User talk:PARAKANYAA

There is a specific subgroup for "designated". That is a relatively recent system, but there's about 100 years of historical groups that are consistently described as terrorists or terror groups that pre-date the current ubiquitous use of and commentary on that system. If you disagree with historical groups being in these categories, most of them already were, please ping me in a discussion on the relevant "category talk:" page. Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee MOS:TERRORIST. We do not describe groups or people in wikivoice as terrorists, for the same reason we do not describe people as "evil" in wikivoice even if RS do. We do not describe Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group, or ISIS. There is a reason we do not have group categories, so you can't just go around that by putting the groups in the higher level categories that have the same issue. Do not add groups to these categories. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Describing them as terrorist in wikivoice isn't dependent on designation. It's dependent on how they are described in balanced reliable sources in English. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Describing them as designated terrorist is not wikivoice, it's not calling them terrorist it's quoting the notable biased source that made the designation. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, read MOS:TERRORIST. Even if they are described, we have to attribute it, always. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a closer look at other category names and I see what you mean now. I'll change the way I label people and groups. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

But if the problem is people and groups, why did you react so negatively to the template that only has events and broad ideologies? Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee My gripe with the template is due to a variety of factors. for extremely broad topic of "right-wing terrorism" is, while acceptable to label incidents in their own articles, where it can be explained and qualified, it is poorly suited to a navbox, which 1) have no explanataion or qualification 2) supposed to be closely related and replace see also sections. The entire category of right-wing terrorism is not closely related. That's most terrorist attacks.

Also, many of the incidents were not called "right-wing terrorism", you were extrapolating your own definition of right-wing - for example, why wouldn't it include Islamist acts of terror? Radical Islam is generally considered right wing. It's not like it's excluding religion, you were putting Christian attacks in there. This definitional issue is also another problem for the template - topics where the definition is contested are almost always poor choices for black and white yes/no inclusions like templates. Also, I am generally an opponent of overbroad templates. We have a plethora of overlapping, extremely badly maintained navboxes and sidebars and I am an opponent of there being more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: "...they never edited the template..." but the template is based on categories pages were in, so if you tell me which editor it was I can prioritise checking pages they edited. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"those two are disproportionately represented" that's true, but only because the template is new and not yet comprehensive. But they are still not "most" of the template. The issue is mostly that others are missing. I started by adding things from the pages about Australia, which I was already working on, this included Croatian nationalists.

I intend to make it comprehensive. if it gets too big I'll break it into eras like others are:

• {{Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1950s}} to {{Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2020s}}, but without the unconventional formatting used in those.
• {{Mass shootings in the United States in the 1980s and before}}, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and {{Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s}}.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Can you give examples of "Christian attacks" that I have included that should not be included? Nothing currently there is something I would call "Christian terrorism". I really don't know what you are referring to, so please be more specific. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I included four attacks by Ulster unionists because I found them in the right-wing terrorism tree. Possibly they should not have been there? If there's a reason to remove them, they can be removed. I can't find anything else that could be "Christian attacks"? Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I included anti-abortion violence in the topics, but no attacks. Is that what you mean? Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee Centennial Olympic Park bombing - the infobox says far-right terrorism but it is entirely uncited, the only part that is cited and discussed in the article is extremist Christianity. 1992 Copenhagen bombing is included despite only being "suspected". And as you said the Ulster unionist incidents aren't best described as this at all. Or the Croatian Six. No clue why Tanjung Priok massacre is included. Or 1989 Kandy massacre. Only a few of what I checked.

The vast majority of this template is specific instances of nationalist terrorism (mostly Croatia and Turkey, which are not commonly grouped together). I just do not think it is useful to group these together under this broad banner, especially since the articles do not describe them as "right-wing terrorism". There are many hundreds of nationalist causes. They aren't closely related. This is not a cohesive navbox topic.

Most of the terrorism categories are bad so duplicating it will result in mirroring their problems. There was one editor specifically (now indeffed) who messed up the whole tree and it still needs to be fixed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA are those examples of Christian terrorism? Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not "mostly Croatia and Turkey". Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Who was the "one editor" so I can check for their recent edits? Late Night Coffee (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The first article I linked was. Then you have the examples where right-wing isn't given as a motive, or it's inconclusive, e.g. Stockton schoolyard shooting, or the Battle of Bab El Oued, which is a battle, or Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom, which is not described as a terrorist attack, and so on, and so on.

I said of the instances of nationalist terrorism those two are disproportionately represented. My general point is the template is a hodgepodge of barely related elements.

Well, they never edited the template, so nothing to check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Stockton schoolyard shooting looks like a white supremacist terror attack, but possibly needs better sources to include. You can remove it till I find some.

The other two possibly don't belong. If you don't think they should be there, just remove them. The point of a Wiki is that we can work collaboratively and improve each other's work.

I included Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom because it includes a non-state militant group. I found Battle of Bab El Oued in the categories but that is the same.

That's the way battles including 21st-century non-state armed groups are treated, e.g. List of Islamist terrorist attacks includes 2014 Grozny clashes. This is not uncommon. This is the typical usage on hundreds of Wikipedia pages. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you object to including Centennial Olympic Park bombing, or were you just giving it as an example of a Christian attacker? Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a closer look at that page, and the attacker, Eric Rudolph, it belongs in the right-wing terrorism topic. It's included in this overview of right-wing terrorism from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.^[1]

Quotes from before I made any changes:

Bombing: Centennial Olympic Park bombing

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a pipe bombing attack on Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Georgia, United States, on July 27, 1996, during the Summer Olympics. The blast directly killed one person and injured 111 others; another person later died of a heart attack. It was the first of four bombings committed by Eric Rudolph in a domestic terrorist campaign against the U.S. government which he accused of championing "the ideals of global socialism" and "abortion on demand".^[2][3]

Bomber Eric Rudolph:

Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American domestic terrorist convicted of a series of bombings across the Southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 100 others,^[4][5] including the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. His stated motive was opposition to "the ideals of global socialism" and "abortion on demand", both of which he claimed were condoned by the United States government.^[6]

Eric Rudolph § Motivations:

After Rudolph's arrest for the bombings, The Washington Post reported that the FBI considered Rudolph to have "had a long association with the Christian Identity movement, which asserts that Northern European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God's chosen people."^[7] Christian Identity is a white supremacist movement which holds the view that those who are not white Christians cannot be saved.^[8]

He's delusional for thinking the US or a "global" conspiracy support socialism, but opposition to socialism is an unambiguously right-wing position. Christian Identity is not just "Christian" it's a fringe movement associated with the far-right, read the page. But this isn't just my assessment, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing is included in that overview of right-wing terrorism I showed above.^[1] Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If the article does not support it and you have to click to another article to see why something is in the navbox, it should not be in the navbox. It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't, it matters what the article currently says, or it is unsourced. Unless the article currently describes it as that thing, it should not be in categories, navigation, etc, whether related articles do or not!

And yes, plenty of Islamist attackers believe similar things - what I am trying to illustrate to you is, why are we putting extremist Christians in this navbox, when we are not putting extremist Muslims in the navbox? Are you arguing that Islamist terrorism is not "right wing"? If so, why is Christian terrorism? Note that none of the descriptors you highlight say "right-wing"; and no, opposition to socialism is not an unambiguously right-wing position. You cannot extrapolate from the motive yourself to form your own classifications, this is WP:OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, The quotes above, before I added anything, already call it a domestic terror attack, and described an unambiguously right wing ideology. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It does not at any point say "right-wing". To describe it as "right-wing" you must have a source in the article that calls it "right-wing". Extrapolating from anything else is OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This source, I showed you twice already.

• Blair, Charles P. (9 June 2014). "Looking clearly at right-wing terrorism". thebulletin.org. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Archived from the original on 2019-07-23.

It's listed in that. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The military and the far right. Throughout the history of US far-right extremism, many of its most influential and infamous members have had ties to the military.... Army of God adherent and Centennial Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf was an Army veteran.

You need to read a few paragraphs of context, but it's there. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a quote from the source above. There will probably be others, that's just what I found first. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Quote from a CNN news report.

...a far right-wing extremist and anti-abortion, anti-gay terrorist named Eric Rudolph was identified as the real culprit in the Centennial Park bombing.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Here's a source from The New Yorker calling him far-right. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It's just knowing what words mean. Socialism is left-wing, opposing it is right-wing. They're relative terms.

Also, I added a source that describes it in the exact words "right-wing terrorism".

"...you have to click to another article to see why something is in the navbox..."

It being right-wing terrorism was already on the page. I suggested you read the Christian Identity page because of your side track about him being Christian. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Not how this works. Is an anarchist who opposes socialism right-wing? Is a liberal? You cannot extrapolate these things to say statements that are not in the sources. Why not put all Islamist extremists, by this logic? This approach is original research.

After you added it to the navbox.

No, it was not in the article sourced, not on the article you put in the navbox. I know what Christian Identity is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Many anarchists identity as socialists. They regard anarchists who oppose socialism as "ancaps" and consider them right-wing. If you want to include Anarchist attacks we can discuss them on a case by case basis. Hypotheticals are not useful. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally consider liberalism right wing, but unless you can find a real example of a "liberal terrorist attack" this isn't relevant. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are you so keen on labelling Islamism right-wing? Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hypotheticals are useful because if we're deciding on our own on what to put in this category then seeing what you object to putting in the category makes some things clearer. You have decided that we can cherry pick what can be in this category - and many anarchists do, but some don't identify as socialists either. But is a non-socialist, non-uncap anarchist a "right-wing" criticism? No. You 'cannot extrapolate to get information that no sources do not say, this is OR. If this is your approach to categories I find it concerning.

Because logically how is it not? Right-wing politics, if it has any definition, is about hierarchy. Few ideologies are more hierarchical than radical Islam. When applied to the left-right political spectrum, Islamism is considered right-wing. Why are you insistent on it not being included? What is your source for that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for weighing in on the BLP discussion about Vinay Prasad. Personally I think policy still demands removal of the material, but I doubt that any BLPREMOVE wouldn't simply be reverted again. I wanted to ask your advice about what you think should happen - is it worth just removing it again and returning to the article talk page if necessary? Going back to a noticeboard? Or just dropping the stick? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga Maybe a discussion at RSN? If the discussion is about whether the source is an SPS or not in that context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'll do this, though I slightly dread the idea of another noticeboard discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The New Encyclopedia of the Occult 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 LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) 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 LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The New Encyclopedia of the Occult has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The New Encyclopedia of the Occult 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 LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) 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 LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are we encouraging random IP's that seem to think the SPLC is a white supremacist/Nazi organization? Doesn't that seem like inviting disruption to the article? DN (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Darknipples Where have we encouraged anyone? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Darknipples And for what it's worth, unlike Guy Macon, I still think the SPLC is a reliable source. A hill I will die on. But whether they get convicted or not, it is foolish to keep something so significant out of the article, IMO. If they are being unjustly persecuted it is relevant that way too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Well one of them did just try to open a discussion at RSN (edit: to BAN SPLC as a reliable source), and you have taken the position for inclusion despite my instincts telling me it is UNDUE at this point, but as I said before, I'm willing to trust your judgement here. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It was immediately closed, thankfully. Though Guy Macon is also in the "ban SPLC" crowd but we've had that argument about 40 times.

It would be undue to have a whole section but like a sentence cited to AP and the cluster of news sources? Seems due weight to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest has begun! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes. Although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings or prizes.

We are now about a week in, and it's worth sharing some issues we judges have noticed in the past:

• Understandability is extra important for big topics like these. Avoid jargon when possible; give context (and of course, citations), even for things that seem obvious; and always consider the age-old adage from Iridescent: "would a bright 14-year old with no prior knowledge of the topic understand this?"
• The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Instead of asking "what do I want to say in this article", ask yourself: "what do most high-quality, reliable and recent sources say about this topic?"
• Take a global perspective whenever possible. If you're writing about someone from France, consider looking at recent, high-quality sources in French. Amid language barriers, consider the careful use of an online translation tool or *shudder* a language dictionary.
• Plan, plan, plan! Make an outline, a draft TOC, or some kind of gameplan. Big articles are a different beast, and it's worth figuring out structural and logistical aspects early on.

Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, 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) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It is kinda baffling to me that the move was closed as no consensus again. No oppose votes even attempted to argue that this met the requirements of WP:NOYEAR other than say it was unlikely to happen again, pointing to events that are unlikely to recur, but that sentence refers to things such as assassinations, kidnappings, etc. I feel as though if I didn't make such a dumb initial argument the move would've been completed months ago, and a bunch of the initial opposition seemed to stem from me renominating it despite waiting a good amount of time and actually coming forth with a good argument. Raskuly 🐰 00:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Raskuly I'm with you, it feels like no one reads the thing. Enforcing NOYEAR is a mess, because despite the project as a whole coming to conclude over and over (including quite recently) that the guidelines as written are reflective of consensus, people simply do not read WP:NCWWW and act like the event being identifiable from the name doesn't matter, and misunderstand "unlikely to recur". I think with Thousand Oaks it's the mix of it being relatively high fatality but not super well known and well, the failed past move. Sometimes it just happens like that.

I appreciate your work on getting it to be a little bit more consistent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

It was not a topic ban and I've seen no notification that it has increased, please don't misrepresent it. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Were you not topic banned? Reading the WP:ANI thread, I thought you were. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Subject line says it all pretty much, I can't point out anything in particular but you've become an amazing resource. :) NorthTension (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@NorthTension Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

hi, I just translated an article I initially wrote for French Wikipedia about a character you've likely came across through your readings, Frederick Charles Weiss. since I'm a newbie on English Wikipedia and this article touches upon a topic that I think might interest you, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on whether it meets English Wikipedia's standards. GloBoy93 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@GloBoy93 For notability, sure, though I'd try to find more sources that aren't Coogan. Seems fine to me.

I'm writing an article on Kurt Mertig, actually; hope you don't beat me to the punch on that one, haha. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks. to be honest, I was pretty confident about the topic's notability, but I was mainly wondering about the format; since I think that can vary a lot depending on the wiki? I did try to find other sources but didn't have any luck besides Goodrick-Clarke and Lee which weren't as informative as Coogan :/ I wrote this article over a year ago, and I'm not working much on these kinds of topics right now even though I'd like to revisit them eventually, so don't worry about that :p I'd be curious to read that article once you complete it, though GloBoy93 (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@GloBoy93 In terms of format, there is a bit of an issue, but it isn't going to get the page deleted. Enwiki frowns upon small sections. I would collapse the small sections into a few larger ones, and that would be much improved.

Well, if you come back to it, here is quite a bit in this book that is quite recent and a bit in Holocaust Denial As An International Movement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the advice :) I've tweaked it a bit, does it look good to you? thanks also for the source (no wonder I didn't come across it, it hadn’t been published yet when I first wrote this article :p), I’ll take a look at it. GloBoy93 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@GloBoy93 Much better, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey PARAKANYAA, as you appear to be the lead editor of George Lincoln Rockwell, I'd like to inform you I nominated the article for VA5. The discussion is at: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 5/People/Authorities and leadership figures#Add George Lincoln Rockwell. Prost, A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	At AfD you have the patience of a saint. Thank you for being civil and dealing with everything. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the sentiment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello PARAKANYAA,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

 Template:Infobox novella has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox book. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:3RR WP:OWN Bueller 007 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bueller 007: You could do likewise. I think you need to put the article to status quo ante bellum and take it to discussion per WP:BRD. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The 3RR has not been crossed and I explained it to you on the talk page. We can't leave material to be unverified; it's not about my preferred version (honestly, I greatly dislike the current version) but about basic content policies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not "unverified". The content of the lede was already fully supported by the content of the Reception section. "Verified" does not mean "has to be present in exactly the same words in the lede that it is in the body". The lede is a *summary*. And yes, the 3RR was crossed. By you. And it's clear that you believe you have ownership over the article, or at least are behaving as if you believe this. The intro to the reception section now contains only an incomplete summary of the reception. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bueller 007 I made 3 reverts. No more, no less. That is not crossing the 3RR.

No, it wasn't, as I explained on talk. Your edit made the majority of that sentence unverifiable - for example, where is "nativist", where is the mention of it being criticized for anti-immigration themes, where is the mention of it being criticized by BOTH French and Anglophone audiences? You removed the citations for this, and the article does not say these things at all, whether in the same language or different language.

It is not ownership to enforce basic WP:V; if you want to remove the sentence from both the lead and the body, feel free, but don't make it unverified in the lead. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I think your last revert of yourself was unnecessary, I thought your changes were beneficial as long as that one sentence was verified, and since you added it back in I did not revert the rest. I agree your organizational changes were improvements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

hey thanks for taking a look at miles yardley page, pretty good stuff, seen you around and you help out. Aradicus (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to respond to this. Yes, I've seen you around too, good work on the pages you edit, though we don't really run in the same circles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Something feels a little off about the AFD, but a bunch of IPs with no ever editing history (or only other history is with James Fishback) are replying keep. Not sure if there's socking going on or not. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 Yeah, for sure. You and the page creator were fine but everything else is a little... odd. I mean, the topic attracts an... interesting audience, so. Not really a surprise to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 Oh hey, I found out why. Canvassing on 4chan /pol/. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA After your message, I decided to see if I could find that thread, and yikes. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Still thinks it meets GNG, but not so sure if I necessarily want this article up if those are the other advocates EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 I would've just done a merge discussion, but since per recent (and imo bad) consensus we do merges at AfD now. And I think it is a fair argument that it passes the GNG, perhaps I was unclear about that, but IMO so narrowly, so controversially, and with so much overlap that per WP:PAGEDECIDE it is best to cover it alongside the broader topic with which it overlap. To quote PAGEDECIDE, "Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic)". But I get where you're coming from.

And yeah, the thing about Nazis is to some degree they kind of relish when we talk about them onwiki, which can make it weird. Of course, I edit a lot about this myself, but it's a weird thing to balance at times. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA That does make sense, and I do see that, but given that it's been covered on different occasions (RFK Jr. in 2024 and Fishback in 2026), that pushes it over the edge for me.

However, the 4chan thread is disconcerting enough that I'm disturbed to be voting alongside them here. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 4chan Meatpuppetry on the AfD for 'Goyslop'.2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jordan Lasker, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Lasker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the Constitution of the Bahamas is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Constitution of the Bahamas is a redlink. And the existing articles Law of the Bahamas and Politics of the Bahamas do not discuss it at all. SVG-image-maker (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@SVG-image-maker I don't know why you're asking me this, but yes. A lot of really obvious and significant topics aren't covered, particularly in non-Western nations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have created a stub article. So far I have found a couple web sources, but most of the "fruitful" sources are likely locked away in paywalled journals. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You can request access to those at WP:RX. Katzrockso (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you please review Draft:System (2026)? I have added multiple reviews. Zne0us Phenix (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Someone else got to it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. I saw that someone else worked on it. But thanks to you for responding. Zne0us Phenix (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for reverting :-) I know no French, so I had no idea that this was a typo. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the typo was my fault in the first place, no worries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Core Contest participants! There is less than one week left until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), so it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set some final goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Hi, I hope all is well. My vacation recently ended, and I'm not doing a summer semester this time, so I have a lot of free time. As a result, I can finally get around to writing some drafts I had sitting around. When I see a topic that I feel might deserve an article, I create little stub drafts like some of these, or I'd get to work on them right away. Some of my drafts I'm very confident in their notability, and others I'm less so. I would like a second opinion about some of them before I invest my effort into them, and I'd really appreciate it if you took a look.

The drafts I have doubts about their notability:

• Draft:Bigham family murders
• Draft:Killing of Ruben Ray Martinez
• Draft:2025 San Juan warehouse shooting

Thank you! Raskuly 🐰 21:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Raskuly Event notability is very inconsistent in how we treat it at AfD, especially with recent events, which can go either way. Sometimes people make articles on flash in the pan things that plainly don't pass NEVENT but they're kept because people just assert they are important, who knows. Things like in depth retrospective news coverage and especially book or academic coverage really help. I tend to be more restrictive than most in the articles I choose to personally write about, though.

The Bigham case seems very notable, there is a full book about it and some very in depth coverage it seems.

For Martinez article, if that was all there is I would not make the article, as the coverage appears to be only a few weeks. That's more a fleeting story than an encyclopedic topic, it would be better to cover it in a different article.

The 2025 one is hard to tell, it might be, but when cases are recent it is hard to tell. El Vocero is Puerto Rico's largest newspaper IIRC and coverage from them a year out is a pretty decent notability sign, but I might want more in depth coverage.

So 1. probably yes 2. probably no. 3. maybe PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Raskuly I'm an idiot, I misread the date in the lead for the second one. I would go with a maybe, because the actual coverage cycle is only a few weeks, but interestingly it was a while after it happened. And the coverage is from pretty substantial outlets. But still, it seems to only be discussed in connection with the other case. I would say it probably survives AfD though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The alleged notability for the Martinez article is a result of the nearly year later revelation that ICE agents were involved in his death and the coverage that followed. I feared that if it were published after being written there would be a very solid chance that it would be put up to be redirected to Deportations of U.S. citizens in the second Trump administration#Ruben Ray Martinez or List of shootings by U.S. immigration agents in the second Trump administration, but I'll get to work on it soon since you believe that it might survive that process if published. Raskuly 🐰 21:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I say probably, from what I know of voting patterns at AfD, so no guarantees. But good luck. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes and taking a look at those drafts for me. Raskuly 🐰 22:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

I notice you edit a lot of Atomwaffen Division-related articles and was wondering if you are interested in this draft? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Militant.Insurgency It's interesting, and should have an article. But wouldn't it more appropriately be titled [Murder of [...]]? I find internal conflict to be a bit misleading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Murder of would result in a longer title because it was 2 people. What about 2017 Tampa shooting? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

On second thought I do actually like the [Murder of [...]] title, I went ahead and moved it. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a better title. As is the relevant information only resides on the List of Atomwaffen Division members in the United States who faced criminal charges, which isn't great because it was the inciting incident for many things. All of our articles on AWD stuff are organized badly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is true. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to make an article on Denton at one point, because someone I know wants me to and because I wrote the Sutter article. Russell's is pretty bad too, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Denton could definitely have an article, he has had very consistent coverage. I would be glad to help if you do! Militant.Insurgency (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Check BOP inmate locator, he's at Cumberland FCI now not Marion anymore. You reverted a good edit. ~2026-35727-91 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I reverted because the IP seemed to have a personal dislike of the author's political/religious views, which is not a good reason to remove a source. Thomas Nelson Publishers is a reputable publisher. It is not a big deal for me of the author's religious/political views, but the information is quite relevant information for the page. Maybe reconsider the removal? Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

From the description of the book on salesfronts I remain unconvinced that this is a reliable source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's me again. Did you misreasd "countercult movement" as "counter-culture movement"? Or perhaps a typo on your end in your edit explanation? Mikeatnip (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I corrected that in the next edit summary . Ah, autocorrect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir No worries, I've done it myself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to come here and say that while I disagree with your assessment of that TFD, I still respect the hell out of ya. Really appreciated all your help with {{Infobox book}} & {{Infobox militant organization}}. We may disagree on this one, but don't want that to sour a good thing! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 Don't worry, I understand; I respect you too. Everyone's gonna disagree sometimes... it's part of working with each other. I bear no ill will towards you at all. You do a lot of good work that I appreciate! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As long as in the end you admit defeat and recognize that I'm right and you're wrong, all will be good. Kapesh? ^[sarcasm] Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 Hmmm, I'll think about it :P PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about my wrapper idea? If you like the idea at all, I think I'm gonna withdraw the TFD and pursue that idea instead. Will obviously solicit your feedback on it. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response (was distracted and not checking my pings), responded on template talk. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Well, I'm not going to appeal this, but for reference going forward so this doesn't happen again, which page / aspect of behavior was problematic? This was discussed on talk pages, so I'm not exactly sure what else I should have done. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello PARAKANYAA, the existence of a discussion doesn't justify edit warring by itself. Neither does the removal of BLP violations if the removal is combined with the re-addition of disputed content. For this reason, not only your edits to the articles about CESNUR and Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, but even also your edits to the article about Willy Fautré have been problematic. If there is a dispute and a good reason why content must stay removed while it is under discussion, that can be selectively done with an insistence on WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:3RRNO #7. Performing a full revert is generally not an option in such cases; it is especially not an option just because a different revision has been undisputed for a longer time. Consensus reached through editing ends as soon as the edit is disputed or reverted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Well, I guess I'm just questioning at what point it constitutes edit warring, not that it justifies it. At what point does the normal revert-discussion cycle become edit warring? As said in WP:EDITWAR, "This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". And for a partial revert - sure, but there wasn't any content in that edit (to Fautre) that wasn't a BLP violation. Had there been parts that were, I would have done as you suggested. It's 24 hours, so I am not objecting to the block really, but I am simply confused and do not want this to happen again. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

In all three of the above-linked articles, you have reverted at least once after one of your reverts has been reverted. That has nothing to do with BRD anymore. Regarding Willy Fautré, there was a dispute about whether to describe him as lobbyist or human rights activist, and strictly speaking you have restored the content "human rights activist" against at least one other person's hopefully-good-faith concerns without having found a consensus to do so. If that had been all, I'd have ignored it though. It's just part of the "edit warring in multiple articles" image. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I find that rather confusing, nothing in WP:EDITWAR gave me the indication that that was inherently edit warring. I know that the 3RR is not all that constitutes edit warring, but I feel like if it was any reversion past the first one, editwar would say that it was the 1RR and not say three. Why specify there is a "bright line" at 3RR when the bright line is actually 1? What about the context made it so, here? Or was there some other "bright line" I crossed? But oh well, I'll be more careful going forward.

For that specific edit (and I see your message that it was only one part of a broader pattern that was a problem, fair enough, but I was most concerned about that article so I want to explain) "lobbyist" has a derogatory enough connotation when referring to an academic that I would say inserting it unsourced into the lead of a BLP is a BLPVIO (at least in the context of what was added). PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(There was no one-revert restriction or bright line crossed, just one user reverting another user's good faith contributions across multiple articles and repeating the reverts wherever they were reverted. The matter ended up at the edit warring noticeboard and blocking only one of the edit warring users would have unfairly ignored your avoidable, unnecessary contribution to these edit wars.

Yes, removing without replacement the disputed term "lobbyist" from the first sentence of a living person's biography would have been perfectly fine; that would even have been fine if it had been done ten times in a row.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Like I said at AN3, I have no clue who this guy is and I have no horse in this race. I think I've mostly managed to merge both versions, clean up some puffery, his main description in the lead and other smaller fixes (see the editing history for details I guess). I left out any unsourced additions except one paragraph where a direct quote was not sourced (but the rest of the sentence was), because the source was in French which I can't speak. I also moved the "human rights activist" descriptor out of the lead, because that was sourced to his friend talking about him. I probably should have been more selective in undoing the edit in the first place, but I think I've arrived at an okayish version of the article that incorporates as much of the new additions as I felt comfortable adding back. The article clearly needs more work though. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I wouldn't even call him a human rights activist, that wasn't what I was supporting the inclusion of, but "lobbyist" is wrong. He's a religious studies scholar. I can read French: the La Libre source does not mention Fautre, which is why it was inappropriate to use it to WP:COATRACK information about other people onto his biography. Source 10 also does not mention Fautre. The BBC source, which implicates him in "serious criminal allegations", also does not mention Fautre. My issue with the whole edit was that we are now basing the majority of the article off of sources that don't mention him but which are structured to implicate him in crimes by association. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that about the BBC source. I will have to take another look at this, especially with the BBC source, because my main motivation was to not continue an edit war in slow motion. You're probably right that it doesn't really belong there, it does seem like a coatrack.

I would have preferred to refer to him by his profession or work, but I'm not sure what his profession is and it was a bit conflicting to figure what he actually works for as he was either titled as an editor for the publication in the Infobox (from wikidata, now realising that I forgot to check if there was a source attached) or president (or founder) of the organisation that he founded. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Diff/1362583959

‑‑gurkubondinn 23:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn The issue still remains. What does the above paragraph have to do with it? Neither of the things about Mirre or Noot are verified, for instance. The source about Mirre does not mention either Fautre or Human Rights Without Frontiers Internationa, and the source about Noot does not mention Fautre or Human Rights Without Frontiers International. And for all we know, these could be totally unrelated people, there is no source connecting them to Fautre. This is why I reverted everything, every line has some kind of issue like this. And of those two people being singled out of the dozens listed, it is a very interesting and unexplained choice. But this is a content argument at this point and I'm blocked so I don't see the point of hashing it out here at the current moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that it shouldn't be there. But it isn't implicating him in a crimes and it wasn't a BLP violation as far as I could tell, so I left it there. It just makes it a bad article, it isn't implying criminal misconduct without an RS saying as much. Figured that you or someone else would just clean it up later. My interest was in preventing an edit war from escalating and to keep BLP vios out. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edwin Corley, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulfport was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest are announced 🎉. A huge turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

• First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his dual efforts on Flatbread and Tortilla! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!
• Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs), a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism and Premise—both now GAs (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.
• Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to MCE89 (talk · contribs), whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands article have led to a triumphant FA declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

You should do the same thing you did for the militant infobox. Just look at the Jalisco New Generation Cartel infobox. It has basically the same issue with the allies parameter. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably so, but that was mostly Zackmann, not me. I might try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that back in March 2026 you declined the draft article: Shooting of Liz Barraza. The article has now been moved to the main article space by the original author without any further review. I think the title of the article is inconsistent with the fact that this article is about a killing in what might be a murder-for-hire plot. I have raised my concerns on the article's talk page but thought that I should also give you an opportunity to comment on the article, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

the discussion you were part of last year inspired the deletion of more Thailand-related articles. I’ve noticed the deletion of the page Legend of prince singhanvati which I was using for my link in the page Pu Chao Lao Chok, and I cannot access the pre deleted version.

You mentioned that you’re not familiar with Thai language and want some help cleaning his articles. I’m Thai and had been largely editing Thai history. If you want some help, feel free to let me know! Many obscure pages on Thailand definitely need to be made, as the sheer lack of these caused issues when writing new articles since there’s nothing to link to. ~2026-39045-35 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Just realized I forgot to log in, this is my account. Ubs6u!d-onstory (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ubs6u!d-onstory Hi! Thank you for the notice. The reason their articles were deleted were AI and verifiability issues - they would make articles from AI where none of the sources backed up anything. Well-sourced non-AI articles on such topics are obviously welcome, so feel free to recreate the pages without AI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article A Doomsday Reader 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed your tags on this article. These critiques have already been fully addressed in on the talk page. Please review.JohnKent (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article A Doomsday Reader 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your report! Since we already have a case on that editor, could you either move your text into that case, or give me permission to do so? It'll be easier to deal with that way. M kuhner (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner You can do it (I'd do it but I'm on my phone right now lol). I was wondering if I should or not once I noticed it was duplicated, will do so going forward. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Moved. OMG so many of them this week. M kuhner (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw you reverted my edit on Talk:Ku Klux Klan, which added WikiProjects Christianity and Conservatism to it. For the record, I added those because the group is Protestant-led and far-right, per the article mainspace. You reverted it, saying they weren't in project scope, but I can't find anything regarding the scopes of these projects; at most the "articles related to x" statement found in the introductions of both respective WikiProjects. Do these projects have a defined scope that would exclude the Ku Klux Klan, regardless of it's Christian and conservative aspects? Roast (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Guerreroast I removed Wikiproject Conservatism . The article only mentions conservative politics in passing (and where it appears in the infobox it is uncited); I do not think "conservative" is the word I would use, and the wikiproject's focus is on classical conservative politics, not far right politics. I did not remove Wikiproject Christianity. It is in fact still tagged with WikiProject Christianity? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the Christianity assumption; I saw I added both and that it was afterwards reverted, so assumed you did so for both. I understand and agree with your justification for the Conservatism removal. Have a good one! Roast (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Listen man. After seeing how much the weapons on the Aztec High shooting has been reverted. I kinda wanna find a solution. I have searched police reports but they are kinda conflicting. I wanna find what the weapon is because I feel like "Glock pistol" is a bit too vague. I do have a feeling it is 9mm since the bullets appear to be a 9mm. It could be a G17 or a G34. Possibly even a G45 or a G26. But I don't know. I just wanna fix the constant changes to the weapon name. FirePeashooterWithExtraSauce (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

People make persistently incorrect edits all the time, if no RS includes something then we don't include it. People add things totally unsourced, constantly - just because they do it doesn't mean we give into it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes i know but i saw in some news sources that i was a 9mm. I just want to atleast inform the people on this website or basic readers the exact weapons FirePeashooterWithExtraSauce (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

i am new to wikipedia and i dont know what i am doing. All i really want to do is edit the weapons used in stuff to make it more informative. FirePeashooterWithExtraSauce (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@FirePeashooterWithExtraSauce Things have to be sourced to WP:reliable sources, first and foremost, like news outlets or books. If you can find a news article saying it, sure, but we can't extrapolate to what the model is using what we know, that is WP:original research. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

you are right. I did not really check further into the source. FirePeashooterWithExtraSauce (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As of now there is no reliable source that shows and has proven the weapon is a Glock 19. I have known that you cannot base things on your own research but i was using those as suspicions. I think it is best we leave it at "Glock pistol" or "9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol" because unless there is new reports that have evidence which is highly unlikely as the case was closed years ago and was overshadowed by other shootings. Even though that is most likely a Glock 19 we are not 100 percent sure as no reliable source has shown the specific weapon. All i was able to find was just reddit posts which falls under self published sources. So yea. FirePeashooterWithExtraSauce (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It's fine to have your own conclusions but yes, as you note, without sources we cannot put it in the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wish police would research it like they did with the famous ones that followed. I find it quite weird that the reports were quite vague mostly. All it really says is just that the guy walked in pretending to be a student and just pulled out a gun in the bathroom. No evidence as to how the gunman moved through or even shared CCTV like with the other ones FirePeashooterWithExtraSauce (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I properly correct Sven Liebich's pronouns and identity? Floraracine (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Floraracine MOS:GENDERID is non-negotiable, whatever gender anyone says they are, we say they are; whether it is real (and how are we supposed to judge that?) or not. I would comment at the WP:ANI discussion if I were you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

And say what? Floraracine (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Floraracine To address what has been said about you? WP:Edit warring is not seen favorably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Floraracine (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)