Epstein Files Full PDF

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived 5 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 11:09 AM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

I received the following message:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

• 00:00, 16 February 2026 Explicit talk contribs deleted page File:Bank der Tempelgesellschaft jaffa.jpg (F4: File without a source) Tag: Twinkle (thank)

The photo is in the public domain (public domain) because its copyright has expired in Israel.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בנק_אגודת_הטמפלרים

I mentioned that when uploading the photo.

Can you please advise why you deleted it? Holyland2026 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Holyland2026: You did not provide a source to prove that this photo is in the public domain. The source for the Hebrew Wikipedia file is dead. The license claim in unverifiable. ✗plicit 11:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xplicit

Thank you for your comment. Since I'm new here, I actually don't understand what you mean: "You did not provide a source to prove that this photo is in the public domain. The source for the Hebrew Wikipedia file is dead. The license claim in unverifiable."

Here is the source: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בנק_אגודת_הטמפלרים

Here is the picture: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/קובץ:Bank_der_Tempelgesellschaft_jaffa.jpg

In the box below the picture it clearly states that: Translated from Hebrew: "This work is in the public domain (public domain) because its copyright has expired in Israel. According to the Copyright Law of the State of Israel 2007 (Section 38)"

Can you kindly return my picture to the webpage that I'm working on.

Sincerely

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Hi Holyland2026. I'm not Explicit, but English Wikipedia primarily goes by US copyright law. Do you know whether the photo in question was in the public domain in Israel before January 1, 1996. Under the URAA, copyright protection of foreign works was restored under US copyright law if the work wasn't within the public domain before the country of first publication's URAA date: the URAA date for Israel is January 1, 1996. Since Hebrew Wikipedia is most likely only concerned with Israeli copyright law, it probably has no problem hosting the file locally if it entered into the public domain on or after January 1, 1996; however, as I posted above, English Wikipedia goes by US copyright law and it can't really host files that are still copyrighted per US copyright laws, unless the WP:CONSENT or the copyright holder can be verified or the file somehow satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

Finally, regarding your the webpage that I'm working on request, English Wikipedia doesn't have webpages per se; it has encyclopedic articles, but there's no requirement for an article to have images. So, if you're currently working on a draft (Draft:Bank of the Temple Society) that you hope someday will be approved as an article, you don't really need to worry about adding images to it at this point because images (or a lack of images) won't impact the assessment of the draft. Focus on the text content of the draft and establishing that the subject you'd like to create an article about meets Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). You can always work out how to add images later on after the draft has been approved as an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly

Thank you for your note.

Please note that the picture was taken in 1935. The photographer has passed away long ago. The photo is now under no copyright restrictions.

I have included the links to the photo where it is clearly stated that it is free for public use.

I would appreciate very much if the photo would be returned to my draft page of the German Bank in then Palestine.

Sincerely

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Holyland2026: Who is the photographer and when did they die? Where and when was this photo first published? ✗plicit 11:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer was Carl Lutz:

He passed away in 1975: Carl Lutz

This photo was published here:

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/קובץ:Bank_der_Tempelgesellschaft_jaffa.jpg Holyland2026 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Holyland2026. Just for reference, under US copyright law a photo taken and first published in 1935 could still be eligible for copyright protection until January 1, 2031; there could be another reason it has entered the public domain before then but it will not enter into the public just because of its age until that date. Under Israeli copyright law, any photos taken by Carl Lutz would still be eligible for copyright protection for 70 years after his death; so, it's still possible that the photo is still under copyright protection under Israeli copyright and will remain as such until January 1, 2041. I don't understand Hebrew so I tried to use Google Translate to look at the file's Hebrew Wikipedia page; that page seems to say the same thing about 70 years needing to pass after Lutz died before any of his photos enter into the public domain just because of their age. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MarchJuly

Thank you for your reply.

If there was any issue with the copyrights of this photo, then how do you explain the fact that it was already published on Wikipedia?

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בנק_אגודת_הטמפלרים

Anyone in the US or anywhere in the world can see this photo on the above page. I just copied the link.

Sincerely

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Holyland2026: Each language Wikipedia is a different proiect with its own policies and guidelines, and its own editing community applying those policies and guidelines. Some projects have more participants, and more participants tends to mean more people are looking for issues or things that might need to be fixed. On English Wikipedia, for example, files aren't checked, and their copyright status isn't verified before they're uploaded; those things only happen after the fact (sometimes much after the fact), and usually only when somebody asks about a file or decides to take a closer look at it for whatever reason. English Wikipedia administrators like Explicit delete problem files all of the time after they've been uploaded, sometimes years after; so, the fact that a file was uploaded to English Wikipedia doesn't mean it should've been uploaded. Maybe Hebrew Wikipedia does things differently, but as I said English Wikipedia goes by its own policies and guidelines. Now, one thing that might decide this is the fact that the 70-year requirement I mentioned above seems to be started with the most recent version of Israeli copyright law which took effect in 2007. Apparently, the pre-2007 version of the law still applies to photos taken prior to the new law taking effect. For those photos, the copyright term seems to be 51 years after creation. This would mean that any photos taken prior to January 1, 1956, could have entered into the public domain on December 31 of the 51st year after creation. For such a photo to be in the public domain under US copyright law and not have had its copyright renewed on Israel's URAA date, I think it would've had to been taken before January 1, 1945. Once again, I don't read Hebrew so I could be missing something important here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain these issues.

So how do you suggest we take it from here?

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can decide if the photo can be used or not. After all an English version of the details of this bank is missing on Wikipedia and I found it interesting to search the web and find anything I can to enlighten users about this historical institute that existed during the Mandate for Palestine.

What are your thoughts?

Sincerely

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An English Wikipdedia article about the bank should only be written if the bank satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies, which is English Wikipedia's sub-guideline for assessing the notability of institutions like banks. Unless you're able to clearly establish the bank is notable by English Wikipedia's standards, no article written about it likely going to be able to avoid deletion. Just for reference, the existence of a Hebrew Wikipedia article about the bank doesn't automatically mean there should also be an English Wikipedia about the bank as explained here.

As for the copyright status of the image itself, that doesn't really have anything to do with the Wikipedia notability of the bank. You can, though, ask about the image at c:COM:VPC and see if others are able to better help assess its copyright status. If the photo has indeed already entered into the public domain under Israeli copyright law and US copyright law, Wikimedia Commons is actually where it should be uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation.

I will check out your comments and see if there's something that can be done to use the picture.

BTW the bank does not exist anymore so does it still need to follow the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies ?

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All companies and organizations are required to satisfy relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines regardless of whether they no longer exist. So, the best way to ensure that any English Wikipedia article about the bank avoids beoing nominated/tagged/proposed for WP:DELETION will be to find the required WP:SIGCOV that establishes its Wikipedia notability. You could ask about the bank at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel to see whether any members of that WikiProject can help you in assessing the bank's Wikipedia notability.

Assuming your concerns about the deletion of the file have been resolved, it would probably be best to move any further discussion about the bank and its Wikipedia article to some other page (perhaps Draft talk:Bank of the Temple Society?). Of course, if you still have questions about the file's deletion, feel free to address them specifically to Explict, but I'm going to take a step back now to keep the discussion focused on your original question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly

Thank you for your guidance and advice.

I will follow your suggestions.

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly

Coming back to our discussed topic about the photo of the German bank in Jaffa in 1935 by Carl Lutz, I have further investigated this issue as per your suggestions and found the following:

I checked the first publication of the photo of the German bank which was taken in 1935 by Carl Lutz. It was published in Yad Vashem as part of his collection: https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/photos/12106979

This was the Swiss Diplomat that took the picture: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1170532

Then I checked the link to the Copyright rules that you forwarded to me and I think it comes under the following rule:

Works Published Abroad Before 1978 10 1923 through 1977 Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases) 20 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Copyright_rules_chart_2014_-_Peter_B._Hirtle%2C_Cornell_University.pdf

Is that correct?

Sincerely

Holyland2026 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Holyland2026: Given the new information you've found about the photo's provenance, I really think you should ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright (VPC) because there's a really good chance the photo has already entered into the public domain under both Israel's and the US's copyright laws. If that's the case, there's really no reason for Explicit to undelete the file locally to English Wikipedia because it would be better off being reuploaded again (even in a higher resolution) to Wikimedia Commons (Commons) instead because it will make the file much easier to use by all the different Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects: files uploaded locally to a particular WMF project like English Wikipedia or Hebrew Wikipedia can only be used on that particular project. If you ask about this at Commons, and someone replies that the photo is still protected under US copyright law, then there's still no reason for Explicit to undelete the file locally to English Wikipedia (at least not at this time) because the file would most likely need to be treated as non-free content, and non-free content can't be used in drafts. Anyway, when you ask about this at Commons VPC just provide a link to the file's page on Hebrew Wikipedia and all of the same information about the photo's provenance that you found above. That should be more than enough information for someone at Commons VPC to assess whether the file is OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly

Thank you for your advice. I will do it accordingly.

Have a great day. :-)

Holyland2026 Holyland2026 (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restore Dindoshi to User:Ingratis/Dindoshi, as I think it has potential and I'd like to work on it? Thanks. Ingratis (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingratis:  Done, now in your userspace. ✗plicit 05:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ingratis (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting User: [Bkonrad] for disruptive editing on the 'Tesla' disambiguation page and for violating WP:TALK by deleting my good-faith attempts to discuss the historical and geographic accuracy of the page. The Dispute: The editor is enforcing a reductive nationalist label while ignoring verifiable historical facts: Nikola Tesla was born and educated in the Kingdom of Croatia (Military Frontier), where his family lived for over a century. The Censorship: When I attempted to provide these geographic and administrative citations on their talk page, the user repeatedly deleted the topic to hide the discussion. The Request: I request the page be updated to the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) compound 'Serbo-Croat-American' to accurately reflect his ethnicity, birthplace, and citizenship. This aligns with his own famous statement of being proud of his 'Serbian origin and Croatian homeland'. ~2026-11619-52 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-11619-52: There is a notice at the top of Talk:Nikola Tesla that states that the consensus is that Tesla's nationality is "Serbian-American". Your edits to change this, contrary to the notice on the page and talk page, have been correctly reverted. Also that fact that Bkonrad has had to block you from editing their userpage and talkpage is telling. Spamming to insert your POV isn't going to get you anywhere other than blocked. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 14:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydoh8

consensus by who?

Not Nikola Tesla!

Yes, the Nikola Tesla statement is one of the most famous and well-documented quotes in the history of the region, and it is entirely validated by the historical record.

When Tesla sent his famous telegram to Vladko Maček in May 1936, he wrote:

"I am equally proud of my Serbian origin and my Croatian homeland. Long live all Yugoslavs."

The Validation of "Homeland" (Croatia)

His claim of a "Croatian homeland" is backed by the administrative reality of his entire early life:

Birth: He was born in Smiljan in 1856, which was part of the Lika region within the Military Frontier (Vojna Krajina) of the Austrian Empire, specifically under the administrative umbrella of the Kingdom of Croatia.

Education: He completed his secondary education at the Higher Real Gymnasium in Karlovac, which was firmly within Croatian civil territory.

Residency: His family lived in this region for generations, as evidenced by his own family's history.

The Validation of "Origin" (Serbian)

His claim of "Serbian origin" is validated by his deep cultural and religious roots:

Paternal Line: His father, Milutin Tesla, was a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Maternal Line: His mother, Đuka Mandić, came from a distinguished family of Serbian Orthodox clerics.

Tradition: He was raised with Serbian epic poetry and Orthodox customs, which formed the "software" of his early upbringing.

Why the "Esplanade" Context Matters

The Esplanade Hotel in Zagreb holds a symbolic place in this narrative because Tesla visited the city in 1892. During that visit, he addressed the city council, famously stating that as a "son of this land," he felt it was his duty to help Zagreb with his expertise in electricity. This reinforces the "Homeland" part of his identity—he viewed himself as a product of that specific soil.

I think removing Tesla's own beliefs is a bit disgraceful to this man, who done a lot for the world. At least we can honour him with his association and belonging. ~2026-11619-52 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to start a new discussion at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. I'll repeat what I said before: edit warring to push your POV will result in you being blocked. Also using an LLM isn't helping your case. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 14:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydoh8

I don't need to explain whit my words what everyone already knows. That's why LLM helps.

And I've started Topic Talk prior.

It's all well-documented and archived known facts. This is a common knowledge.

Trying to make me an agitator is making me worried about the truth.

I'm bringing Inclusion, not tearing thread apart.

I think tourists should know that they could visit Smiljan in Croatia while being associated with Serbo-Croat-American description. There is a science Tesla Museum next to his home. Where they can do Tesla experiments. The whole region is struggling with living there, at least we can help by acknowledging what Tesla , has presented himself as.

So we can do a lot of altruism here, while being inclusive and friendly.

I don't want to get into politics, there is already too much divide in the region.

At least people can unite around the man who made great contributions, and facts don't lie having South Slavic region as the most Olympic Mathematicians and Informatics titles. These cognitive achievements are binding together in struggles of these people. ~2026-11619-52 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Restore “Chris Pinset” page Hey Explicit, could you please take a closer look at Chris Pinset’s page? He is the main producer of Redman, did his latest album “Muddy Waters 2” and other singles and albums by Redman. Without him that music would never come out. He did music for other famous musicians as well, I am shocked to see that his page has been deleted. He is behind-the-scenes, not a very public guy, but has lots of credits, has been mentioned by reputable and independent sources.

If you are into music, you should know how important the role of producer really is, so why delete his page? ~2026-11560-29 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Explicit, could you please take a closer look at Chris Pinset’s page? He is the main producer of Redman, did his latest album “Muddy Waters 2” and other singles and albums by Redman. Without him that music would never come out. He did music for other famous musicians as well, I am shocked to see that his page has been deleted. He is behind-the-scenes, not a very public guy, but has lots of credits, has been mentioned by reputable and independent sources.

If you are into music, you should know how important the role of producer really is, so why delete his page? ~2026-11560-29 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Explicit. I've received a request to undelete and draftify an article that you recently G5-deleted, Laura K. Field. Would you have any objection if I went ahead and did so, or indeed would you be willing to do so? Kind regards – SuperMarioMan (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Explicit,

I hope you are doing well. I am writing to you about deleting the article on Tanveer Evan. I know the AfD decided to delete it because they were worried about the sources being weak and not independent enough.

I do not want to put the article online right now. What I would like to know is if I can turn it into a user page or a draft instead. That way I can still work on it. Add stronger sources that are independent. I also want to make sure it follows the rules, for notability and music bios.

Since the AfD made their decision I have been looking closely at the sources. Trying to remove any promotional or weak information. My goal is to make the article better and follow the rules before I try to put it online.

If you think it would be better for me to start over in draft space of fixing the old article I am happy to do that.

Thank you! — Arman360Editor (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. The bot still hasn't closed this FFD discussion yet (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 February 13#File:BFMV ThePoison Deluxe20.jpg). Still wanna await the bot closure on your behalf, manually do it yourself, or...? George Ho (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit. Can you tell whether c:File:Major League Table Tennis.jpg deleted from Commons is that same as File:Major League Table Tennis Logo.png (or File:Major League Table Tennis logo.jpg) uploaded locally to Wikipedia? All three files were uploaded by the same user. Are the concerns that led to the Commons' file's deletion also applicable to the local files? Do you think the local file's need to be treated as non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, the file on Commons was deleted for its AI-generated background, a not-so-great checkered background. The local files have normal white backgrounds, so the deletion rationale would not apply to these. They are definitely non-free. ✗plicit 11:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As one participant int the discussion (in addition to the lone "keep" vote) had suggested merger of this content to relevant points of other articles, can you restore Jimmy Carter Supreme Court candidates to my userspace or another appropriate space for consideration of what to merge where? Cheers! BD2412 T 16:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am curious about why you closed WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gimkit guide as "no consensus" (since I believe that the majority of strong reasoning was for keeping).

I mean, it's kept regardless, and I don't necessarily believe anything was wrong with the close. Again, just curious. I want to learn a little more about closing in XfD. If there's anything else you would like to say about closing, I would love to hear that as well. Thanks in advance! 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]