User Talk: PARAKANYAA

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

A barnstar for you!

Articles on books used as sources

Hi. I noted your comment {{tq|And our coverage of books is abysmal; most books people use as sources or in bibliography listings are notable, they just don't have articles yet, because our coverage is terrible}} at the bibliographies discussion with interest. Because I too think that our coverage of books is not great. I wondered if you had any insight into whether it's possible to query within CS1 or CS2 templates to get the titles of books that are used in citations, so that one might chip away to make articles for notable books that are often cited. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:@SunloungerFrog I have no clue how citation templates work or how to query them, I'm afraid. I would refer you to someone more technically inclined. But on topic areas I'm personally interested in I just write articles on ones that are cited a lot after I notice them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply. I'll keep looking. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On 9 November 2025 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that, after the '''assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell ↗''', his father ↗ said that he was "not surprised at all"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell ↗), 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) 00:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
{{DYK views|21,410|892.1|November 2025|Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell}} GalliumBot (talk • contribs ↗) (he/it ↗) 03:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your absolutely fantastic work on Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell ↗. Great stuff! '''—'''''Fortuna'' ↗, imperatrix 14:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
::+1! Really interesting, well written article. (Also gives a really interesting contrast in this month's top 5 articles over a DYK stats so far!)07:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC) GreenLipstickLesbian💌 ↗🦋 ↗ 07:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

On the ground research

Unfortunately, no success with my attempt to make contact with the DC Saint Germain group to ask about the French connection. However, I noticed you were the nominator behind the excellent GA on Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell ↗. I'm in the area of the assassination (a friend lives directly above it), and I'd be glad to snap a photo of the present site if you think it'd be worthwhile. The area has change substantially over the last 20 years, so it doesn't look much like it did. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

:@Pbritti Thanks for trying, anyway. I'll try to research more into that myself, I have a lot of books that mention it and maybe one will give a clue.
:I think it would be worthwhile, but I hope it wouldn't be too much of a hassle. Even if the present area looks different it is certainly noteworthy. Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Tommasi

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On 13 November 2025 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Joseph Tommasi ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''a neo-Nazi ↗''' was offered $5,000 by Richard Nixon's election fundraising group ↗ for his participation in a scheme to help Nixon's campaign?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Tommasi ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joseph Tommasi ↗), 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 ↗.
}} &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) ↗ 00:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Rants and Incendiary Tracts

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On 18 November 2025 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Rants and Incendiary Tracts ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''a 1989 anthology of rants ↗''' includes the works of left-wing and anarchist activists, far-right writers, and a murderer?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rants and Incendiary Tracts ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rants and Incendiary Tracts ↗), 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 ↗.
}}  — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
{{DYK views|15,695|654.0|November 2025|Rants and Incendiary Tracts}} GalliumBot (talk • contribs ↗) (he/it ↗) 03:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
:I am standing on a soapbox in pure fury and rage that you recreated such an incredible and well researched article instead of letting it languish in the dustbin of history like so many others. I remain as ever yours in 300 tabs open and three sandboxes of unfished articles of pure jealousy, No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
::@No Swan So Fine Thanks. And believe me, I too have a boatload of unfinished drafts, though I keep mine in txt files, mostly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Articles for creation backlog drive

<div style="border: 2px solid #36c; background-color:var(--background-color-success-subtle, #98FB98); padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; color: inherit;">
75px|right ↗
Hello PARAKANYAA:

'''WikiProject Articles for creation ↗''' is holding a '''month long Backlog Drive ↗ in December!''' 
The goal of this drive is to '''reduce''' the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.

You may find :Category:AfC pending submissions by age ↗ or other categories and sorting ↗ helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive. 
There is a backlog of over {{Rounddown|{{formatnum:3000|R}}|-2}} pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help!
</div>
// hekatlys ↗ [talk ↗] 17:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Spiritual abuse

Hi. Could you modify redirect Spiritual abuse ↗ to point to the relevant section ({{slink|Religious abuse|Spiritual}})? Thanks. --~2025-36769-92 ↗ (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

:@~2025-36769-92 Sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Explain yourself

What exactly is this supposed to mean, two minutes after the article was created? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Vidnjevi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1324495576 ] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

:@Amanuensis Balkanicus Left a message on the talk page before you commented. And I responded so fast because your article linked 3 articles I made! I get a notification from that. I have read the sources cited, they do not mention Ivan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ken Feder

He sent me a signed copy of his book. Thanks for fixing that. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

:@Doug Weller Ooh, nice. I was just looking at it because it covers the rather bizarre book ''The Morning of the Magicians ↗''. Good job on that article, by the way, seems like a book I should read sometime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
::It is definitely worth reading. He is really nice He remarried at his advanced age of seventy-something and has two lovely, really cute and very funny children. I follow his Facebook page. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I added “Some”

To quench your worries in Contactees ↗. What is for sure is that contactees don’t have other contactees inside of them. ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

:@ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy I don't care enough to argue about this and the current phrasing is satisfactory, so okay, but I do not understand how you are getting that from what was there before. Include can also mean "part of a group". It does not always mean "inside of". So the meaning is obviously "[The set] includes". PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

::Hi! It’s a set theory problem: using the same word to refer to the set and also to the members of the set constitutes equivocation. I know it’s common English. You have it in your User Page (it seems your interests include interests), but it’s logically wrong. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I have my questions about that but I know nothing about the subject so can't really argue either way. This aside, now that I think about it the sentence is entirely superfluous because the heading already sets out that it is a list. I assume it is there to dissuade people from adding non-prominent entries but that hasn't even worked and we're just defining prominent as "notable" anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi again! I agree: your latest edition is actually better. A simple way to see in natural language that you can’t use just the same word for both things (so you can tell everybody, haha!) is the following: consider the phrase “The set of All sports includes football”. That’s obviously true and correct. Now just say “All sports include football”. That’s obviously false and incorrect, for example Olympic swimming doesn’t include any football. So you needed to say “the set of” to name the set itself something different from its elements/members. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your user name

Hi Parakanyaa,

Does your user name have anything to do with the ancient language of Sanskrit ↗? Kvinnen (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

:@Kvinnen No, it does not, though a few people have informed me that it is close to a word in Sanskrit before.
:The origin of my username is this: most of my usernames are based on whatever I was thinking about when I made the account. When I made this account I was, for some reason now lost to me, thinking about parakeet ↗s. Parakeets, parak…, made the last part up off the top of my head based on what I thought sounded nice, parakanyaa. I also liked the meaning of “para-“ as a prefix meaning other/beside/abnormal, e.g. parapsychology or paranormal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::Beautiful nonetheless. Kvinnen (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Millais painting

Hi Parakanyaa, thanks for your offer on the help page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Adding_a_painting_to_an_article ↗. I'm not sure if you saw my reply but I'd be very grateful if you could upload the picture for me. I have tried and just couldn't work out what to do! Thanks so much, Stronach (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:@Stronach :File:John Everett Millais - James Wyatt and His Granddaughter Mary.jpg ↗ voila PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Stronach (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::@Stronach Anytime. I like uploading free images. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh, good to know - I might well take you up on that! Thanks again Stronach (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));;" class="plainlinks">217px|left ↗190px|right ↗217px|left ↗301px|center ↗
'''Hello PARAKANYAA:''' Enjoy the '''holiday season ↗''' and '''winter solstice ↗''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
center|500px ↗{{paragraph break}}
</div>
<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}}
:Thanks, happy holidays to you as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

right|80px|alt=The temporary account IP viewer logo, composed of the Wikipedia globe with a user and an IP address ↗
Hello, PARAKANYAA. Per your request, your account has been granted ↗ {{mono|temporary-account-viewer}} rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts ↗ that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer ↗ for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy ↗.

Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.

Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.

Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP address ↗es (using the CIDR notation ↗ format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences ↗. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. I have noticed that you {{usertalk other|often ↗|often}} edit without using an edit summary ↗. Please do your best to {{strong|always fill in the summary field}}. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences ↗. Thanks!  – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
:I labeled your edit at Talk:Nicholas Godejohn ↗ as "disruptive" because you broke a template and removed a bunch of valid parameters without leaving an edit summary. If you had explained your edits, I probably would have just fixed the template that you broke. Please use Preview, check your edits after publishing, or both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
::I remember that happening and thought I fixed it. Whoops. And usually if someone has the talk page watched they'll have the main page watched as well, where I did leave an edit summary, so my rationale was that they were explained together, but I will be more careful. My bad! PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You should probably be aware of this

One of your self-declared interests on Wikipedia is the fringe, broadly construed; and so {{pagelink|Yakub (Nation of Islam)}} fits right in that category (this joke will fit well considering that WP:CATEGORIES ↗ are what our "friend" loved doing). So you probably know that {{user6|GettingSwole}} is one of the biggest contributors to the article recently ↗ (see his percentage in authorship attribution – {{talk quote inline|21.6%}}) which is the second-most edits made, second to you. Well, you should be obliged to know (and you probably already know the following because you have engaged on GS' talkpage) that he was revealed to be a sockpuppet of {{user6|MagicatthemovieS}} and this finding of fact is only substantiated by the stake his sockmaster account had ({{tqi|0.4%}}) on the same page. All of this to say, you are free by the processes of WP:BANREVERT ↗ to judiciously remove any contribution of {{u|GettingSwole}} on the Yakub (Nation of Islam) ↗ because he has now told that he was acting as a disruptive sock right from the beginning ↗ (few believed the account was compromised in the ANI thread).
===Mentioned===
SPI
Casepage implicating GettingSwole (archived): {{Slink|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagicatthemovieS/Archive#17 November 2025}} ANI case (archived): {{Slink|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#Possibly hacked editor?}} ~2025-39435-67 ↗ (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

:@~2025-39435-67 I am aware of this whole thing, I found it very bizarre. I guessed GS was a sock of somebody or a clean start account from the get go because of the way they edited but I didn't have any actual evidence of who and their edits seemed fine. And reading the SPI page, I don't think the goal of the second account was to be disruptive, as the first one they were apparently aiming to get blocked because they were spending too much time on this. There were ''surely'' better ways to accomplish this, but given the reasons for the block was that the admin believed their account to be compromised, I don't think removing their edits is super high priority, though someone could if they wanted to... I will probably take the Yakub article to GA at some point myself if no one beats me to it, which will likely involve refactoring most of that, yes. In the meantime I might remove or trim some of it (it's mostly fine but imo has a long way to go to GA). PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah there are a lot of questionable sources which he has included; for e.g, the entire "{{tq|ironic right-wing internet memes ↗}}" sourcing was mostly on the following single blog: {{cite news | title =Louisville School Shooter's Social Media Presence Reveals Online Right's Fascination With Nation of Islam Lore | work = Religion Dispatches ↗ | first = Michael Muhammad| last = Knight | date = 2025-01-29 | url = https://religiondispatches.org/louisville-school-shooters-online-presence-reveals-alt-right-fascination-with-figure-from-nation-of-islam-lore/}}, where I cannot tell the reliability of or how independent this ''Religion Dispatches ↗'' website is from the little dubious information I can even gather about the website itself (in the citation template it's given as a {{tl|cite news}} which is misleading at the very least). It's ultimately on your court since you are one of the major contributors to it and I mostly agree that it needs a rewrite/revision, just wanted to give you a notice because 21.6% is a huge stake in an article considering WP:BMB ↗ and the maliciousness of the edits made before contravention of said block. Though I will agree with you that his funny reasoning for going on a vandalism spree because he spent too much time on this website is relatable and at the very least understandable, resulting in most simply suspecting he was compromised; what matters is that he was forthright about what he did, but there were surely better ways to accomplish this as you insinuate. ~2025-39704-27 ↗ (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
:::There is certainly too much to that 1 source, but Knight is fine, he is a respected academic who was already cited in the article before GS stepped in (he wrote the "I am Sorry, Mr. White Man, These are Secrets that You are Not Permitted to Learn": The Supreme Wisdom Lessons and Problem Book" piece in ''Correspondences'', which is one of the big western esotericism academic journals), and has already written a full book on similar matters published by a university press. ''Religion Dispatches'' is a decent outlet though a rather niche one. Probably worth a paragraph or so, so I might trim it a little. So that source is OK but we are probably overusing it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I trimmed it a bit. May trim more going forward. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Source?

Could you please give me a source for "We don't put italics inside of these templates unless it's the titles. Certainly not for volume/issue numbers"? You did not include any in your Edit summary. Thanks! ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

:@ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy Help:Citation Style 1 ↗ "volume [...] This field is displayed in bold after the title and series parameters."
:"issue [...] When the source is part of a series that is published periodically. Alias: number. When the issue has a special title of its own, this may be given, in italics, along with the issue number, e.g. |issue=2, ''Modern Canadian Literature''".
:You don't put the ''number'' in italics, as this shows. If there's a special issue name then you can put the text of the issue title in italics but you never put the ''number'' in italics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
::Weird... it goes in italics in APA style. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
:::@ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy Most of Wikipedia goes with CS1, which is sort of the in house style. It's close to APA but a bit different. You technically can use other styles, but those templates output CS1. And per WP:CITEVAR ↗ once it is established you cannot change it that way without consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Ok, I cleaned up many italics that I had added to bibliography. But please don't revert a whole edit like that: I had removed superfluous spaces in those same edits and in both cases you reverted that also. Regards. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

{{#if:||WikiProject Scientology}} invitation

{{#if:|left|70px ↗}}
Thank you for your recent contributions to {{#if:|[[]]|one of Wikipedia's articles related to the Scientology topic}}. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining '''{{#if:||WikiProject Scientology}}''' ↗? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Scientology topic on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the Participants|Members}}|list of participants ↗. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page ↗. We look forward to working with you in the future!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

: I have started a new thread at § Invitation and open discussion on Scientology-topic ↗.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Another Millais painting

Hi there PARAKANYAA. You very kindly said above you would happily upload pics for me if asked - well, could you please upload this one for me?:

https://victorianweb.org/victorian/painting/millais/paintings/69.html

Its title is ''The Wedding Cards''.

I've had a look on Wikimedia and can't find it already uploaded. Thanks so much, 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Stronach (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

:@Stronach Voila :File:John Everett Millais - The Wedding Cards.jpg ↗ PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you so much! Here she is in situ: ''The Wedding Cards ↗''. I'm very grateful once more! Stronach (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

:::Can I pester you again? ''Pot Pourri'' by Millais, 1856. Best source I can find is: https://www.artnet.com/artists/john-everett-millais/pot-pourri-I_dWocAXGYLs5_vaUNm36g2 ↗. New page I just made: Pot Pourri (Millais painting) ↗. Thanks so much in anticipation! Stronach (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
::::@Stronach Don't worry, you're not pestering me. I uploaded that one, but if you find a higher quality one I can upload that instead. :File:John Everett Millais - Pot pourri.jpg ↗ PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::@PARAKANYAA Thanks so much - now beautifying the page. I'll keep an eye out for a higher quality one but am not hopeful. The auction listing and essay would have had one, but that's been removed from the internet, as far as I can see. Often seems to happen when paintings are bought by private collectors, which is a shame. Stronach (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Dear @PARAKANYAA, could you do this one for me please? https://emuseum.museoarteponce.org/objects/3879/the-escape-of-a-heretic-1559?ctx=e7df6049d2c06c0bef70ace1be244afd4008191f&idx=0 ↗ The one uploaded to Wikimedia commons as [File:John Everett Millais - La huida de una hereje, 1559.jpg] has been cropped from its original arched shape. Thanks again! Stronach (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@Stronach :File:John Everett Millais's La huida de una hereje, 1559.jpg ↗ PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@PARAKANYAA Thanks you so much! You are a star! Stronach (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Me again - I wonder if you could work your magic on Mrs Charles Freeman by Millais, 1862: https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5415834 ↗? Many thanks, Stronach (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

::File:John Everett Millais - Mrs Charles Freeman.jpg ↗ here ya go! PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::@PARAKANYAA Thanks so much, and happy Solstice/merry Christmas if that's your thing! Stronach (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
:::@Stronach It is my thing! Just a warning, I will be away from the computer and therefore unable to upload images to commons from the 23rd to 27th (can still edit a little bit but uploading images is weird on mobile). If you leave me any requests here during that period, I'll do them after, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

SPI

I started a sockpuppet investigation for MoonersWhite, since they seem to be a sockpuppet for Lamp21. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lamp21 ↗. Katzrockso (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

:They have been blocked as a sockpuppet. I saw a few edits in their edit history that could be AI-generated, if you want to refer that to the AI noticeboard. Katzrockso (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
::@Katzrockso Thank you, and I shall mention that in the thread there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | 211px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello PARAKANYAA, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion ↗. Spread the WikiLove ↗ by wishing another user a Merry Christmas ↗ and a Happy New Year ↗, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing,''' 
Vacant0 (talk • contribs ↗) 17:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|} Vacant0 (talk • contribs ↗) 17:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 1px solid #eaecf0; background: #f0feff; color: #202122; padding: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; border-radius: 6px; box-shadow: 0 1px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.08);"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 150%; font-weight: 600;" | January–February 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | New pages patrol ↗
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.

The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.

The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.

Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.

Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.

Streak awards ↗ will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.

Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles ↗ previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Interested in participating? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:90%; color:#54595d; padding-top:15px;"|You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here ↗.
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Happy December and early New Year! Here's a barnstar for the Tommasi article which is a great read. Also for Zug massacre from the start of this year, which I also contributed to. Sorry about the confusion with username changes which you probably don't remember, I'm Il5v. Didn't mean to credit myself for the second DYK for Zug either, so I apologize for that. Anyhow, best of luck on the Rockwell article, I look forward to seeing your future contributions :) 7kk (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, PARAKANYAA!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''PARAKANYAA''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — '''EarthDude''' ('''Talk''') 08:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC) 
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} — '''EarthDude''' ('''Talk''') 08:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to :Stephen E. Atkins ↗ when you modified the page, you introduced {{cl|Unknown parameters|unknown parameters}}. Just because you specify {{para|some_param|{{var|some_variable}}}} does not always mean that variable will display. The {{para|some_param}} must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a '''Show preview''' button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history ↗ of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk ↗ for assistance.
Thank you. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 15:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

:Ah, the perils of editing at 3 a.m. My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
::HAHA!!! There are few excuses I love more than {{tq|editing while tired}} which I am often guilty of! No worries. Just a friendly reminder. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 21:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

764 and related topics

I noticed you edit articles related to 764 and Com topics and was wondering if you were aware of some of the weird things connected to these topics (that aren't notable to be on Wikipedia yet, but maybe some day) including these groups alleged ties to the trolling community. Gregory "Greg" Heffley (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

:@Gregory "Greg" Heffley I'm aware of a lot of things and there are a lot of things going down in that topic area with those communities. I am aware of what you are referring to but never found that aspect particularly interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::I found it extremely interesting as someone aware of these communities for a very long time. I found it odd and concerning watching them slowly adopt methods from and intermingle with groups now considered to be terrorist networks. As far as I can tell, the only mentions of this on this site are a single sentence on the Skibidi Toilet ↗ article, and a few indirect references on the 764 ↗ article, and others in reference to the Antioch High School shooting ↗ and Imageboard#soyjak.party ↗. Gregory "Greg" Heffley (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@Gregory "Greg" Heffley yeah, the media is often slow to report on things like this, or often they never do, fearing putting light on something like that will only make it worse. It is is certainly, as you, say, extremely interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure if the media will report on what I'm talking about (to be blunt I'm thinking of groups like the "Utube Troll Police", a fairly well known group in the YouTube trolling community, or the "Foodists", if you've heard of either) until something else drastic happens or another "flareup" occurs. I'm sure it will happen again once those groups regroup themselves, unless YouTube has already caught up to them. Their activity declined mainly due to internal conflict, not (exclusively) because of their methods ceasing to work on their platforms of choice. I do think it is something worthy of reporting on though, it just isn't very relevant at the current moment. Gregory "Greg" Heffley (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Gregory "Greg" Heffley I am aware of both and that is what I assumed you were talking about, and the Skibidi Farms stuff. But as you said, not the kind of thing that is notable (in the Wikipedia sense) now, really. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::I assumed you knew of the UTTP, but the Foodists and SF are a bit more obscure. I am curious though, since you have a generalized interest in extremism research, how many people with such interest come across the weird troll community-intersection with these groups. I've seen a few researchers who found out about the troll groups through the more violent Com groups, and some people who had the reverse method of discovery. I imagine many people with knowledge on extremist groups with knowledge of the Com manage to totally avoid learning about the trolling groups related to them. I am curious about how you came across such groups and if you might have any advice for researching them. Gregory "Greg" Heffley (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::@Gregory "Greg" Heffley I can't say how known about this is. I suppose if you are sufficiently "online" and have sufficient interest in the macabre, as I do, you just naturally stumble into knowing such things. Many researchers may not have grown up online as much and so miss that element of it. If you were going to attempt to systematically research it I would suggest keeping track of where you heard/read of such things, since materials go down a lot. Archive things if you think they will go offline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Makes sense. I learned about the "Larpercore" groups years ago, long before they became as extremist and violent as they are now (they precede the Com by quite a while). I found out about the Com/764 independently and learned of the weird ties between the two after looking into it more. I also already do so. I wish there was ''any'' comprehensive source on this stuff, though. Very little exists in that regard. I have found researching this stuff has actually become easier in recent times, only a couple years ago it was extremely difficult to find any good info about this stuff. Gregory "Greg" Heffley (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Agarta

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''—especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor ''must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period''. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I redid the Adam B. Wheeler article

See Draft:Adam Wheeler fraud case ↗ ~2026-31657-8 ↗ (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

:I'm still concerned about AI, but I'm also not fully certain so I'll let someone else review it. Thank you for fixing the WP:BLP1E ↗ issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
::You're welcome! ~2026-31657-8 ↗ (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

thumb|The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm! {{smiley}} ↗

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PARAKANYAA! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions ↗. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

{{Div col|colwidth=18em}}

Introductory tutorial ↗

Your first article ↗

Contributing to Wikipedia ↗

Five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

Article development ↗

Help desk ↗

{{Div col end}}

If you have questions, '''{{edit|Special:MyTalk|just use this link to ask for help|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}'''; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center ↗.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Again, welcome! jolielover♥talk 19:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

:(heard you hadn't gotten a welcome yet, so...) jolielover♥talk 19:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
:@Jolielover My three year stint of never technically having been welcomed to this website, rectified :P PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Lafferty

I came to the Lafferty article from the accusations against you on the incident board. Based on the videos on youtube from scholars in the area who have commented on it, none of them doubt the case, but as it only came about last year, it will take time to make it into RS as you note. While it's out of the areas I normally trawl for journal articles, if I do come across any I'll post the details on the talk page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

:@Cdjp1 Thank you. For what it is worth, I do not doubt it either, it is simply a matter of sourcing. I encountered it because I have been trying to fix the article of the IHR (the Holocaust denial group he mailed) founder Willis Carto ↗, and while searching for that I encountered the recent information on Lafferty. I found the sourcing to be unsatisfactory, but the evidence is fairly clear - only, entirely in sources we cannot use.
:This is actually not the first time a famous sci fi author has been posthumously revealed as affiliated with the IHR. Happened with MAR Barker ↗ as well. Took a while for that to appear in RS. I'll probably be checking for sources too going forward. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge

The merged version is now at Template: AustralianTerrorism ↗, as decided in the discussion, but I don't know how to do the next steps. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:@LateNightCoffee I'm not a page mover, so I can't help you there. Try Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ↗ PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::I thought everyone could move most pages? Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@LateNightCoffee You can, unless the title already exists and has multiple edits. To overwrite a page with history you need the page mover right. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Auth control? Wikidata?

So is that what auth control is for? I've been wondering. Both that and wikidata are black holes of incomprehensibility to me. In my defense (for choosing to use a deliberate external link), auth control template doesn't display for users of mobile devices, whereas a link in the external links section ''does''. I'm a big fan of Open Library, and just discovered {{tl|OL book}} and {{tl|OL author}}.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

:@Grorp Auth control is "authority control", see authority control ↗, which are the connections of these persistent identifiers with concepts, typically authors or works or editions in library catalogs. Basically, any significant external database with a persistent identifier, like the Library of Congress ↗ or Librarything ↗ or BnF ↗, they all have identifiers for authors.
:I believe we used to do this onwiki and just put all the identifiers in the auth template locally, the same way we used to handle interlanguage links, but with Wikidata we put them there and they show up on every wiki. I like Wikidata quite a lot, but it is a to each their own thing.
:To explain, OL book is not redundant because due to the way Wikidata models items it only shows you the work-level item and not the edition item (so, for example, you linked the OL book for the specific EDITION in the external links, while authority control is showing the WORK level item for the general literary content of the book, all its editions ever, because articles are always linked to the "work" not edition items)
:Openlibrary is generally good but is extremely, extremely bad at managing their authority control, relative to any other platform, so everyone always has duplicates. I regularly have to email them to fix this (which takes ages...) PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:: My purpose for using {{tl|OL book}} is mainly to provide readers a copy of books that they are able to borrow, read or search, in OL. The only topic I would be doing this is those sorts of things that I have collected in one particular sandbox. I have no idea what those other things are in the {{tl|Authority control}} template at the bottom of Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi ↗ article, but I can skip using {{tl|OL author}} for author articles which have an {{tl|Authority control}} in it. I hope you'll allow me to use {{tl|OL book}} for book articles in the SCN topic area. I don't think there is any prohibition against using both.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@Grorp What I meant to say by that using OL book is actually fine, because what OL book gives you is always going to be different from what authority control gives you, unlike with authors. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: Cool. Thx.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

{| class="barnstar" style="border:1px solid gray; background:#fdffe7;"
|-
|rowspan="2" style="padding-right:5px;" | 100px ↗

|style="font-size:1.65em; padding:0; height: 1.1em;" | The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
|-
|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For working tirelessly on articles in the area of extremism and extremists. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
|}

:@Butlerblog Thanks! Your service in this topic area is appreciated as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

An article that might interest you

Hello! I remember seeing on your user page that you’re interested in occultism and political extremism, among other topics. I recently came across Turku Society for the Spiritual Sciences ↗ while working on cleaning up List of fascist movements by country A–F ↗. The article’s subject appears to relate to esoteric Nazism, so I thought it might interest you! :D — '''EarthDude''' ('''Talk''') 12:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:Bit busy at the moment, but yes, generally the kind of thing I'm interested in. Will probably look into it more later. Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

":Nikolasschreck.world ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikolasschreck.world&redirect=no Nikolasschreck.world] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 12#Nikolasschreck.world}}''' until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer 1234qwer 4 ↗ 14:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

":Nikolasschreck.eu ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikolasschreck.eu&redirect=no Nikolasschreck.eu] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 12#Nikolasschreck.eu}}''' until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer 1234qwer 4 ↗ 14:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

HOPE Not Hate RfC

Not that I disagree with the policy (WP:BIASED ↗) as it is currently stated or suggest that it should be changed, but I find it interesting that ArbCom did declare in a ruling that bias does impinge on reliability a long time ago. I will have to look for the specific case, but it was from the mid 2000s. Katzrockso (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:@Katzrockso Curious what year that would have been and in what context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, I tried to do a search of the archives earlier and couldn't find it. I found the case linked in some previous discussion here. 2005 or so is what rings a bell, so well before many of Wikipedia policies were institutionalized the way they are today. Katzrockso (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::@Katzrockso Yeah, wouldn't be surprised. And it isn't like people don't say that it ''does'' affect reliability, every time, ignoring policy... lol PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to :Template:Alt-right footer ↗. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments ↗ to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 02:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

:@Zackmann08 I'll fix it, sorry. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::All good! If I had a nickel... Been there, made the same mistake, have the t-shirt! Appreciate you getting right on it. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 02:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I got it. For some reason I thought "|group1=" was supposed to go after list1=... PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Esoteric Knowledge

Hi, nice discussion at FTN i thought, but we were probably going too far beyond the content issue.

On the Phillips article you might not now this but in certain parts of the U.S. it is not uncommon to find yourself at a Waffle House ↗ at 3AM. Or in your car in a ditch and not know exactly how you got there. I thought it too good of a story that it must have been a joke or something misinterpreted from the podcast, maybe ''CNN'' and ''Guardian'' a little to credulous. But the ''Rolling Stone'' article said this wasn't a "black out", not a story about drinking and driving or drugs. He was serious and thought he teleported. So, culture thing, but maybe i'm the only one who thought that. I hope not. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

:@Fiveby I do think the story is pretty funny, and I see what you mean, but the article is sorted into their politics categories, and he is a political figure. If a story is about Donald Trump doing something dumb, that's still going to be covered by Rolling Stone politics, because they're covering it in the context of and because of his political position. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Abraxas Foundation members admired Charles Manson

If you couldn't possibly conceive of how they might be seen as being similar to the 09A. StrongALPHA (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

:@StrongALPHA So what? The ONA did not have any particular attachment to Charles Manson. He's not even mentioned in the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::"So what" - You are {{Personal attack removed}}, the ONA is all about serial killers! StrongALPHA (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{Personal attack removed}} StrongALPHA (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@StrongALPHA Yeah man, neo-Nazis sometimes like murderers. Manson was racist. There are dozens of racist murderers. That doesn't mean there's any meaningful connection here.
:::Also, do not insult people. That is a WP:PA ↗. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I was just about to revdel this as grossly disruptive, Para - should I leave it be or go ahead? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) ↗ 16:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Premeditated Chaos Whatever you feel is most appropriate, I don't feel strongly either way (more surprised than anything....) and thanks for the quick action. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'm gonna turf it if it's all the same to you. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) ↗ 16:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

WatchPeopleDie.tv

I would rather you just nominated the article for deletion rather than letting the template stay just so we can settle the issue of notability Trade (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

:@Trade I put a tag when the sources in the article do not evidence notability, but I am unsure if more exist. If I am sure sources that evidence notability do not exist, I nominate for AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::the article is notable as bbc reference it and it has nearly 5 million registered users Stanjik (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::References is not sigcov and number of registered users does not matter for Wikipedia notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::what's sicgov and it's popularity surely gives some weight right Stanjik (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::WP:SIGCOV ↗, it means that it must be a mention that devotes material to the topic at length, not a passing mention.
:::::No, not really. WP:ITSPOPULAR ↗. Wikipedia notability is almost entirely determined by how many reliable sources have written about a thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::oh wait I get it damn Stanjik (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Brenton Tarrant ↗

Someone's made it an article again. ''TarnishedPath''talk 23:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

:Sigh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::I didn't see any strong consensus one way or the other in the most recent discussion on the Christchurch article's talk. I would suggest seeing if anyone takes it to AFD. They might not. ''TarnishedPath''talk 23:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I predict it will within the week - but, it won't be me that does it. My biggest problem with it now is that, like the previous versions, it relies on inaccurate 2019-era news based on Tarrant's many lies rather than later, better sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I agree with the need to have more up to date sourcing. I guess the problem is that no one is going to be motivated to bring the article more up to date until any AFD discussion is concluded. ''TarnishedPath''talk 23:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::@TarnishedPath If it survives the month or AfD, I'll do it. But, yeah, I see the problem... PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps if you post the sources you are already aware of to the article's talk, others might be motivated to do some of the work. ''TarnishedPath''talk 23:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::@TarnishedPath And now it was speedied. This is truly a saga. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Interesting that an admin in effect upheld a WP:CSD#G4 ↗ when it appeared to be entirely new content. It should have went to a new AFD. ''TarnishedPath''talk 00:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Correction on what I wrote above. It appeared to be copied almost verbatim from the version last subject to AFD. ''TarnishedPath''talk 00:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Ah, that's why nothing in it is new. Well, our discourse about writing a new, non-terrible article can continue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of One More Victim ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article One More Victim ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:One More Victim/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Coffeeandcrumbs -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of One More Victim ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article One More Victim ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:One More Victim/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Coffeeandcrumbs -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Weird Twitter stuff

Just wanted to let you know, if you search your username on Twitter, there are quite a few instances of people who have mentioned you, weirdly including at least one person thinking you're part of a conspiracy of some kind, from what I could gather. Gregory "Greg" Heffley (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, the topics I am interested in seem to be watched by some very interesting people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::Ah, it's the guy who thinks that Travis Kelce is part of a NATO-Nazi terrorist plot being covered up by Taylor Swift and the media. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Reply 6 April 2026

There is a specific subgroup for "designated". That is a relatively recent system, but there's about 100 years of historical groups that are consistently described as terrorists or terror groups that pre-date the current ubiquitous use of and commentary on that system.
If you disagree with historical groups being in these categories, most of them already were, please ping me in a discussion on the relevant "category talk:" page. Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

:@LateNightCoffee MOS:TERRORIST ↗. We do not describe groups or people in wikivoice as terrorists, for the same reason we do not describe people as "evil" in wikivoice even if RS do. We do not describe Al-Qaeda ↗ as a terrorist group, or ISIS. There is a reason we do not have group categories, so you can't just go around that by putting the groups in the higher level categories that have the same issue. Do not add groups to these categories. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::Describing them as terrorist in wikivoice isn't dependent on designation. It's dependent on how they are described in balanced reliable sources in English. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::Describing them as designated terrorist is not wikivoice, it's not calling them terrorist it's quoting the notable biased source that made the designation. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Again, read MOS:TERRORIST ↗. Even if they are described, we ''have to attribute it'', always. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::I had a closer look at other category names and I see what you mean now. I'll change the way I label people and groups. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::But if the problem is people and groups, why did you react so negatively to the template that only has events and broad ideologies? Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:::@LateNightCoffee My gripe with the template is due to a variety of factors. for extremely broad topic of "right-wing terrorism" is, while acceptable to label ''incidents'' in their own articles, where it can be explained and qualified, it is poorly suited to a navbox, which 1) have no explanataion or qualification 2) supposed to be closely related and replace see also sections. The entire category of right-wing terrorism is not closely related. That's most terrorist attacks.
:::Also, many of the incidents were not called "right-wing terrorism", you were extrapolating your own definition of right-wing - for example, why wouldn't it include Islamist acts of terror? Radical Islam is generally considered right wing. It's not like it's excluding religion, you were putting Christian attacks in there. This definitional issue is also another problem for the template - topics where the definition is contested are almost always poor choices for black and white yes/no inclusions like templates. Also, I am generally an opponent of overbroad templates. We have a plethora of overlapping, extremely badly maintained navboxes and sidebars and I am an opponent of there being more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::::@PARAKANYAA: {{tq|"...they never edited the template..."}} but the template is based on categories pages were in, so if you tell me which editor it was I can prioritise checking pages they edited. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::{{tq|"those two are disproportionately represented"}} that's true, but only because the template is new and not yet comprehensive. But they are still not "most" of the template. The issue is mostly that others are missing. I started by adding things from the pages about Australia, which I was already working on, this included Croatian nationalists.
::::I intend to make it comprehensive. if it gets too big I'll break it into eras like others are:
::::* {{tl|Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1950s}} to {{tl|Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2020s}}, but without the unconventional formatting used in those.
::::* {{tl|Mass shootings in the United States in the 1980s and before}}, 1990s ↗, 2000s ↗, 2010s ↗, and {{tl|Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s}}.
::::Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

{{Outdent|3}}
@PARAKANYAA Can you give examples of "Christian attacks" that I have included that should not be included? Nothing currently there is something I would call "Christian terrorism". I really don't know what you are referring to, so please be more specific. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I included four attacks by Ulster unionists ↗ because I found them in the right-wing terrorism tree. Possibly they should not have been there? If there's a reason to remove them, they can be removed. I can't find anything else that could be "Christian attacks"? Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I included anti-abortion violence ↗ in the topics, but no attacks. Is that what you mean? Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:@LateNightCoffee Centennial Olympic Park bombing ↗ - the infobox says far-right terrorism but it is entirely uncited, the only part that is cited and discussed in the article is extremist Christianity. 1992 Copenhagen bombing ↗ is included despite only being "suspected". And as you said the Ulster unionist incidents aren't best described as this at all. Or the Croatian Six ↗. No clue why Tanjung Priok massacre ↗ is included. Or 1989 Kandy massacre ↗. Only a few of what I checked.
:The vast majority of this template is specific instances of nationalist terrorism (mostly Croatia and Turkey, which are not commonly grouped together). I just do not think it is useful to group these together under this broad banner, especially since the articles do not describe them as "right-wing terrorism". There are many hundreds of nationalist causes. They aren't closely related. This is not a cohesive navbox topic.
:Most of the terrorism categories are bad so duplicating it will result in mirroring their problems. There was one editor specifically (now indeffed) who messed up the whole tree and it still needs to be fixed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::@PARAKANYAA are those examples of Christian terrorism? Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::It is not "mostly Croatia and Turkey". Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::Who was the "one editor" so I can check for their recent edits? Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:::The first article I linked was. Then you have the examples where right-wing isn't given as a motive, or it's inconclusive, e.g. Stockton schoolyard shooting ↗, or the Battle of Bab El Oued ↗, which is a ''battle'', or Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom ↗, which is not described as a terrorist attack, and so on, and so on.
:::I said of the instances of ''nationalist terrorism'' those two are disproportionately represented. My general point is the template is a hodgepodge of barely related elements.
:::Well, they never edited the template, so nothing to check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Stockton schoolyard shooting ↗ looks like a white supremacist terror attack, but possibly needs better sources to include. You can remove it till I find some.
::::The other two possibly don't belong. If you don't think they should be there, just remove them. The point of a Wiki is that we can work collaboratively and improve each other's work.
::::I included Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom ↗ because it includes a non-state militant group. I found Battle of Bab El Oued ↗ in the categories but that is the same.
::::That's the way battles including 21st-century non-state armed groups are treated, e.g. List of Islamist terrorist attacks ↗ includes 2014 Grozny clashes ↗. This is not uncommon. This is the typical usage on hundreds of Wikipedia pages. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::Do you object to including Centennial Olympic Park bombing ↗, or were you just giving it as an example of a Christian attacker? Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::I had a closer look at that page, and the attacker, Eric Rudolph ↗, it belongs in the right-wing terrorism topic. It's included in this overview of right-wing terrorism ↗ from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ↗.<ref name="9 June 2014" >{{cite web | last1 = Blair | first1 = Charles P. | title = Looking clearly at right-wing terrorism | url = https://thebulletin.org/2014/06/looking-clearly-at-right-wing-terrorism/ | website = thebulletin.org | publisher = Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ↗ | date = 9 June 2014 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190723100204/https://thebulletin.org/2014/06/looking-clearly-at-right-wing-terrorism/ | archive-date = 2019-07-23}}</ref>
::'''Quotes from before I made any changes:'''
::Bombing: Centennial Olympic Park bombing ↗ {{tqb|The '''Centennial Olympic Park bombing''' was a pipe bomb ↗ing attack on Centennial Olympic Park ↗ in Atlanta ↗, Georgia, United States, on July 27, 1996, during the Summer Olympics ↗. The blast directly killed one person and injured 111 others; another person later died of a heart attack. It was the first of four bombings committed by Eric Rudolph ↗ in {{highlight|a domestic terrorist ↗ campaign}} against the U.S. government which he accused of championing "the ideals of {{highlight|global socialism}}" and "abortion on demand".<ref name=San>{{cite news |title= Eric Rudolph Lays Out the Arguments that Fueled His Two-Year Bomb Attacks |first= Doug |last= Gross |agency= Associated Press ↗ |work= San Diego Union-Tribune ↗ |date= April 14, 2005 |url= http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation/20050414-0149-ericrudolph.html |access-date= March 27, 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180902211443/http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation/20050414-0149-ericrudolph.html |archive-date= September 2, 2018 |url-status= dead }}</ref><ref name=NPR>{{cite news |url= https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4600480 |title= Full Text of Eric Rudolph's Confession |publisher= NPR (National Public Radio) |date= April 14, 2005 |access-date= December 6, 2013}}</ref>}}
::Bomber Eric Rudolph ↗: {{tqb|'''Eric Robert Rudolph''' (born September 19, 1966), also known as the '''Olympic Park Bomber''', is an American {{hilight|domestic terrorist ↗ convicted of a series of bombings}} across the Southern United States ↗ between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 100 others,<ref name="FBI announcement">{{cite web |url=http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/October/477crm.htm |title=Eric Rudolph charged in Centennial Olympic Park bombing |website=Viceland News |access-date=September 19, 2019|archive-date=June 18, 2003 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030618150204/http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/October/477crm.htm }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/rudolph.plea/|title=Rudolph agrees to plea agreement|last1=Schuster|first1=Henry|date=April 12, 2005|website=CNN ↗|access-date=January 8, 2016|quote="The many victims of Eric Rudolph's terrorist attacks in Atlanta and Birmingham can rest assured that Rudolph will spend the rest of his life behind bars," [U.S. Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales said in press release.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050409061947/http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/rudolph.plea/|archive-date=April 9, 2005|url-status=live}}</ref> including the Centennial Olympic Park bombing ↗ at the 1996 Summer Olympics ↗ in Atlanta ↗. His stated motive was {{highlight|opposition to "the ideals of global socialism"}} and "abortion on demand", both of which he claimed were condoned by the United States government.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/2005/04/14/4600480/full-text-of-eric-rudolphs-confession |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131203065049/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4600480 |archive-date=December 3, 2013 |title=Full Text of Eric Rudolph's Confession |publisher= NPR ↗ |date=April 14, 2005 |access-date=July 3, 2024 |url-status=live }}{{void|Fabrickator|comment|alternate archive url:https://web.archive.org/web/20240524131433/https://www.npr.org/2005/04/14/4600480/full-text-of-eric-rudolphs-confession}}</ref>}}
::{{section link|Eric Rudolph|Motivations}}: {{tqb|After Rudolph's arrest for the bombings, ''The Washington Post ↗'' reported that the FBI considered Rudolph to have "had a long association with the Christian Identity ↗ movement, which asserts that Northern European ↗ whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel ↗, God's chosen people ↗."<ref name="Cooperman">{{Cite news |last=Cooperman |first=Alan |date=June 2, 2003 |title=Is Terrorism Tied To Christian Sect? |language=en-US |newspaper=The Washington Post ↗ |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/06/02/is-terrorism-tied-to-christian-sect/7510f762-4ac6-43b5-9b15-479a8cef16d4/ |access-date=November 12, 2020 |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=November 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124072527/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/06/02/is-terrorism-tied-to-christian-sect/7510f762-4ac6-43b5-9b15-479a8cef16d4/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Christian Identity is a white supremacist ↗ movement which holds the view that those who are not white Christians cannot be saved.<ref>{{cite book |last=Quarles |first=Chester L. |title=Christian Identity: The Aryan American Bloodline Religion |publisher=McFarland & Company ↗ |location=Jefferson, North Carolina|year=2004 |page=68 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r5BzY2eeyngC |isbn=978-0-7864-1892-3 |access-date=November 2, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170424002004/https://books.google.com/books?id=r5BzY2eeyngC |archive-date=April 24, 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
::He's delusional for thinking the US or a "global" conspiracy support socialism, but opposition to socialism is an unambiguously right-wing position. Christian Identity ↗ is not just "Christian" it's a fringe movement associated with the far-right, read the page. But this isn't just my assessment, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing ↗ is included in that overview of right-wing terrorism I showed above.<ref name="9 June 2014" /> Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
:::If the article does not support it and you have to click to another article to see why something is in the navbox, it should not be in the navbox. It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't, it matters what the article currently says, or it is unsourced. Unless the article currently describes it as that thing, it should not be in categories, navigation, etc, whether related articles do or not!
:::And yes, plenty of Islamist attackers believe similar things - what I am trying to illustrate to you is, why are we putting extremist Christians in this navbox, when we are not putting extremist Muslims in the navbox? Are you arguing that Islamist terrorism is not "right wing"? If so, why is Christian terrorism? Note that none of the descriptors you highlight say "right-wing"; and no, opposition to socialism is not an unambiguously right-wing position. You ''cannot'' extrapolate from the motive yourself to form your own classifications, this is WP:OR ↗. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::@PARAKANYAA, The quotes above, before I added anything, already call it a domestic terror attack, and described an unambiguously right wing ideology. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::It does not at any point say "right-wing". To describe it as "right-wing" you must ''have a source in the article'' that calls it "right-wing". Extrapolating from anything else is OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::This source, I showed you twice already.
::::::* {{cite web | last1 = Blair | first1 = Charles P. | title = Looking clearly at right-wing terrorism | url = https://thebulletin.org/2014/06/looking-clearly-at-right-wing-terrorism/ | website = thebulletin.org | publisher = Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ↗ | date = 9 June 2014 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190723100204/https://thebulletin.org/2014/06/looking-clearly-at-right-wing-terrorism/ | archive-date = 2019-07-23}}
::::::It's listed in that. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::{{tqb|'''The military and the far right.''' Throughout the history of US far-right extremism, many of its most influential and infamous members have had ties to the military.... Army of God adherent and Centennial Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf was an Army veteran.}} You need to read a few paragraphs of context, but it's there. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::That's a quote from the source above. There will probably be others, that's just what I found first. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Quote from a CNN ↗ news report. {{tqb|...a far right-wing extremist and anti-abortion, anti-gay terrorist named Eric Rudolph was identified as the real culprit in the Centennial Park bombing.}} Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::@PARAKANYAA: Here's a source ↗ from The New Yorker ↗ calling him far-right. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::It's just knowing what words mean. Socialism is left-wing, opposing it is right-wing. They're relative terms.
::::Also, I added a source that describes it in the exact words "right-wing terrorism".
::::{{tq|"...you have to click to another article to see why something is in the navbox..."}}
::::It being right-wing terrorism was already on the page. I suggested you read the Christian Identity page because of your side track about him being Christian. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Not how this works. Is an anarchist who opposes socialism right-wing? Is a liberal? You cannot extrapolate these things to say statements that are not in the sources. Why not put all Islamist extremists, by this logic? This approach is original research.
:::::''After'' you added it to the navbox.
:::::No, it was not in the article sourced, not on the article you put in the navbox. I know what Christian Identity is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Many anarchists identity as socialists. They regard anarchists who oppose socialism as "ancaps" and consider them right-wing. If you want to include Anarchist attacks we can discuss them on a case by case basis. Hypotheticals are not useful. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::I personally consider liberalism right wing, but unless you can find a real example of a "liberal terrorist attack" this isn't relevant. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Why are you so keen on labelling Islamism right-wing? Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Hypotheticals are useful because if we're deciding on our own on what to put in this category then seeing what you object to putting in the category makes some things clearer. You have decided that we can cherry pick what can be in this category - and many anarchists do, but some don't identify as socialists either. But is a non-socialist, non-uncap anarchist a "right-wing" criticism? No. You ''''cannot extrapolate to get information that no sources do not say''', this is OR. If this is your approach to categories I find it concerning.
:::::::Because logically how is it ''not''? Right-wing politics, if it has any definition, is about hierarchy. Few ideologies are more hierarchical than radical Islam. When applied to the left-right political spectrum, Islamism is considered right-wing. Why are you insistent on it ''not'' being included? What is your source for that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

{{talkref}}

What next with the BLP issue at Vinay Prasad ↗

Hi, thanks for weighing in on the BLP discussion ↗ about Vinay Prasad. Personally I think policy still demands removal of the material, but I doubt that any BLPREMOVE wouldn't simply be reverted again. I wanted to ask your advice about what you think should happen - is it worth just removing it again and returning to the article talk page if necessary? Going back to a noticeboard? Or just dropping the stick? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

:@Samuelshraga Maybe a discussion at RSN? If the discussion is about whether the source is an SPS or not in that context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
::I guess I'll do this, though I <s>slightly</s> dread the idea of another noticeboard discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The New Encyclopedia of the Occult ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article The New Encyclopedia of the Occult ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:The New Encyclopedia of the Occult/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The New Encyclopedia of the Occult ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article The New Encyclopedia of the Occult ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:The New Encyclopedia of the Occult/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The New Encyclopedia of the Occult ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article The New Encyclopedia of the Occult ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:The New Encyclopedia of the Occult/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas ↗

You are invited to participate in the '''Destubathon of the Americas ↗''', a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ ''Dr. Blofeld'' 17:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

SPLC

Why are we encouraging random IP's that seem to think the SPLC is a white supremacist/Nazi organization? Doesn't that seem like inviting disruption to the article? DN (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

:@Darknipples Where have we encouraged anyone? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::@Darknipples And for what it's worth, unlike Guy Macon, I still think the SPLC is a reliable source. A hill I will die on. But whether they get convicted or not, it is foolish to keep something so significant out of the article, IMO. If they are being unjustly persecuted it is relevant that way too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::Well one of them did just try to open a discussion at RSN (edit: to BAN SPLC as a reliable source), and you have taken the position for inclusion despite my instincts telling me it is UNDUE at this point, but as I said before, I'm willing to trust your judgement here. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:::It was immediately closed, thankfully. Though Guy Macon is also in the "ban SPLC" crowd but we've had that argument about 40 times.
:::It would be undue to have a whole section but like a sentence cited to AP and the cluster of news sources? Seems due weight to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 Core Contest has begun!

The Core Contest ↗ has begun! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes. Although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings or prizes.

We are now about a week in, and it's worth sharing some issues we judges have noticed in the past:

'''Understandability ↗''' is extra important for big topics like these. Avoid jargon ↗ when possible; give context (and of course, citations), even for things that seem obvious ↗; and always consider the age-old adage from {{noping|Iridescent}}: ''"would a bright 14-year old with no prior knowledge of the topic understand this?"''

'''The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source.''' Instead of asking "what do I want to say in this article", ask yourself: "what do most high-quality, reliable and recent sources say about this topic?"

Take a '''global perspective ↗''' whenever possible. If you're writing about someone from France, consider looking at recent, high-quality sources in French. Amid language barriers, consider the careful use of an online translation tool or *shudder* a language dictionary.

'''Plan, plan, plan!''' Make an outline, a draft TOC, or some kind of gameplan. Big articles are a different beast, and it's worth figuring out structural and logistical aspects early on.

Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – '''Aza24 (talk)''' 00:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list ↗.

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you think it is about the Thousand Oaks article?

It is kinda baffling to me that the move was closed as no consensus again. No oppose votes even attempted to argue that this met the requirements of WP:NOYEAR ↗ other than say it was unlikely to happen again, pointing to {{tq|events that are unlikely to recur}}, but that sentence refers to things such as assassinations, kidnappings, etc. I feel as though if I didn't make such a dumb initial argument the move would've been completed months ago, and a bunch of the initial opposition seemed to stem from me renominating it despite waiting a good amount of time and actually coming forth with a good argument. '''Raskuly''' 🐰{{Main other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}}{{Template other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}} 00:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

:@Raskuly I'm with you, it feels like no one reads the thing. Enforcing NOYEAR is a mess, because despite the project as a whole coming to conclude over and over (including quite recently) that the guidelines as written are reflective of consensus, people simply do not read WP:NCWWW ↗ and act like the event being identifiable from the name doesn't matter, and misunderstand "unlikely to recur". I think with Thousand Oaks it's the mix of it being relatively high fatality but not super well known and well, the failed past move. Sometimes it just happens like that.
:I appreciate your work on getting it to be a little bit more consistent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent it

It was not a topic ban and I've seen no notification that it has increased, please don't misrepresent it. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

:Were you ''not'' topic banned? Reading the WP:ANI ↗ thread, I thought you were. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Great work on the sourcing and photograph finding!

Subject line says it all pretty much, I can't point out anything in particular but you've become an ''amazing'' resource. :) NorthTension (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:@NorthTension Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Frederick Charles Weiss ↗

hi, I just translated an article I initially wrote for French Wikipedia about a character you've likely came across through your readings, Frederick Charles Weiss ↗. since I'm a newbie on English Wikipedia and this article touches upon a topic that I think might interest you, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on whether it meets English Wikipedia's standards. GloBoy93 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:@GloBoy93 For notability, sure, though I'd try to find more sources that aren't Coogan. Seems fine to me.
:I'm writing an article on Kurt Mertig, actually; hope you don't beat me to the punch on that one, haha. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
::thanks. to be honest, I was pretty confident about the topic's notability, but I was mainly wondering about the format; since I think that can vary a lot depending on the wiki? I did try to find other sources but didn't have any luck besides Goodrick-Clarke and Lee which weren't as informative as Coogan :/ I wrote this article over a year ago, and I'm not working much on these kinds of topics right now even though I'd like to revisit them eventually, so don't worry about that :p I'd be curious to read that article once you complete it, though GloBoy93 (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@GloBoy93 In terms of format, there is a bit of an issue, but it isn't going to get the page deleted. Enwiki frowns upon small sections. I would collapse the small sections into a few larger ones, and that would be much improved.
:::Well, if you come back to it, here is quite a bit in this book https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Secret_War_Against_Hate/bQuSEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Frederick%20Charles%20Weiss%22 ↗ that is quite recent and a bit in ''Holocaust Denial As An International Movement''. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
::::thanks for the advice :) I've tweaked it a bit, does it look good to you? thanks also for the source (no wonder I didn't come across it, it hadn’t been published yet when I first wrote this article :p), I’ll take a look at it. GloBoy93 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::@GloBoy93 Much better, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

VA5 nomination

Hey PARAKANYAA, as you appear to be the lead editor of George Lincoln Rockwell ↗, I'd like to inform you I nominated the article for VA5. The discussion is at: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 5/People/Authorities and leadership figures#Add George Lincoln Rockwell ↗. Prost, A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Infobox novella ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Template:Infobox novella ↗ has been nominated for merging ↗ with Template:Infobox book ↗. You are invited to comment on the discussion at '''the template's entry''' ↗ on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy

WP:3RR ↗ WP:OWN ↗ Bueller 007 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bueller 007}} You could do likewise. I think you need to put the article to ''status quo ante bellum ↗'' and take it to discussion per WP:BRD ↗. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:The 3RR has not been crossed and I explained it to you on the talk page. We can't leave material to be unverified; it's not about my preferred version (honestly, I greatly dislike the current version) but about basic content policies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:: It's not "unverified". The content of the lede was already fully supported by the content of the Reception section. "Verified" does not mean "has to be present in exactly the same words in the lede that it is in the body". The lede is a *summary*. And yes, the 3RR was crossed. By you. And it's clear that you believe you have ownership over the article, or at least are behaving as if you believe this. The intro to the reception section now contains only an incomplete summary of the reception. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@Bueller 007 I made 3 reverts. No more, no less. That is not crossing the 3RR.
:::No, it wasn't, as I explained on talk. Your edit made the majority of that sentence unverifiable - for example, where is "nativist", where is the mention of it being criticized for anti-immigration themes, where is the mention of it being criticized by BOTH French and Anglophone audiences? You removed the citations for this, and the article does not say these things at all, whether in the same language or different language.
:::It is not ownership to enforce basic WP:V ↗; if you want to remove the sentence from both the lead and the body, feel free, but don't make it unverified in the lead. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I think your last revert of yourself was unnecessary, I thought your changes were beneficial as long as that one sentence was verified, and since you added it back in I did not revert the rest. I agree your organizational changes were improvements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

yooo

hey thanks for taking a look at miles yardley page, pretty good stuff, seen you around and you help out. ↗ Aradicus (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:Forgot to respond to this. Yes, I've seen you around too, good work on the pages you edit, though we don't really run in the same circles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Goyslop AFD

Something feels a little off about the AFD, but a bunch of IPs with no ever editing history (or only other history is with James Fishback) are replying keep. Not sure if there's socking going on or not. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

:@EaglesFan37 Yeah, for sure. You and the page creator were fine but everything else is a little... odd. I mean, the topic attracts an... interesting audience, so. Not really a surprise to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:@EaglesFan37 Oh hey, I found out why. Canvassing on 4chan ↗ /pol/. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::@PARAKANYAA After your message, I decided to see if I could find that thread, and yikes. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Still thinks it meets GNG, but not so sure if I necessarily want this article up if those are the other advocates EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::::@EaglesFan37 I would've just done a merge discussion, but since per recent (and imo bad) consensus we do merges at AfD now. And I think it is a fair argument that it passes the GNG, perhaps I was unclear about that, but IMO so narrowly, so controversially, and with so much overlap that per WP:PAGEDECIDE ↗ it is best to cover it alongside the broader topic with which it overlap. To quote PAGEDECIDE, "Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic)". But I get where you're coming from.
::::And yeah, the thing about Nazis is to some degree they kind of relish when we talk about them onwiki, which can make it weird. Of course, I edit a lot about this myself, but it's a weird thing to balance at times. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::@PARAKANYAA That does make sense, and I do see that, but given that it's been covered on different occasions (RFK Jr. in 2024 and Fishback in 2026), that pushes it over the edge for me.
:::::However, the 4chan thread is disconcerting enough that I'm disturbed to be voting alongside them here. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 4chan Meatpuppetry on the AfD for 'Goyslop' ↗.2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Jordan Lasker ↗ for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Jordan Lasker ↗, to which you have significantly contributed ↗, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or if it should be deleted ↗.

The discussion will take place at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Lasker ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by ''SDZeroBot'' (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no article (or even redirect) about the Constitution of the Bahamas

I'm surprised that the Constitution of the Bahamas is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Constitution of the Bahamas ↗ is a redlink. And the existing articles Law of the Bahamas ↗ and Politics of the Bahamas ↗ do not discuss it at all. SVG-image-maker (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

:@SVG-image-maker I don't know why you're asking me this, but yes. A lot of really obvious and significant topics aren't covered, particularly in non-Western nations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::I have created a stub article. So far I have found a couple web sources, but most of the "fruitful" sources are likely locked away in paywalled journals. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::You can request access to those at WP:RX ↗. Katzrockso (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft review please

Can you please review Draft:System (2026) ↗? I have added multiple reviews. Zne0us Phenix (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

:Someone else got to it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for reply. I saw that someone else worked on it. But thanks to you for responding. Zne0us Phenix (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Trial of Michel Tabachnik ↗

Hi, thank you for reverting :-) I know no French, so I had no idea that this was a typo. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, the typo was my fault in the first place, no worries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

One Week Left in The Core Contest!

Hello Core Contest participants! There is less than '''one week left''' until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), so it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set some final goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – '''Aza24 (talk)''' 19:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list ↗.

Question about the notability of some of my drafts

Hi, I hope all is well. My vacation recently ended, and I'm not doing a summer semester this time, so I have a lot of free time. As a result, I can finally get around to writing some drafts I had sitting around. When I see a topic that I feel might deserve an article, I create little stub drafts like some of these, or I'd get to work on them right away. Some of my drafts I'm very confident in their notability, and others I'm less so. I would like a second opinion about some of them before I invest my effort into them, and I'd really appreciate it if you took a look.

The drafts I have doubts about their notability:

Draft:Bigham family murders ↗

Draft:Killing of Ruben Ray Martinez ↗

Draft:2025 San Juan warehouse shooting ↗

Thank you! '''Raskuly''' 🐰{{Main other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}}{{Template other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}} 21:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:@Raskuly Event notability is very inconsistent in how we treat it at AfD, especially with recent events, which can go either way. Sometimes people make articles on flash in the pan things that plainly don't pass NEVENT but they're kept because people just assert they are important, who knows. Things like in depth retrospective news coverage and especially book or academic coverage really help. I tend to be more restrictive than most in the articles I choose to personally write about, though.
:The Bigham case seems very notable, there is a full book about it and some very in depth coverage it seems.
:For Martinez article, if that was all there is I would not make the article, as the coverage appears to be only a few weeks. That's more a fleeting story than an encyclopedic topic, it would be better to cover it in a different article.
:The 2025 one is hard to tell, it might be, but when cases are recent it is hard to tell. El Vocero is Puerto Rico's largest newspaper IIRC and coverage from them a year out is a pretty decent notability sign, but I might want more in depth coverage.
:So 1. probably yes 2. probably no. 3. maybe PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Raskuly I'm an idiot, I misread the date in the lead for the second one. I would go with a maybe, because the actual coverage cycle is only a few weeks, but interestingly it was a while after it happened. And the coverage is from pretty substantial outlets. But still, it seems to only be discussed in connection with the other case. I would say it probably survives AfD though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::The alleged notability for the Martinez article is a result of the nearly year later revelation that ICE agents were involved in his death and the coverage that followed. I feared that if it were published after being written there would be a very solid chance that it would be put up to be redirected to Deportations of U.S. citizens in the second Trump administration#Ruben Ray Martinez ↗ or List of shootings by U.S. immigration agents in the second Trump administration ↗, but I'll get to work on it soon since you believe that it might survive that process if published. '''Raskuly''' 🐰{{Main other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}}{{Template other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}} 21:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Well, I say probably, from what I know of voting patterns at AfD, so no guarantees. But good luck. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for your good wishes and taking a look at those drafts for me. '''Raskuly''' 🐰{{Main other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}}{{Template other|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base=orange|other='''Raskuly''' 🐰|category=Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination ↗}}}} 22:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

End of the 2026 Core Contest!

The Core Contest ↗ has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries ↗ page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – '''Aza24 (talk)''' 18:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list ↗.

Article help?

I notice you edit a lot of Atomwaffen Division-related articles and was wondering if you are interested in this draft ↗? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Militant.Insurgency It's interesting, and should have an article. But wouldn't it more appropriately be titled [Murder of [...]]? I find internal conflict to be a bit misleading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::Murder of would result in a longer title because it was 2 people. What about '''2017 Tampa shooting'''? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::On second thought I do actually like the [Murder of [...]] title, I went ahead and moved it. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I think that's a better title. As is the relevant information only resides on the List of Atomwaffen Division members in the United States who faced criminal charges ↗, which isn't great because it was the inciting incident for many things. All of our articles on AWD stuff are organized badly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately that is true. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I was going to make an article on Denton at one point, because someone I know wants me to and because I wrote the Sutter article. Russell's is pretty bad too, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Denton could definitely have an article, he has had very consistent coverage. I would be glad to help if you do! Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Matt Hale

Check BOP inmate locator, he's at Cumberland FCI now not Marion anymore. You reverted a good edit. ~2026-35727-91 ↗ (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

:WP:BLPPRIMARY ↗. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Anti-cult Movement revert

I reverted because the IP seemed to have a personal dislike of the author's political/religious views, which is not a good reason to remove a source. Thomas Nelson Publishers is a reputable publisher. It is not a big deal for me of the author's religious/political views, but the information is quite relevant information for the page. Maybe reconsider the removal? Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

:From the description of the book on salesfronts I remain unconvinced that this is a reliable source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's me again. Did you misreasd "countercult movement" as "counter-culture movement"? Or perhaps a typo on your end in your edit explanation? Mikeatnip (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, I corrected that in the next edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-cult_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1361074801 ↗. Ah, autocorrect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

right|thumb|A ridiculous cat ↗
25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers ↗, hypnagogia ↗, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. '''EvergreenFir''' (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:@EvergreenFir No worries, I've done it myself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Disagree

Just wanted to come here and say that while I disagree with your assessment of that TFD, I still respect the hell out of ya. Really appreciated all your help with {{TL|Infobox book}} & {{tl|Infobox militant organization}}. We may disagree on this one, but don't want that to sour a good thing! '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 17:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Zackmann08 Don't worry, I understand; I respect you too. Everyone's gonna disagree sometimes... it's part of working with each other. I bear no ill will towards you at all. You do a lot of good work that I appreciate! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::As long as in the end you admit defeat and recognize that I'm right and you're wrong, all will be good. Kapesh? {{sarcasm}} '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 17:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Zackmann08 Hmmm, I'll think about it :P PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::::What do you think about my wrapper idea ↗? If you like the idea ''at all'', I think I'm gonna withdraw the TFD and pursue that idea instead. Will obviously solicit your feedback on it. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 18:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Sorry for the late response (was distracted and not checking my pings), responded on template talk. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then submit a request through the unblock wizard ↗ or through [{{fullurl:Special:MyTalk|action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template:Unblock/editintro&preloadtitle=Unblock+request&preload=Template:Unblock/preload&preloadparams%5b%5d=}} your talk page].  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)</div></div>

:@ToBeFree Well, I'm not going to appeal this, but for reference going forward so this doesn't happen again, which page / aspect of behavior was problematic? This was discussed on talk pages, so I'm not exactly sure what else I should have done. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::Hello {{u|PARAKANYAA}}, the existence of a discussion doesn't justify edit warring by itself. Neither does the removal of BLP violations if the removal is combined with the re-addition of disputed content. For this reason, not only your edits to the articles about CESNUR ↗ and Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light ↗, but even also your edits to the article about Willy Fautré ↗ have been problematic. If there is a dispute and a good reason why content must stay removed while it is under discussion, that can be selectively done with an insistence on WP:BLPRESTORE ↗ and WP:3RRNO ↗ #7. Performing a full revert is generally not an option in such cases; it is especially not an option just because a different revision has been undisputed for a longer time. Consensus reached through editing ↗ ends as soon as the edit is disputed or reverted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::@ToBeFree Well, I guess I'm just questioning at what point it constitutes edit warring, not that it ''justifies'' it. At what point does the normal revert-discussion cycle become edit warring? As said in WP:EDITWAR ↗, "This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". And for a partial revert - sure, but there wasn't any content in that edit (to Fautre) that ''wasn't'' a BLP violation. Had there been parts that were, I would have done as you suggested. It's 24 hours, so I am not objecting to the block really, but I am simply confused and do not want this to happen again. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::In all three of the above-linked articles, you have reverted at least once after one of your reverts has been reverted. That has nothing to do with BRD anymore. Regarding Willy Fautré ↗, there was a dispute about whether to describe him as lobbyist or human rights activist, and strictly speaking you have restored the content "human rights activist" against at least one other person's hopefully-good-faith concerns without having found a consensus to do so. If that had been all, I'd have ignored it though. It's just part of the "edit warring in multiple articles" image. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I find that rather confusing, nothing in WP:EDITWAR ↗ gave me the indication that that was inherently edit warring. I know that the 3RR is not ''all'' that constitutes edit warring, but I feel like if it was any reversion past the first one, editwar would say that it was the 1RR and not say three. Why specify there is a "bright line" at 3RR when the bright line is actually 1? What about the context made it so, here? Or was there some other "bright line" I crossed? But oh well, I'll be more careful going forward.
:::::For that specific edit (and I see your message that it was only one part of a broader pattern that was a problem, fair enough, but I was most concerned about that article so I want to explain) "lobbyist" has a derogatory enough connotation when referring to an academic that I would say inserting it unsourced into the lead of a BLP is a BLPVIO (at least in the context of what was added). PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::(There was no one-revert restriction or bright line crossed, just one user reverting another user's good faith contributions across multiple articles and repeating the reverts wherever they were reverted. The matter ended up at the edit warring noticeboard and blocking only one of the edit warring users would have unfairly ignored your avoidable, unnecessary contribution to these edit wars.
::::::Yes, removing without replacement the disputed term "lobbyist" from the first sentence of a living person's biography would have been perfectly fine; that would even have been fine if it had been done ten times in a row.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Like I said at AN3, I have no clue who this guy is and I have no horse in this race. I think I've mostly managed to merge both versions, clean up some puffery, his main description in the lead and other smaller fixes (see the editing history for details I guess). I left out any unsourced additions except one paragraph where a direct quote was not sourced (but the rest of the sentence was), because the source was in French which I can't speak. I also moved the "human rights activist" descriptor out of the lead, because that was sourced to his friend talking about him. I probably should have been more selective in undoing the edit in the first place, but I think I've arrived at an okayish version of the article that incorporates as much of the new additions as I felt comfortable adding back. The article clearly needs more work though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::@Gurkubondinn I wouldn't even call him a human rights activist, that wasn't what I was supporting the inclusion of, but "lobbyist" is wrong. He's a religious studies scholar. I can read French: the ''La Libre'' source does not mention Fautre, which is why it was inappropriate to use it to WP:COATRACK ↗ information about other people onto his biography. Source 10 also does not mention Fautre. The BBC source, which implicates him in "serious criminal allegations", also does not mention Fautre. My issue with the whole edit was that we are now basing the majority of the article off of sources that don't mention him but which are structured to implicate him in crimes by association. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, I noticed that about the BBC source. I will have to take another look at this, especially with the BBC source, because my main motivation was to not continue an edit war in slow motion. You're probably right that it doesn't really belong there, it does seem like a coatrack.
:::::::::I would have preferred to refer to him by his profession or work, but I'm not sure what his profession is and it was a bit conflicting to figure what he actually works for as he was either titled as an editor for the publication in the Infobox (from wikidata, now realising that I forgot to check if there was a source attached) or president (or founder) of the organisation that he founded. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::{{done}}: Diff/1362583959 ↗
:::::::::‑‑gurkubondinn 23:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::@Gurkubondinn The issue still remains. What does the above paragraph have to do with it? Neither of the things about Mirre or Noot are verified, for instance. The source about Mirre does not mention either Fautre or Human Rights Without Frontiers Internationa, and the source about Noot does not mention Fautre or Human Rights Without Frontiers International. And for all we know, these could be totally unrelated people, there is no source connecting them to Fautre. This is why I reverted everything, every line has some kind of issue like this. And of those two people being singled out of the dozens listed, it is a very interesting and unexplained choice. But this is a content argument at this point and I'm blocked so I don't see the point of hashing it out here at the current moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sure, I agree that it shouldn't be there. But it isn't implicating him in a crimes and it wasn't a BLP violation as far as I could tell, so I left it there. It just makes it a bad article, it isn't implying criminal misconduct without an RS saying as much. Figured that you or someone else would just clean it up later. My interest was in preventing an edit war from escalating and to keep BLP vios out. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edwin Corley ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulfport ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 Core Contest Winners!

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest ↗ are announced 🎉. A ''huge'' turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges ({{noping|Aza24}}, {{noping|Femke}} and {{noping|Casliber}}) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

First place (and a prize of £120) goes to {{user|Vigilantcosmicpenguin}} for his dual efforts on Flatbread ↗ and Tortilla ↗! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA ↗) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!

Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to {{user|Phlsph7}}, a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism ↗ and Premise ↗—both now GA ↗s (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.

Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to {{user|MCE89}}, whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands ↗ article have led to a triumphant FA ↗ declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list ↗. – '''Aza24 (talk)''' 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox Criminal organization

You should do the same thing you did for the militant infobox. Just look at the Jalisco New Generation Cartel ↗ infobox. It has basically the same issue with the allies parameter. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Probably so, but that was mostly Zackmann, not me. I might try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft Article: Shooting of Liz Barraza - moved to article space by original author

Hi, I noticed that back in March 2026 you declined the draft article: Shooting of Liz Barraza ↗. The article has now been moved to the main article space by the original author without any further review. I think the title of the article is inconsistent ↗ with the fact that this article is about a killing ↗ in what might be a murder-for-hire plot. I have raised my concerns on the article's talk page ↗ but thought that I should also give you an opportunity to comment on the article, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding deletions and cleanup from user Lamp21

the discussion you were part of last year inspired the deletion of more Thailand-related articles. I’ve noticed the deletion of the page Legend of prince singhanvati ↗ which I was using for my link in the page Pu Chao Lao Chok ↗, and I cannot access the pre deleted version.

You mentioned that you’re not familiar with Thai language and want some help cleaning his articles. I’m Thai and had been largely editing Thai history. If you want some help, feel free to let me know! Many obscure pages on Thailand definitely need to be made, as the sheer lack of these caused issues when writing new articles since there’s nothing to link to. ~2026-39045-35 ↗ (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi! Just realized I forgot to log in, this is my account. Ubs6u!d-onstory (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:@Ubs6u!d-onstory Hi! Thank you for the notice. The reason their articles were deleted were AI and verifiability issues - they would make articles from AI where none of the sources backed up anything. Well-sourced non-AI articles on such topics are obviously welcome, so feel free to recreate the pages without AI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)