Epstein Files Full PDF

About me		Talk		Contributions		Wiki Stats

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Oldest – 2014 2015 – 2018 2019 – 2022 2023 – ?

Thanks for cleaning all of that up. I didn’t get to it and I’m thankful for your help! Therguy10 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. One of the reasons why they post GA reviews on article talk pages, is for that very reason! I only knocked out a small portion, and I'm sure the reviewer will be adding more in coming days. Happy to assist as I find time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Therguy10: Looks like we're all caught up now. Waiting for the rest of the review to be completed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Seriously thanks a lot; you deserve the credit for this nomination! Therguy10 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Hopefully we can get it to the point of passing, but there are still claims/sources that are iffy. I had to remove some duplicate refs and one that was citing a forum thread. There could be others still. I'm not sure the article was quite ready to be nominated, but we'll see. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Impact of the September 11 attacks on entertainment § Was the point to create a new article or re-write the existing list?. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 4 § Roller coasters that closed in 1910 on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reverted edits: first, I didn't notice that the other Giant Dipper was bluelinked in the lead because it was hidden in a piped link as the "other installation". It wasn't obvious to the uninitiated that this bluelink leads to the other Giant Dipper article, so I changed it to read "other Giant Dipper" per MOS:EASTEREGG. Second, now that both Giant Dipper articles have the location clearly listed in the title, I don't think it's necessary to hatnote Giant Digger in either one anymore, because anyone searching for "Dipper" instead of "Digger" would have landed at the new DAB page. Carguychris (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't obvious to the uninitiated...so I changed it to read "other Giant Dipper" per MOS:EASTEREGG

Carguychris, if you read the full context of the sentence, which begins with "[Giant Dipper] is one of two remaining wooden coasters on the West Coast", then saying "the other installation" makes more sense in that context. Anyone clicking that link would be expecting to go to an article covering the other wooden coaster on the West Coast designed by Prior and Church. However, I have no issues with changing it to "the other Giant Dipper". Either works for me.

As for the "Giant Digger" hatnote (which I didn't add), I do agree. Doesn't seem necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit? § Organizing the cast section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sinners (2025 film) § Synopsis. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

GoneIn60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks sjones23. You as well, cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie § Removal of Japan as production country. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on the talk page about the Super Mario film and on the talk page on the infobox about. You've said I was unfamiliar with the rules on the latter. May I ask why you are pushing for a voting structure to move forward with a conversation? Consensus is not achived through voting, per wikipedia guidelines. Your previous suggestion was also to remove material is policy but I've read the guideline you shared and I just don't see that except for a few cases. (i.e: living people, etc.) If I'm wrong, please show me what I'm missing here, but otherwise, could you explain why are you going forward with these motions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've said I was unfamiliar with the rules on the latter.

No, I said it sounds like you may be unfamiliar. There's a big difference. That leaves open the possibility that maybe you are familiar. If indeed you are, then why would you say that my reference to NOCON only applies to "articles about living people, external links, or copyright issues"? That's not true. Read everything before "However" in the 2nd bullet point, which states: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Full stop.

It does go on to talk about special situations involving living people, external links, and copyright issues, but again, those are exceptions to the general policy, not stipulations. By the way, you also referred to it as a guideline, but as I already noted, it is a policy. I also don't like to call these things rules; Wikipedia tends to refer to them as a set of "standards". --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...could you explain why are you going forward with these motions?

Not sure if the above answered your questions, but if not, you may have to be more specific. In the discussion at Super Mario, the discussion was getting quite long. Participation was beginning to wane. I felt it was time to sum up the options and have one final weigh in (and for anyone who doesn't return to weigh in, we would retain their former !vote). I created a new subsection, so if you really want to continue the discussion at that page, you're certainly free to in the previous section. Alternatively, you could create a new section and continue it there. I just wouldn't advise doing either since discussion seems to have run its course, but that's just my opinion. I've been around long enough to recognize when discussion is about to stall, and this was getting really close to that point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not how wikipedia rolls with that. If we can't agree. Let's take it to arbitration. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You came to my talk page asking for clarification, so I gave it. It doesn't matter to me if you agree or not. You are not required to agree. And in case you've forgotten, this is not our first rodeo. I have no interest in dealing with that again. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should matter because we are to assume good faith in each other. I was called to the same conversation you were, so yes, we should have the same understanding of the rules or otherwise, we'll end up going back and forth. You already said you were ready to wash your hands of a conversation and referred to other people's conversation as water cooler talk, so I'm going to ask to please treat other editors, not just me with some courtesy going forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what it means to AGF, and you should be careful walking this line if you are insinuating that I have not been. None of my actions or comments have come remotely close to violating this behavioral guideline. The courtesy you could extend my way would be to avoid my talk page and not waste any more of my time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The courtesy you could extend my way would be to avoid my talk page and not waste any more of my time." You are welcome to step away from any conversation and reply or not reply as much as you like. The " would be to avoid my talk page and not waste any more of my time is definitely not kind or polite on or off Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Iron Giant § Edit War. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I gather from your edit frequency that you may be busy right now, but if you get the chance, I was wondering if you could look over the message I posted on the WikiProject Amusement Parks talk page. It's long, so you don't have to read all of it – I'd specifically like some feedback in the members census and newsletter sections so that hopefully the first issue of the new newsletter could be sent out on March 31. I'm specifically reaching out to you since I know you've been involved in the project for a lot longer than me and were heavily involved in the last round of discussion about the project's future, so I would really greatly appreciate your input if you're able to share it. Thanks so much! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]