User talk:Soibangla/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	To thank you for all the article improvement you do filling in bare references - like here. Way too often, little improvements to the encyclopedia like that don't get noticed or properly appreciated. MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump Tower preparation meeting, IOW clear conspiracy

Good sources here that help to answer some questions: Why did they lie about this meeting so much? Why did Trump personally override the attempts by Trump Jr. and Kushner to be relatively honest about revealing this meeting. He literally trumped their attempt and issued a completely false press release. How could so many very key American and Russian people suddenly and by chance just happen to appear at a meeting in Trump Tower to discuss lifting sanctions without Trump knowing? Why has this meeting been considered the clearest evidence of collusion/conspiracy? This planning meeting makes it clear that none of this was by chance or happened without Trump's very close and personal involvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 09:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the Committee to Investigate Russia is an excellent, non-partisan, fact-based source which cites many RS we can use. IMO, it should be considered a RS in itself as its Advisory Board is a group of very high profile and notable experts who are, in and of themselves, considered RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 09:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump vs. the rest of the world about Russian interference

Hours after White House warns of new election meddling, Trump again points to 'Russian hoax'

• "The two events created a split-screen effect: America's intelligence experts warning voters that Russia is trying to undermine democracy while Trump tells them it's all political chicanery."
• "Several of Trump’s top lieutenants...described the threat in the White House briefing room....But Trump, whose operation is under federal investigation for possible collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice, swiftly contradicted his advisers’ conclusion in the midst of thousands of boisterous supporters here.

  "In Helsinki, I had a great meeting with Putin,"... Now we're being hindered by the Russian hoax. It's a hoax, OK? I'll tell you what, Russia's very unhappy that Trump won, that I can tell you."

  "In Helsinki, Putin said that he had hoped Trump would win the 2016 presidential election."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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

Fox News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FOIA

Judicial Watch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FOIA

The Gateway Pundit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FOIA

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear Option

Hi. I really don’t think we need to get into an edit war over this. I have edited the bit about the nuclear option being used to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. While it’s true that the Republican applied the nuclear option to SCOTUS nominees, first Gorsuch and then Kavanaugh, the text didn’t represent a WP:NPOV as the Democrats were the first to apply it to presidential nominees in general and made it available to the Republican majority to apply universally. The link to the nuclear option page clearly lays out the sequencing. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Notice

I have filed a request for Arbitration Enforcement based on your recent edits regarding American Politics. You can find the thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Soibangla. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Your editing

I don't think my concerns are spurious, though they apparently aren't severe enough to justify a topic ban. I'll attempt to explain them here in full detail. Here are all my concerns with your editing, ignoring the recent Donald Trump edit.

First, two things which I feel are bad ideas, but aren't violations of any policy:

• Focus on high-controversy topics this isn't an accusation, just a statement of fact. Articles such as Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), Hillary Clinton email controversy, Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, and Trump–Russia dossier are very controversial. I see virtually no edits on any topics unrelated to the political controversies of the day.
• Excessive focus on primary sources - Let's take [1] as an example. Why is it relevant that Numerous conservative outlets echoed the accusations, including Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller and The National Review Online? Many of your edits take the form of a news log ([2] [3] [4]) without any analysis or secondary sources that explain why they are important.

More concerning problems:

• Promoting WP:FRINGE theories by repeating them in the context of denials. This diff on George Soros I find particularly problematic, as it was in the context of an RFC on that sentence and had not been discussed on the talk page. This diff is also very clearly hinting at something.
• Undue emphasis on topics, generally with an anti-Trump bias. Some diffs include [5] (on Fox News, September 1, reverted by PackMecEng); [6] (on Trump derangement syndrome, September 18, reverted by Audacity). I'd also take issue with your changes at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution [7] - the material is already discussed in the lead and there's no need to state Prior to Heller, the Court had affirmed only a collective right to own guns for military service, not an individual right. in the first paragraph.
• Engaging in Synthesis note WP:SYNTH - [8] is attempting to suggest that Bolton supported a terrorist group, a claim that the sources do not make. Something like [9] is problematic because, while convening a grand jury in that context implies misbehavior, the source used was discussing the validity of a petition drive against Kobach. At [10] the introductory material about Republicans complaining about the War on Poverty is unrelated to Trump's claims.

While these may not rise to the level of justifying a topic ban, I do find them to be problematic, and feel some of them are of the type that could justify a topic ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I will not further engage you unless you publicly apologize on the Trump talk page for making a specious and scurrilous accusation against me, causing me significant reputational damage, and engaging in what was tantamount to a Pearl Harbor attack to get me permanently banned from the very broad American Politics category. Naturally, I ain't gonna hold my breath for that, and if it is not forthcoming, please refrain from speaking to me again. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I gave you the diffs right here; how can you call it "specious"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you to stop speaking to me. Continuing to do so constitutes harassment. soibangla (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John R. Bolton. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please don't edit articles if you're going to be partisan. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Please cite where I did this.soibangla (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

See the notice above. I reverted your unhelpful edits at John R. Bolton. Clearly, you have an ongoing issue with pushing your viewpoint. I recommend you find somewhere else to edit if you cannot edit within consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Please see the cited RS with my edit soibangla (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The cited source isn't the issue. The issue is that you and a news source want to attack Bolton through his associations. Wikipedia does not allow this, per WP:NPOV. The cited source does not excuse you from not editing neutrally. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not pushing a POV. A RS reported this. See you on Talk soibangla (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Say, you wouldn't happen to be friends with the editor who tried to get me banned but garnered absolutely no support for it and instead was resoundingly spanked, would you? HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I appreciate the thanks, but if you're going to thank me then please weigh in. Thanks do not build consensus. R2 (bleep) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#New_paragraph_added_to_lede_-_I_removed_it Cheers. soibangla (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Your recent editing history at Matthew Whitaker (attorney) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Go to the talk page and get concensus to re-insert disputed information. There are other editors who disagree with your addition, which is controversial and not focused on the main issue. --CharlesShirley (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I am appending content to an existing paragraph with reliable sourcing. Stop lying about me. soibangla (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not lying about you. You keep re-inserting information that has been disputed by more than one editor. That's all there is to it. Please follow the protocol and quit edit warring. The information has been disputed so it must stay out of the article until there is a concensus to include it. This is the way the process works. --CharlesShirley (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, you did lie about me. And you're doing it again now. soibangla (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any edit warring by Soibangla. R2 (bleep) 23:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You gave your warning, Charles. Move on. R2 (bleep) 05:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Noted: CharlesShirley this is getting to the point of edit warring. Please stop reverting everything anyone adds to this section. You have now reverted many more than three times any attempt to add anything to this soibangla (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Whitaker

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please note that repeated reverts are not an appropriate way to ensure that your preferred content makes it into an article. The WP:ONUS is on you to build consensus first, particularly in the lead of a high-traffic BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I have twice asked you, "please," to take this matter to Talk after I twice indicated that your two objections to the edit were erroneous. Please take it to Talk. soibangla (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to build consensus for the inclusion of the material that you've kept in the article with repeated reverts[11][12][13]. Here's a quote from that policy if you're confused about what that means: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So if you're going to be adding content at the rate you're going, you are the one who really needs to be spending more time on the talk page. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, since you need another reminder, don't misuse the Talk page for childish taunts. You've already been to the AE page once, so you should know by now how that behavior is regarded. Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX and we all have to collaborate with editors with whom we sometimes disagree. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop talkin’ to me soibangla (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your behavior is disruptive and your talkpage is where a conversation about that should take place. Why don't you take the very good advice that power~enwiki gave you earlier. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You are now harassing me. Stop. soibangla (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

When you taunt other editors on articles and edit war to get your point across, as demonstrated in the diffs above, expect for them to raise the issue with you on your talk page. That's not harassment, and you shouldn't make WP:AOHA to dismiss the impact of your actions on others and the collaborative process. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You continue to harass me despite being told to cease. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Whitaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Soibangla. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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 recently shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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 any 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.

Just a heads up. Springee (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I don't see that the NRA article is under DS. What should I deduce as the purpose of your message? soibangla (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The DS tag is on the NRA Talk page. The above is a typical DS notice. In your history it didn't appear that you had received one for firearms related articles. Springee (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a DS banner when in view or edit mode on the NRA Talk page soibangla (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Is there, in fact, a DS tag on the NRA Talk page? soibangla (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Look through the stack of yellow boxes at the top of the screen. The 3rd to last is the DS warning. Springee (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: And why, may I ask, did you choose to bring this specifically to my attention after you repeatedly stated flat falsehoods that I had the "temerity" to repeatedly correct? cc:Legacypac soibangla (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - I'm aware of the discretionary sanctions. The advisement is fine on it's face but usually posted when an editor intends to seek sanctions at some future point against you. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to interpret it as intimidation. soibangla (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider the alternative. You added new material to a section that had been created through significant debate and consensus building (see the talk archives). Your edit was challenged and reverted. A discussion was opened and at the time I believed it was three editors who weighed in, LP, myself and another editor. The consensus of the three was the material you added was only tangentially related to the NRA so it wasn't a good addition. Rather than join the conversation you restored your edit (but added the NRA part). You can verify the sequence of events in the edit histories. Again, that linkage is only tangential and you need to establish a new consensus before restoring rather than acting first. Regardless of the debate and lack of new consensus you restored the disputed content. Currently a new consensus haven't been established. Restoration of the previous text is the rule in such cases per wp:consensus. Given that you were making changes without establishing consensus first and we're making incivil accusations [[14]] it seemed reasonable to see if you were familiar with the DS restrictions that apply to the article. You didn't have that DS warning and your comments above make it clear that you did not know the article was subject to DS thus the notice was appropriate. Springee (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"The consensus of the three was the material you added was only tangentially related to the NRA so it wasn't a good addition" is a brazen falsehood. I also asked you to "Show me where a consensus was reached that the specific content I added should be excluded," whereupon you fell silent, which might cause a reasonable person to conclude you were making a falsehood in that regard as well. At no time was I uncivil to you; I was, however, advising you that your behavior was inappropriate, as I am again now. I suggest you pause to reconsider your modus operandi with respect to the article and me more specifically. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't work that way. If there is no consensus the previous revision is restored. Please review no consensus [[15]]. Accusing me of making false statements is incivil. You are welcome to say I'm incorrect as that doesn't imply willing deception. If you think a specific statement I made was false then point it out and when I'm editing at a computer I will explain my thinking. You may not agree but hopefully it will allow us both to wp:agf. Springee (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Your statements are incorrect in every respect. Again, I suggest you reconsider what you're doing. Really. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well show me which statements you dispute and I will offer my POV. You might not agree in the end but it will address the accusation of "false". Remember, you restored an edit that had been challenged without talk a talk page comment despite an active discussion. Your restoration violated consensus policy (see no consensus and restoring prior consensus when a new consensus hasn't been reached). Springee (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

These matters have been adequately addressed and I no longer wish to engage with you. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So you claim I'm lying but refuse to back the claim. I guess we are indeed done. Springee (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Kindly cease misrepresenting what I say and never talk to me again. soibangla (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Seek Sanctions?=

I don't want to start the Springee case alone but would be happy to partner up with other editors like you and maybe User:MrX If two or three of us present a topic ban case together maybe we can get it passed. The disruption caused by the refusal to follow consensus and what can now only be understood to be deliberate misstatements about what sources and other editors are saying makes for a tough environment. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm in. soibangla (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I would not be comfortable with teaming up to pursue a topic ban. I think any evidence would need to speak for itself. There is no question but that Springee tends to stonewall against the inclusion of any negative material in the NRA article, and exhibits some WP:OWN, but from what I've observed, their conduct does not quite rise to the level of being sanctionable. Some of you know more of the history around gun control and his conduct, so I'm not trying to talk you out pursuing this if you think that it's merited.- MrX 🖋 23:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for some concensus before we go to the drama board. He's been pursuing his pro-NRA to the point of silly stance for a long time. I'm particularly annoyed by his recent turn to misrepresenting sources and what other editors are saying. Each talkpage discussion consists of Springee telling a bunch of other editors we are all wrong over and over, and how we already decided things should be how he wants them. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Government shutdowns in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Customs and Border Protection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Incivility and friends

Re [16] we are way off topic there, and I'm not going to continue this there.

Criticism is not incivility, even if you disagree with it. There is no wide agreement on what civility is, making it a somewhat useless construct, but in my view I haven't been incivil since about 2015. I don't believe in friends (or enemies) at Wikipedia, as I don't want personal relationships influencing my judgment for or against the actions of another editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

My view is that you reacted disproportionately to my previous comment about partisan hacks, going so far as to imply that you or others might use that as a basis to have me “sentenced to death,” as another editor previously tried on a specious premise, but was summarily “laughed out of court” for it, with no one testifying on his behalf. Perhaps you can understand why I don’t dig that kinda intimidation stuff, but rather than follow my gut instinct to react to you in a harsh tone for what I considered an excessive response, I restrained myself, took the high road, let you have the last word, and moved on. I figured the matter was closed. Then you come back later and take an unwarranted shot at me, suggesting hypocrisy about my edit, when it was nothing of the kind, whereas the other editor’s action was most definitely inappropriate. No one had said word-one about his challenge before s/he proceeded to dismantle the edit. My understanding is that’s not the way it’s supposed to work, particularly on what may be the most contentious article on WP, and may help to explain why the article has been repeatedly locked down tight.

I’m not here to make friends here either, but I earnestly and sincerely seek to collaborate with others, but I presume you realize there are certain individuals who don’t play straight here, and dealing with them can cause frustration that can burst to the surface on occasion. I plead guilty.

Despite this, I am willing to accept this as a misunderstanding, move on and not bear any grudge. Peace. soibangla (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Annual DS alert refresh - American politics

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 recently 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.

―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No original research

Please do not add your personal commentary to articles, as you did in this edit. If no source supports your claim, you are conducting original research. Please do not do that. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Politrukki: I encourage you to provide evidence that any official findings of wrongdoing have been made. As you ask in your edit summary, "Who has made an official statement" that Clinton has been implicated in any wrongdoing? There is no original research in my edit. soibangla (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I had an odd interaction with User:Politrukki about a year ago, if of interest: User talk:X1\#Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. X1\ (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Condition, not polity

Please see [17]. In 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown, "state of emergency" refers to a condition that an emergency exists, not to something associated with a polity which is a subdivision of a nation. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Presidential swearings-in

"Pursuant to the Constitution, Vice President automatically became president (his swearing is was superfluous, but was done anyway, just to be sure"

Hi.

True, LBJ automatically became president at the moment of JFK's death. However, the swearing-in was very necessary, in order for him to be able to carry out the duties of president. Without the swearing-in, he would have been president in name only; entitled to be addressed as "Mr President", but not entitled to sign any bills into law, veto any bills, declare emergencies etc. Same deal applies to any president at their election; they become president precisely at noon on 20 January, but cannot perform the duties of their office until they're sworn-in, which always happens later than noon. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Erik Prince edits

Please be careful on whether the edits you are making are meaningful. The recent one which you backed out yourself, putting "1 trimester" into the infobox, is not appropriate. It's debatable whether the Naval Academy belongs in the infobox (usually, only the graduating institution is listed), but adding qualifiers in the infobox is inappropriate. The infobox is specifically for an at-a-glance overview, not for detailed discussion. Brevity is very much preferred in the infobox. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello, I'm 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Stephen Moore (writer) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Comprised of""

See WP:COMPRISEDOF. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

meh soibangla (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

False public statements by Trump and his administration addition

Hello,

You made a good addition to the article, False public statements by Trump and his administration, however, to avoid WP:UNDUE, we need to add more citations regarding those claims and to best it, take excerpts from the final report to the corresponding claim. Thank you for your great work and assistance in improving the Wikipedia page! :)

Cheers!

Aviartm (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your patience is appreciated. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Add excerpts from the final report to the report citations.

Hello,

You have recently made good edits under Other findings for the Mueller Report. However, we have established to add the corresponding except in full in the citation. Citation #238, you added, reads " Mueller report, Appendix C, p.C-1." You need to add the corresponding excerpt from the report and a secondary source that corroborates that. Thank you for all of your great edits so far to Mueller Report! :) Aviartm (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3