Taras Shevchenko

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Hi PARAKANYAA, I see you've been removing neo-Nazism and White Nationalism sidebars / navigation bars from many articles, citing the policy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. To summarize my understanding of this rationale, if an article doesn't appear in the sidebar content, the sidebar shouldn't appear in the article. That's not unreasonable. Except, navigation bars exist for a reason: they're a research tool in an encyclopedia linking related topics. If you remove them from an article, or remove articles from a navigation bar, you weaken the tool insofar as the relationship is real.

An alternative, of course, is to add the article to the navigation bar. This would equally resolve the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL policy without weakening the tool provided to readers by the navigation bar.

I have a sense that maybe you're acting on a larger discussion that I and other editors are unaware of. Has a decision been made somewhere to reduce the size or use of White Nationalism and neo-Nazism navigation bars? I'd love to see that, potentially participate, and understand the community's logic. I have an interest in far-right politics in the United States, Europe, and internationally. -Darouet (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet I add them to the navbox instead of removing them ([1] [2] [3] [4] for just a few) if the articles evidenced the relationship clearly. With the one you reverted me on, the article did not mention "white nationalism" at all... it mentioned neo-Nazism, which we have a separate navbox for. We have several different far-right politics templates and they are not synonymous. And I am not acting on anything besides the rules at WP:NAVBOX, which are generally poorly enforced because no one cares about navboxes I guess. But that doesn't mean they aren't rules. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The size concern is really only for sidebars, which are supposed to be more selective. I am not trying to reduce the size of the navbox, I am trying to enforce WP:VERIFIABILITY and make sure inclusion is supported for all articles and it follows the purpose of a navbox and is such WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the neo-Nazism navbox, which it also transcludes, and which is mentioned in the article. [5] PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, what about for people, like David Duke, your removal here [6]?

1) The article never describes him as a white nationalist. 2) He was removed from the template as were all people nine years ago per a TfD discussion. If we don't keep these templates focused they get deleted. [7] He's already in the neo-Nazi one which I have no objection to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article William R. Ferguson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William R. Ferguson for comments about the article, and Talk:William R. Ferguson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you uploaded the CCF’s (possible) logo. Can you find other UFO cults’ logos and put them here, as per my previous request? Wikifixer559 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikifixer559 I don't know why you keep asking me this, dude. You have asked me this like three times!

I upload logos when I find them in a way that they can be reliably provenanced as some kind of logo or symbol directly tied to the group. If a logo cannot be directly tied to the group it is less than useless and its inclusion is WP:OR. Further, not everything has a logo. Many groups did not, perhaps most of them. I can't upload things which do not exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn’t tell me if you uploaded some logos. And I wanted to draw the logos of Christian UFO cults.

Why don’t you start with Fiat Lux first, their book Wundersame Geistheilungen has a symbol on it that is probably their logo. Wikifixer559 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to report back to you? I'm not doing anything because you ask me to... Wikipedia is not a place for drawing inspiration. Probably is not a guarantee of anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am asking you to report back to me. If you don’t want to, then that’s okay. Wikifixer559 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed countless details from the 'Christchurch attacks' article and you stated that the page is about the attack and not things that the perpetrator did, but that part of the article is about the perpetrator—It's the whole point of that section. You can't just take out that kind of information out, and it needs to be reinstated Andersnedlam (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several things,

1) There were multiple people removing that. I don't think I was the person who removed the most, or even the first, so I don't know why you're going after me! Most of the information the others removed was more relevant than what I did, so I considered it arbitrary to keep less relevant information.

2) It was all cited to ancient breaking news reports from 2019 which should not be used in an article like this with so much discussion on it. We should not be using any sources from 2019 and we were using all information from 2019.

3) The article was far, far too long and something needed to be cut. We decided to not have an article on the perpetrator and the information on his life is the most tangential to the subject matter so it goes first when we have an article that gets this long. Similar articles like Oklahoma City bombing contain a similar amount of detail. Much more is WP:UNDUE

The whole point of the section? Well, sectioning is arbitrary, the article is far too long and is cited to too much news, and as it stands now the article contains as much information as is contextually relevant to understand the material. So I do not think there is an issue. None of what people removed should be reinstated because there was talk page consensus to cut material. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dan Burros you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dan Burros for comments about the article, and Talk:Dan Burros/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a chance to discuss your removal of RS. DN (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion on the talk page. We are citing an unspecified book that does not say this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, would you mind pausing your mass removal of Southern Poverty Law Center citations from articles while your RfC review request is ongoing? I don't think it's a good idea to remove these citations on a broad scale right now when there is disagreement over whether the closure currently supports (or will eventually support) the removals. — Newslinger talk 20:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger Alright. I wasn't really considering it a "mass removal" yet, it was just removing it from a few select pages I had already worked on and had the intention to get to GA/FA later. But I shall stop that until review is concluded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you for the clarification and for waiting until the review is over. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For improving Dan Burros, an article of significant importance to the ANP topic area, to good article status. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Manatee Thank you :) Thanks for all your work on this as well. It was certainly in... dire condition, prior. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PARAKANYAA I was wondering if you may be able to provide some insight to some issues that have come up with the FBI most wanted posters that have had a some deletion requests over in wikimedia commons. Currently there a few posters that have been nominated for deletion based on the notion that the images within the posters themselves are somehow copy-written or cannot be confirmed to be despite the posters themselves being the official posters by the FBI. Is my understanding flawed that a federal agency posting them makes them public domain whether or not the images inside are somehow copyrighted? Any direction in this would be greatly appreciated. If you don't know, would you happen to know anyone who may be able to answer? Thanks!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DigitalPhantoms DigitalPhantoms (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DigitalPhantoms The logic would be that the poster itself is PD, but is a derivative work of the original image, which the FBI may or may not have the copyright to. I guess it's possible they could have 'taken' the copyright as part of their investigation. I haven't looked into how that works really so I can't say much else. I wouldn't delete them but it does get iffy with some of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is the logic is was operating on that it would be PD since they are the ones posting it. Someone else also had mentioned that it would probably be fair use or they would have gotten the proper permission anyways on their end which I agree since they are having multiple news agencies release it otherwise the FBI and the subsequent news would be violating copyrights. DigitalPhantoms (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,337 views (764.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently bought Off the wall: Death in Yosemite, I think you'd like it. They have a whole section on suicides and another on homicides. :) ^EF⁵ 16:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might look into it, thanks :) You're right about that being up my alley, hah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I stepped on your toes. I also have OCD btw. Prezbo (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prezbo You said nothing I found objectionable. I don't easily take offense, so I wasn't even offended by what the other guy said, I just really felt like he wasn't helping his argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,176 views (1,180.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 21:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dan Burros shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Come on, Parakanyaa, you're an experienced editor. Please stop reverting my edits; it feels, to me, that you're claiming ownership of this article. All I'm trying to do is improve the article. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Javert2113 I started a discussion on the talk. Further, WP:Edit warring, "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the Main Page." (it's at FAC). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm happy to participate—but please note that FAC is not FA itself. In addition, quality is a subjective term, but let's leave that for the Talk page. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added a photo to Lyle Munson, claiming that the image is public domain.

I am dubious about that claim. Generally, the call for the copyright notice is in the original publication of material. This is a wire photo, it ran in a number of papers, and I would expect that the original wire feed (which I doubt we have access to) would count as the original publication. There's probably a reasonable call for "fair use" on this image give the likely lack of clear public domain images of Munson.

However, you may know of some standard regarding wire material here that I'm unaware of. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler The publication would count only if distributed to the general public. The wire feed does not count to my understanding as firstly it was not a tangible form of publication as required by copyright (For the same reason why a lot of old TV is technically "Unpublished") and also not to the general public.

Further, per the Library of Congress (the best authority on American copyright) [8], the wire feed was not copyrighted anyway, "In an attempt to determine if AP/Wide World registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." So even assuming that 1) there was a copyright notice on the wire feed (doubtful) 2) that notice counts in the face of all other publications the same day lacking a notice and being in a form that doesn't count as publication (also doubtful), this image is pre-1963 so even with notice it needed renewal, which AP never did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's good to have. I apologize for wasting your moment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler Not a waste at all! I completely understand your worries, it's important to be careful about copyright. A nice day to you :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PARAKANYAA, I wanted to talk about some things relating to Draft:List of the most disturbing literature.

Firstly, I saw you declined my submission for the article because of the sources. I was wondering if you could help me find some reliable sources. It's kinda hard to find reliable sources on disturbing literature and I was hoping you could help me with that.

Secondly what did you mean when you said "the group must be discussed in sources"? I just don't know what that means.

Thank you for your time

-From Bennett D. B. Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdblakley29 I think your list is interesting, but I have doubts it fulfills WP:NLIST and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The individual entries are sourced (though I'm not sure if that evidences the "most disturbing" descriptor), but for a list to be notable, the topic of "most disturbing literature" has to be discussed in reliable sources as a group. Further, "most disturbing" is a rather subjective assessment, so I am uncertain about how you are determining inclusion. Everyone finds something disturbing. From NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see Thanks man Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, would you consider comics a form a literature? Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but if it's a more specific subset I don't think that would help much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]