User talk:Soibangla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wiliam Barr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker)@Princetoniac: - To quote from WP:NPA, Comment on content, not on the contributor. At this point, you are discussing your changes on the article talk page, you need to concentrate on that. Be specific about what changes you want to make and where. It's worth breaking your edit into several separate changes, with specifics about why you think they should be made. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, we are now living in a remarkable time, an unprecedented time, a golden age of journalism. There is a firehose of information hitting us every day about this president. I have chosen to help document this era, and there's a very good reason why very few of my edits are reverted. You can edit what you want, and I can edit what I want, and we can peacefully coexist here. All you had to do was add an edit summary, that's all you had to do, and we wouldn't even be talking here. If you persist with this nonsense, you're just engaged in harassment. soibangla (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Good content to keep

I suspect this was good content you deleted. It was just a weird edit summary that accompanied its addition. This edit restored it, so let's keep it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Also at Oleg Deripaska

Armduino is deleting relevant content there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it bears watching... soibangla (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

oops

I meant to call your attention to the explain tag I just added but hit enter accidentally before I mentioned you in the edit sum please check it out, where you just moved a sentence about Fox. If you want to discuss it, lets do it at article talk so others can participate if they wish. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Verbose edit summaries

Please don't cram your edit sums with the edit contents. Usually ten words is plentyNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your request is noted. soibangla (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Nina ...

Regarding your change of the DYK archive: it makes no sense to me, to change any archive. It happened, and even if it should not have happened in your opinion, erasing it from the archive is no help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I was unaware I was deleting from an archive. If the content was archived and unavailable for removal, maybe it should not have been possible to remove it from a "live" page. The content should never have made it to the main page, and I hope efforts will be made to assure that editors follow in bold policy that's there for a reason or seek consensus to waive it so they can keep a DYK alive for an additional month, to include on the main page content that is neither timely nor appropriate. Thanks for your comment. soibangla (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You being unaware explains a lot, - thank you. The page you changed is Wikipedia:Main Page history/2022 June 7b, - didn't "history" tell you enough? These pages are written twice a day by a bot, and don't need protection, but typically also no manual changes. I bet you will not do it again. I didn't follow the other discussion and don't care much. The last hook in a DYK set is meant to be a bit strange and witty, and what it said was sourced. I had no problem with that. I tend to be lenient with nominations a bit late because I often need that lenience myself :) ... and now I have to make an article long enough which I nominated way too short to not be late. We are human. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I didn't see "history." I am a very dumb and bad person. Hope that helps. soibangla (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Try to be a bit kinder to yourself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden

You have a keen interest in Mr Biden. I put in another edit inline with your suggestion in the laptop article, and it was also reverted. I have created a talk page article to discuss. You also reverted a change in the main Hunter Biden article. I have updated the entry in line with your suggestion, and suggest moving to the talk page on that article if you want to discuss. RonaldDuncan (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

State of coverage of Trump's investigations

I'd like to talk about how Trump's investigations have been split up on Wikipedia and what we can do to improve their coverage better. There are currently four articles surrounding the same topic: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents, FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, and Smith special counsel investigation. It's clear what's occurred here; the article on FBI search of Mar-a-Lago began out of surprise. As further details progressed regarding the raid, the article on FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents began to cover the topic in greater detail. The article on the Smith special counsel investigation was created following Merrick Garland's announcement. I'm not sure why an article on Donald Trump v. United States of America was necessary, but it appears to have significant coverage.

These are all equally notable topics, and I fear that the topic itself is getting muddied with similar edits occurring on all of these articles. I have studied this topic since the earliest reports of the FBI searching Mar-a-Lago, and I believe there is justification to create an article on these topics, but we need to assess how this topic is being treated and consider merging sections into pages. The article for the FBI's search should not become the de facto article when we could use the article for the FBI's investigation as easily.

Because this is a large issue, I will be bringing in several editors with a known connection to these articles to work out a solution. Muboshgu, Tuckerlieberman, Valjean, Phillip Samuel, Space4Time3Continuum2x, The void century, Drbogdan. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and then there's United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. This promises to be the mother of all merges and I haven't been looking forward to it. My first take is to merge FBI search of Mar-a-Lago into FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents and thence into Smith special counsel investigation, then delete the first two articles. Because DOJ still handles Trump fake electors plot, mention that in United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and link to the primary article from there. soibangla (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to have the articles about the FBI's role in the classified docs investigation merged into one. I concur with Soibangla's idea to merge the two FBI articles as well as the Donald J. Trump v. United States of America case into one page. I believe however the Smith special counsel investigation page should be kept separate. There is already a precedent set for splitting the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) and Mueller special counsel investigation (which took over the FBI investigation) to separate pages. Considering that the United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the FBI docs investigation both started months before Smith was appointed, it doesn't makes sense to combine those three investigations into one page. Since the Smith investigation is tasked with taking over both investigations, any new news/info should be put on that page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right: merge the two FBI articles and keep it, then mention and link to it from Smith, and do likewise for the DOJ article, as well as fake electors article, so going forward we have only Smith and fake electors to work on. Did I get you right? soibangla (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, simply put:

One merged page for: FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents, Donald J. Trump v. United States of America

One page for: United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election

- mention and link the Trump fake electors plot page

One page for: Smith special counsel investigation

- mention and link to FBI docs investigation and DOJ investigation pages.

Since the Smith investigation is the main one, any new news/info about FBI/DOJ investigate steps should be put on there. Any new revelations about the fake electors plot should be put on the fake electors page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, there's also Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information which mentions the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago at the end.

There's also Legal affairs of Donald Trump as a broad overview. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A Venn diagram would help. Find the center/mother and then split off (summary style) the logical daughter articles. (Another problem is still our lack of a Durham investigation article.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Durham is still putting final spin on his report: "CNN has reported that Durham's investigation is now in its final stages as his team finishes up its written report, which will be sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland. The attorney general and other top Justice Department officials will decide how much of the report to make public. Garland has previously said he wants to release 'as much as possible.'" If the investigation is split off, is there enough meat left in Russia investigation origins counter-narrative? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is this discussion taking place on a personal talk page? This needs to be discussed on the talk pages of each of the mentioned articles. ElijahPepe, Soibangla, Phillip Samuel, FYI: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America was split off from FBI search of Mar-a-Lago following this discussion. The article deals with one specific lawsuit Trump filed to stop/impede/hinder/drag out (take your pick) the DOJ investigation of him having kept government records after the end of his tenure. The case was dismissed, so there won't be any new developments there but it's a remarkable lawsuit that editors felt should be preserved. As for the other articles, it would have been better if the second article on the FBI search (FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents) hadn't been created a week after the first one (FBI search of Mar-a-Lago), but here we are. Special counsel Jack Smith, BTW, is overseeing two separate investigations, the one into the documents Trump was hoarding at Mar-a-Lago and the one on examining Trump's role in events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack, so the current title Smith special counsel investigation is incorrect. I, for one, think that FBI search of Mar-a-Lago should probably stay as a separate article and be summarized in the eventual article on the special counsel investigation of Trump's documents case. We will probably have to wait a while for any news, doesn't seem like the kind of investigation that will generate any leaks to the press. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Echoing your observation that Smith is overseeing two separate investigations into government document theft (Mar-a-Lago) and attempts to overturn the election (January 6). This makes it a little tricky to organize articles, since we (the public) don't yet know what's in the stolen documents at Mar-a-Lago. Presumably some documents were election-related, and thus the investigations would intertwine. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong page for this discussion I happen to follow this page, otherwise would have been unaware of this discussion. It can be relocated to its own standalone page, either in a user space sandbox or talk:donald trump (or a dedicated subpage of that one) with notifications at the associated pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna scoop this all up and move it to Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election which has many editors and watchers. soibangla (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)