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not a tangible form of publication as required by copyright (For the same reason why a lot of old TV is technically "Unpublished") and also not to the general public.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]

It's been like a month but I'm genuinely curious what comic you wanted to add. GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonFreeman1997 I think (it's been a while) there was better coverage of "most disturbing comics" than literature as a whole so I think it was a suggestion that that could be used to support notability for the whole list. Maybe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. If you ever wanna redo that list, I'll try and help. This subject interests me. Leave a msg on my talk page if you want to collab on this. GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait. wrong guy. @Bdblakley29 that msg was addressed to you GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonFreeman1997 I would be 100% for your help. Only one problem. User:Yann banned me indefinitely from uploading images for some reason. Anyway, I'd be down to collab Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 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]

Clarifications on Ice Warrior

Thank you for the review on the article! I'm currently starting to dig through your last set of comments and will try to get a copyedit done soon. I will probably come back with any further clarifications as I proceed, but in regards to the spotcheck, particularly the Mulkern source you had issues with, the part I was citing primarily was:

"The Grand Marshal is fearsome, noble and surprisingly tender, almost poetic when lamenting his long-dead daughter. And Mark promised “something new” from the Ice Warriors. Since boyhood, I’ve longed to see the creature behind the mask. The “Ice Lord” Martians who featured in some stories were visibly more humanoid reptiles, wearing robes and helmets, whereas with the warriors – perhaps as a failing of the design and make-up – it was difficult to spot where the armour ended and the reptile began. They were like tortoises bonded into their carapace. Sadly we don’t get to see a wholly unclothed Martian, although monster-maker Neill Gorton assures me an entire animatronic body was created. Maybe it is best left in the dark and to the imagination. The flip-back reveal of the head under the helmet is effective, but noticeably CGI with “motion capture” to sync with Nicholas Briggs voice (another ssssucccesssss)."

I tried to reword it to avoid close paraphrasing by using words that described overall what Mulkern was trying to convey, but I can see that was a bit unclear. Do you have any suggestions for how to reword this bit to better align with what's present in the source?

Also, clarifying on the Moffat-Gatiss bit in the design section: Not sure if you were looking at Cite 31 or 32, but 31 very clearly has Moffat saying the second part of the sentence. I've removed 32 from that line in particular since 31 already covered it well enough, but I did just want to clarify on that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 For the record, the spot check was not why I failed it, I just did not find my very brief check encouraging. My failure of the nom was basically entirely about the prose. Had I been satisfied with the prose I would have kept on with the spot checks, the one or two issues I saw there were relatively minor and not worth failing over.

I saw your message on the other platform now, my apologies. About the "deep and thoughtful" thing, my issue is at least to my reading "deep and thoughtful" is not how I'd summarize what he says. What comes to mind when I read that description are more along the lines of "emotional" or something like that, it doesn't seem to me like he's commenting on the thoughtfulness of their characterizations as much as they are fuller characters than before, which I don't think is quite the same thing.

About the Moffat thing: (31 here https://web.archive.org/web/20130322022735/http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/03/18/doctor-who-press-launch-revelations/ ) the part that I thought was only cited to Gatiss was "with the final design on-screen being an improved version of the original design seen on screen in their previous appearances". I really don't see where Moffatt says that in source 31 - unless you're talking about "it’s a super-version of the original"? I guess I can see that now, I thought he meant that in the metaphorical sense of "much better" rather than "directly improved version. So I guess that's part is fine.

The spot check really was not why the nom failed though, again, as I said there these were minor things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA I'm aware, but I figured I'd at least try and make sure all parts of the original review were addressed. I'll try and address the remaining spotcheck issues when I give the article a copyedit soon. I will let you know if I have any further questions as I'm fixing things up. Thank you so much for your replies so far! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA I've done some edits to the article to try and fix areas you considered to have issues (Long sentences, repeated words, etc) and I've edited specific segments to what you asked. To clarify on a few points:

-Do you feel as though the current lead is fine? I've tried re-organizing everything to be more in-line with given segments, but I'm a bit unsure about including anything of the development post-creation since it would necessitate a second development paragraph, and I'm not sure if you feel that would be wise or not.

-I've tried trimming Appearances to be simpler so it's easier to understand, and also added spin-off information (Given it's discussed later in the article). Would appreciate comments on if anything should be added, expanded, or changed here, especially in terms of the spin-offs, since their individual appearances, bar the character Ssard, were little discussed in secondary sources.

-Were there any overarching issues in the development section in terms of wording, types of information included, etc? I did copyedits where requested and where I felt there were issues, but I don't know if there were any larger issues with it you wanted me to address like was the case with the lead. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this again tomorrow, but off the bat the appearances section is much better especially with the sectioning. Spin off section looks good from a once over, but I'll look at this again soon. Lead stuff: "where they are encountered and fought the" seems grammatically incorrect to me. I have some other nitpicks but this is much better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude book cover parameter

Hello, you reverted my edit at Deguello Report. While I have no strong feelings about it, it was just part of my usual book cover cleanup, I wanted to clarify the use of that parameter. It is my understanding that the parameter is not only used, "...when we Don't want to include the cover...", but is also used when the book cover is nearly impossible to find or locate. I upload probably more book cover images than anyone else on Wikipedia (or if I have competition in this, I'd love to meet them and work with them!), therefore I tend to find some archaic books from the 15th century and all kinds where there is absolutely no book cover present. In those instances, I feel it is appropriate and even ideal to use the parameter to "exclude the book cover" in order to remove it from appearing in the category which I spend so much time in: Category:Books with missing cover. If we did not do that, then there would be countless hundreds or thousands of books which will almost guaranteed never have their book cover updated included in that category. This makes cleanup and improvement of this area of the encyclopedia much more difficult and messy. I think it should only be used with care, and if you think this is an instance where the parameter should not apply, I have no issue leaving it as is. I've seen your edits plenty of times in the past and I think you are a careful and quality editor, but I just wanted to let you know that I otherwise plan to continue to selectively use the parameter on ancient texts which I have exhaustively reviewed the internet for first to determine if a book cover can be found, and where none can be, used the parameter to otherwise clean up the missing books category so that myself, and others, can continue to best improve Wikipedia with non-free and free file book covers wherever possible. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn It’s not nearly impossible as the original item is held in several libraries. If it was entirely lost is another thing. You should not add it to archaic books where copies are still in existence but at libraries. That is a misuse of the parameter, we are not limited to internet only sources. It is not guaranteed as much as it requires libraries, which sourcing articles regularly does. I object to this specific case because I do hopefully intend to one day have a scan of the original. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some confusion. This parameter ONLY removes it from the category, it does NOT mean that no book cover can or should be added in the future if found. Was that your understanding of the parameter? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn No, but given we are not limited from using WP:OFFLINE sources, I can't see a policy based reason for excluding covers that someone can find provided they go to a library and take a photo, or buy the book, given what that parameter is for. What the parameter means is we don't want an infobox cover there or one does not exost. We do in fact want a cover in those cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we see documentation on the intended use of the parameter? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter hint in visual editor says, ""yes" if no image is present and adding this article to "Category:Books with missing cover" is not desired"

I interpret that to mean very simply, that there are many instances where a book cover for technical reasons cannot or should not be used. Such as when the Infobox book template is lower on a page and not near the top, and then it would not be appropriate for several different book covers too if there is a book series, since non-free files require us to choose one and just put that one on top and used only in a very limited manner. That is the case in this recent example that I just added the parameter on as well for example, Denma. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "adding this article to "Category:Books with missing cover" is not desired" only means that we get to de-clutter the category as I was indicating earlier too by the use of this parameter. There is nothing stopping anyone from still adding a book cover image once properly located. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn Hm. I was always referring to the directions at {{Infobox book}}, which says "This template will place articles with this infobox where no image has been specified into the category Books with missing cover; where this is not desired, e.g because the cover is shown elsewhere in the article, this parameter should be set to |exclude_cover=yes". I can't blame you if you were working off the VE description, which is rather different!

Yes, I know that, but in these cases it is desired that a cover image be obtained, even if it is a little bit hard... so I think it would be fine. In a series case that is different. But it might be worth asking for more opinions on this than you and me, and resolving that ambiguity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just to be clear based on what you mentioned above, there is absolutely nothing prohibiting the later addition of a book cover image by the addition of the "exclude book covers" parameter. It only removes it from the category for purposes of basic management of that category.

Either way, I have no issue at all with leaving some titles in there that you or anyone else would like to see left in there, but beyond that, I think there is little to no risk for adding the parameter on some where there is great difficulty in finding a book cover, as this just makes it easier to sort and find other books where book covers are more readily findable and can be added. That enables the list to be worked much more readily in my opinion. I am open to hearing from others as well, but we'd need to post about this in the most relevant WikiProject or somewhere, any ideas? Iljhgtn (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject books, maybe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Want to start the thread over there? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me if/when you do please. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Started discussion at WP:BOOKS (sorry for the delay...) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. Thank you PARANKANYAA. :) Iljhgtn (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a page on Maniac Murder Cult?

You seem to be interested in making pages on hate groups, so could we make one for MMC? they seem to be major enough and a large membership (150+) More info: Timeline of crimes involving the Order of Nine Angles#Maniac Murder Cult. Idrinklisterine (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Idrinklisterine Sorry, forgot to respond. At the current moment I don't have much interest in the MMC, though they are notable. This piece is good [2] PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA Thanks for the source, I'm not that great at editing Wikipedia or creating pages so at the moment I will not create a page for it (I was hoping for you to make a page for it). But anyways, thanks Idrinklisterine (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Idrinklisterine I'll think about making one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion (not about you)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. jolielover♥talk 17:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For working together to improve the book category. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I appreciate all your work on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for taking another look over the Ice Warrior article and helping me with making it better! Your comments have substantially improved the article, and I feel a lot more confident on my next round at GAN. I really greatly appreciate it. Happy editing! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 Thanks! Good luck on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biography Wikiproject tagging

Hi there, thank you for all the good work you're doing! I just wanted to flag that for biograpical articles, ideally you should add |blp=no or |blp=yes to the banner shell for articles of people as appropriate, so they don't get added to maintenance categories like Category:Biography articles without blp parameter. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham I try to, but sometimes I forget. Sorry about that! PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, easily done! Thank you again. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Dan Burros

Congratulations, PARAKANYAA! The article you nominated, Dan Burros, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
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) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Télé 7 Jours logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Télé 7 Jours logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication, rewarded by this cat!

Just saw your extensive edit history on Experiments in the Revival of Organisms. Man! I would die if I had to upkeep a page like that. Good on you!

GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Commit' suicide

This is an old fashioned terminology which is increasingly out of favour. What's your problem with replacing it with acceptable wording? Giant Snowman 15:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman That many other users have discussed this in the past and there is no consensus for mass removing it. See this discussion from earlier last year [3] Many of your edits are simply wrong (altering it in quotes). PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Latest AfD

Hi PARAKANYAA, I know you and I have interacted well a lot in the past, especially and most recently on the book cover issue. Which by the way, I still am working on diligently and even was able to get the book cover total list of those missing images to under 3,000. This list used to be over 4,000+. Anyway, I see your latest comment on one of my AfDs, and I wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your input. I most recently updated the merge target from the original to a new and better target, partly inspired by your comment and partly by that of another editor. Please when you get a moment take a look and let me know if now you think that it would be better suited for a merge with this improved end target for the merge to take place.

I really appreciate all you do on Wikipedia, as I think you are a great editor and really thoughtful contributor. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Koehl

RE: Matt Koehl. Does this qualify as a valid reflink re his parents' info? Thanks. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not ancestry.com, no. Any direct legal paperwork that is on ancestry (like a census, draft cards) may be very carefully usable as a primary source (so no extrapolation whatsoever, just exactly what it says) since Koehl is dead, but we cannot cite ancestry itself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Cathie

Hi, not sure if you took this off your watchlist after your disagreement with Chetsford, but this ended:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Cathie

How did you mean this was a free image? It's seeming to be an active newspaper still, and though Cathie looks young in the image, it's still too new for free?

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-san-bernardino-county-sun-ufo-fans-s/173506293/ — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Very Polite Person I do not watchlist AfDs unless I created them, just a note. I also tend to forget they exist rather fast, haha. The The Sun-Telegram did not register its issues and did not renew them (I clipped another image from that set earlier). In the United States, published works (that aren't audio) are automatically expired before 1930 but between 1930 and 1978 you had to include a copyright notice. Neither the photographer nor the paper did for this issue. He is a Kiwi, but the photo was taken in the US. Hence free Template:PD-US-no notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, nice catch, thanks. I'll get that up to Commons shortly. Thanks. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is about as solid as this will ever get: Bruce Cathie.

There's no further sources I'm aware of, and aside from GA-type polish, that's it. I sent it to DYK also. Apparently I enjoy rescuing ultra-obscure stubs at AFD or likely to be AFD'd and building unexpected articles (not just UFO stuff--others too). This is like the 5th or 6th time... — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Very Polite Person Nice work :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to thank you earlier for your good work

And wondering if you have any opinion on [[[Special:Contributions/BeatrixGodard]]]. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Thanks, I saw you thanked me for the assassination article. Took ages to write that one but it needed to exist so the other articles could make more sense.

There are some things that concern me there, though many of the edits seem well-intentioned. I have the Routledge book that recounts that Ezra Pound/Koehl anecdote and it does confirm that whole thing happened, though that obviously should not have been restored with the old source, so that speaks to not checking it before adding when it comes to contentious material, which is concerning; same thing on the ONA page. And looking at it zoomed out I do have some other worries. I would keep an eye on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's just something I can't put a finger on. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compling with WP:NCRIMINAL

Would a request for a crime, criminal, or crime victim having an Audible book about it, pass WP:NCRIMINAL?

Sorry if this is a dumb question to you, just was curious. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere I'm a bit confused by your question, sorry if I'm not understanding right. I assume you're referring to the requested article lists?

Well, if that was the only source ever published about it, no. But it's very unlikely that someone with a full length book about them did not make it into the news. But was the book reliably published? If it was, then probably notable, but if it was self-published, that doesn't help. And is the person 1) still living or 2) convicted of the crime? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA I am referring to the requested article lists, the event made it into the news alongside there being an Audible book, and although the person is alive; they are convicted of the crime.

Hope this clears things up! Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Audible book. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere As Doug said, what outlet published the book originally? If it was only on audible I would be inclined to say no, but if it is an audio book of a book published by an established publisher, perhaps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was published on Audible. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere Then I wouldn't think that would help, no, unless there are further better sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know, @PARAKANYAA!

Wanted to know because their was a female rapist I requested on there, because I thought it was noteworthy she had 21 victims, that got removed because it didn't pass WP:NCRIMINAL, that I thought I could try requesting again because it now has an Audible book.

But if it doesn't change much, I guess it is what it is, and I won't try to request it again. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:NCRIMINAL question?

Would a criminal qualify for a article if said criminal is a celebrity (such as an actor/actress, musician, fasion model, etc.)?

And what qualifies as noteworthy?

Just asking so I know for the future, @PARAKANYAA. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere Well, I assume if they were a celebrity they'd already be notable, right? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd assume so... Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then probably, if they got coverage for that. But not everyone with that occupation will be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks for letting me know!

One more question, @PARAKANYAA, does the amount of victims contribute to the noteworthyness of a criminal?

I know this sounds like a morbid question, but I just wanted to double check since I would assume the amount of victims would make a criminal noteworthy in a notorious sense. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere Not inherently. Does the crime pass WP:NEVENT? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure, @PARAKANYAA, but it didn't pass WP:NCRIMINAL for some reason.

And the reason this befuddles me is because of the type of criminal this criminal happened to be admitted to an uncommonly high amount of victims. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere Well, it depends on the coverage. A flurry of news coverage might not establish notability. And there are a lot of different crimes, which tend to receive differing amounts of coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this enough coverage?

And yes the Google Search does contain the name of the criminal. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere I do not think that coverage is good for notability for WP:NCRIMINAL. See, it's the types of coverage. There are no big retrospective pieces or coverage from big outlets. It is all local news stations or tabloid crime media like People or Inside. And it's all just stages of the legal process. These can be used with caution, but establishing notability for criminal topics they are not good. Coverage from big outlets, or more retrospective pieces, would be good. But this does not help notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks for letting me know! I will stop pursuing to get a Wiki article about it.

I just assumed it would be notable since female sex offenders don't usually have 21 victims.

Sorry if I wasted your time @PARAKANYAA. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere It's fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Éditions du Cerf logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Éditions du Cerf logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jon698 -- Jon698 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Tommasi

In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking overlinking is discussed and it is stated, "Unless particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked." "Italian ancestry", "revolutionary", "rock and roll", "interracial marriage", etc. are common, widely understood words and do not require linking, so I will again unlink them. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that most of your removals are beneficial. For example racial integration and terroristic are clearly particularly relevant to the context of the article. And it is odd to say someone rejects an ideology without linking to an explanation of what that ideology is. But I also don't care that much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Joseph Tommasi is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Joseph Tommasi is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell 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 Jon698 -- Jon698 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zizians RFC

Thanks for chipping in at Talk:Zizians. I have opened an RFC on the same page in an attempt to settle this once and for all, would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Asamboi (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Joseph Tommasi has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Joseph Tommasi 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 MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

No issues with this edit; I think you're right to take it out. I didn't go into it on the talk page, but I think there are additional good reasons to remove it that I didn't bother to list. I wasn't married to it, by any means. However, just keep a lookout for the user that started the thread. If you look at their more recent activity, they are WP:NOTHERE. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but addressing the content itself I did not think it was good. It made the rest less defensible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Funktasy update

Hi PARAKANYAA, thanks again for reviewing Draft:Funktasy earlier. I've made major updates based on your feedback — national coverage (CBC, Yahoo, MSN) is now cited directly in the History section for visibility, and the overall neutrality and sourcing were improved. Would you mind taking another look when you have a chance? Appreciate your time and help! — Musicwikiwiki Musicwikiwiki (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will let someone else take a look, given the history. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I never properly thanked you for finding all these refs [4] but they were very helpful! I added most of them to the article and it's much better now. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy pop goes the weasel You're welcome! If you ever want help finding sources for stuff like that going forward, you can ask me and I'll try my best. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]