User talk:PARAKANYAA

December 2022

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Kristin Beck—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Materialscientist How did it not appear constructive? He has detransitioned. The rest of the page uses he/him pronouns. There is one isolated instance of “her”. This does not make sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Rename request @ File:Slayers X Terminal Aftermath Vengeance of the Slayer Cover Art.jpg

Within the requested name change, the first line and the article title, the word (according to spellcheck) "Vengance" spell check says this "Vengeance" is correct. Are all this typos ? or is this supposed to be this way? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's supposed to be that way. The game has a sort of... comedic tone, and the joke is that the main character (who made a game about himself) misspelled it. I misspelled the misspelling. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

LOL, Ok I'll go move the file now. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1984 Dallas nightclub shooting has been accepted

1984 Dallas nightclub shooting, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

ь нам улучшить этот процесс, пожалуйста, оставьте нам отзыв.

Еще раз спасибо и удачного редактирования!

^{Поговори со мной!} 01:26, 8 июля 202 128.0.81.114 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

About Columbine and its relation to the White Genocide conspiracy theory article

The reason why Columbine was added in to the White genocide conspiracy theory article is pretty much for similar reasons to the the Oklahoma City bombing being added. For the Oklahoma City bombing, the perpetrator Timothy McVeigh did not attribute his motives to the idea that white people were being genocided but it was included because McVeigh often cited The Turner Diaries (a book that did popularize the conspiracy theory) for his deed. As for Columbine, the main perpetrator Eric Harris took inspiration from McVeigh, citing him as an inspration for the attack (it's made pretty clear in his journal entries where he talked about outdoing McVeigh's deed in bodycount and carnage). His journal entries also show his dedication to white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideology. If you've ever read The War on Everyone, it shows how Eric's idolization of McVeigh (and his desire to outdo him) and adherence to white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideology were significant influences in him carrying out the attack, even if they weren't the most direct motives. If you look at the Buffalo shooting example, that perpetrator's example plays very similarly to Eric Harris, where he wrote neo-Nazi screeds and talked about idolizing other far-right terrorists. Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay so a guy who was (maybe) influenced by McVeigh who was (probably) influenced by The Turner Diaries? Harris did not mention any IDEOLOGICAL affection for McVeigh. He just wanted misc carnage. McVeigh never stated that the white genocide idea inspired him at all. Is that not extremely tenuous? By that logic, can we add every single person who Harris influenced to the page (aka every school shooter for the past 20 years?) since they were inspired by Harris who liked McVeigh because he killed people and he liked a racist book? It detracts from the focus of the article.

The Buffalo gunman explicitly stated that the idea of white genocide is why he did the attack. Not comparable to Harris. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes he expressed neo-Nazi ideas but nothing about white genocide. Which is what the page is about. I wouldn't contest him being added to neo-Nazi influences or something. The idea is broader than the focus of the page and detracts from it. Harris throws a lot of ideas everywhere. He was very very racist but saying that was the motive for the attack isn't anywhere near the accepted scholarly opinion, and again, no one has ever said he was motivated by the white genocide idea. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

So should the McVeigh example be removed as he did not state that white genocide (or white nationalism really) motivated him to carry out the Oklahoma City Bombing?

The accepted scholarly opinion remains undermined because further evidence like the basement tapes have never been disclosed (and most likely destroyed by JeffCo at this point) so we'll never get a much clearer picture on what their motives were. Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

If I had the ability to completely lord over that page, I personally wouldn’t include it, as it’s tenuous, but it is confirmed that he had the book with him while driving away from the bombing, so I get the logic in including that. A bit tenuous but not egregiously so, IMO. Harris was only included through connection with him so it’s a tenuous connection on a tenuous connection

Yes the basement tapes are not directly available but there are available transcripts of them and summaries from people who watched them and they never state that their motive is racism, much less that they care about “white genocide”. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seth Privacky

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seth Privacky you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hi! In going over the history for Seth Privacky, I came across something I wanted to ask about. Do you have any connection with @NAADAAN? I note that you have often worked on articles within a few minutes of each other (report) and seem to share some interests. If you are friends or know each other in real life, that's not a problem, of course, but it might be good to add a note to your userpage saying as much so that other editors are aware. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, they're just a friend I've been teaching to edit. Appreciate it! NAADAAN (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As he said, we're friends and he taught me to edit. We often edit while we're talking to each other so that's why the times are so close together. Added a note to my user page because someone else will probably point that out eventually. Thanks for starting the review :) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seth Privacky

The article Seth Privacky you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Seth Privacky for comments about the article, and Talk:Seth Privacky/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse Question

Hello, PARAKANYAA. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

GA team review

Hello, I came across this thread looking for something else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1205#GA_reviews_and_commentary

Is that article still nominated for GA and are you still interested in team-reviewing it? If so, I would be okay to start the formal review and have you participate.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii I would be interested in team reviewing it! However a separate issue that I pointed out on the nominator's talk page is that there's currently a coroner inquest regarding that specific event right now, so information is coming out which makes it not very stable (therefore failing a GA criterion). I consider this to be a bad time to nominate it and the nominator and another person agreed. The nomination is currently still up though, so I think it should be quickfailed maybe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay, from the discussion it looks you all are waiting for the coroner's finding, and reliable sources to analyze that for citations. That makes sense. Feel free to {{ping}} me when the article is ready for a review if you are still interested then. I don't know if a quickfail is needed because it sounds like the nominator may withdraw the nom on their own. Thanks for the explanation, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neuilly kindergarten hostage crisis has been accepted

Neuilly kindergarten hostage crisis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Drmies (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2008 Skierlik shooting has been accepted

2008 Skierlik shooting, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Swissair Flight 330

Re your removal of the philately project assessment: you are probably not aware there is more to philately then just stamp collecting. The Philately Wikiproject covers all aspects of the mail and postal services, so as this was a mail carrying flight it is of interest as are all mail carrying crashes. A specialised area of airmail philately. Check out Crash cover and http://wreckandcrash.org . ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ww2censor Ah, sorry. I read the scope but didn't realize that was included within it. My bad! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Curiously and timely this TedTalk video was just released and you might find it interesting to watch. Cheers and season's greetings. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of Russian assassinations

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Russian assassinations, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle Organization of Russian Nationalists has been accepted

Battle Organization of Russian Nationalists, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Quick question about file importance scales

Hello! I noticed that in this edit, you removed the importance scale (low) from both the WP Weather and WP Carribean as it was a "duplicate". Could you explain some on why that created a duplicate, because I'm a little confused on that? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter It's a file, so it shouldn't have "importance". That's only for articles. The file namespace automatically classes as NA (non-article) importance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The duplicate was the fact that there were two WP Caribbean banners, one with the subproject and one without. I did two things at once. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense. Thanks for responding! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Coburger Zeitung has been accepted

Coburger Zeitung, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
8		Marutswa Forest (talk)	Add sources
284		Jokela school shooting (talk)	Add sources
89		White Earth Indian Reservation (talk)	Add sources
83		Kidnapping and murder of Hanns Martin Schleyer (talk)	Add sources
63		V-Tech Rampage (talk)	Add sources
5		International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (talk)	Add sources
308		Racism in South Africa (talk)	Cleanup
21		Legal aspects of workplace bullying (talk)	Cleanup
12		Vernon Berrangé (talk)	Cleanup
1,784		Darwin, Northern Territory (talk)	Expand
3		Poplar River Township, Red Lake County, Minnesota (talk)	Expand
566		White House Farm murders (talk)	Expand
126		Racial hoax (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
77		Magnus Malan (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
119		Indigenous architecture (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
37		Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century (talk)	Merge
319		Antisemitism in the United States (talk)	Merge
5,682		Portuguese man o' war (talk)	Merge
568		Carl Benjamin (talk)	Wikify
3		Hazel, Minnesota (talk)	Wikify
25		Adam Fortunate Eagle (talk)	Wikify
64		Kristian P. Lusardi (talk)	Orphan
12		Judaism in association football (talk)	Orphan
13		Outline of Dresden (talk)	Orphan
13		Balmoral, South Africa (talk)	Stub
377		India Today (talk)	Stub
3		Ratha's Challenge (talk)	Stub
4		The Books of the Named (talk)	Stub
2		Clan Ground (talk)	Stub
2		Ratha's Courage (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Respectful cat

NAADAAN (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

cat............................................. :33 PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Mr Vili talk 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

San Francisco Department of Public Works corruption scandal

Thank you for reviewing and approving this new article 76.14.122.5 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

👍 PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Empire of Kitara

Hi, you made a mistake regarding the deletion of the Empire of Kitara page, in academia it is called the Chwezi Empire, and I suggest the page should be renamed to this. See my request for undeletion (I can't find it), I've included some sources. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal I commented on the undeletion request. I don't oppose but if it's restored I would appreciate if you did some work on it because the article was a disaster. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah I'll have a look at it, it's difficult as oral history is only beginning to receive credibility in western academia. I imagine it was quite grandiose? I think probably have a section on legend/history and then another on historical records or archaeology to support it Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal It wasn't grandiose as much as it was very mixed together with a bunch of other things (like the Bunyoro and a Kitara language) and fact was mixed with legend - there was a grain of something notable there and I did want to fix it but it proved difficult. I think renaming it Chwezi dynasty or empire would solve a lot of those issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, PARAKANYAA. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello, you have solved the problem that you mentioned for this Ahmad Bayati Wikipedia, please check it again and confirm, thank you Danialzahedi (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Danialzahedi Not about that, it's more that as this is an article about a living person, it especially needs to have inline citations on statements that could be challenged. Few of the citations are supporting the content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello PARAKANYAA!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 1999 Tempe military base shooting

On 28 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1999 Tempe military base shooting, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 1999 Tempe military base shooting, the Pan African Congress demanded a military funeral for the perpetrator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1999 Tempe military base shooting. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1999 Tempe military base shooting), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

My apologies on the revert to the article "Murder of Sharron Prior". I left my computer open and my grandson must have tapped on the keys. Had no intention to edit this article. was just reading it and its updates. My bad. Avignonesi (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Duane Deaver article

Hi -- I noticed you declined my updated version of an article on P. Duane Deaver. Thanks for the review and feedback. I'm very cognizant of the risk of this seeming to be an attack page, believe me. To me it's in line with pages on Fred Zain, Joyce Gilchrist, Annie Dookhan or Louis Scarcella. I'm very happy to talk about ways to present this information, but I don't know that I agree that my presentation is more negative than the sources. I tried to be very fact-based and journalistic. I think the tone is appropriately formal, but I'm happy to get feedback on sections you feel don't meet that standard. Can you point me to particular statements that are more negative than what the sources say? Not trying to play gotcha or get into a back and forth for it's own sake, I'm genuinely curious. How would you recommend I improve the article? Deaver is very well known in North Carolina and national law enforcement circles, and press coverage, on which I've drawn heavily, I think follows the lines I've laid out. How can I make progress here? Thanks for your thoughts. Slane00 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slane00 I'll go through it on the talk page of the article. There were also problems with the organizational structure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Spree killer category mergers

I should inform you of my position on your changes to the articles’ organizations. I’ll be frank, it’s a mistake. Yes, the finer details of the definitions need experienced responsibility to the organize the categories so they’re not open to interpretation. But spree killers are different from mass murderers! They carry on sprees extending across wider yet interconnected areas and timelines and have a pacing that vitally shows how they’re defined. Mass murderers don’t do that. They’re considered defined by whatever collective yet isolated attack is pulled off with how they rampage in a more immediate setting. Mass murderers successfully cause destructive violence that kills, all in one place. Spree killers don’t, but they can still rampage across multiple locations WITHOUT killing more people. That’s why the general category is "RAMPAGE killers". Both types kill by rampages, but the rampages are different. Spree killers go for multiple locations, mass murderers go for one or a few. If the distinction isn’t kept, it’s not educating for criminal scientific purposes, and in the end, the users have a tougher time finding articles and categories, let alone would start arguing over the important and semantic details. If you’d like to reply to me, please @ my username here or reply on my message wall. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ContributingHelperOnTheSide That is not supported by sources, though. They're basically used as synonyms. The days where they had discrete definitions was decades ago, and even back then it was confused. There is no one thing that makes a mass killer or spree killer vice versa, and when it's *this* confusing what is gained when no one understands the difference? And is there proof of a difference?

For the purposes of argument, what is the thing that distinguishes them? And do you have sources to back that up? The sources I found before starting the CfD all gave them as basically the same difference with different connotations. And *a few*? How many is more than a few? If there is a difference, it's so marginal as to be useless to categorize by, when categories on Wikipedia should be consistent.

Rampage killers is not considered a "general" category from anything I've seen, it's basically just a synonym for spree killer that's used some time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ll try to compare and contrast as best I can. I don’t have sources on and to prove my arguments, but here are the agreed conditions I know about both types of murder:

• Spree murder: a killer murders at least two people in a rampage over multiple locations. It doesn’t have to only be a killing spree, but even a spree with multiple crimes counts so long as at least two people die from it. A spree killer doesn’t have breaks because they don’t try to return to a normal life or doing anything even close to living so they’re not committing any crimes in the moment. They can be hiding out and preparing for their next crime, or hiding out and at risk of committing another crime on reaction, but they’re not “taking a break” from the spree when the spree’s not over.
• Mass murderer: a killer violently attacks at a location with multiple people, and at least four people die. The violence is concentrating to a small or general area where there are multiple people gathered, typically a small or large crowd. If all the intended people targeted are in a larger area instead of a smaller area, it is difficult to distinguish of they’re a spree killer or a mass murderer, so the general “rampage killer” applies for lack of a better distinction. Mass murderers can be guilty of more than one mass murderer. For example, they commit a massacre in one location, move to another one, and commit a massacre there too, each one taking the lives of at least for people. Or they could be guilty of one mass murder, be arrested or even not caught for it, take a break from crime, but then they commit another mass murder well after when their break is done.

I hope my explanation is detailed, sensible, and fitting to you. I can find as many resources for criminal sciences you need that likely back up the definitions I told you. We can otherwise discuss this further. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ContributingHelperOnTheSide If you don't have sources, then the categorization is WP:OR. I recall that some sources have defined these sources in ways similar to that - but more don't! The most common definition of mass murder is 3 people dying in one incident, for instance. The general "rampage killer" term is quite obscure compared to either other term. I've seen many definitions of mass murder, especially more recent ones, that do not say a "mass murder" has to be only in one location, only "usually", and definitions of "spree killer" that say it may be "usually" in multiple locations. Very few people who are technically spree killers (ex. Brenton Tarrant), are called that anymore, and are usually referred to as mass murderers. Also, even if there was a difference that separated them, the overlap is so high that categorization is pointless anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Yes, the differentiation is tough. I can see there would be arguments to take the actions you have for the site. I was informing you, as I study such subjects, that’s the definition I’ve seen most often described as most accurate and found great benefit from the categories, hoping to offer my assistance in correcting the problems aforementioned. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ContributingHelperOnTheSide I study this topic too. On a personal level, apart from the sourcing, I have never found it to be an especially helpful difference. The thing about categories on Wikipedia is that they are not supposed to be subjective. When a killer is primarily described as a "spree killer", that's fine to use in the article and stuff, but for categorizations it should be consistent. There is no one way to determine who is and is not a spree killer vs a mass murderer, most of the definitions are either contradictory or overlapping. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Aztec High School shooting

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2017 Aztec High School shooting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Aztec High School shooting

The article 2017 Aztec High School shooting you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2017 Aztec High School shooting and Talk:2017 Aztec High School shooting/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

AfC review

Hi - recognized your name on the list of AfC reviewers and thought I'd drop you a request. Is there any chance we could get a speedy review at Draft:2024 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game? It's about to tip off and still in draftspace; I'd like to have it published while the game is actually going on. If there's anything standing in the way, let me know so I can improve it. Thank you! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS I'm not too familiar with standards for sports championships but given the 2023 one is a GA (a good, recent standard) and the content seems good, I don't think there will be an issue with accepting it (hopefully). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, actually there seems to be a redirect standing in the way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you know who I could ask about taking care of that? I'd like to get a DYK on this up by tonight if possible. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS I had to contact a page mover. It is now in mainspace. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That is very much appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Aztec High School shooting

The article 2017 Aztec High School shooting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2017 Aztec High School shooting for comments about the article, and Talk:2017 Aztec High School shooting/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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you Paqarack?

If you are can you message me on Reddit or Discord? u/Hazel2AW on Reddit or hazel2aw on Discord. TheCloggle222 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheCloggle222 I have a Reddit account (well, I’m more or less everywhere) but I’m afraid I’m not the person you think I am. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you anyway, you make great contributions man 🙂 TheCloggle222 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

👍 good luck with finding that person PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do outlines exist? What are outlines for?

Hi.

Thank you for defending the Outline of the Book of Mormon at its AfD.

No, I'm not religious, but, I do care about outlines.

You mentioned in that discussion that you didn't know why outlines exist. There are 2 types of answers to that issue. The first is political: outlines exist because the opposition has not been able to overcome the support for outlines. The same goes for categories.

The second is practical: outlines exist for the same reasons that categories do: to facilitate topic navigation, and to provide a way to visualize the structure of a subject. They both exist because a search engine isn't always enough: it can't show you what subjects there are so that you can choose what to explore. In contrast, categories and outlines serve as site maps or subject menus and let you see what's there – meanwhile, search starts out as a blank screen and can't show you topics that you don't already know exist. Categories and outlines can. They also overcome the "tip of the tongue" phenomenon, when you can't think of the name of the topic that you want to type into the search box.

But, why do we have outlines in addition to categories? (That's duplication of effort!)

For the bennies, man. Outlines have support because of the benefits they provide that categories cannot...

1. An outline is a gathering of links on a topic onto one page, while a category splits its topic into many pages. The idea is to get all the links on a particular topic in one place for convenience.
2. An outline trades in clicks for scrolling. To browse an outline, you scroll down the page, rather than click over and over again to drill down to subcategories in a category. It's much harder to browse an entire category due to all the backtracking required. Scrolling down a page is much faster.
3. Outlines don't suffer from multiple page load delays like browsing a category does. Each time you click on a subcategory in a category a new page has to be downloaded by your browswer. On slower Internet connections, this can get really time consuming.
4. While categories help to present a subject's structure, they typically only show 2 levels of its topic tree on the screen at a time, while outlines may have the whole tree on a single page. Outlines are better at providing a bird's eye view of an entire subject.
5. Outlines allow descriptions for topics to be included. Categories can't; you have to fiddle with the cursor and hover it over topics to get pop ups, each of which may incur a download delay.
6. Outlines are articles, and so they show up in search results. Categories generally don't because their critical content is not actually there (it's split up into little chunks and is at the bottom of other pages).
7. Outlines provide edit tracking like regular articles. Categories are decentralized (their data exists at the bottom of many articles), and so there is no history feature to show you when something has been removed from a category – topics just disappear without a trace from categories.

More benefits and explanations are included at Wikipedia:Outlines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines.

The Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have so far been unable to design a navigation system that combines the benefits of outlines and categories. The technology just isn't here yet. Until then, we have both categories and outlines.

I hope this explanation helped.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Noted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)