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 Lazar's research and web site have been archived by the NYU library and a copy of the email is in that collection.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)

Terrorism by ideology

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_August_26#Terrorism_by_ideology_categories

Purge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• I have implemented this as nominated but there are massive trees under the Islamic main category and under the right wing main category and also a bit under anti-communist. I do not think I should purge there too without any further discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Well, we could nominate the subcategories separately? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

AI noticeboard

Hi PARAKANYAA!

Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention on the AI noticeboard.

I want to acknowledge that, i used AI assistance while working on the article regarding the Murder of Apratim, actually, as my primary focus has always been creating film-related articles and writing about a murder case was completely new to me, which led me to rely on AI for support. I realize now that, i was not fully aware of Wikipedia's specific guidelines regarding WP:AI usage.

I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or oversight this may have caused. I deeply respect Wikipedia's standards and community guidelines, and i am keen to learn from this experience, could you please advise me on what steps i should take next to properly resolve this? i would really appreciate your guidance.

Thank you again! Aqsis Bey (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Notes on your recent edits to Cultural Marxism

As per my latest edit description, The Barnes Review is cited on that page as a WP:PRIMARY source, it shows irrefutable evidence of William S. Lind's having given a talk at a conference for a Holocaust denial magazine. As per WP:PRIMARY:

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

This is a common practice in editing and citation, especially for historical topics. On this topic, if we had JUST a source from the SPLC lots of conservative readers might see that as leftwing bias, or as them being leftwing, and ergo - willing to lie, or "in on the conspiracy" - by providing a WP:PRIMARY source as well as a WP:SECONDARY source commenting on those events, we show that both are in agreement with on the facts: He gave a talk, at a holocaust denial conference. RecardedByzantian (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@RecardedByzantian The reliable secondary sources already provide the information. The Holocaust denial magazine is actually not being cited for anything that the better secondary sources say, it is totally redundant. I don't think we need to be appealing to the types of people who read The Barnes Review, and if we were, this wouldn't even help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the responsible thing, and raising it on talk to get a consensus. -RecardedByzantian (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Existential risk

My caring about our critics is that at least two of them are an existential threat to Wikipedia. See User:Bearian/Portfolio#My Big 4 Concerns of 2025. The richest man in the world and the most powerful and irrational man in the world both want to destroy us. They have said so publicly. We must remove any excuse for them to wreck us. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian Okay, and? All of their criticisms and desire to destroy Wikipedia are based on one thing: perceiving Wikipedia as being left-wing and biased against them. If we deleted every single book article tomorrow it would not make a bit of difference to that perception or their ability to enact it. Not one iota. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Aha, but they have excuses, and to the mainstream media and the courts, that's all that matters. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian I say this again: okay, and? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Glitch?

So I got registered for a library card to look at Newspapers.com but I couldn’t get into it for some reason! Why is that? I do have a registered account, but I thought since I got an application I could see it. Is there something I need to do? ButteyFelicity (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity You need to apply separately for newspapers.com. It takes a few weeks. Go to the newspapers.com section of the wikipedialibrary, fill the thing out, and it will attach to your account after they approve it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Stupid me (should have clarified it) I did apply for it, and got approved but I still couldn’t look at it. ButteyFelicity (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity Click on your account profile. Does it say "Publisher Extra® Subscriber"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Let me try that, I will see. ButteyFelicity (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If it doesn't the approval hasn't gone through yet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Deguello Report has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Deguello Report 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 TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

DYK for WAR (newspaper)

On 8 October 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article WAR (newspaper), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that WAR described itself as "the most racist newspaper on Earth"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/WAR (newspaper). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (WAR (newspaper)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,016 views (834.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2026 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Ghana Media

I stand to correct dutifully. Ghana Media was never written with AI. Quite surprising to hear this from an admin. Every word was carefully written and researched; as well as looking at potentially corrections from other editors. The least I expected was a criticism regarding “artificial intelligence”. Before AI, scholars existed.

Blackan007 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:AISIGNS. And there are no "scholarly" sources in the article. Or any sources that prove WP:NOTABILITY. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fourth Reich of the Rich

The article Fourth Reich of the Rich has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for needing more citations for 18 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Fails WP:BOOK. Poorly sourced stub. Closing administrator has the option of a redirect.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about me being notified as I don't think I've ever substantially edited this article. However, I did read about it in a book once, and I'm pretty sure it's notable. Perhaps you read my mind and knew that... PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Author-masking in bibliographies: "Standard" or merely the preference of some?

I just removed the author-masking from the bibliographic list at Anson D. Shupe, asserting that it made the bibliography harder to read. You almost immediately reverted the edit, claiming that the practice of author-blanking was "standard". Please link to any WP page that documents the practice as being "standard" on WP, if such a page exists. Note that being "standard" is different than it merely being one possible option, which seems to be all that is implied at Help:Citation_Style_1#Display_options.

I've read dozens of scholars' CVs, and I don't ever recall them blanking out their names in this manner, and I don't think it's helpful on such lists, or in a similar list in a WP article. I'd be interested to know who else feels the same, and who else (besides you) feels the opposite. Unless you do indeed have evidence that you can link that it's truly something agreed to as a standard on Wikipedia, please don't imply that is the case. Thank you. Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Presearch It's standard to not list the same piece of information 20 times, which is massively visually redundant. The alternative option would be to just not include the names at all, dash or otherwise. We can do that I guess, though it would have the effect of obscuring his coauthors. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I find it unpersuasive. The fact that you did NOT link to any other page on WP in which which the community has affirmed author-masking as a standard indicates to me that this is indeed your personal preference. I think you should acknowledge it as a personal preference instead of representing it as something more. You have provided arguments for your preference, but others have their counterarguments - I hope you understand that - that others may have preferences and arguments that are quite different. And your response has provided no reason for thinking that your preference is a majority preference (which it might be or might not be), or that others would find your arguments more persuasive than the counterarguments for an opposite preference. --Presearch (talk)

@Presearch In not one of MOS:BIBLIO's examples do they give the name in the bibliography examples they show. So the standard is not including the name of the authors in bibliographies. The dash is a compromise/alternative (and also, I think, the only technical way for it to work in the cite templates when there is a coauthor). But showing the author name is clearly not what MOS:BIBLIO indicates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Presearch Also, it says for single-author lists, use |author-mask= to avoid repeating the author's name., not as a suggestion but for what you need to do if you use the templates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That is indeed more to the point. And I see how you may have gotten the idea of such a standard. However, I am not persuaded, because there's some ambiguity about the meaning of "single-author lists". Note that many of Shupe's books are coauthored or coedited (with him sometimes being 1st, other times being later, etc.). I would not call them "single-author" works. In fact, if the entire list had been single-author works by him, I would not have experienced the author-masked list as confusing, and I would feel comfortable with that guideline. But it's not clear to me that the guideline applies also to a lengthy list of publications, many of them by multiple authors, where the same single single author is present on all of them, as in the case with Shupe, and the masked author is sometimes in the first author slot, sometimes in the second-author slot, etc. If I've ever seen that sort of masking in published bibliographies, it's been uncommon (much more common is masking in a sequence of publications with the same first/sole author). Partly on that basis, and partly because it appears ambiguous what is meant in the guideline by "single-author list", I am still not persuaded. Personally, I think that in such a case as the Shupe page where there are many authors involved, author masking should not be a standard. And unless it becomes clear that "single-author list" was intended even to apply to such a case, I suspect that it is not a standard that the WP community has agreed to (or perhaps even that the constructor of that text on the page intended to assert). --Presearch (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Presearch It's saying "single-author", because you would obviously not mask the other author, because it is not to avoid repeating the author's name. Do you have any other suggestions about how we should avoid repeating the author's name, as MOS:BIBLIO indicates? Because not masking it violates that. There is not a single example in MOS:BIBLIO that lists it.

The reason there is less masking is because most bibliographies do not use citation templates to format them, or when they do, they leave the author name out entirely. If we wanted to just say [book title] (year), then obviously we wouldn't need the author title. For academic works isbns and publishers are more necessary than for novels, so I think the template is a benefit, but also we could just list the titles and years I suppose, with no authors, that would satisfy the MOS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested move of Satanic panic

I wish I'd seen that move request before you withdrew it (technically closed by User:Vpab15). Per step 1 of a move review, I wanted to reopen the move discussion.

Satanic ritual abuse panic adds two words and makes it so we don't have to rewrite the article. That it's a moral panic and conspiracy theory is obvious from then reading the article. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Sartre Bimpson (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sartre Bimpson It would not have a chance, because no one read what I actually wrote, and there is no hope of making them read it. Making people read yet more words has even less of a chance. If you're familiar with the scholarship on the subject the current article title versus its content is nonsensical but to vote in a RM you do not have to be familiar with the subject at all. It would probably be more realistic to just replace the content on satanic ritual abuse (the entire article) with the stuff on actual scope of the article (which would be replacing 80% of the article) - this is ridiculous but that's what the people in that discussion said to do, not that I think they realize what that's actually asking for, but oh well. Hence why it is tagged. I will probably end up doing this. As much as the current title annoys me, I advise you not to waste your time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey now, it's all a waste of time. :-) But point taken.

I worry that replacing content would feed Dimadick's concerns about the deletion of necessary material, at least as much as splitting off the article would. In losing that option, we are forced to choose between a long article with narrow focus, and a really long article of kaleidoscopic scope. I'll help out with the existing article then. Sartre Bimpson (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sartre Bimpson The people opposing in that discussion were arguing that the current article was actually about the "satanic panic". Alright, fine by me, but if it's an article on the "satanic panic", as was argued - then none of that material is necessary, because it's about 1 singular facet of the satanic panic. It's like having an article titled "Christianity" that is a solely an 8000-word history of Catholicism in 17th-century Ireland and Nothing Else. I mean, yeah, it's "about" it, but...no. To fix that, you'll have to cut most of it. Now, I don't think anyone answering that actually thought it through, but oh well, it fixes the issue. I'd prefer we rename it, that would be so much easier, but people want the worse option, and at least that would fix it, even if it's harder, so ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Les Marges du christianisme is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Les Marges du christianisme 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 Choucas -- Choucas (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Dan Burros

If my edit to this was "bad" then why is the comparable edit in Frank Collin allowed? If you're going to trash other editor's efforts, at least be consistent. For the record, I feel your revert is unjustified. CueBallWhisperer (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:SEEALSO is optional - usually as articles are developed they are removed. They are not helpful on well developed articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Cherry picking from a myriad of rules to suit your goal. Got it. This is one of a slew of reasons why wiki usage and editing is nose diving and why it has so much trouble recruiting and retaining editors. I'm sure you're proud of contributing to that collapse. I've also seen how established editors and admins get preferential treatment. All of this is so blatantly obvious. CueBallWhisperer (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Is linking to the entire set of rules on see also links "cherry-picking"? See also links are not useful for well developed articles. There is no reason to add it.

If Wikipedia editing is nosediving, it is not because of see also sections. We could delete every see also section and it wouldn't make a difference. If anything is, it's AI and political polarization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes and Yes. And thanks for proving you're a hyprocrite. CueBallWhisperer (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I think I've proven myself plenty. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Only in the way I said. Bye. CueBallWhisperer (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The discussion concerns Template talk:Gaza genocide sidebar#List of BIDI removals - examine. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Aubagne shooting in the TCC wiki page

The Aubagne shooting is the first ever OFFICIALLY, BY A COUNTRIES JUDICIARY designated TCC related shooting, there have been MANY shootings which were done by people from TCC, but they were always just designated homicide or terrorism by other countries while THIS ONE was specifically mentioned as done BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE TCC Fade00000 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/10/15/school-shooting-near-marseille-becomes-first-terror-case-officially-linked-to-true-crime-community-in-france_6758631_7.html

"In a statement on Wednesday, the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor's Office (PNAT) justified opening the investigation by citing the suspect's "probable adherence" to the True Crime Community (TCC)." Fade00000 (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Fade00000 The source says the first case in France - not outside of France. If we're going to be doing WP:OR, that is simply not true. Russia has designated many such cases in the past 4 years, because that is the only country where the TCC is actually designated as a terrorist group. And again - the source says in France. And also it is not a terrorist designation. That is a specific thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Russia never designated TCC as a terrorist group, give me sources as to what you are saying. They did ban "columbiners", but there is a distinction between them. All the TCC related attacks were called homicide or related to other groups, not the TCC Fade00000 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The "Columbine fandom" is what developed into the TCC/ what it used to be called before it was called the TCC. As our article on it currently states. The article that you are citing conflates the Columbine fandom with the TCC, and cites older TCC/Columbiner crimes in France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Russia only legally banned the "Columbine Movement" in 2022, whereas France's judiciary is the first in history to officially name and prosecute the broader TCC subculture as a distinct terrorist ideology, TCC focuses on many stuff, not only school shooters, but also mass shooters and even serial killers in general. The TCC is only an offshoot from the columbiners who specifically focused on columbine, not homicide attacks in general. Fade00000 (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

"officially name and prosecute the broader TCC subculture" is not what the source says, and the source does not identify France as the first in history to do so. WP:Original research.

Columbiners were also focused on broader school shooters, yeah. E.g. Adam Lanza (and the whole "Shocked Beyond Belief" forum) was a "Columbiner" and at the time but he was interested very broadly in mass murderers. These were not separate categories at the time. The source that you are citing identifies these previous cases as "TCC" crimes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

TCC is an offshoot from the columbiners and has developed its own community and other stuff, the wikipedia page is specifically about TCC not the columbiners. You can do some research and see that no other country has designated specifically the TCC (not the columbiners) as a terrorist group and attack done by a TCC affiliated person. If you find any attack that was officially designated by a country as done by specifically the TCC then give a source here. It's the first ever in France and globally. Fade00000 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The page is about both the TCC and the Columbiners, because sources say the "Columbine movement" evolved into the TCC.

"You can do some research" - sure, and neither of us can put it in any articles, because WP:Original research is forbidden. You have no source that says what you added. You cannot infer things or say anything that has not been previously published in a source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Death Sourcing

While putting off getting out of bed today, I’ve wound up going on a whistlestop tour of your discussions about having to pretend that certain figures are still alive because their death was never properly reported. I thought you might find it amusing that I’ve run into the same situation with a chimp. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear lol. That is amusing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall...

In case you're not aware, your participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura June Kirsch is discussed in The Rise and Fall of My Wikipedia Page (sign-in required, but you can use a throw-away address). I'd be interested to know if you were contacted for comment before it was published? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I was not contacted. Thanks for informing me (I am always interested in people talking about me).

Typical unfamiliarity with Wikipedia notability standards. Funnily enough, I'm a woman, which sort of negates her whole point, lol. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I would urge you to contact them (see footer of their home page), point that out and ask for a correction to be published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

In response to my e-mailed complaint, the piece has now been re-written, with an appended "editor's note":

An earlier version of this article misrepresented the user commentary on the Wikipedia deletion page. It has been updated with accurate details of the discussion, and we regret the error.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Finding sources

You mentioned on an article's talk page that you are good at finding sources. I was wondering if you had any recommended search engines/tools/tips for finding quality sources. At this point I just hop between mainstream search engines, Google Scholar, and newspapers.com. No pressure to respond if you haven't the time; I was just curious. Sartre Bimpson (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sartre Bimpson Once you get to 500 edits (and six months I think) you have access to the Wikipedia library which gives you a lot more stuff. What is most useful depends on the topic. Newspapers.com is fantastic, Gale can be useful, proquest is very useful especially for book reviews, ebsco depends. I use Archive.org a lot but there's a lot of different kinds of stuff in there, much of which is dubious, and also you're locked out of searching for a lot of it unless you have certain permissions. Google Books is great when it decides to work that day. More specific newspaper archives are useful - e.g. for one example E-newspaperarchives.ch and Scriptorium (website) are very useful if you're working on Switzerland (especially Francophone Switzerland), so if you're working on anything regional it's good to check out if there's an applicable free newspaper archive online. U.S. states have a lot. For example, for a Jewish activist in Kansas City, I found out there was a small archive of Kansas City Jewish papers, which had a lot of more detailed coverage on the guy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

I mentioned you here: . Just letting you know in case the ping fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Neuilly kindergarten hostage crisis

A new page Захват заложников в Нёйи on the Russian Wikipedia has been linked to the page Neuilly kindergarten hostage crisis, which you created, via Wikidata (Q3403798). NervousBot (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

You will not be notified about future links to pages you created. To opt in to these notifications, follow the opt-in instructions.

Thanks for input

You may or may not remember but I said your username seemed familiar. @Simonm223 told me you were a solid editor. I been meaning to tell you this but I just figured out where I first know you from. It was from when you replied to me in my thread on RS noticeboard and I thanked you for it. And thank you for replying on ANI today - which I know isn't an endorsement of me but it was relatively fair on the background.

The reason I turned to AI was to verify a paywalled quotation provided by this group, which I suspected, based on previous bad experience, was being misused. At least I can be reasoned with. Once I realized it was wrong, I stopped and reverted myself. After that, I will only use sources after I verified it personally as I can't trust Gemini to verify reliably. But this group of editors are considerably less willing to be reasoned with and make the experience of addressing misinformation unnecessarily frustrating.

Since this is already a topic in ANI, should I ask that most of the group of pro-Falun Gong editors be seriously considered for a topic ban from Falun Gong, on the basis of said bad experience where they collectively defended demonstrable falsehoods?

Ie, the article once attributed to Ownby that Li often calls modern science as limited and that modern science community is ignorant and also at the same time, Li doesn't make an "explicitly antiscientific or antimodern message". It should be apparent to any neutral editor that such a statement is odd as it seemingly contradicts itself.

If you are familiar with FG, the bolded part is an incredible falsehood given many scholars have covered how Li often very explicitly criticise modern science as bad and claims it, along with modernity, is contributing to the fall of mankind.

So I raised it on talk, and said Ownby seems like a bad source. Then I later raised it on RS noticeboard (same one you replied to) where different editors from this group kept responding to me in rotation and won't acknowledge the statement was inaccurate. One of them, probably by impulsive mistake, eventually supplied the full quote from Ownby, decisively demonstrating that Ownby has never actually said made that statement attributed to him.

Turns out my suspicion was justified and initially I said it was prob a good faith error that some editor misquoted Ownby but one later replied and smeared me of having no purpose when I corrected their misinformation. The dispute alone should prove that rather than acknowledge and correct a demonstrable error, these editors instead collectively defended it in rotation and questioned the motives of the person challenging it. This makes it very difficult to address misinformation and raises concerns whether they are here to build an Encyclopedia. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie AI can be useful in certain ways, sure, but asking it for a quote and using that when you personally have not verified it is not one of them. I am perhaps touchier on this than most, because one time a guy asked Gemini about the sourcing on an article topic I had written and it made everything up and then they argued based on sources that did not say what they were citing them for and it was a whole mess at ANI. See . Bad idea. I understand why you did it and I don't think this is an egregious case where you need some sanction but I am just saying. Do not do it again. It will not go well for you.

If you are looking for a topic ban for anyone, I'd advise waiting a bit, because currently the heat is on you, and since I think you are a good editor on this topic I do not want you to risk a WP:BOOMERANG. If you do think some editors need a topic ban, I would focus on collecting evidence of their behavior rather than their point of view, as focusing on that might backfire. We focus on behavior, not POV. Limit it to those editors who you believe there is evidence that they collectively defended demonstrable falsehoods.

Proving a "demonstrable falsehood" can be harder than it seems because the limits of ambiguity - or maybe they were simply wrong, and believed they were right. I've seen people onwiki take absolutely tortured interpretations of text that seemed absolutely wrong to me, and I don't think they were lying per se. You'd need a broader pattern than that (and I agree that statement was misquoting Ownby), because people are sometimes just really, really wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

Could you suggest some links? I am interested in that re ADL criticism. Thanks.

Also, did anything ever come of bougas? I just saw that at the top here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist Discussed in part in various places, but if you want surface web links: especially this one, see response Discussed also in several books I have. Now, Chip Berlet has been subject to criticism himself but I was mostly trying to make the point that nothing anyone is complaining about is new. Quote from Berlet in George Michael (academic)'s 2003 book:

I co-wrote an op-ed in The New York Times that was critical of the ADL. And I’ve been on the record as having some differences of opinion with a number of the watchdog groups for many years. There are two separate issues. One, is the issue of whether you have a kind of cozy relationship with law enforcement and the other, as in the case of the ADL, where despite their publicity, they were clearly involved in illegally trading information with law enforcement in San Francisco. Although they admitted no wrongdoing, the evidence is quite clear that they did.

And on Bougas, no, he's gone into the long list of racists where the only source saying he's dead is Greg Johnson. In a decade, some academic book will say that he is dead... citing Greg Johnson, of course. I'm in favor of cutting out the middle man in this case (Bougas and Johnson worked together!!! come on!!!) but this was disputed by others, and so we have the status quo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill add to my reading list. Cant say Im a fan of the ADL, so it would be interesting to see older criticism given their vaunted history. And I dont think anyone can really get far in such circles without facing criticism themselves.

Obscure racists perhaps and North Koreans, I think I did find one who would have been well over 120 years old when I was curiously searching months before the NB issue. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I can't say I'm a fan of anyone in this whole area, really. I do think they're very useful and "generally reliable" on some topics so I oppose them being downgraded as a source.

With Americans at least we get death records...eventually. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You are a fantastic writer, writing about all these, to say the least, strange people and organizations. I'm sad to see you go, I hope wherever life takes you, it will be full of joy. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 17:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@XCBRO172 Thank you.

I didn't say I'd go for sure yet, yeah. I'm just really not doing so well at the moment. I hope I don't. This was one of the things that made me happiest to do. But I don't know how everything will turn out.

The thought is appreciated though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar

First off, congrats on 100,000 edits, second, even if you aren't leaving, thank you for all your work. From Kevin Coogan to, Death Scenes 2, to Dreamer or the Day, to James H. Madole, to Nick Bougas, etc. your articles in neo-nazi and literary spectrum are phenomenally detailed. If it weren't for you, the niche would very will still be woefully undeveloped; you are one of a kind. Though we haven't really interacted much recently, but tbh, since I meet you, I've kinda look up to you as a sort of mentor and I'm almost certain others might share that sentiment. I've enjoyed talking with you in the English Wikipedia Discord over the past year or so, and even if you decide to retire don't return to editing, I wish you great luck seeking happiness, wherever life might take you. Thank you, for yearbook photos, for the advice, for the discussions, for everything. Thank you and best wishes to you; hope you feel better soon. ;) Prost, A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@A.Classical-Futurist Thank you. I appreciate that a lot. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm that others do share that sentiment.. PARAKANYAA has been one of my biggest inspirations :) Militant.Insurgency (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2026 (UTC)