Epstein Files Full PDF

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bother you but I have been recently pulling updates for Module:Wd to several other WMF sites and the Welsh guys seem to be having an issue with the malformed-reference code you authored at Special:Diff/1142473992/1150716473. I thought perhaps you could weigh in at cy:Sgwrs Defnyddiwr:Llywelyn2000#Gwallau WD, since I assume you understand that code considerably better than I do. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Janhrach (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janhrach,

If you could add a short description of your change when making a template modification (instead of just "Update from sandbox"), it would make future maintenance easier. That way, we won't have to check what you did mention when you made the change in the sandbox.

Thanks again for your contributions! The RedBurn (ϕ) 05:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of task force activity in progress to clean up junk pages about Cyrillic characters? If so, where is it documented? If so, I would like to see what its scope is intended to be. If you have taken it on yourself to clean up pages about Cyrillic characters, it would be a good idea to become familiar with how draft space is used and is meant to be used. On the one hand, stuff that is truly abandoned is nominated for deletion by a bot, and so is self-deleting. On the other hand, making minor edits to drafts is a feature, not a bug or a misfeature. I haven't looked in detail at the articles and redirects that you have tagged, but I know that the drafts that you have tagged are the sort of stuff that do no harm in draft space indefinitely if they are tweaked every five months, and cause more work for the community to discuss whether to delete them than would be spent leaving them alone either to go away in six months, or to linger for several years of occasional edits, or possibly to find a second reliable source and go into article space. So please either let me know who is coordinating this cleanup, or stop ragpicking . Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I am sorry for the disruption I caused. I did not coordinate the edits with anybody.

I started focusing on stubs about obscure Cyrillic letters after I stumbled upon this AfD a few days ago, which was about articles created by Glenn103. I tried MfD-ing a few drafts by this editor (they seemed to be hoaxes), but I was soon notified of Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. After an initial mainspace-only block, the editor was blocked as a sock from this group.

This raised my suspicions. Additionally, logged-out socking had been reported by AfC reviewers on some older drafts edited by Glenn103. After some digging in page histories, I found that some Cyrillic drafts had been edited by users from this sock group (focus on Cyrillic has even been pointed out in this SPI). I became convinced that there is an LTA focusing on obscure Cyrillic letters.

I thought the best solution to socking on old drafts about unnotable topics was to send them to MfD. I mistakenly thought that Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity#So when is MfD appropriate? permitted, if not encouraged, nominations like this.

Again, I apologize. Shall I withdraw the nominations? If yes, does simply closing them, with a note of the withdrawal, suffice?

– Janhrach (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think that leaving the nominations open at MFD to be closed formally in about six days is probably the simplest course of action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were right. Those Cyrillic letter drafts were hoaxes, and the originator was a sockpuppet, and the drafts have been deleted and the originator blocked. You were right. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, could you clarify your reply? The MfD-ed drafts haven't been deleted. As for the Glenn103 drafts, they indeed have been speedily deleted, but that had happened before my December 27 reply. (I nominated the for SD the same day when I created the MfDs.) Which drafts are you refering to? Janhrach (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janhrach, please excuse my pinging of @Robert McClenon, but I am also curious as to which drafts he is referring to, considering the MfDs indeed closed as keep. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were some miscellaneous Cyrillic drafts that were submitted by a sockpuppet and were deleted. I am not ready right now to look for their ghosts or to research who or what they were. I may look into this further in the future, but not in the next 48 hours. As Robert Pirsig reminds us, pursuing a ghost persistently is dangerous because you may become a ghost yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I succesfully nominated some of the drafts for speedy deletion after the editor has been identified as a sock (without me influencing that in any way; the admin just changed the block settings and summary apparently without an SPI. This happened after I had made the MfDs, but before their closes.) Janhrach (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Janhrach,

Just wanted to let you know that looking around for page creations done by editors blocked as sockpuppets over 2 1/2 years ago is a very low priority task. These articles and drafts by block-evading socks are deleted to let the sockmaster know that they can't keep creating socks and getting away with it but 2022 was a long time ago and I'm sure that this sockmaster has moved on and is not watching these articles to see that they are being deleted. Deleting them after several years is kind of a bureaucratic move, following the letter of the CSD rules but not the spirit. So, if there are other tasks you spend time on that help the current state of the project, I'd encourage you to spend your time on those activities.

But thank you for the time and effort you are spending on this project. It's appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the sockmaster may still be active, and worse, UPE may be involved. Someone in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BobVillars/Archive said BobVillars may be from the YtoSu group, and apparently nlwiki considers it to be confirmed: [1]. Janhrach (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just came by to remove my message but I see you have already responded to it. It felt like I was scolding you for being a thorough editor which wasn't my intention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. It actually would be strange to nominate articles by long-inactive non-UPE socks. Janhrach (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janhrach.

Thank you for your interest in the Clan Chattan article. I do however have to disagree with your statement as to the tone of the article. The examples you use are moot:

1. "Unique confederation" this term has been used for hundreds of years to describe Clan Chattan. There is only one Confederation amongst the Scottish clan and it is this one. 2. "Clan profile" is part of the generic page design which if you look at the other 150 Scottish clan pages are all the same. This was decided quite a while back by a working group on all of these pages. 3. "Distinctive allied community" also used by numerous historians to describe this loose affiliation of families. 4. "Descendants of the Blood" Used since the 17th century to describe a portion of the clan versus other families that joined but were not blood related.

Could we have discussion on the Talk Page and come to understanding before just arbitrarily pasting generic comments on the top of a article?

Kind regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caracal Rooikat (talk • contribs) 07:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought these formulations are unambiguously unencyclopedic, but they apparently are not. (Your arguments are not weak.) I will step back and leave this on editors experienced in this topic area. Janhrach (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the sidebar be converted into a navbox at the bottom of the article. The current sidebar is awkward (see A (Cyrillic) for an example) and inconsistent with other such templates, like Template:Latin script. The French (and almost all of the other) Wikipedia(s) also use(s) a navbox. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will soon start a discussion on the talk page of the template.

As we are already here: you deprodded some articles (created by the same editor) I had nominated for PROD. This is of course not a problem, but their creator is apparently a troll and an article of theirs has been described as an unhealthy mixture of fact and fiction, so you should be very wary of any claims the articles make. Janhrach (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Mindvalley a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Mindvalley. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? When? It was Sofia Evangelidou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See ANI. Janhrach (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Was this notice created by some automatic script? Janhrach (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, please ignore this. This was an automated template sent by Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Janhrach,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Isaac Kenyon for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Isaac Kenyon to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to open up a discussion on what should be included within the Cyrillic script navbox, looking for input.

Thanks, Underswamp (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janhrach. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I suggest you add Jordan dot to the SPI. Check their dodgy edit summaries, moves of other new accounts' drafts to main space, and recreation of Ralph Spencer Steenblik at Ralph Spencer steenblik. Thanks. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:18B3:9D6A:5198:86B5 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been offline for a while (having a lovely holiday I hope), so I've taken it to the SPI myself. Any comments and additions there will be welcome, thanks. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:18B3:9D6A:5198:86B5 (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Their behavior is indeed suspicious, but I am no expert on this particular sockfarm. Janhrach (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on OnlyOffice. Gheus (talk) 12:36, 28 August 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) 00:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Janhrach,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 05:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Volten001 ^☎ 05:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Addiscot Beach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Zzz plant (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Things changed relatively recently. Twinkle no longer has a tick box to notify the editors under discussion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I eventually found out that the edit adding this to WP:SPI was made last October. A small note: I don't use Twinkle to make SPI filings; I use the form at WP:SPI. I always notified the suspected socks by manually substing {{uw-socksuspect}}. Janhrach (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see your comment to the discussion. Don't worry, I was not angry with you at all. Maybe I was a bit stern, but that was probably because I was quite overwhelmed (both with this thing involving drafts, and with other things that I saw on my watchlist when I logged in). Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that I got quick response to my request. Janhrach (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC) clarified 16:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ayurvedacharya Prakash Tata requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you moved my article back to the draft namespace (is that the right terminology?). I now know that this occurred because the reviewer was banned for being a sockpuppet.

But it would have been much easier to understand, and I would have felt better, had you placed a template on my talk page... Like the WP:DRAFTIFY#Moving articles to draftspace says to do, I might add :(

Something like this might have lessened my disappointment:

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, ContentAsia Awards, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:ContentAsia Awards where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Please note that the article was been removed due to an issue in the reviewal process. Please continue to improve it so that it can be accepted as an article.

It was just a bit rough for me to wake up and find the article and all of the redirects gone with no explanation anywhere

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk 01:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I will remember this.

However, it would be misleading if I said that the article may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, which is not the reason why I made the revert; I made the revert because of WP:BMB. Additionally, the editor who moved the page into mainspace was not a reviewer in the Wikipedia sense. In fact, they write paid 'articles' for their clients, and it is likely that they didn't even look at the drafts they 'reviewed'; they probably moved them to mainspace to hide the fact that they also moved paid promo into mainspace.

Also, the AfC process is not mandatory for you, because you are autoconfirmed. If you want a proper review, you can wait. If not, you can move the draft back into mainspace right now.

Regarding the redirects, you can see their list in your logs. Creating redirects for all possible letter-case combinations is unnecessary. When the redirect ContentAsia exists, and you type "contentasia" into the search box and press enter, you will be redirected to the correct place. There is no need to create all possible combinations. Some editors even consider that harmful (see WP:COSTLY, incl. WP:PANDORA).

—Janhrach (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ping you, JordyGrey. Janhrach (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! Also, you've just saved me about 2 hours, if I don't need to create different letter-case combinations!

Have a nice day, JordyGrey _talk 22:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janhrach, thanks for the feedback on the Draft:El Hamiz. I’ve gone through and made some significant updates based on your comments.

I replaced the sources with independent secondary ones and added citations to the statements that were missing them. I also re-checked the tone to ensure it stays neutral and encyclopedic.

Just a quick note on the sources: finding stable digital archives for Algerian regional topics can be a bit of a challenge since many news domains have changed over the years, but I've tracked down the most reliable ones available now.

As a new contributor, I’m trying to stick closely to the guidelines. Could you take another look? If it looks good now, I’d appreciate it being moved back to mainspace. Thanks for your help.

Best regards,

~~~~

JHONATHAN24512 (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JHONATHAN24512: I don't know much about the topic, and I didn't review the sources' content, but from a superficial look, the sources should be sufficient. I made some WP:MOS fixes. Most importantly, the bold font should be used very sparingly, only in certain specific cases (such as the first occurence of the subject's name(s) in the lead), and it is not to be used for emphasis.

I should also mention that I'm not an AfC reviewer, so I can't approve the draft. The editor who previously moved it into mainspace wasn't a reviewer either; they are now blocked because it is likely that they were evading a previous block and edited for pay. I reverted their moves because of WP:BMB.

Another thing is that certain parts of the draft read like they are LLM-generated, such as those bulleted lists. I really do not want to judge whether this is really the case, or if my intuition is wrong, because I do not trust my subjective judgement on this issue. Even if you don't use AI to write articles, you should know that using LLMs for article generation is extremely controversial on English Wikipedia.

The tone of the article is definitely much better than previously, and indeed there is less unreferenced text.

One more minor thing: the New Silk Road link in Draft:El Hamiz#Connection to the global trade network points to a disambiguation page. It should instead point to an article (Belt and Road Initiative, maybe).

—Janhrach (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]