Epstein Files Full PDF

Please keep discussion of specific article issues on their respective talk page instead of dispersing the discussion; any additions here will be reverted and ignored. If there's something else you'd like to say, feel free to message me. I may or may not be able to respond in a timely manner.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is SounderBruce's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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, 47Auto-archiving period: 31 days

On 10 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ballard Link Extension, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a radio station requested changes to a light-rail project? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ballard Link Extension. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ballard Link Extension), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your revert. No new image of the Type 6's have an "unobstructed view". Do you think it's better to leave the 10 year old image up? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 06:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: There is no requirement to use an image of the latest model. I don't think most editors would disagree with the use of a better-quality image of an older (but still active) type, especially when Type 2s are the most plentiful around. SounderBruce 07:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but given the image is over 10 years old with pre-LED signs I'm not sure it reflects the system as it stands now. I found an image with a Type 5 that's mostly unobstructed and is more up to date. What do you think about that? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 19:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: That photo is too grainy. I would still prefer a like-for-like replacement (away from a station with no elements that block the train), similar to File:MAX Type 4 cars crossing 185th.JPG. SounderBruce 19:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. In fact the image suggested is even older than the current one. Perhaps we should discuss on the article's talk page. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary that the infobox image be of the newest type, but in fact there are at least two photos on Commons of a Type 6 without any foreground obstruction: this one and this one, and the first one was taken only six months ago. SJ Morg (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SJ Morg: good point, but it should be noted that I was looking for images without "glitched" LEDs. Also, the second link is broken, perhaps you meant to link this instead? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was also trying to find an image that did not have the old rollsigns, as regardless of image age, those aren't used anymore and wouldn't really be an accurate representation. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to wait a while until someone uploads a photo of a Type 6 without a "glitched" LED sign, because the particular makes of LED signs used in TriMet's Type 1–3 and 6 LRVs require shortening the shutter speed to 1/100th second or longer for that, which effectively means the vehicle has to be stationary and the photographer has to manually adjust for that. Even I have almost no such shots of Type 6 cars, so far, even though I photograph the MAX system a lot. (SounderBruce: Feel free to restart this discussion elsewhere, with a link to here, if you prefer.) The point about rollsigns seems valid. The article should definitely have photos of them, since they were in use for 30 years, but ideally the lead image probably should be one with an LED sign – though overall good composition is important for the lead photo (and the photo that began this discussion lacks that), and so ruling out photos with messy LED signage would reduce the pool of suitable candidates too much. SJ Morg (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SounderBruce, I had a question and you seem to be much more knowledgeable about Wikipedia than me. I updated the List of Seattle Sounders FC page through the 2025 season but noticed some of the stats have changed on the link I used for the citation. The official MLS career stats page for players has started removing some statistics. One example is Sébastien Le Toux. The MLS site says he has zero assists for the year he played in Seattle (2009). I know for a fact that's not accurate because Le Toux assisted the first ever goal in Sounders MLS history! I guess my question is what should I do if the link I'm using to cite my stats is no longer accurate, and do you know of another source I could use to cite besides the official MLS website? Chilcokr (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chilcokr: It seems that we'll have to start using archived links for older player statistics, such as this entry for Le Toux. Adding them to citations is simple, but a bit tedious in repetition; for Le Toux, this would be added to the citation: |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121225235515/http://www.mlssoccer.com/players/sebastien-le-toux |archive-date=December 25, 2012. Now that Soccerway is on life support and FBref is also not able to pull as much data, I don't see many good sources around for player statistics. SounderBruce 21:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thank you for the feedback. I will try to double check the older players to see if there are any more discrepancies and use the archive link you suggested if needed. Thanks! Chilcokr (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 7 April 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

potential use of AI? Femfem5 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You're going to have to be way more specific than that. Are you concerned that one of SounderBruce's edits are AI? If so, please provide relevant diffs. If you're talking about something else, please explain. GrayStorm^{(Talk to me|My Contribs.)} 22:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Washington State Ferries fleet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Washington State Ferries fleet (vessel pictured) uses names with tribal significance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Washington State Ferries fleet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Washington State Ferries fleet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some pretty egregious additions here and have reverted them. I do suspect that the text is AI-generated, and it was missing a lot of routes, not to mention it completely changes the content of the page (which is not meant to have the route listings, as the regional articles have those). I told you because I saw you reverted another one of their edits on the Metrobus page. Just figured I'd let you know in case any action needs to be taken. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]