User talk:PARAKANYAA

Bougas death?

https://vinnews.com/2026/08/23/cartoonist-nick-bougas-creator-of-antisemitic-happy-merchant-image-dies-at-71/

All his friends on facebook are saying he's dead

https://www.facebook.com/daniel.carver.18294/posts/a-great-friend-of-mine-passed-away-yesterday-nick-bougas-he-was-a-great-artist-t/2292813908207293/ ~2026-51226-47 (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Not a reliable source as discussed on talk (it has no known fact checking policy and frequently produces extremely bad articles with no indication of where they got this information) and Facebook is especially not. Anyone can claim to be a friend of anybody.

The best source is the Counter-Currents one, given the close relationship between the author and Bougas is confirmed by RS and the person writing it and the pub are notable, +scholarly sources have used it to verify death, but given it is a white supremacist publication someone took issue with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Mullins hoaxes

Saw the TA edit war over "proof" that Mullins actually wrote the texts in his hoaxes. That was one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. Since it was already resolved, I didn't jump in, but in research I've done on Mullins, I have found things that maybe you know already, but if not, maybe you'll find interesting (although unciteable I believe).

John George's book is cited at all of these articles and he points out that Mullins concocted these hoaxes but he doesn't name his source. His source for this was H. Keith Thompson, who was working with Mullins at the time. Under conditions by Thompson for his interviews with George, Thompson was kept anonymous. George acknowledged that Thompson was his source in an email to Ernie Lazar with the stipulation that Lazar not make it public until after Thompson's death. Lazar's research and web site have been archived by the NYU library and a copy of the email is in that collection.

Nice work on shutting down that nonsensical edit war! ButlerBlog (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Yeah, I recall reading that before. I could have elaborated in detail the proof to that person if they were actually in good faith, or possibly in good faith, and simply curious or wondering how this information was obtained, especially with book sources. The mention of "philosemites" in the edit summary and resulting rant about the "Jewish race" on their talk page told me quickly that this was not the case, lol.

And thanks! Thanks for the good work on the pages in question too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request on Talk:Universal Church of the Kingdom of God

Any chance you want to take a look? The request is clearly AI generated but at least the first point which I checked, seems correct - we have a claim in the text which isn't supported by the sources, and they aren't using the AI to propose article text so they aren't in violation of WP:NOLLM. This seems very much in your wheelhouse and I thought you might know where to look for sources; I don't want to just delete the poorly sourced information on a COI editor's say-so since I suspect at least some of it is true, just not sourced in this report, but I equally don't want to keep information in the article on such a sensitive topic that doesn't check out. Rusalkii (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii I can try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Potential source

https://www.adl.org/resources/article/satanic-neo-nazism

ADL published an article on Satanic Nazism. Just in the case the article on Satanic Nazism is still on the back burner. RKT7789 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@RKT7789 see Draft:Nazi-Satanism (will probably change title), will be done soon probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, this just seems like it's 1-1 duplicating the recent Spencer Sunshine academic article, but worse and without the earlier context, lol, so I don't think there's much use in it. Is interesting though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

But yes, I aim to finish this in the next day or 2 (because if I don't someone worse at writing articles will do it first.) PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Requesting Editing Help: The Robo Report

I wrote an article for The Robo Report, it was declined last week by you. It said it that the sources needed three criteria. Reliable, Significant, and Independent. You said I did not have sources that were both significant and independent. They were either one or the other in most cases. I used Barron's who has used the results of this report in its own ranking published in its magazine. Why are these Barron's sources not considered independent? I think in most cases I understand why some sources lack significance, but I am struggling to understand why any articles written by established third parties, that are not paid content, are not considered independent. Any help understanding would be greatly appreciated. KenSchapiro (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@KenSchapiro Republishing someone else's materials does not make that a new source when it comes to independence, or any more independent than the Robo Report would be on itself. For that to be the case they'd have to evaluate or take a step from that source. I didn't see them doing that. If I am wrong and Barron's did critically evaluate it in a way where it does count for independence and notability, that would still be the only source. Multiple pieces from the same outlet are, for the purpose of notability, counted as one source that contributes to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, I got the Wikipedia library card and I was able to cite things with it, but I hit a road block with the red “cite web thingies.” How does that work? Whenever I tried to do it, it didn’t work. How may I fix this? ButteyFelicity (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity I'm willing to help but confused about what you're asking. What are you trying to cite and what are you using the library for? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Check my draft, Draft:Khoua Her see a reference with a lock on it? That’s what Im talking about. Im using the library for citing things that I can’t find from other sources. ButteyFelicity (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity You don't put the Wikipedia library link in the url=. You put the normal link. Replace the base url https://access-newspaperarchive-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org with https://newspaperarchive.com/

The date value shows as wrong because you put it in the wrong order and without a zero. Either write it as text (September 29, 2026), or do yyyy-mm-dd, 2026-09-29, you cannot leave off the 0 on 09. It is written with -, not slashes, that is what the date throws an error.

Also, second thing, this would be a WP:BIO1E case. We write those as events. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Heh, sorry. I haven’t gotten the hang of cites yet. But thank you for telling me.

The draft I showed you? Well she is notable for the event similar to other articles like Clay King Smith and Priscilla Ford. Usually when searching it, she is the main thing that’s brought up. What should be an alternative? It did seem notable for a majority of things. ButteyFelicity (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity Well, Clay King Smith and Priscilla Ford probably should be moved, on paper. Honestly we're pretty incoherent about it. Newer articles tend to be moved while older articles everyone seems too lazy to bother or the inertia of the age of the article keeps it at its older title. However now that I look at the draft again, it is a familicide which I think has a stronger case for writing it as a biography. So you will probably be fine actually.

But thinking about the logic and actual application of BIO1E gives me a headache (there's no consistency!). So who knows which way it will go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Well I think Priscilla Ford is fine (Since she is more well known for the event and it has a background), but I agree with you on Clay King Smith (literally no background) . Possibly “Murder of the Sorg family” or something like “Clay King Smith case.”

I mean I can work on some. There are a few I can fill info out on if you redirect me to them. Im usually good with stuff like that.

Well thank you for looking at it. Hope it’s fine. Reason why I wrote as a biography is due to Khoua being more well known for the event and her life. And due to her being the reason why mental health in the Hmong Community being taken seriously. I also think she is comparable to Chai Vang in a sense, due to how the murders happened, reactions, and controversial sentencings. And how she was mentioned in a 2023 news reporting when another Hmong mother, Mollie Cheng, drowned her children. “Hmong 18 council was established when a young Hmong mother strangled her children,”

I think the logic behind it is depending on the person is notable or the event is notable. Though some overlap like for Example Chris Watts or Charles Lawson. They are notable for the event but the murders come over quickly then them, but when it’s John List, you think of the Familicide at first, but then think of him, due to him being on the run. You get what I mean? That’s my interpretation. ButteyFelicity (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Reason why Im saying Priscilla Ford was notable was due to her being a mass murderer- something rare for a woman. As well as her trial and the controversial sentencing her to death.

Or like my article, Janet Danahey, she is what you think of when thinking of the Campus Walk Apartment fire, due to her controversial sentencing and being the subject of the felony murder rule. ButteyFelicity (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that's fair, but in practice there's no consistency about how we interpret BIO1E. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

True! ButteyFelicity (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of WAR (newspaper) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article WAR (newspaper) 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 ThadeusOfNazereth -- ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of WAR (newspaper) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article WAR (newspaper) 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ThadeusOfNazereth -- ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)