Epstein Files Full PDF

Hello, RideTheLightning99, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome. Thanks for supporting Wikipedia with your time and efforts. I am afraid I have reverted a number of your additions to navigation templates, and the others probably need attention too. Navigation templates have some special guidance at WP:NAVBOX. Particularly with the sidebar styles that you are editing, because they are large and imposing, they need to be treated with special attention. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and they must adhere to various principles, including the principle of bidirectionality. That is, you should not add someone to the sidebar template on the template page unless you have added the template to their page. But additionally, you should only apply the template to the person's article if it is clear from the article that the template is closely related to the subject.

So in short, please don't just add names to templates, and please only add the templates to articles if the article discusses the subject of the template in detail. If you add it to an article, that is when you add the name to the template.

You may prefer to work on the articles themselves, rather than templates, and I think your contributions would be valuable on those. Take care, and happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Please stop adding entries against the template guidelines. Templates are not for everyone who has ever been in an ideology, especially sidebars, which are only supposed to be the most important. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it very clear on the template's talk page that my addition is notable. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not what determines what goes in navigational templates. Numerous editors have disagreed with you and you refuse to stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am interpreting this correctly, but you seemed to have contradicted yourself. First you say that only the "most important" belong in templates and then just now you say that "notability" does not determine what's in templates. It seems to me that for whatever reason, you are doing whatever you can to keep certain items off of the template. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not importance. Anyone with an article is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you should consider dropping the focus you are taking on labelling the ideologies of politicians, especially without having done much work on the articles themselves. Regular editors of each article who are more steeped in understanding the subjects they are working on are considerably more adept to consider things like this. And in the case of an example like Andy Beshear, you are making a claim on the heft of two citations next to "moderate Democrat" and an article that shows he is progressive-left in some ways. I honestly don't think you are carefully considering these labels. I recommend focusing on article development rather than labelling/categorizing until you have more wiki experience. I fear that if you don't accept my recommendation, you may end up being blocked for disruptive editing. I hope you will consider my serious concern. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what @StefenTower pointed out and recommended above, I would add some key advice. You're editing primarily in an area that is covered by a more narrow set of rules and guidelines. Post-1992 US politics is considered to be a contentious topic (or CTOP). You've been engaging in some edit-warring behaviors so I would simply caution you to make sure you're familiar with (at minimum) WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:BLP and that you follow the advice of WP:CTOP and err on the side of caution. I'm not suggesting that you don't edit, or that you don't edit in this area - I only advise that you are familiar with CTOP, and that you maybe work on the articles themselves rather than templates at this early stage of your experience. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a consensus to ignore the BIDIRECTIONAL guideline [1]. Please stop edit warring those in. You are new here and I and others are trying to give you a lot of slack here, because we understand that Wikipedia has a lot of rules and guidelines to contend with, but you are not listening. SIDEBAR templates are not exhaustive taxonomonies and all entries need to be WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I really would commend to you article writing. You clearly have a strong interest in US politics, and there are many articles who could benefit from your time and knowledge. You may wish to learn about editing categories and taxonomies, but you do need to pay careful attention to policy and guidance with respect to the SIDEBARs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this [2], I'd recommend you concentrate on the policy reasons to retain the template, and not on the editors. Have a read of WP:AGF. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been told about the principle of bi-directionality, and you have indicated that you understand this. And yet you keep adding entries back to templates that are not bi-directional, such as this one [3]. This is disruptive editing. We understand you are a new editor, and there is much to learn on Wikipedia, and I think we've been quite patient over this. However, if you continue to ignore the guidelines and the advice you are receiving from multiple editors, it may be necessary to open a discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I don't want to do that, but please do not add any more names to templates that are not bi-directional. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:HawkNightingale175 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HawkNightingale175. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

asilvering (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{[[Template:Unblock]]| I find this to be unnecessarily cruel. As far as I am aware, I have not broken any Wikipedia rules since my original account was taken down. If someone has created a new account after their previous account was banned, that new account should not, in my opinion, be banned unless they violate Wikipedia policy with abusive or disruptive actions again. These constant attempts to suppress ME - not my account, but me, as an anonymous person, from ever editing Wikipedia again - borders on, in my opinion, an invasion of my privacy. As such I feel this account should be unblocked as I have made sure not to violate Wikipedia policy. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

Not going to even fix the malformed template. You evaded your block by creating a new account. Request unblocking on your original account. You'll need to deal with the original block reasons and now the block evasion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Progressivism US has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]