Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I just looked overAssassination of George Lincoln Rockwell, and it's fantastic. Nice work!Rjjiii (talk)03:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii Thank you very much!PARAKANYAA (talk)05:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noted your commentAnd our coverage of books is abysmal; most books people use as sources or in bibliography listings are notable, they just don't have articles yet, because our coverage is terrible at the bibliographies discussion with interest. Because I too think that our coverage of books is not great. I wondered if you had any insight into whether it's possible to query within CS1 or CS2 templates to get the titles of books that are used in citations, so that one might chip away to make articles for notable books that are often cited. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)20:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog I have no clue how citation templates work or how to query them, I'm afraid. I would refer you to someone more technically inclined. But on topic areas I'm personally interested in I just write articles on ones that are cited a lot after I notice them.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll keep looking. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)21:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On9 November 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleAssassination of George Lincoln Rockwell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that, after theassassination of George Lincoln Rockwell,his father said that he was "not surprised at all"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell), and the hook may be added tothe 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 tonominate it.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk)00:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 21,410 views (892.1 per hour), making it one of themost viewed hooks of November 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk •contribs) (he/it)03:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your absolutely fantastic work onAssassination of George Lincoln Rockwell. Great stuff!—Fortuna,imperatrix14:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!PARAKANYAA (talk)19:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1! Really interesting, well written article. (Also gives a really interesting contrast in this month's top 5 articles over a DYK stats so far!)07:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋07:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no success with my attempt to make contact with the DC Saint Germain group to ask about the French connection. However, I noticed you were the nominator behind the excellent GA onAssassination of George Lincoln Rockwell. I'm in the area of the assassination (a friend lives directly above it), and I'd be glad to snap a photo of the present site if you think it'd be worthwhile. The area has change substantially over the last 20 years, so it doesn't look much like it did. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)16:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti Thanks for trying, anyway. I'll try to research more into that myself, I have a lot of books that mention it and maybe one will give a clue.

I think it would be worthwhile, but I hope it wouldn't be too much of a hassle. Even if the present area looks different it is certainly noteworthy. Thanks!PARAKANYAA (talk)21:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On13 November 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleJoseph Tommasi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thata neo-Nazi was offered $5,000 byRichard Nixon's election fundraising group for his participation in a scheme to help Nixon's campaign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Joseph Tommasi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Joseph Tommasi), and the hook may be added tothe 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 tonominate it.

♠PMC♠(talk)00:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On18 November 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleRants and Incendiary Tracts, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thata 1989 anthology of rants includes the works of left-wing and anarchist activists, far-right writers, and a murderer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Rants and Incendiary Tracts. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Rants and Incendiary Tracts), and the hook may be added tothe 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 tonominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk)00:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,695 views (654.0 per hour), making it one of themost viewed hooks of November 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk •contribs) (he/it)03:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am standing on a soapbox in pure fury and rage that you recreated such an incredible and well researched article instead of letting it languish in the dustbin of history like so many others. I remain as ever yours in 300 tabs open and three sandboxes of unfished articles of pure jealousy,No Swan So Fine (talk)20:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine Thanks. And believe me, I too have a boatload of unfinished drafts, though I keep mine in txt files, mostly.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PARAKANYAA:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding amonth longBacklog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is toreduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.

You may findCategory:AfC pending submissions by age orother categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help!

// hekatlys [talk]17:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you modify redirectSpiritual abuse to point to the relevant section (Religious abuse § Spiritual)? Thanks. --~2025-36769-92 (talk)08:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-36769-92 Sure.PARAKANYAA (talk)08:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is this supposed to mean, two minutes after the article was created?[1]Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk)22:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus Left a message on the talk page before you commented. And I responded so fast because your article linked 3 articles I made! I get a notification from that. I have read the sources cited, they do not mention Ivan.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He sent me a signed copy of his book. Thanks for fixing that.Doug Wellertalk20:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Ooh, nice. I was just looking at it because it covers the rather bizarre bookThe Morning of the Magicians. Good job on that article, by the way, seems like a book I should read sometime.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely worth reading. He is really nice He remarried at his advanced age of seventy-something and has two lovely, really cute and very funny children. I follow his Facebook page.Doug Wellertalk10:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To quench your worries inContactees. What is for sure is that contactees don’t have other contactees inside of them.ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk)04:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy I don't care enough to argue about this and the current phrasing is satisfactory, so okay, but I do not understand how you are getting that from what was there before. Include can also mean "part of a group". It does not always mean "inside of". So the meaning is obviously "[The set] includes".PARAKANYAA (talk)04:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It’s a set theory problem: using the same word to refer to the set and also to the members of the set constitutes equivocation. I know it’s common English. You have it in your User Page (it seems your interests include interests), but it’s logically wrong. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk)04:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have my questions about that but I know nothing about the subject so can't really argue either way. This aside, now that I think about it the sentence is entirely superfluous because the heading already sets out that it is a list. I assume it is there to dissuade people from adding non-prominent entries but that hasn't even worked and we're just defining prominent as "notable" anyway.PARAKANYAA (talk)04:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I agree: your latest edition is actually better. A simple way to see in natural language that you can’t use just the same word for both things (so you can tell everybody, haha!) is the following: consider the phrase “The set of All sports includes football”. That’s obviously true and correct. Now just say “All sports include football”. That’s obviously false and incorrect, for example Olympic swimming doesn’t include any football. So you needed to say “the set of” to name the set itself something different from its elements/members. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk)12:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Parakanyaa,

Does your user name have anything to do with the ancient language ofSanskrit?Kvinnen (talk)16:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvinnen No, it does not, though a few people have informed me that it is close to a word in Sanskrit before.

The origin of my username is this: most of my usernames are based on whatever I was thinking about when I made the account. When I made this account I was, for some reason now lost to me, thinking aboutparakeets. Parakeets, parak…, made the last part up off the top of my head based on what I thought sounded nice, parakanyaa. I also liked the meaning of “para-“ as a prefix meaning other/beside/abnormal, e.g. parapsychology or paranormal.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful nonetheless.Kvinnen (talk)18:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Parakanyaa, thanks for your offer on the help page[2]. I'm not sure if you saw my reply but I'd be very grateful if you could upload the picture for me. I have tried and just couldn't work out what to do! Thanks so much,Stronach (talk)10:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StronachFile:John Everett Millais - James Wyatt and His Granddaughter Mary.jpg voilaPARAKANYAA (talk)11:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it.Stronach (talk)11:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stronach Anytime. I like uploading free images.PARAKANYAA (talk)11:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good to know - I might well take you up on that! Thanks againStronach (talk)11:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PARAKANYAA: Enjoy theholiday season andwinter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)16:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, happy holidays to you as well.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PARAKANYAA. Per your request, your account has beengrantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals usingtemporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that isonly to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed atFoundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Accessmust not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or moreIP addresses (using theCIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visitingSpecial:Preferences. Happy editing!Sohom (talk)18:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that youoften edit without using anedit summary. Please do your best toalways fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box inyour preferences. Thanks! –Jonesey95 (talk)17:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I labeled your edit atTalk:Nicholas Godejohn as "disruptive" because you broke a template and removed a bunch of valid parameters without leaving an edit summary. If you had explained your edits, I probably would have just fixed the template that you broke. Please use Preview, check your edits after publishing, or both. –Jonesey95 (talk)17:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that happening and thought I fixed it. Whoops. And usually if someone has the talk page watched they'll have the main page watched as well, where I did leave an edit summary, so my rationale was that they were explained together, but I will be more careful. My bad!PARAKANYAA (talk)18:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your self-declared interests on Wikipedia is the fringe, broadly construed; and soYakub (Nation of Islam) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) fits right in that category (this joke will fit well considering thatWP:CATEGORIES are what our "friend" loved doing). So you probably know thatGettingSwole (talk ·contribs ·count ·logs ·page moves ·block log) is one of thebiggest contributors to the article recently (see his percentage in authorship attribution –21.6%) which is the second-most edits made, second to you. Well, you should be obliged to know (and you probably already know the following because you have engaged on GS' talkpage) that he was revealed to be a sockpuppet ofMagicatthemovieS (talk ·contribs ·count ·logs ·page moves ·block log) and this finding of fact is only substantiated by the stake his sockmaster account had (0.4%) on the same page. All of this to say, you are free by the processes ofWP:BANREVERT to judiciously remove any contribution ofGettingSwole on theYakub (Nation of Islam) because he hasnow told that he was acting as a disruptive sock right from the beginning (few believed the account was compromised in the ANI thread).

SPICasepage implicating GettingSwole (archived):Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagicatthemovieS/Archive § 17 November 2025
ANI case (archived):Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193 § Possibly hacked editor?~2025-39435-67 (talk)12:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39435-67 I am aware of this whole thing, I found it very bizarre. I guessed GS was a sock of somebody or a clean start account from the get go because of the way they edited but I didn't have any actual evidence of who and their edits seemed fine. And reading the SPI page, I don't think the goal of the second account was to be disruptive, as the first one they were apparently aiming to get blocked because they were spending too much time on this. There weresurely better ways to accomplish this, but given the reasons for the block was that the admin believed their account to be compromised, I don't think removing their edits is super high priority, though someone could if they wanted to... I will probably take the Yakub article to GA at some point myself if no one beats me to it, which will likely involve refactoring most of that, yes. In the meantime I might remove or trim some of it (it's mostly fine but imo has a long way to go to GA).PARAKANYAA (talk)20:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there are a lot of questionable sources which he has included; for e.g, the entire "ironic right-winginternet memes" sourcing was mostly on the following single blog:
Knight, Michael Muhammad (2025-01-29)."Louisville School Shooter's Social Media Presence Reveals Online Right's Fascination With Nation of Islam Lore".Religion Dispatches., where I cannot tell the reliability of or how independent thisReligion Dispatches website is from the little dubious information I can even gather about the website itself (in the citation template it's given as a{{cite news}} which is misleading at the very least). It's ultimately on your court since you are one of the major contributors to it and I mostly agree that it needs a rewrite/revision, just wanted to give you a notice because 21.6% is a huge stake in an article consideringWP:BMB and the maliciousness of the edits made before contravention of said block. Though I will agree with you that his funny reasoning for going on a vandalism spree because he spent too much time on this website is relatable and at the very least understandable, resulting in most simply suspecting he was compromised; what matters is that he was forthright about what he did, but there were surely better ways to accomplish this as you insinuate.~2025-39704-27 (talk)20:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly too much to that 1 source, but Knight is fine, he is a respected academic who was already cited in the article before GS stepped in (he wrote the "I am Sorry, Mr. White Man, These are Secrets that You are Not Permitted to Learn": The Supreme Wisdom Lessons and Problem Book" piece inCorrespondences, which is one of the big western esotericism academic journals), and has already written a full book on similar matters published by a university press.Religion Dispatches is a decent outlet though a rather niche one. Probably worth a paragraph or so, so I might trim it a little. So that source is OK but we are probably overusing it.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it a bit. May trim more going forward.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a source for "We don't put italics inside of these templates unless it's the titles. Certainly not for volume/issue numbers"? You did not include any in your Edit summary. Thanks!ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk)19:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophyHelp:Citation Style 1 "volume [...] This field is displayed in bold after the title and series parameters."

"issue [...] When the source is part of a series that is published periodically. Alias: number. When the issue has a special title of its own, this may be given, in italics, along with the issue number, e.g. |issue=2,Modern Canadian Literature".

You don't put thenumber in italics, as this shows. If there's a special issue name then you can put the text of the issue title in italics but you never put thenumber in italics.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... it goes in italics in APA style. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk)19:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy Most of Wikipedia goes with CS1, which is sort of the in house style. It's close to APA but a bit different. You technically can use other styles, but those templates output CS1. And perWP:CITEVAR once it is established you cannot change it that way without consensus.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I cleaned up many italics that I had added to bibliography. But please don't revert a whole edit like that: I had removed superfluous spaces in those same edits and in both cases you reverted that also. Regards. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk)13:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to the Scientology topic. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joiningWikiProject Scientology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Scientology topic on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to thelist of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at theproject talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new thread at§ Invitation and open discussion on Scientology-topic.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there PARAKANYAA. You very kindly said above you would happily upload pics for me if asked - well, could you please upload this one for me?:

https://victorianweb.org/victorian/painting/millais/paintings/69.html

Its title isThe Wedding Cards.

I've had a look on Wikimedia and can't find it already uploaded. Thanks so much, 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Stronach (talk)12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stronach VoilaFile:John Everett Millais - The Wedding Cards.jpgPARAKANYAA (talk)16:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Here she is in situ:The Wedding Cards. I'm very grateful once more!Stronach (talk)16:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I pester you again?Pot Pourri by Millais, 1856. Best source I can find is:[3]. New page I just made:Pot Pourri (Millais painting). Thanks so much in anticipation!Stronach (talk)14:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stronach Don't worry, you're not pestering me. I uploaded that one, but if you find a higher quality one I can upload that instead.File:John Everett Millais - Pot pourri.jpgPARAKANYAA (talk)18:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]