User talk:PARAKANYAA/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

About the article Sirius (novel)

I removed your contribution to the reception section because you only put three references but no text at all, which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. However, I still saved them in the talk page, as they could be quite useful. However, I do not have access to the texts, so if you still do, it would be really helpful if you could provide what these sources say about the novel. Thank you. Julen Artano (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Julen Artano The problem with that is that the article is unreferenced again so it does not show notability and someone will try to delete it. And yes, I do, but I don't have the time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. For the moment, I will put them in the intro. Julen Artano (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. No clue why I put them in an empty section. Thank you for dealing with the overly long plot. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for providing sources to this rather obscure novel, I could not find any myself. Julen Artano (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zug massacre

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zug massacre 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 All Tomorrows No Yesterdays -- All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Corinne Rey-Bellet

On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Corinne Rey-Bellet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the murder of skier Corinne Rey-Bellet led to a change in Swiss gun-control regulations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Corinne Rey-Bellet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Corinne Rey-Bellet), 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) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,911 views (992.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Category: Suicides by occupation

Hello

Can you please explain your criticisms with the categories you proposed for deletion?

I do not understand your rationale for submitting them over the holiday period.

I would like to understand better as I am trying to contribute meaningfully here.

There is some correlation to occupation and suicide and fields of intersectional research that has explored this. With relation to certain sports-- https://chesterrep.openrepository.com/handle/10034/315057 this is what led to the creation of these categories you proposed for deletion.

I'm trying to understand a bit more about why it does not fit within the realm of appropriateness on this site, because the "discussion" that took place was very minimal and appears to try to keep the site in the past with little evolution. Could you shed some light on this please? Nayyn (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nayyn Because for Wikipedia’s purposes they are not defining. They have also been deleted in the past and recreated with no discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A "discussion" is not a discussion if it involves only 2 people over a holiday period. Nayyn (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to prior discussions on the sportspeople categories. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
		This award is given in recognition to PARAKANYAA for conducting 140 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Torswats" has pleaded guilty

See [1] and [2] Doug Weller talk 15:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Thank you for the reminder. I will get back to that sometime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey dude

If you don't recognize my name, I was working on the Zug massacre article and put it up as a WP:DYKN. I just wanted to tell you (since you're the top contributor on the article) that I'm not going to be active on this account anymore so, if you were to send me a message about the article or anything else, my new account is User:Akeph. Il5v (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. If you are who I think you are, I really don't know why you keep switching accounts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you recognize me from a vanished account? If you do, I made that account to make some spoken articles but I kinda regretted my contributions and vanished. I rejoined but now I've made this account since I didn't wanna wait for a WP:UNC process. Akeph (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, if I were you I would do that going forward, since it gets confusing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cults, Religion, and Violence

Hello, PARAKANYAA. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cults, Religion, and Violence, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

charlotte ^👸♥ 20:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Congrats! All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 10:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zug massacre

The article Zug massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zug massacre for comments about the article, and Talk:Zug massacre/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 All Tomorrows No Yesterdays -- All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Horae_Beatae_Mariae_Virginis_(Rps_BOZ_44)

I hope this was an isolated case! Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Isolated case of what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Rerate Icosahedral twins please

I have rewritten it as, I think, a decent article. Please re-rate, I don't think that I should. (Not yet ready for a GAN, maybe I will do that in a few weeks.) Ldm1954 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me I am not very familiar with the standards for this kind of thing. But I will look at it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk's arm gesture

Sorry for deleting your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk's arm gesture. We were editing at the same time and I intended to preserve other editors' changes, but I messed up. Sorry. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris As long as it was not on purpose I take no issue, all is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, here's the spelling of "gaffe" in the sense you meant. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:List of mass stabbing incidents in 2024

Thank you for reviewing the draft I submitted, but I did want to quickly mention that a lot of the mistakes you said I made are actually very common place on Wikipedia articles regarding civilian attacks. While I do agree that it's not perfect, List of mass shootings in Germany, Italy, and France all contain the error of having a very weak lead followed by a fairly comprehensive and well sourced list. So if I'm in error, so are they.

For your other concerns, I am fortunate that stabbing incidents across the globe are usually discussed in a group so finding sources there won't be difficult. But since we're at that, it should be noted that there already exists a page on Wikipedia that groups every mass stabbing in the 2020s together (which is every mass stabbing incident that occurred during this decade across the entire world, something you implied is not within the scope of Wikipedia) but it's extremely sloppy and I don't have enough edits on Wikipedia to change it up and neither do the editors on that page ever read the talk page where I've expressed my concerns of how the page is getting too large and needs to be fragmented into smaller articles. It's also missing numerous notable incidents, including the 2022 Apple River stabbings, a fatal 2023 Brazil school mass stabbing, a Train stabbing in Tokyo as well as at least two fatal Chinese mass stabbings in 2024. If I dug deeper into it, I'd probably find more. But anyway, we already have lists of terrorist incidents every single year across the world (example). I think as long as one single nation can't heavily define the number of mass stabbings/shootings in a single year, (like if we did every mass shooting in the world, then obviously that's going to be dominated by the United States) then it should be fine. Stabbings are incredibly diverse in terms of where they occur across the globe.

So while I do agree you had good points, I just don't see what's so different. One of my common personal criticisms of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia unevenly enforces their own rules. The existence of the Wikipedia page on Ryan Wesley Routh for example is an extremely obvious WP:BLP violation but it's never going to go down even though Arthur Leigh Allen's page went down a few years ago because he was never convicted of his alleged crimes. So while you have a stricter view of this page's existence, most editors will either support it or give no opinion.

My overall plan is to simply fragment List of mass stabbing incidents (2020-present) as the rate of mass stabbings have grown so much in recent years. January 2025 alone has already had 9 (known) mass stabbing incidents in 8 different countries. That is literally almost as many stabbing incidents that occurred in the entire year of 2020 alone.

Again, thank you, but I disagree and I think you would too if you read through that messy decade recap. The reason we transformed List of mass shootings in the United States into a yearly basis thing in 2017 is because the crisis grew so much in recent years that it became necessary to fragment them into other years. That has now become necessary and if this draft is approved, I will begin a 2025 version and potentially look backward as well. MountainJew6150 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@MountainJew6150 "Common practice" does not mean it is correct. I did actually check and all those country lists do have enough coverage on the topic to pass NLIST (except the Soviet Union but that's just a weird split out from the Russia list) which is why I have not AfDed them. The 2020s list is also weird but that exists as basically a containment list for articles people did not want to AfD, which we will have to deal with eventually

And by year lists, I mean for the whole world. We have never had simply a "list of mass shootings in [year]" for the whole world. That is what your list is trying to do. The terrorist incidents articles are strictly limited to individual incidents with their own articles, under which your list would have very few entries. Also there are publications that discuss terrorist incidents by year, which makes it pass NLIST, unlike stabbings. Doing such a list with stabbings is not a great idea, and also again no evidence it passes NLIST PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I'm interested in learning how I can make the page more up to code. I know we don't do mass shootings per year for the whole world but that's a much more complex subject in my opinion. Mass shootings have regions where they're more prevalent than others. A place like Chicago is going to have more shootings than downtown London. Stabbings can occur literally anywhere because knives are not difficult to acquire. Mass stabbing patterns are different from those for mass shootings, so to say it's for the whole world is not in itself, an outlandish thing.

I do believe you might be right about the source thing as I can't find anything besides a couple sources that directly examines mass stabbings as a whole and not on just a regional basis. My memory failed me in that regard as I vaguely remember such a thing existing in the past. I'm assuming not but am I allowed to use these sources and just combine them to illustrate the global impact of mass stabbings as there are multiple sources that consider mass stabbings a "crisis" in their respective region? (Germany and China are the most prominent examples) MountainJew6150 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The root issue is just finding sources that discuss the group as a topic. I see no particular issue with the formatting. This is fulfilled for, as you noted, Germany and China, which have specific problems with it, but due to the nature of the topic you would have to find sources that discuss it as a group to prove notability. If the sources covering China and Germany discuss it in a context not specific to the countries, at least somewhat, maybe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Killing of David Maland

Please, before reviewing pages like Killing of David Maland, make sure that it complies with WP:SUSPECT. Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fram Suspect says an editor must "must seriously consider not including" such material. I seriously considered it, but was unsure how much it mattered to remove the one sentence especially in a world where we have Luigi Mangione as an article, and we often include names of charged persons as a matter of editorial discretion. I would not have written it that way myself, but it did not seem a reason to not review it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fram I wish we had clearer guidance because WP:SUSPECT is the vaguest thing. "seriously consider" is not enough - where we can have full articles about people who haven't been convicted but also including the name of someone who has been charged in a single sentence is revdellable, but also sometimes it's completely fine. This is why I avoid current events. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Our Friends from Frolix 8

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Our Friends from Frolix 8 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 Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Man's World (Men's magazine)

That title doesn't resolve the ambiguity. MW (Indian magazine) is also a men's magazine. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery Hm, true. There has to be something else to disambiguate by, considering two things 1) how much commentary there is on that magazine specifically and 2) if we don't have something else to point it to, the only redirect that is specific to this magazine is Man's World (2021 magazine), which is what that page used to be at. It doesn't apply to anything else on the DAB, so we can't retarget it there, but it feels weird to have this terrible name basically be the only existing redirect at that title that points to the page, if you understand me? If we can't retarget that redirect to the DAB page I feel like there should be a better alternative than letting its 'primary' redirect be inaccurate. I may not be explaining this the best. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

How about Man's World (Passage Press magazine)? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery Sounds good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Our Friends from Frolix 8

The article Our Friends from Frolix 8 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Our Friends from Frolix 8 for comments about the article, and Talk:Our Friends from Frolix 8/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Low quality AfD nominations...

Thanks for your observation; it prompted this. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I have seen a few people exhibit that very similar pattern of behavior so I wondered if there was socking going on. Can't remember if that was the person I noticed, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have the feeling that we've been dealing with one person for years, and they just keep getting wiser to us every time we catch them. That may just me being old, crotchety, and paranoid, though. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jclemens The person I was thinking of last time was User:Ryan barnes 1963 and his den of socks. But there is some time overlap with the new accounts so I would think a checkuser would have caught those. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As a former checkuser, I can attest that what's catchable and what's actually caught are two very different things. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Serpent's Walk

On 22 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Serpent's Walk, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the fantasy writer M. A. R. Barker wrote the neo-Nazi novel Serpent's Walk in 1991, but his authorship was only confirmed in 2022? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serpent's Walk. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Serpent's Walk), 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Visakhapatnam Drug Bust

Hello, I have re-submitted Draft:Visakhapatnam Drug Bust for review, after making necessary changes as you suggested. Since you have already reviewed it earlier, can you please go through the draft once again. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Send me an email

Hey Parakanyaa, I got the source you requested but it's too big for Discord; please send me a wiki-mail so I can email it to you. Since you mentioned that you don't always get notifs there, I thought I'd leave a message here too. Also, let me know if you need help translating any German or Swiss German sources, including this one. Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Emailed! Thank you very much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Vernon Dursley

Hello,

I believe that Vernon Dursley is a significant enough character to have his own article on Wikipedia.

There are some articles that mention him specifically, but as I wrote, he is a very important character who appears in every single Harry Potter book. And he doesn't just appear "in passing"—he plays a serious role in the story.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3137963/Revealed-Harry-Potter-s-mean-Uncle-Vernon-hated-boy-wizard-JK-Rowling.html

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/24/jk-rowling-reveals-history-dursleys-harry-potter

https://bookriot.com/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-vernon-dursley/

https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-dursley-facts-trivia/

If you approve, let me know, and I'll rewrite the article. Of course, I'll add much more information that I haven't included yet—I was in the middle of working on it. Xeno Lovegood (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Xeno Lovegood Forgot to respond to this, my bad.

The issue is we have generally particular recommendations for characters, it requires out of universe content about them, so it is not just a plot reception. Also, the sources you linked are mostly not good for this. The Daily Mail is forbidden as a source and screen rant is not good for notability. There could very well be sourcing, but it would have to be of a far higher quality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ugh, what a bummer... I'll try to find better sources, or I might just drop it altogether. Xeno Lovegood (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks. Xeno Lovegood (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:2025 Setia City Mall shooting

Greetings,

the Draft:2025 Setia City Mall shooting has been resubmitted for review, and the sources used in the draft have been replaced as per your request, and I also wish to address some of your comments:

1. Notability: It's in my opinion that this event is notable, as gun crimes are rare in Malaysia and it's even rarer in Malaysia for an individual to commit multiple carjacking, robbery, and firearms crimes in a short span of 10 days just after the main shooting incident. This incident has also received widespread coverage by established local and international news media, with the events described in details, therefore it should be qualify under the general notability guidelines.

2. Section arrangement: It's also in my opinion that the article should be broken down into more than one section, as the subsequent events happened after 8 Feb 2025 is not the shooting itself, but they are still directly and closely connected to the shooting, therefore they deserve to be allocated a different section.

Thank you. Wolfiewhite (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Vatican murders

On 10 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vatican murders, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one incident in Vatican City caused it to have the highest murder rate in the world in 1998? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vatican murders. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vatican murders), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 42,480 views (1,770.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Great article and DYK, @PARAKANYAA! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Nominating multiple categories at once

Just for your information, there is no fully-automated way of nominating multiple categories for CfD at once. With a large number of categories it may be useful to prepare the list in advance in Excel, and to tag the category pages with WP:AWB. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Our Friends from Frolix 8

On 15 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Our Friends from Frolix 8, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Our Friends from Frolix 8 could be Philip K. Dick's "most sterile" novel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Our Friends from Frolix 8. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Our Friends from Frolix 8), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

JW

Do you do JW stuff and do you have infinite amounts of energy and time? Also do you speak Polish (I know you speak French)? Polygnotus (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Also are you a superhero whose goal in life is to rescue weirdos? Polygnotus (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus I am currently away from my computer so I cannot do much that I would not be able to do on a mobile device (including access to lengthy, more academic sources) but after that sure. Assuming you mean Jehovah's Witnesses, I never really looked into that topic, but it seems pretty interesting.

I basically do have infinite amounts of energy and time (but also a very short attention span, regrettably, hence my hopping around from topic to topic for my entire time editing). Do not speak Polish sadly.

"Weirdos" is probably the most broadly accurate way to describe my interests, yes. Anything where a strong belief makes people do weird things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I am currently away from my computer I am so jealous... The weirdo in this case would be me. I think this will require a bigger screen than a mobile phone; maybe ping me when you return to the uncivilized world. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Also hey, here we're probably all some kind of weirdo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Hi yes I now have computer access. What do you need my help with? Is it some kind of Jehovah's Witnesses in France or Poland article? I've always been surprised we don't have one in France because they've certainly had drama there which a lot of sources talk about. IIRC someone made a draft on that but it seemed problematic to me PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! The last time I tried to understand French was decades ago, and it isn't a happy memory.

There is a bit of a backstory, as always, so maybe just start over at Draft_talk:Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_France and then look at Draft:Jehovah's Witnesses in France.

The goal is to create one "JWs in France" article and not have a "Persecution of-" article because of POVFORK concerns.

One of the things I ran into is that I can't find RS to confirm or deny the #Prohibition_of_its_publications and #Opposition_to_the_construction_of_their_meetings (they mean Kingdom Halls) sections. If that is true and we can find independent RS then we may be able to incorporate that information into the JWs in France article. And of course the story about the taxes should be mentioned, but the way it is written now has serious NPOV problems.

Another problem is that the organisations who claim to be unbiased and only care about religious freedom are anything but.

Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Matt Koehl - moving discussion from ANP talk page

The only glaring problem is how there's basically nothing from the mid 1990s to his death in the article - while there's probably less, I have no doubt that there is something. Maybe a beliefs/views section would be good.

During my searches I wasn’t able to find anything on that period, but my searches were just searching through Google Books and the Wikipedia Library for his name, and I don’t exactly have skill at tracking down sources, so you will probably be better at finding this information. As for a views section, I think it’d work - one of the 1960s news articles used has him discuss his views, and our current article touches a bit upon his views in our paragraph introducing the New Order. My one problem is that this information on his New Order views is important to his biography, and I’m split on where it should go. Star Manatee (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee I'll try to find later stuff. Yeah it can be a bit difficult to split, we'll see once the information is mostly there I think. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Two extra bits with regards to this topic area that I thought you might take interest in - firstly, I’ve done some searching through old news articles and found several ANP images that are clearly in the public domain (Associated Press photographs before 1963 are all PD). Thought they might be useful for illustration of articles. The other thing I’d like to draw your attention to is the abysmal state of Colin Jordan, an article that needs serious technical clean-up, especially with regards to SFNs. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee Very good job on finding those images! I had no clue about AP/UPI not renewing in those dates, that's super useful and I will start adding those into articles later.

I'll look into the Jordan article tomorrow, thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee The commons notice also says "AP images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain" we're going to have to be more careful in determining this (checking for image copyright - I don't think newspaper copyright is in the equation though), but we may be able to find an image of Koehl that isn't of when he was a teenager yet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This 1967 paper [3] has no notice for the AP images of Koehl, Patler, or Rockwell (or the newspaper more broadly) Nor this [4]. Or this [5] But it would probably be best to check a few to make sure most were distributed without notices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This one is clearest [6] PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA I saw that, but I was more rough with that because I wasn’t sure where copyright notices usually went, and how to see if one was there. I have another scan of that image privately, I believe, so I’ll grab it in a second. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Stock image websites like Getty and Alarmy have scans of some of the better ones without newspaper artifacts, but they’re watermarked and downloader websites are a Russian roulette of actually getting the image or getting some ai upscaled version of it. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee Yeah I never know what to do with those sites. The notice would be near the image and would say either copyrigh, copr. or c Associated Press/UPI/etc. If it doesn’t say the copyright or c in a circle it is not a proper notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Ah. That’s very helpful to know - I’ve seen many with a (UPI) or (AP) next to them but no version of the word "copyright". Since the Koehl image in question is shown to have been published frequently without one, I’ll go and upload it to Commons if you have no complaints about it. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

In associated Koehl discussion, do you have the book Hate by William H. Schmaltz or know how to get it? The PDF of it I have says he’s mentioned in it around 93 times, but the fact that I have a PDF means the page numbers are wildly inaccurate, and it isn’t on Google Books. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee It's on archive.org as is the Simonelli book. If you make an account you can borrow it. That's what I've been doing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe I’ve added all the material I could find in it that was relevant to his biography. A lot of it was mentions of his name, but parts of it are actually relevant to his life. I found nothing relevant to his life in "Hitler's Priestess", unfortunately. I believe I’ve exhausted all the sources that I can find, although it still probably requires the already mentioned material from mid-90s to his death that can push it to a level where it can be sent to GA. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I’ve added the image to the article, I think I’ll look through a few more sources from Archive.org and then Taylor & Francis, then I’ll probably be basically done with the article? 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I think more or less I’m done with the article. I won’t stop editing but it looks mostly complete to me, there still isn’t that much between the mid-90s and his death but what we have emphasises that this was an extremely quiet period and in all my searching I’ve been incapable of finding anything; they did have a website by 2007, but I don’t feel this is notable for the biography. If you have no objections, I’ll probably submit it for GA soon. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee I may copyedit it but other than that no objections. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Somewhat unrelated but should Rockwell, Koehl and the Party be under the scope of WP:CRM? 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee I would say yes for the ANP and Rockwell, since Rockwell and the party styled themselves as the polar opposite and were involved in opposing figures like MLK, to it and the fact that they are covered a lot in civil rights sources (particularly with the Hate Bus incident). I'm ambivalent on Koehl, because he wasn't doing that in the way Rockwell did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ll certainly add it to the Party and Rockwell’s talk pages, but probably not Koehl. I considered him because he was the leader of a major anti-rights party during the movement, but did not actually involve himself with the opposition to the movement at all and moved the party away from public spectacle. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Ive added the good article nomination template. I’ve put the subtopic as world history instead of religion since while personally he was more of a cult leader than politician, he’s most well known as a historical politician. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For fixing up the mess that was American Nazi Party. Took 20 years but its finally a proper page. RKT7789 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@RKT7789 Thank you very much :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Publication dates

A book's initial publication date is the copyright date as printed on the copyright page. Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) has a copyright date of 2002. It might have had an early release as an ebook in August 2001; or it might not have. Google Books isn't reliable especially for publication date and place. It is also in general bad form to change the cited edition of a book. Different editions may have differing formats and therefore differing page numbers. We should not second-guess the original editors who contributed the material by arbitrarily changing citation to a different edition of a book than the one that editor cited. Therefore I will be reverting your incorrect changes which introduced incorrect information (didn't follow printed copyright date) and also broke citations. (You "fixed" the {{sfn}} templates, but you did not change the dates in the {{sfnm}} templates, leaving multiple broken citations at least one article.) In the future, please know that books are dated using the copyright date printed in the 1st edition, even if the book came out slightly before the beginning of the year. It is usual for publishers to have an ebook pre-release distributed to reviewers such as Publishers Weekly, but the date of that pre-release for reviewers is not considered the "publication date" for cataloging purposes. Skyerise (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise "In the future, please know that books are dated using the copyright date printed in the 1st edition, even if the book came out slightly before the beginning of the year" why? Is there somewhere that is written down as a rule? Copyright dates are not infallible. Me changing the edition wasn't arbitrary it was because I checked and then updated it to the most recently cited version (and then several versions I checked didn't line up) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Pretty standard library science and records management. Because libraries use the title and copyright pages as definitive for the book being cataloged, so should we. The only "source" you had for the "August 2001" date (Publisher's Weekly) didn't actually support the assertion because it didn't even contain the word "August". You obviously used Google Books (which isn't a reliable source), and then went searching (and failed) to find an RS to support it. Do you think libraries doubt the publication data on the reverse of the title page and do pointless research to see if maybe it was released a few weeks or months earlier? No, they don't, and neither should we. The publication data in the book itself is considered the most reliable source. It's up to you to say why it shouldn't be, not the reverse. Skyerise (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise No I used the publisher [7] PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The "sales date" for a book is not the release date; it's when they start taking pre-publication orders. Skyerise (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise Look lower. "published: August 2001" PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, the publication data in the book itself says 2002 and so does the Library of Congress catalog number and record. Your argument is pointless. You don't seem to know a thing about the publishing industry or library cataloging standards, and it is not my job to educate you. Skyerise (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise Library of Congress data, like all library catalogs, is dubiously reliable and I don't see why we should have to mirror their standards since this is a prose encyclopedia, not Wikidata, and we aren't running a library catalog. I do not care how they run their operations. Why should we go by the publication data in the book when there is evidence that shows that the book was available to the public prior? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise FWIW I get your point on the citations but when it comes to the article I still think it should say August 2001 because that's when the publisher said the hardcover copy was published. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Pre-publication electronic copies aren't made available to the public; they are made available to reviewers. Google Books shows that the print edition didn't come out until 2002, which matches the pub data on the copyright page. That's the publication date. I would argue that the publisher website isn't any more reliable than the publication data page. Many publishers have an intended publication date on their websites months before publication occurs. Do you really think they go back and correct them if the book is late coming out? No, they don't. Skyerise (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise You argued that Google Books was unreliable and should never be used for this (and I haven't used it) and now you're trying to use it against the information from the actual publisher - Google Books, as you argued, is quite confused about dates, sometimes they will go by publisher information and sometimes by the copyright date.

I don't think this is so set in stone. In November 2024 I bought a physical book at a store that was copyrighted to this year, and this has happened to me several times before. It is fairly regular to push the copyright date up some from when the book was actually made available to consumers (publication date). What goes there is the copyright date, not the publication date. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had something about this on the literature guidelines page but alas we are in the dark. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is totally pointless. Please see WP:CHEESE and stop wasting other editor's time over trivial details. Skyerise (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

When a book was published is not trivial if you're writing the article on the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

And when a book was actually became physically present in a bookstore isn't something that's actually documented by the sources you propose using. It's been discussed in the archives at WikiProject Books - that discussion ended with the suggestion that the publication data in the book itself is quite simply one of the most reliable sources. Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise The most recent discussion explicitly advises going against the provided in-publication data of one work 1. I can't find the broader discussion you are mentioning. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not how I read that: what is being discussed there is whether a 1990 translation's data page's statement about when the original edition was published should be used. I would say no: the definitive date would be the original book's data page, not the data page from a subsequent edition. Neither editor in the discussion seems to have had access to that French edition, so they had to find something online. Saying that a subsequent edition data page might not be reliable as a source about the 1st edition is completely reasonable. Nowhere does it say that one should prefer reviews or publisher pages if the data page in the original edition is available. Skyerise (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough on that but do you have a link to the original discussion that "ended with the suggestion that the publication data in the book itself is quite simply one of the most reliable sources"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, this one actually says "A good next step would be to request a copy of the title and/or copyright pages (if they exist) to corroborate the date." They go on to propose using a date from a review an an interim (or lazy) solution. In this case, the title/copyright pages are available, so there is no need to turn to reviews. Skyerise (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not the discussion you mentioned, though. I still don't agree that the data on the page is always reliable, and even if it is - it's probably for the copyright date, but copyright and publication are not the same thing. Did we have a discussion over using the copyright date as the publication date even if there is evidence that suggests an earlier publication date? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start one to find out what the consensus is? Seems it should be better defined so our articles about books are consistent, and I am always happy to follow a clear consensus even if it differs from my view. As an aside, do you have a script for detecting short citation errors installed? There are two, which can be found here, along with instructions. If I hadn't seen the multiple Harvard referencing errors that these scripts produce, I probably wouldn't have looked more closely ... just sayin' . Skyerise (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a script it just doesn’t show me unless I refresh. And sometimes when I do refresh it is weird about the sfnm templates and will sometimes not display the errors on those.

A discussion would probably be worth having. I have do IRL things so any response/discussion starting will probably be later today. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

2024 Tarqumiyah shooting

I'm very sorry, but Proposed Deletion is only for non-controversial topics, and this conflict is about as controversial as it gets here. WP:AfD is the only venue for us to document discussions about controversial deletions and redirects. It keeps us "clean", so to speak. Please go there instead. Sorry again for making extra work, but I hope you understand that in today's world, we must be scrupulous. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian There is no non-controversial deletion though. Do you just deprod everything? What's the point of even having the option? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Same with 2024 Hadera stabbing. The point of having the option of Proposed Deletion is to clean up articles that are not speedy-deletion eligible, but also not controversial. AFD is the only place where we can debate and get to a consensus about controversial topics. It's to keep our processes open and fair; it's a form of due process. Any other time, I'd let it slide, but I've addressed my serious concerns on my portfolio page. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian I'm curious what you would deem non-controversial. By that logic we should remove every PROD. Even on a simple topic, it will be often fiercely contested by the people who know about it, e.g. a book will be a controversial deletion to fans of the book, or an obscure film, or literally anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The third one is Highway 4 shooting. Anything, yes, literally anything, to do with the Israeli-Gaza war is controversial. Lots of other topics are fine. Want to delete Minimum fine? Sure. Deletion of articles about a ghost town in Indiana, a junior high school in the Bronx, or a racewalker who came in last in the 1980 Olympics are not controversial. What's your goal? My goal is to save Wikipedia in these difficult days when powerful and wealthy people want to destroy us. There is a process to bundle several nominations at AFD. Use it! I'm looking at the big picture. There's an old saying: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". In 2025, we have to act like we are being judged by others, because it's true. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

More examples for you to "Prod2": Household stone implements in Karnataka (an essay about household goods in one location), Embassy of Montenegro, Tirana (a small diplomatic mission that lacks significant coverage), and Find Me My Man (a TV show that had a short run). Those are proper uses for PROD. In fact, I propose deleting 3 or 4 articles each week. Recent examples are Lokomotiv Stadium (Ruse), Lubaba bint Abd Allah ibn Abbas, and Joachim Lubomirski. They're in alphabetical order because I'm going through Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009 - probably 10% of those could be proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian Controversial in real life, sure, but controversial for WP:PROD just means someone disputes it, if "no opposition to deletion is expected" (I do not expect opposition to deletion unless someone manages to find more than the single day's worth of coverage, and if they do I was wrong and that is fine). Which could be literally anything. If someone disputes the prod on the racewalker who came in last in the 1980 Olympics or the ghost town in Indiana, then yes, it is controversial.

And bundling is terrible when you are dealing with different crimes. They each have to be judged on their merits individually per WP:NEVENT, which doesn't lend itself very well to bundling.

My goal is to write articles about things that I think are interesting and to remove articles that do not have any possibility to be improved to a serviceable state. I have no other goals on this website. Sure, everyone's going to judge you for what you do here, but that will happen regardless of how many bureaucratic steps you take to that end. What do you think this has to do with "saving Wikipedia"? I am honestly curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, yes. This and that are on my mind. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian The reason Musk hates Wikipedia is he perceives it as being biased towards the left-wing and against him personally, not for our bureaucracy. What can you or I do to "save" it in light of that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to give him any

ammunition. Again, my apologies for taking so much of your time. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian I get that, but of all the ammunition we're giving him elsewhere...

I don't care, it was little more effort than clicking a button on my end. Not much to waste. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, good night. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Jean Miguères

Hello sir, the name of Jean' father-in-law was Dorysse , so I corrected it. Best regards ERNESTO Crulder (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

ANP move

Wondering your thoughts on this move: [8] I have mixed feelings, but before I revert and suggest that the move should be discussed first, I wanted to get your thoughts as I know you've worked on it recently. If you agree with the move and there aren't any other recent editors raising objections, I'll just go with it. TIA. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Thank you for the notice! I reverted and started a talk page discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

NP! Saw your discussion and left a comment there - I think we're on the same wavelength there. Thanks. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages 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.
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) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Re: cat change on Infowars

Hi! I saw your recent edit on Infowars and was hoping you could provide a better explanation for it? I can't wrap my head around your edit summary - are you saying that it should be in Category:Conspiracist websites instead of Category:Conspiracist media? Thanks! 9yz (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@9yz My initial edit was a removal of the conspiracist media from the article, because Infowars was in both the fake news websites category and conspiracist media (conspiracist media was then directly a parent category of fake news websites), which it is not supposed to be because you are not supposed to put an article in both the parent and child categories except for some very specific kinds of categories.

Then, after an amount of reshuffling to make the category tree align with the creative works/mass media division categorization system and also distinguish between pro-conspiracy and anti-conspiracy media, fake news websites was made a subcategory of conspiracist websites, which was a subcategory of conspiracist works. Then someone else complained so now now conspiracist websites is in both conspiracist mass media (as a publication) and conspiracist works, because whether a website is more a "work" or a "publication" varies from website to website.

Either way, before I changed the category tree, it should not have been in both categories since one was the parent of the other. Now it is again in a category that is a subcategory of the media category. This was very confusing for everyone involved and I probably should have done the category changes before I changed them on the individual pages. Lessons learned! PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the detailed explanation! 9yz (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beyond Belief (memoir), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Morrow.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Nazisim

Breh, Wikipedia is good for research but when I make a small edit it has to be silenced because only good Blåhaj komi shoko (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You added that, uncited, to the lead, where the body doesn't mention either the ONA or Tiktok. Even if it did it's not WP:DUE for the lead PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Law Barnstar
		For cleaning up messes at WP:AfD and other pages, in particular for legal articles. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian Thank you very much :) I appreciate your work on it too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dan Burros

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dan Burros 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Cat thanks

Thanks for your recent category edits - especially this one: [9] It's wise to keep an eye on that editor. He edits in spurts in the extremist categories and tends to overcategorize - sometimes right, sometimes wrong. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Thanks for the heads up. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

AfC decline message at wrong talk page

Hello. Recently I usurped the username "Loserhead" from "Loserhead4512" and when you declined my AfC you placed the message in the wrong talk page. Not a problem, just letting you know. loserhead (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The mechanics of the AfC script are an enigma. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Arbcom

Do you happen to know some NRM pages where there are frequent problems? I may have to file an Arbcom request to get a CTOP designation, and if I do it would probably be better to declare all NRMs a contentious topic. Polygnotus (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Only ones I've really seen be consistently bad are Scientology (formerly a CTOP - it's better than it used to be because now there are far fewer interested editors but it can still be... fun), Falun Gong (already a CTOP), and Landmark/est/Werner Erhard et al. as you know.

With a lot of small NRM articles you get some issues, but that's mostly because no one watches the pages, not anything tendentious, and if you simply fix it the problem does not recur. I don't pay much attention to the more 'mainline' (relatively speaking) Christian NRMs so if there are problems there I would not have noticed. There are some issues with Mormon articles, but are they really new? (it's all relative - I once saw Sikhism called an NRM) The Branch Davidians and Waco related stuff I have seen be a bit controversial onwiki but that's more people who hate the government vs people who support their actions in that case, that's not really because of the religion.

Other than that, I can't really think of anything. If you're going to file something and can't find anything else, maybe just go with Landmark because that's the only current one I've truly seen unmanageable problems with. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Maybe that person had recently learned of the existence of Sikhism, which made it new to them. Polygnotus (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Oh, I remembered one. Nithyananda and Kailaasa are... fun... just look at those talk pages. That's one guy but he's the leader of an "nrm". PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I love the idea of a micronation but unfortunately quite a few of them are/were owned/"ruled" by terrible people. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you upload into Wikipedia the logos of other UFO cults?

Since I saw that you uploaded the logo of Mark-Age, an Esoteric Christian New Age UFO religion, maybe you can upload the logos of other UFO religions, such as:

1. FIGU

2. Fiat Lux

3. I AM Activity

4. Neo-Phare

5. Chen Tao

6. Rational Culture

7. Unarius

8. Ground Crew Project

9. Sunburst

10. God Light Association

11. Cosmic Circle of Fellowship

12. CEIRUS

13. Pana Wave

14. The Seekers

And the other UFO religions.

But you can take your time. And this is if you want to upload the logos.

If some of these NRMs have logos and you can upload them, let me know. Wikifixer559 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

They don't have logos as far as I know. If I find them I'll add them, but a lot of groups don't have logos. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Fiat Lux has a book called Wundersame Geistheilungen, and on its cover it has a symbol on it which also appears in front of the Fiat Lux headquarters in Ibach. It could probably be their logo.

Also, I forgot to mention Christ Brotherhood, Inc. If they have a logo, maybe you can put it here. Wikifixer559 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In popular culture addition to Yakub page

The article I referenced was not a primary source as you suggested in your summary. What exactly is your objection to the source? Mattswest (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:INPOPCULTURE. For it to be due weight for inclusion it should be a source about Yakub and his representation in popular culture. That is a news source on a TV special that has a brief mention while recapping the contents of the show. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The article does mention (implicitly) a lack of "representation" of Yakub in comedy compared to Scientology's alien related beliefs, which the author suggests are similarly "out-there", but after reading more about this I have to agree that it's not a direct or extensive enough analysis of the portrayal for a reference.

However, I don't believe that there is anything in WP:INPOPCULTURE that says the source must be about the subject of the article, it seems obvious that an article about the appearance of the subject in that specific instance would be sufficient if it otherwise qualifies. That is, it would not have to be an article about Yakub in general that also happens to discuss the appearance in popular culture. I also don't see anything to suggest that the entire source must be about a specific popular culture appearance in order for it to be a valid reference. Mattswest (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, it feels like your overarching assertion that the inclusion of entries into the 'In popular culture' section must be of direct significance to the subject of the article is flawed.

In other words, if a very popular song were simply named 'Yakub', I don't believe it would have to contain any content that is relevant or significant to Yakub in order to be a fair inclusion in a 'In popular culture' section. Mattswest (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

“Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject.” Is more of what my concern was (sorry for not linking to that instead of going with primary, I wasn’t clear enough with what I meant by that) I was going for… a brief mention in a summarization of someone’s comedy routine is not a great source and would turn this section into a mess once more people start adding articles. I also question if it is WP:DUE weight. As for your song examples yes that would have to have high quality sourcing. We have plenty of articles titled Yakub that are not about the NoI Yakub. To argue it is about the NOI Yakub without secondary sources proving it is is OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point but, while I agree that for the example I gave about a song titled 'Yakub', an assertion by someone editing Wikipedia that the song was definitively titled after the NOI Yakub would be original research, an assertion by a high quality secondary source is not original research, and I haven't seen anything to suggest there is a requirement that the source offer definitive proof of its assertions.

Also WP:DUE seems to be concerning viewpoints. Since a pop culture appearance is not a viewpoint, the article would seem to not apply. Mattswest (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

If it was by someone editing Wikipedia, then that would be OR, yes.

DUE is about any article content, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Pop culture appearances of that nature are quite simply not a very important aspect of Yakub as reflected by the fact that the vast majority of sourcing on him does not mention it. It comes down to editorial discretion but my removal was supported by at least one other editor. The entries included are two with higher quality sourcing about specifically the NoI's influence through hip hop subcultures as demonstrated by their references to Yakub in their music. The Mulaney source is recapping what Mulaney said, and is a specialist Late Night source that I find questionable.

Generally in my opinion it is a bad situation to have in popular culture sections at all because if not actively maintained they descend into listing every item ever and they tend to attract well meaning editors who don't understand that the existence of these sections at all is often frowned upon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I meant to mention it in my last reply but left it out, but the article isn't exactly overflowing with pop culture references. Nor was the situation in question one where his name was simply mentioned in passing.

I read the page you linked: films where the Eiffel Tower appears in the background of a shot are not good example of entries in the 'In popular culture' section of the 'Eiffel Tower' page.

This was not that. Your arguments concerns appear to have thus far been rather hollow. Mattswest (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because we trimmed the unreliable and dubiously sourced ones aggressively. It would overflow if we did not. It is a description of a comedy show, which mentions the name a few times. Not exactly sourcing about the subject matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William R. Ferguson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William R. Ferguson 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 MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Badgering at AfD

Hi PARAKANYAA, and first of all thank you for all your work here. It is super valuable!

I have noticed a few times now at AfD you sometimes engage in behaviour that could be considered WP:BADGERING- namely, responding to everyone who doesn't agree with you, often multiple times. For instance, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Store Bar shooting, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (2nd nomination). Sometimes consensus just doesn't agree with you, and at a certain point it is better to drop the stick and move on. I know it can feel frustrating when you feel like your opinion is clearly right and nobody agrees-- I can still immediately think of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Elizabeth Whitton, four years later, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, five years on! But continually pressuring people who are contributing in good faith (but don't agree with you) leaves nobody with a good taste in their mouth.

A good practice that I am personally working on in AfDs is "catch once and leave", where I try to only respond to an editor once, clearly lay out my point, and make no more than a few comments every AfD (*at most*). It also helps me to trust that most contributors to AfD have the same best interests of the project in mind that I do, and administrators can assess (and weight) the quality of arguments well.

At the end of the day, people will consider different topics to be notable, and often times there is a grey area in between clear notability and clear non-notability (as much as we like to pretend there is not). Just some friendly advice, please do not take this as a severe critique! All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to get better about that. My apologies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries! It helps me to just unwatch the page after I feel myself getting dragged into a debate and not circle back for a while.

For what it's worth, if you're concerned about WP:AFDSTATS for the future, it's a bit of a myth that you have to have perfect stats. What matters more is well-reasoned, policy based votes. In my opinion, it can be particularly valuable to show that you can form your own opinions and can handle when consensus disagrees with your understanding! Of course, you don't want to never align with consensus, but imo a 100% match is just as concerning as a 0% rate.

All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not for worry about my AfD stats, I am cool with however that percentage turns out as long as I feel like I am doing solid before checks / understanding the notability guidelines. At least that's how I think of it. If it's attributable to anything specific, it's that I often find it difficult to stop arguing about things when I think I am right generally, not just on Wikipedia.

Thanks for the advice, I'll try to be better about that, all the best to you as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Genoud

Hello there. I believe his name really was the 'J' spelling. The Helios report, the coroner's report both have his full name as Jerry Xavier Genoud. The book L'Ordre du Temple Solaire (Bédat, Bouleau, Nicolas), and that 2001 Grenoble summary floating around also uses the J spelling. More interesting though, he was definitely 24 years younger than Colette. I don't think that's disputed. I guess I'll locate the necessary citations, unless that's something you'd be interested in clearing up as this is clearly your page. Decampos (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Decampos Yes, I reverted myself on the spelling afterwards [10]. When it comes to the ages I don't dispute that the wife was that much older, but the source doesn't specify that, and it is an unnecessary detail for that section. Over a decade is still true, after all. The source is only using it to make a point about their relationship standards... the main article is not an article on the Genouds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Decampos And, it is not my page by any means, haha. No one else seems much interested in contributing. My main issue with what you added is that it introduced a problem with WP:Text-source integrity, where the source no longer verifies with what the article says. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I just realized it does not say over. Hm, this does have to be fixed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Every source seems to give a different age. All the English sources say that Colette was 49 and Jerry was 39, while Bédat, Bouleau, Nicolas say she was 63 and he was 35.

The coroner report says he was born May 13, 1955 (making him 39) and she was born February 26, 1931 (making her 63). So both the English and French books are half wrong. I also think her stated age as 63 has to be incorrect, because she appears to be much younger than that? Maybe a typo?

There seems to be no agreement here... The problem is, if the decade source is wrong we would have no source remarking upon the significance of their ages. I think I will remove it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Removing entries from Template:Neo-Nazism sidebar and adding to Template:Neo-Nazism

I don't understand why an entry would belong in Template:Neo-Nazism and not Template:Neo-Nazism sidebar?

Is there something I'm missing? Is this a style thing so that articles aren't cluttered with too many sidebars? TarnishedPath^talk 07:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Sidebars are generally supposed to be more selective than navboxes, because of the way they display and their graphics takes up a lot of space that disrupts the flow of the article content. End of page navboxes can contain whatever provided it is verifiable because it's at the end. It can work 1-1 if there are a few articles but we have hundreds, possibly thousands of people in the neo-Nazi categories, who if we were being inclusionist could be included in the sidebar. Specific to the topic area of racists, we have like 5 other highly overlapping sidebars with near-identical scopes, so unless we want to create the most monstrous stack of all time I think it's best to clearly delineate their scope. I don't see how else to keep a sidebar like this is manageable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath For relevant guidance, see WP:SIDEBAR, which says "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines."

Sorry if I explained this poorly in the edit summary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA. That was a good explanation. Some thoughts, though. If you're going to remove someone like Jared Searby from the sidebar, with the rationale that they are low profile, then you have to consider removing serial pests like Neil Erikson. While Erikson might have had more coverage in RS, it's only because he's engaged in stunts in order to get attention. TarnishedPath^talk 08:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Yeah I was more reticent to remove the ones who weren't stubs from countries I didn't have a lot of familiarity with. But looking at his article, he just seems like an annoyance and not a significant voice, so I think I will remove him aswell. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you remove Brenton Tarrant from the sidebar or were they not there in the first place? TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath After checking to before I made any edits, he was never in there. Or at least I never removed him. [11] In any case he doesn't have an article so had a link to the redirect been included in the sidebar I would have removed it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Do they need a stand-alone article? The guy is a significant voice, worshiped by a lot of neo-Nazis here in Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath In my opinion, we should, but I'm not sure if that opinion is shared. That article has gotten made and deleted repeatedly. In fairness, all those articles were very terrible and didn't say anything the main article didn't. He does objectively pass the WP:NCRIMINAL/WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E notability requirements for a separate article, and there are increasingly sources that focus on him as a person (see these two for some good very recent ones [12] [13]... the first one is very crazy) But at that point we kind of have to deal with WP:PAGEDECIDE and... given how the case is, getting consensus for it is the hardest part. It's also a very very sensitive case.

All articles like that are going to be touchy, this one is going to be extra, and so if it's going to exist it needs to be very good off the bat. It would have the benefit of cleanly reducing the page size of the main article, with which information on him included got very long (though a large chunk was taken out when people deleted a large chunk of news sources) and clearing its scope, since basically all high quality articles on mass murders this notable do a perp-split

tldr: in theory yes but it would be very hard. one would have to get consensus for splitting it and then write it very high quality for it to not immediately get AfD'd again. I find the case very interesting, and have already collected most high-quality RS on it, but like... is it worth dealing with the nightmare it will inevitably spawn? Idk. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting starting a split discussion, because I understand what the arguments were for it being merged into the event article and I sympathise with those arguments. However what I'm asking is if it is possible for a link to the section in the event article, which covers the individual, to be included in the sidebar? Is there policy against that? TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath There's really no content about him as a person in the article, so no. We could probably add a neo-Nazi attacks section to the end navbox? But there's really no use linking to the person section and it's misleading to pretend we have an article there where we have basically no information on the person. And I also don't think it would work for the sidebar since individual criminals who have no notability besides crime are not really "most important people to an ideology" material. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Revert

I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to here by saying "WP:BIDIRECTIONAL". These organisations are specifically cited as neo-fascist on their respective pages. Helper201 (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201 WP:BIDIRECTIONAL "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional." You added them, so it's fine (and why I self reverted after). I still think there are too many extraneous parties in the sidebar per WP:SIDEBAR - see "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate."

None of these are tightly related, so I don't think a sidebar is the best way to display this information. But, the BIDIRECTIONAL issue is solved atleast. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

White Nationalism and Neo-Nazism

Hi PARAKANYAA, I see you've been removing neo-Nazism and White Nationalism sidebars / navigation bars from many articles, citing the policy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. To summarize my understanding of this rationale, if an article doesn't appear in the sidebar content, the sidebar shouldn't appear in the article. That's not unreasonable. Except, navigation bars exist for a reason: they're a research tool in an encyclopedia linking related topics. If you remove them from an article, or remove articles from a navigation bar, you weaken the tool insofar as the relationship is real.

An alternative, of course, is to add the article to the navigation bar. This would equally resolve the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL policy without weakening the tool provided to readers by the navigation bar.

I have a sense that maybe you're acting on a larger discussion that I and other editors are unaware of. Has a decision been made somewhere to reduce the size or use of White Nationalism and neo-Nazism navigation bars? I'd love to see that, potentially participate, and understand the community's logic. I have an interest in far-right politics in the United States, Europe, and internationally. -Darouet (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Darouet I add them to the navbox instead of removing them ([14] [15] [16] [17] for just a few) if the articles evidenced the relationship clearly. With the one you reverted me on, the article did not mention "white nationalism" at all... it mentioned neo-Nazism, which we have a separate navbox for. We have several different far-right politics templates and they are not synonymous. And I am not acting on anything besides the rules at WP:NAVBOX, which are generally poorly enforced because no one cares about navboxes I guess. But that doesn't mean they aren't rules. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The size concern is really only for sidebars, which are supposed to be more selective. I am not trying to reduce the size of the navbox, I am trying to enforce WP:VERIFIABILITY and make sure inclusion is supported for all articles and it follows the purpose of a navbox and is such WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I added it to the neo-Nazism navbox, which it also transcludes, and which is mentioned in the article. [18] PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA, what about for people, like David Duke, your removal here [19]?

1) The article never describes him as a white nationalist. 2) He was removed from the template as were all people nine years ago per a TfD discussion. If we don't keep these templates focused they get deleted. [20] He's already in the neo-Nazi one which I have no objection to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William R. Ferguson

The article William R. Ferguson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William R. Ferguson for comments about the article, and Talk:William R. Ferguson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you please upload the logos of more UFO cults?

I saw that you uploaded the CCF’s (possible) logo. Can you find other UFO cults’ logos and put them here, as per my previous request? Wikifixer559 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wikifixer559 I don't know why you keep asking me this, dude. You have asked me this like three times!

I upload logos when I find them in a way that they can be reliably provenanced as some kind of logo or symbol directly tied to the group. If a logo cannot be directly tied to the group it is less than useless and its inclusion is WP:OR. Further, not everything has a logo. Many groups did not, perhaps most of them. I can't upload things which do not exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, you didn’t tell me if you uploaded some logos. And I wanted to draw the logos of Christian UFO cults.

Why don’t you start with Fiat Lux first, their book Wundersame Geistheilungen has a symbol on it that is probably their logo. Wikifixer559 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Am I supposed to report back to you? I'm not doing anything because you ask me to... Wikipedia is not a place for drawing inspiration. Probably is not a guarantee of anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I am asking you to report back to me. If you don’t want to, then that’s okay. Wikifixer559 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You removed countless details

You removed countless details from the 'Christchurch attacks' article and you stated that the page is about the attack and not things that the perpetrator did, but that part of the article is about the perpetrator—It's the whole point of that section. You can't just take out that kind of information out, and it needs to be reinstated Andersnedlam (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Several things,

1) There were multiple people removing that. I don't think I was the person who removed the most, or even the first, so I don't know why you're going after me! Most of the information the others removed was more relevant than what I did, so I considered it arbitrary to keep less relevant information.

2) It was all cited to ancient breaking news reports from 2019 which should not be used in an article like this with so much discussion on it. We should not be using any sources from 2019 and we were using all information from 2019.

3) The article was far, far too long and something needed to be cut. We decided to not have an article on the perpetrator and the information on his life is the most tangential to the subject matter so it goes first when we have an article that gets this long. Similar articles like Oklahoma City bombing contain a similar amount of detail. Much more is WP:UNDUE

The whole point of the section? Well, sectioning is arbitrary, the article is far too long and is cited to too much news, and as it stands now the article contains as much information as is contextually relevant to understand the material. So I do not think there is an issue. None of what people removed should be reinstated because there was talk page consensus to cut material. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dan Burros

The article Dan Burros you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dan Burros for comments about the article, and Talk:Dan Burros/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Kindly Restore Status Quo at KKK

I would appreciate a chance to discuss your removal of RS. DN (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the talk page. We are citing an unspecified book that does not say this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Mass removal of Southern Poverty Law Center citations

Hi PARAKANYAA, would you mind pausing your mass removal of Southern Poverty Law Center citations from articles while your RfC review request is ongoing? I don't think it's a good idea to remove these citations on a broad scale right now when there is disagreement over whether the closure currently supports (or will eventually support) the removals. — Newslinger talk 20:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger Alright. I wasn't really considering it a "mass removal" yet, it was just removing it from a few select pages I had already worked on and had the intention to get to GA/FA later. But I shall stop that until review is concluded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for the clarification and for waiting until the review is over. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For improving Dan Burros, an article of significant importance to the ANP topic area, to good article status. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee Thank you :) Thanks for all your work on this as well. It was certainly in... dire condition, prior. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

FBI most wanted poster deletions

Hello @PARAKANYAA I was wondering if you may be able to provide some insight to some issues that have come up with the FBI most wanted posters that have had a some deletion requests over in wikimedia commons. Currently there a few posters that have been nominated for deletion based on the notion that the images within the posters themselves are somehow copy-written or cannot be confirmed to be despite the posters themselves being the official posters by the FBI. Is my understanding flawed that a federal agency posting them makes them public domain whether or not the images inside are somehow copyrighted? Any direction in this would be greatly appreciated. If you don't know, would you happen to know anyone who may be able to answer? Thanks!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DigitalPhantoms DigitalPhantoms (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@DigitalPhantoms The logic would be that the poster itself is PD, but is a derivative work of the original image, which the FBI may or may not have the copyright to. I guess it's possible they could have 'taken' the copyright as part of their investigation. I haven't looked into how that works really so I can't say much else. I wouldn't delete them but it does get iffy with some of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

That is the logic is was operating on that it would be PD since they are the ones posting it. Someone else also had mentioned that it would probably be fair use or they would have gotten the proper permission anyways on their end which I agree since they are having multiple news agencies release it otherwise the FBI and the subsequent news would be violating copyrights. DigitalPhantoms (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Perry Forbes

On 20 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Perry Forbes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that white supremacist Ralph Perry Forbes sued the devil? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Perry Forbes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ralph Perry Forbes), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,337 views (764.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Book suggestion

I recently bought Off the wall: Death in Yosemite, I think you'd like it. They have a whole section on suicides and another on homicides. :) ^EF⁵ 16:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Might look into it, thanks :) You're right about that being up my alley, hah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry if I stepped on your toes. I also have OCD btw. Prezbo (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prezbo You said nothing I found objectionable. I don't easily take offense, so I wasn't even offended by what the other guy said, I just really felt like he wasn't helping his argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Dan Burros

On 21 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dan Burros, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Dan Burros killed himself when The New York Times revealed that he was Jewish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Burros. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dan Burros), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,176 views (1,180.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 21:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Your recent editing history at Dan Burros 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.
Come on, Parakanyaa, you're an experienced editor. Please stop reverting my edits; it feels, to me, that you're claiming ownership of this article. All I'm trying to do is improve the article. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Javert2113 I started a discussion on the talk. Further, WP:Edit warring, "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the Main Page." (it's at FAC). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm happy to participate—but please note that FAC is not FA itself. In addition, quality is a subjective term, but let's leave that for the Talk page. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)