User talk:Morbidthoughts

What exactly is your problem dude? In your warning you insinuated i have some kind of problem with someone. That is absolutely not truth, i am neutral party just describing the facts of Edward Kosners case where he became victim of Streissand effect. You should be investigated because i followed all the wikipedia rules albeit i might have not had the perfect form. As a fellow wikieditor you should help me edit that FACT and not outright delete the whole mention of the controversy! 104.203.11.215 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You introduced original research in your last edit by writing about the controversy without reliable sources that directly describe the controversy. Further, you should review the article talk page on why his family background is not included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So i've just read through that article and more and i am frankly shocked and disgusted of what wikipedia had become.

No more edits from me, i will never respect wikipedia anymore after reading the mental gymnastics people running this place can go to, abhorrent. I will ofc not edit wikipedia any longer, thank you for this deep dive 104.203.11.215 (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zak Smith 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Xkeylimepie (talk) 21:03, 16 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) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was this close to issuing a warning template for blanking until I realised how long you have been on Wikipedia. I don't see that specific content being discussed at BLPN. I have asked whether your removal is in keeping with and decision or consensus there. I don't think that it is. Please self-revert until others have had a chance to comment. --DanielRigal (talk)

WP:BLPUNDEL is a thing. The WP:ONUS of obtaining consensus for inclusion is on people re-adding the material. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continuing to revert each other, could we use this talk page to work out a version we can both agree on?

Your revisions to Tarnita's brief entry in List of people named in the Epstein files introduces several factual inaccuracies and unsupported inferences that aren't present in the cited sources.

It conflates two separate exchanges. The Chronicle of Higher Education and the Daily Princetonian both explicitly describe these as distinct threads: one in spring 2009 between Tarnita and accountant Richard Kahn about wire transfers, and a separate exchange in November 2009 between Tarnita and assistant Lesley Groff about Romanian students. Merging them implies the women named in November were the recipients of the spring transfers—a connection the documents don't establish.

Stating the transfers were "payment for scholarships" presents Tarnita's own account as established fact. Nature reports that Princeton provided corroborating emails, but the Daily Princetonian independently states it "could not verify the intended recipient or recipients of the payments or the purpose of the funding." The previous wording correctly left the purpose unverified.

Additionally, one of the transfers went to a Wells Fargo account in California, not to Romania. Describing both as going "to two women from Romania" contradicts the sources.

Having said that, I will acknowledge that while your edit represented Tarnita's explanation as a flat fact, the previous entry left it out entirely. Here's my proposed compromise version:

Corina Tarnita is a Princeton University biology professor who met Epstein while a graduate student at Harvard and remained in contact between 2008 and 2012. Emails included discussion of his 2008 conviction. In Spring 2009, she and Epstein's accountant discussed transferring $10,000 to a bank account in Romania and $5,000 to a bank account in the United States. Tarnita has stated the transfers were scholarships for young female mathematicians; the purpose and recipients could not be independently verified. In November 2009, she provided Epstein's assistant with the names of two female students from the University of Iași in Romania, after Epstein asked her to identify women for him to support.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on the article talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]