According to media reports, President Trump has approved to release a memo by a chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, possibly causing significant changes to the Bureau's image based on allegations of corruption. Therefore, I have added 'a major expansion tag' on the section of possible corruption in Russia probe. RedGreenBanana (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@RedGreenBanana: Yeah, that's great but, but is there some reason why you can't (or just won't) leave edit summaies with any of your edits? You haven't left a single summary, not one, since you joined. This is despite you already being notified of this on your talk page. You are making a lot of edits to articles that are on a lot of editors watchlists, including this article, so please start leaving some kind of note in the edit summary box mentioning what you changed and why, as per the guideline. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 18:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thewolfchild, thanks for your response. Just read the notification. Thanks for notifying me, I'll be sure to leave a summary of my edits. RedGreenBanana (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@RedGreenBanana: It would be great if you actually did that. Since your reply, you've made about 3 dozen or so edits to this article in just a few hours. Where you did add a "summary", you only added a single word, like "clarify". Also, if you're planning on making major/mass changes to an article, especially one as significant as this one, I would suggest that you first work them out in your sandbox, that way you're not filling up the page history as well as all the watchpages of those editors who have this page on their watchlist. Also, once you've written out all the changes you wish to make, you can propose them on the talk page. If another editor finds your changes are in conflict with any of the guidelines here, they can all be reverted, which means you may have done all that work for nothing. I see you're you only joined a few weeks ago, so you will learn this kind of stuff as you go along. - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I learn as I go! RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's also called "disrupting as you go" and "creating work for others as you go". This isn't playtime. You don't practice your editing on active articles, especially high-profile, long-term and well established articles such as this one. I warned you that all your efforts might be for nothing and it turns out I was right, all your changes were reverted. So, I'll say again, you should copy and paste whatever sections of this article you want to work on over to your sandbox. Work on it there. Then propose your changes here on the talk page. That way you're not wasting your time and that of others as well. If you're editing becomes too disruptive, it can lead to you being blocked from editing. - ^theWOLFchild 02:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, no. The title of section is obviously POV (and not based on the sources). Out of the three subsections only perhaps the Nunes Memo actually meets requirement of WP:WEIGHT and even there I think it's too early to say. Given that the info contained in it is pretty much nothing new it might not be important enough. Of course if Republicans and WH decide to run with it and do something else then it might be important to include as a controversy - as long as it's written neutrally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Nunes memo has enough weight, although it may be too early to add in the section given the amount of bias in the media. Media outlets in the Washington Post and Fox News are citing different bias and conclusions, so the conclusions would have to be made based on what the memo itself says. RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@RedGreenBanana: please see my reply above. - ^theWOLFchild 02:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The Nunes memo has its own article space. It details allegations of DOJ and FBI corruption by POTUS, Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee, and particular members of Congress. I wrote a section on it, however, user reverted due to me not adding summaries in my edits. RedGreenBanana (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

At this point if we include it it should just be a short mention. Can you propose some text here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a section using details from both political sides. Check it out RedGreenBanana (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Can you propose some text here?" - that is exactly what I suggested be done as well. This "throw mass changes at an article and see what sticks" is no way to edit. I also suggest that further changes be made in the sandbox and then propsed here. - ^theWOLFchild 02:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you object from the section in the main article? Also, new media reports today from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal say that the DOJ did in fact tell the FISA court the Steele dossier was created by a political entity, but did not disclose it was the DNC. Here are the sources: [1] [2] ^theWOLFchild, should we add this in the section for clarity? RedGreenBanana (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about me, or my personal preferences or objections. (You did notice it was someone else that undid all your other changes, right?) I'm just trying to give you some useful advice. If you want to make some changes, and they are either going to involve dozens and dozens of consecutive edits, or make large or significant changes to the article, then I suggest you use your User:RedGreenBanana/sandbox. Copy, paste, make your changes there, add your refs, then post a link here asking others to review it, like VM requested above. After that, if there's no issues, you should be able to add your new version to the article, with a single edit. I see you haven't activated your sandbox yet, so I did it for you. We all have one (or more), go check it out. - ^theWOLFchild 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

the first (acknowledged) serial killer in Russia wasn't caught until after the KGB agent in charge of the investigation spoke with FBI about serial killers. sorry i don't remember where i "heard" this but possibly on a YouTube documentary.... definitely real if someone has time to search and edit the article --Qazwiz (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like Citizen X, although I think they caught the killer before contact with the FBI in the film. Not sure though. Cheers, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We need a few reliable, independent sources to prove its notable for a section in the main article space. If there aren't any, then it's not worthy of inclusion. RedGreenBanana (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The way it's going, this section will soon be longer than the rest of the article combined. I have trimmed down two of the longest sections, "Clinton email controversy" and "The Nunes Memo". Both of these sections are linked to main articles. There is no need to have lengthy, detailed descriptions, or daily additions for every new update. All that is needed is a brief description as readers can go to the main article for the full story. I think these two sections are still too long, and should be trimmed even further. We have to try and maintain a balance for the entire page, and a massive, ever-growing controversy section is counter to that need. - ^theWOLFchild 22:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! I think the Nunes memo controversy has died now and aftermath coverage is nothing more than right-wing propaganda. RedGreenBanana (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)