attention this is getting from RS but its difficult with soft paywalls etc... Could you take a look and perhaps provide a quick snapshot or quote of the context? If not, no big deal. Thanks. DN ( talk) 19:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't cite the assertion. Cite needed. Love your work! BusterD ( talk) 16:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Disinformation Governance Board shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bakkster Man ( talk) 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Soibangla. I am glad to see you have been editing and improving articles on American politics, and I appreciate your contributions to the article ( Nina Jankowicz) I made the other day. However, there is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia saying that paywalled/offline sources are to be removed for that alone (see WP:PAYWALL), so I do not understand edits like this. I am not particularly interested in arguing about politics on Wikipedia, but today I am planning to expand and copyedit the article, and what you're doing makes it difficult for me to do that. I would prefer if you consulted policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:RSP) prior to making reverts there in the future. jp× g 19:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 United States infant formula shortage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Customs and Border Protection.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2000 Mules. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. There are no reliable sources which do not conclude that all the allegations in that film are false. Your edit serves only the effort to create a false balance in contradiction to the sources. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
For the record, in case anyone is interested, this was the edit in question. By that time, I had written nearly all of 2000 Mules#Content and methodology to show the film is essentially trash. soibangla ( talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
it honestly feels like you are grooming me for what is a slow-motion edit war in service of WP:GAMING behavioris complete, total and absolute nonsense. soibangla ( talk) 19:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have hatted a similar discussion on my talk page. These poisonous attacks by IP2601 need to stop. The IP also needs to create an account. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
? your reason for the revert ? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&oldid=prev&diff=1088711753 RonaldDuncan ( talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I recently saw you nominate the
Hunter Biden iCloud leak for deletion. In your nominated, you stated This article, created hours ago, contains lots of allegedly and supposedly and anonymous and claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target and I suggest it be promptly removed. At most it might warrant a mention in the man's BLP, if even that
. I wanted to send a quick reminder about
WP:RAPID, which is about not rushing to delete articles. From a look at the article's edit history, it appears no PROD or Speedy Deletion attempts were made, which, based on your statement, the article would have qualified for. So just as a reminder for the future, there are alternatives to an AfD nomination, especially within the first 24 hours of an article creation.
Also, I am a little concerned about the wording of your AfD nomination, specifically the phrase ...claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target...
In a AfD nomination, it is best to remain neutral and state the exact reason, normally done through a Wikipedia guideline/policy, that the article in question should be deleted. So, for the future, I would recommend staying
with a neutral point of view in any AfD nominations.
Have a wonderful day and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Elijahandskip ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Democracy | ||
Congrats and thank you for drafting and launching the first version of Trump alternate electors controversy! ... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
You hit the press. [28] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Soibangla,
Your RFPP request asked for full protection on your user talk page - which I'm not aware of any precedent for. I did wonder if you had meant your userpage.
Given the rate of problems, I've gone with my best interpretation - full protection on your userpage, temporary AC on your usertalk page.
Please ping me asap to clarify, and any other admin should override my protection on request (or as they themselves see fit, in the absence of clarity). Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Soibangla,
I've been watching things unfold at Talk:Recession, and taking some admin actions as needed, and I can't help but empathize with you. I too have seen myself become the villain in the eyes of off-wiki agitators. (Not talking about those who participated in my RfA, but rather about banned users and outsiders who resorted to harassment, death threats, etc.)
Each of us works hard to put forward in life the image we want others to have of us. It can be deeply frustrating—in a way I think not understood by those who haven't experienced it—to lose control of that narrative and see misrepresentations and lies spread about yourself, without a way to change the minds of the gullible, the motivated reasoners, and those with confirmation bias, all of whom are readily believing whatever they're told.
And so it can be tempting to double down, to dig in, to say more, to try to reclaim the narrative. But it doesn't work that way. People will believe that they want to believe. Like there's people who will read this and believe that I'm writing it because I agree with your political views, even though I'm guessing we disagree on more things than we agree on, but there's nothing I can say that will convince them otherwise. And I've just had to come to accept that some people will always see the caricature of me.
I'd encourage you to disengage at the talkpage. You've said a lot, and some of it has served to inflame things at a time when others like JPxG are trying to deëscalate, in pursuit of an outcome that doesn't involve a long-term semi of the page.
Maybe spend some time editing outside of AMPOL for a bit. Or spend some time away from Wikipedia. You clearly offer something valuable to this project, but getting carried away in a dispute in a DS area is how a lot of editors' stories turn sad.
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has a lead with SEVEN paragraphs, some quite long. Can we pare this down? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
1 week topic ban from the current economic conditions of the United States
You have been sanctioned for treating Wikipedia like a battleground.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Given that the sentence most at-issue here was restored by Endwise 3 hours after Soibangla removed it, this comment seems tantamount to accusing Endwise of vandalism and being canvassed.
Your comments here are pushing at the edge of the TBAN you just received. soibangla ( talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
legitimate and necessary dispute resolutionor other provisions of WP:BANEX, I will block you for the duration of the TBAN. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Why aren't you talking to Endwise for violating BRD twice to ram into the lead contentious content that did not exist there for years, in the midst of a political firestorm, and nobody so much as sniffed at it?That was clearly about the dispute that led to the TBAN being imposed—a dispute that falls under the TBAN's scope. I gave two warnings. If Soibangla had any confusion about whether that fell under the TBAN's scope, they had two chances to ask. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 21:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
On 9 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trump fake electors plot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donald Trump and his attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators in an effort to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump alternate electors controversy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Trump fake electors plot), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
"I will now step back and observe my inevitable vindication unfold." [30]
"implementing RFC outcome, which never seems to have actually been implemented; reverting lead to stable version from July 14th" [31]
soibangla ( talk) 01:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
third quarter real GDP growth: 2.6%
average monthly private job creation since June: 308,000
worst. recession. ever.
soibangla ( talk) 23:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday, an IP editor suggested in a rather incivil tone of (paraphasing) "this has been repeatedly explained to you, but you just don't get it, so sit down and shut up already") when I questioned DS policy and its application. [32]]
Today, that IP editor concedes:
I fully agree that DS/GS are a complete mess, but I think that's just an artefact of it being a confused system that has grown out of 2 decades of arbitration cases. Really it needs a full rewrite - defining some boundaries on what an admin can do as an individual action and what requires a consensus of admins would be a good start (emphasis mine)
This confirms that my consistent argument has merit, after I've been told by many that it has none.
Perhaps the IP editor would like to join me in spearheading an effort like this to ensure that DS is "legislated and codified" to make it unambiguous, rather than continue being the cobbling together of "case law" over two decades, resulting in endless disputes over DS policy:
I may in the future seek policy clarification and reform. Per policy, I may be wrong. Alternatively, maybe the policy is wrong. I believe it is.
[34] soibangla ( talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Someone earlier posited to me:
the topic ban policy is absolutely unambiguous that a topic ban applies to discussions related to the topic on your own talk page (emphasis mine)
Indeed, WP:TBAN states:
For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
- discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes) (emphasis mine)
Please consider this scenario: an admin topic bans an editor without warning in an article space where no DS notice is posted. Stunned, the editor first goes to the banning admin's Talk page, then to their own Talk page, to discuss the rationale for the ban, to determine whether it was justified or whether an appeal might be pursued.
After discussing the nature of the ban, a different involved admin blocks the editor "for violating the TBAN that was just imposed, immediately after I warned you that continuing to discuss the dispute it was imposed over would lead to a block" (emphasis mine).
So, was the editor discussing the topic from which they were banned, which would be a policy violation that might ostensibly warrant a block, or were they discussing the nature of the ban, as a preliminary measure to decide whether to appeal?
If there is a clear distinction, should WP:TBAN be amended to note that? soibangla ( talk) 22:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I see you moved Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) but not the article. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Why are you changinging your signature to point to User:Me? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu, Tuckerlieberman, Valjean soibangla ( talk) 01:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Template:Donald Trump should be updated with a whole section devoted to all the investigations related to him. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Please explain this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Twitter_Files&diff=1127766872&oldid=1127765625 . Thanks! Albertinon ( talk) 19:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Flibbertigibbets has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Very much appreciate your insights!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 15:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is the largest cake on the barnstar menu, but I thought I would join the party. Thanks for your good work. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For keeping conspiracy theories and debunked bullshit off Wikipedia. You know you've earned it when the liars panic and target you. Heavy Water ( talk) 04:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Bank#Bernie_Marcus_quote
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 00:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll just point you to
User_talk:RoyLeban#Hunter Biden laptop controversy for the reasons your edit is disruptive and
WP:POINTY. I urge you to close the thread as advice has been given in numerous places about steps to take and one that you won't find is make an edit contravening the established consensus and start a 99th thread on the talk page.
Slywriter (
talk) 04:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::You absolutely know better than that, and you yourself said "I was not present for the RFC and had significant issues with its conclusion, but we're bound to honor it." Since then there's been a second RFC which you participated in, and numerous talk page discussions which you also participated in. I'm in disbelief you are actually claiming your disruptive edit did not contradict established consensus.
Mr Ernie (
talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Howdy. I think you may have messed up the other fellow's post at the HBLT talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 00:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Soibangla. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:Dominion brief with Fox communications.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Trump alternate electors controversy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 16:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Durham_special_counsel_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=1154964333
Time for you to work your magic. The reactions to his meager report will be interesting. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
John Durham’s Investigation Has Disclosed Corruption: His Own. The Barr-appointed special counsel was supposed to reveal “the crime of the century.” All he revealed was his incompetence—and worse. [1]
It would be good for the Durham special counsel investigation and Russia investigation origins counter-narrative articles. Somewhere there is a source that early on called Durham's efforts an attempt to "cover-up" (or "coverup") Trump's misdeeds. We need to find that source. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
References
While the Durham report is sketchy, it isn't totally worthless. I just discovered a common error made by some RS, and carried over into the Steele dossier article. That is the idea that when Trump stayed at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in 2013, he actually stayed in the Presidential Suite, where the pee tape was allegedly filmed. The Durham report says that hotel records show he never stayed in that room.
So here's what really happened. He did stay at the hotel, but he "hired" the Presidential Suite, as that's where Obama had stayed. I've had to rework some of that content now. The dossier itself never says he "stayed" in the Presidential Suite, only that he "hired" it. So this is one time the primary source was accurate, but vague, and some RS got it wrong by assuming something not explicitly stated by the primary source. This doesn't really change anything about the allegation, but it does refine our understanding of the geographical context. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Andrew C. McCarthy, while a conspiracy theorist, is/was a good researcher, and here he was right:
In his report, Durham waxes long about how Danchenko and other sources lied to him, but Danchenko's lies did not change the facts he was reporting, only the attribution of the source(s) of the allegations. Danchenko was just doing what agents often do, they seek to slur the identities of their sources to protect them. He, and likely Steele, did that with the identities of some of their sources, but that does not affect the accuracy of the allegations. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Now editors who are clearly NOTHERE are attacking the Steele dossier article again. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
References
the exuberance over Durham's indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated. ... Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus, ... [but] His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham's prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false. (italics original)
Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Trump alternate electors controversy".
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. When 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! 22:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi soibangla, I hope you are well. I was a bit taken aback to see this group of edits. They're not disruptive per se, but also not productive. I'd appreciate if you can provide an argument or go through the proper delete/move process next time. I know you posted that very soon after the page was created, but it could have been a lot more productive. The void century ( talk) 01:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I certainly understand the points people made. I try to see the good in people, even rude IP editors. I myself get pretty frustrated with the intransigent editors. I got even more frustrated when I was basically attack when I finally responded to people who were attacking me routinely. That doesn't excuse rudeness or IP editing, but it does make me want to see the points, not the rudeness. I prioritized WP:TALKO over WP:NOTFORUM and it does seem those policies are in conflict. (Also, WP:NOTFORUM is not quite so explicit that it is unquestionable that the IP editor's comments would violate it — they did make some valid points.) Somebody should address the conflict between those two policies, or at least add a cross-reference, and perhaps clarify WP:NOTFORUM too. RoyLeban ( talk) 08:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments like these aren't particularly helpful when someone proposes a change to an article with an explanation of their reasoning. If you don't like a change, telling us why would be nice. I'd recommend reading WP:SQSAVOID: the chief characteristic of legitimate status quo defending is substantive discussion regarding the change. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 16:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
To that end, I think this would be a better formulation: "Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, making various false allegations that he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office...
so you're saying Trump did not make various false allegations? is that the substance of your change? but he did
I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family".
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. When 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! 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Please stop adding original research into articles. In
your contribution to the laptop article you conduct original research by using two sources that don't mention the laptop. You were also responsible for adding the original paragraph, which consists of improper synthesis: one of the sources doesn't mention the laptop, while the other mentions the laptop in different context you imply. When you were confronted
on the talk page, you didn't even substantially defend your revert, and instead said "I have not been involved in discussion of the paragraph I added weeks ago. you have not reached consensus to alter or remove it."
In other articles, I have several times encountered your original research. Sometimes I have reverted your edits if it's obvious that the content cannot rescued. Sometimes I have altered your edits, but I don't time to fix everything. For example, at the House investigation article you added a background section that uses many old sources that obviously don't the reference the article topic. Please remember that all material involving living persons must strictly adhere to NOR policy (+ NPOV and V).
Repeatedly adding original research is a sign of tendentious editing. Please stop. Politrukki ( talk) 13:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
"I disagree with your interpretation", do you refer to TE or NOR? If it's about the latter, please expand.I have complained about your OR editing before. Back in the 2019 you insisted that I should prove an evidence-free claim. In the article talk page discussion another user explained you how OR works, but you didn't give an inch. Now, this case and the cases I mentioned in the opening post are different because now you have used at least pseudo-reliable sources; sources that have been published by respectable publications, but that don't directly support the statements they are attached to. Politrukki ( talk) 15:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I have complained about your OR editing beforeYes, once. 4.5 years ago. I've improved a bit since then. If you believe I persistently demonstrate improper editing, I suggest you seek to have me sanctioned. In lieu of that, you can revert my edits that seem problematic to you and we can go through BRD. soibangla ( talk) 17:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I lost track of the talk page discussions and your fixes on that page. In trying to revert the IP, I made some other tweaks which didn't take account of your previous version. A few problems remain with that text. I think business cycle is unnecessary and assumes all kinds of things that are not necessary to the definition of a contraction. I think also the text now says a demand shock may be due to a supply shock. That would be confusing to a lay reader. Somehow the less common, but recently very significant, possibility of a supply shock would better be isolated from the list of demand shocks. Thanks for keeping an eye on this page. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't been so thrilled since the first time I saw my name in the phone book.
https://www.rt.com/news/581379-hunter-biden-wikipedia-edits-consulting/
SPECIFICO Objective3000 Neutrality soibangla ( talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This is in re: "Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration"
You make your political affiliation quite clear in your edits, which is fine... until that conflicts with the core ideas behind Wikpedia; like completely removing someone's genuine, fair, good faith contributions. I think if you be honest with yourself it's clear that the change you made was unfair and it's frustrating to me to see my work deleted. I hope next time, you give pause before removing the work someone else did to improve Wikipedia in their spare time. :( 2601:648:8800:3B70:438:8F2E:7B2A:D5BD ( talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Valjean/Why_Crossfire_Hurricane%3F
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Durham said there had been inadequate predication to open a full investigation in July 2016, but that only an assessment or preliminary investigation was warranted by that time. Although the report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor", it did not find political motivation or a "deep state" plot.
I'm curious, have you by chance ever looked into the history of the term deep state? What's so weird and unusual, is that Trump and his alt-right minions (or at least the ones writing his talking points, like Bannon etc.) stole the term "deep state" from the left to use it against them. In other words, the American left previously appropriated the term from Turkey, and used it to describe the military industrial complex and the anti-democratic overtones of unelected bureaucrats who promoted a kind of slow, incrementalism that held back progress. The irony, is that this usage refers primary to the American right wing, particularly around the concept of dark money and disinformation networks that worked from the outside in, as authors like Naomi Oreskes Jane Mayer, Anne Nelson, and Nancy MacLean described it (albeit without ever using the term "deep state"). I should also point out, this is not the first time Trump & Co. borrowed a term from the left and used it against them. The most famous example of this is Trump's use of the term "fake news", which the left used to describe right wing misinformation like Fox News. Like the term "deep state", Trump took the term "fake news" and inverted it, using it instead to describe factual news sources. Just wondering if you have ever given any kind of thought to this, since you are actively editing around the subject. My personal take, is that this was one small part of Steve Bannon's overarching "Leninism", an attempt to destroy the conservative establishment by employing the tools and weapons of the left. In case you think that's somewhat crazy, there's a lot of supporting evidence. One of the most notable and observable aspects was the merging of left and right and conspiracy theories during 2020. That's when we saw the rise of conspirituality, a big tent fringe movement that allowed people on the left and the right to mingle together and join a wider movement, suffused with a kind of nebulous extreme right wing tinge that the people on the left within that movement were unable to recognize. This is exactly what happened when Trump used terms like the deep state and fake news. In many ways, it was ingenious, as it brought people from the left to the right without them knowing it, and used their participation in an attempt to destroy both the left and establishment right. It has Bannon's fingerprints all over it. Viriditas ( talk) 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, you recently undid my edit to Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden. It is my understanding that the names of the sources should be used in articles like these.
Tangentially, I find it unsatisfactory that you have removed the new york times as a source to the article, after I went through the effort to add it.
Peace and love 96.227.223.203 ( talk) 21:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing Active Club Network, which has a good amount of plagiarism per Earwig's copyvio detector. Please ensure that you are not paraphrasing things too closely or forgetting to quote things that should be attributed to another source. Best, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I am certainly no expert on Earwig's copyvio detector, but from what I can tell by running it on the article version through my last edit prior to this notification [36], the tool compared all my edits to all references and returned "Violation Unlikely" in every case. Here is the permalink [37] to the scan of that article version, which I had restored [38] for this scan.
So I am a bit confused by the tag now at the top of the article saying my edits "contain significant copyright violations."
I received this notification less than 5 hours after I created the article, while I was still on my first pass, before proceeding to a second draft to tighten things up. soibangla ( talk) 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Racial views of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blood purity.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement 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 until the discussion has finished.
– Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that my recommendation for the change on the Hunter Biden laptop question, is different than what was discussed months ago. I am NOT arguing that the information should be removed entirely, just that it should be reworded. Epachamo ( talk) 19:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Soibangla. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. — SamX [ talk · contribs 23:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Readers can assume "to date" means when they are reading it because I'm pretty certain that if the republicans find anything in their mudracking that someone will edit it in almost immediately. The alternative is people constantly updating that section and adding new sources on the end and then someone else has to come along and decide which sources have to be removed. Not ideal. TarnishedPath talk 07:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Howdy. I adjusted the closing part of your hatting. I presumed you hadn't intended to hat the rest of Trump's talkpage :) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) GoodDay ( talk) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
BTW - An RFC at 2024 Donald Trump presidential campaign page, is considering the option of creating a 'new' page to house Trump's rhetoric. This, might effect your RFC about Trump bio page. GoodDay ( talk) 04:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I finally got around to updating the article and moving it. Now we need to update the links to the old "blog" location: /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Lawfare_(blog) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Please reply at User talk:Andrevan. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
July-Oct. 2016
How can I keep that from breaking up at a line break? I want it all to remain together as a unit. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
{{nowrap|July-Oct. 2016}}
. ―
Mandruss
☎ 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Your ethic and edits are exemplary, so I think this is long overdue. DN ( talk) 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
Thanks again. I appreciate the advice from earlier. I've been running out of ideas on how to mitigate that issue. If you have any other suggestions, by all means, please let me know. Cheers. DN ( talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Soibangla, you’re doing this again - adding new information into an article's lede without adding it to the article's body.
WP:LEAD is clear: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Your
recent edit at
Tom Parker (judge) is assuredly is not a basic fact. Please try not to do this again in the future.
starship
.paint (
RUN) 09:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trump fake electors plot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)