User talk:PARAKANYAA

Archives

Lyle Munson photo

I see that you added a photo to Lyle Munson, claiming that the image is public domain.

I am dubious about that claim. Generally, the call for the copyright notice is in the original publication of material. This is a wire photo, it ran in a number of papers, and I would expect that the original wire feed (which I doubt we have access to) would count as the original publication. There's probably a reasonable call for "fair use" on this image give the likely lack of clear public domain images of Munson.

However, you may know of some standard regarding wire material here that I'm unaware of. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler The publication would count only if distributed to the general public. The wire feed does not count to my understanding as firstly it was not a tangible form of publication as required by copyright (For the same reason why a lot of old TV is technically "Unpublished") and also not to the general public.

Further, per the Library of Congress (the best authority on American copyright) [1], the wire feed was not copyrighted anyway, "In an attempt to determine if AP/Wide World registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." So even assuming that 1) there was a copyright notice on the wire feed (doubtful) 2) that notice counts in the face of all other publications the same day lacking a notice and being in a form that doesn't count as publication (also doubtful), this image is pre-1963 so even with notice it needed renewal, which AP never did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's good to have. I apologize for wasting your moment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler Not a waste at all! I completely understand your worries, it's important to be careful about copyright. A nice day to you :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most disturbing literature

Hey PARAKANYAA, I wanted to talk about some things relating to Draft:List of the most disturbing literature.

Firstly, I saw you declined my submission for the article because of the sources. I was wondering if you could help me find some reliable sources. It's kinda hard to find reliable sources on disturbing literature and I was hoping you could help me with that.

Secondly what did you mean when you said "the group must be discussed in sources"? I just don't know what that means.

Thank you for your time

-From Bennett D. B. Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdblakley29 I think your list is interesting, but I have doubts it fulfills WP:NLIST and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The individual entries are sourced (though I'm not sure if that evidences the "most disturbing" descriptor), but for a list to be notable, the topic of "most disturbing literature" has to be discussed in reliable sources as a group. Further, "most disturbing" is a rather subjective assessment, so I am uncertain about how you are determining inclusion. Everyone finds something disturbing. From NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see Thanks man Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, would you consider comics a form a literature? Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but if it's a more specific subset I don't think that would help much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William R. Ferguson

On 6 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William R. Ferguson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William R. Ferguson received a two-year prison sentence for selling a device that was claimed to cure disease through "a force unknown to science"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William R. Ferguson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William R. Ferguson), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Manshaus' brother

Hello. I noticed that you edited the 2019 Bærum murder and mosque attack page. Under the "Reopening of case" section, it is stated that Manshaus' brother committed suicide in 2023. I have checked the sources and they do state this fact, but two of them appear to link back to the NRK article which doesn't mention this. I would appreciate if you could direct me towards another source or simply correct me if I am mistaken. Thank you for your time! Nuancebomber (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuancebomber I checked the sources for this myself, and I believe this information is sourced from the the "Criminal Cases Review Commission" which requires permissions to access that I doubt those outside of the Norwegian legal system have. Sandvik cites this at the end of the paragraph. It seems likely enough to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks so much. I really appreciate you taking time to reply to me. I think his suicide is very likely, especially considering the problems within his family. I was merely seeking a source that confirmed this entirely. Perhaps this information will be more easily accessible for the general public at a later date. Nuancebomber (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destubathon runs until the 16th of July

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request removal

Hey @PARAKANYAA, I notcied you removed my requested articles from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law and I am wondering why? Now, I read the disclaimer, I am fully aware that there is no guarantee for a requested article to be made, but I don't why it was removed? Did I do something wrong? 115.69.5.92 (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about criminals have high standards per WP:NCRIMINAL. Sex crimes specifically are very unlikely to get the kind of coverage required for an article, and the sourcing you provided was not sufficient. Article topics on that list don't have to be perfect, but we trim them if the suggested subjects aren't notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll probably avoid the subject. Thanks for letting me know! 115.69.5.92 (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Ku Klux Klan: An Encyclopedia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Ku Klux Klan: An Encyclopedia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ImaginesTigers -- ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of The Ku Klux Klan: An Encyclopedia has passed

Your good article nomination of the article The Ku Klux Klan: An Encyclopedia has passed; congratulations! See 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. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ImaginesTigers -- ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Fascism sidebar

Hello! I recently added an entry I thought was relevant to the sidebar. I added M. S. Golwalkar to the sidebar in the intellectuals section, which is backed by the figure's own wikipedia article. You reverted it and stated WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as the reason. But when I went to the policy page for WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, there was no stated possible reason for removal of any entry. If you could, I would an appreciate explanation for the removal. Cheers EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude Every article that is included in the navbox must transclude the navbox and vice versa, hence bidirectional. I also don't think that figure is significant enough to go in the sidebar of a topic so broad as fascism since per WP:SIDEBAR entries must be "fairly tightly related". His article doesn't even call him fascist! It doesn't even mention the word, outside of unsupported categories (which I have now removed because WP:OR) PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argatha

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONUS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been different if your edit summaries removing 14k bytes were readable. How exactly was I supposed to know the reason you were even reverting? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article portal

Greetings. You recently deleted the neofascism portal from the page Armed, far-right organizations in Italy, providing the following edit summary: "not included in this sidebar, remove per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL." The latter guideline is not the directional one here: The totality of the groups and organizations in the list, as well all the similar others of which not enough sources can be marshaled, are denoted in every source as "neofascist." Parenthetically, I doubt there is another article in Wikipedia that merits more this portal, which I have re-instated. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that was not a portal, but a sidebar template. They are very very different things. For an article to be included in a sidebar it needs to be transcluded onto it and vice versa. I would have added it, but it seemed an inappropriate inclusion - even past WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, this violates WP:SIDEBAR as a minor, highly specific list not "tightly related" to the topic of the navigational template - neo-fascism is not in the lead or the name, and this is a small list of a few groups relevant only to one country, not really relevant to the hundreds of groups in other countries that are specifically neo-fascist. The navigational guidelines are obviously the most relevant factor here.

As a related note, this list probably should be called "list of neo-fascist groups in Italy", which is the actual notable list topic and obviously what it is trying to be. Our current name for it seems OR-ish and it's not like that is a prohibited term for our articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are not too familiar with the extended (to put it mildly) bibliography on armed, far-right organizations in post-war Italy. Not all of them characterized themselves as neofascist, though they were certainly denoted in the sources as such. As to the argument that "this is a small list of a few groups relevant only to one country, not really relevant to the hundreds of groups in other countries that are specifically neo-fascist," it does not hold water. It's the definite (or as definite as can verifiably be) list of far-right armed groups in post-war Italy; changing the "far right" to "neofascist" would not be unacceptable, though not entirely accurate. On a personal note, this is one of the strangest conversations I had in Wikipedia. I never would expect a contributor doubting the central relevance of neofascism to this specific article! -The Gnome (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then this would be appropriate for a template of armed far-right groups in Italy, which is not what this sidebar is on. If, as you have said, it is not an article about neo-fascism, we would not include it: sidebars only include strictly related items to be compliant with the template guidelines. We do not include minor items or tangential ones. And what I am saying is starting the title with "armed" is a very weird way to title this in English and out of step with all other articles on paramilitary groups. If they're not all neo-fascist groups, the article should not be categorized like it (which it is). PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're offering an interesting perspective and making some good points. I will think about them. The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]