User talk:Connor Behan

I noticed you made an edit here: [1] which I disagree with but I shall ask instead of simple reversion with an edit summary: should that really be notable? I mean it's fairly obvious that both would entail the 25th amendment. When has there ever been a movie about Air Force One without the President? I mean if the 25th amendment is notable, then wouldn't the fact both presidents had their families aboard also be notable? At any rate, I was just wondering your thoughts on this. If you think it should remain, it's perfectly fine with me. Happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps you're right. At any rate you do strike good points and it's not a wild assumption by far. It can stay, I was just wondering. Hope I didn't sound confrontational. Cheers. :) -WarthogDemon 23:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about edit warring over "evenly divisble" at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Mathematical language must be precise by User:Jowa fan. If you continue to remove "evenly divisible" before consensus is reached about a suitable alternate phrasing I will report your conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I informed the mathematics project of my intent yesterday, I had only made this change to a few articles and I hoped it would provoke a democratic discussion. When the rest of the day went by and I had still only received the one reply from Jowa fan, I decided to do a mass change but only to the mathematics articles, where I expected the change to be welcome. I am thrilled that a number of editors actually are trying to reach a consensus at the talk page now. This is something I much prefer. Cheers. Connor Behan (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with Connor making changes of this nature to mathematics articles. This is in line with established mathematical practice, as documented at Parity (mathematics) and Number. (Articles on non-mathematical subjects are a different matter.) My only concern is that if someone reverts one of his edits, then his next action should be to discuss rather than start an edit war. I haven't seen any evidence of futher edit warring since the discussion began at Wikiproject Mathematics, so it seems to me that all is OK. Jowa fan (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Brad Meltzer. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept

I was going to add a source when I read this but Jowa fan beat me to it. A secondary source for it could be [2]. He inserted it as a comment probably because it seems out of place to look up one author and see citations about another. Sentences claiming that no counter-example exists have a high burden of proof so I would avoid saying this kind of stuff even in Sawyer's article. Connor Behan (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Discussion of Sawyer's web site probably doesn't belong in an article about Meltzer. Personally I had no problem with Connor's previous edit: I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that author web sites were rare in 1996. For what it's worth, there is no policy requiring an inline citation for every fact added to an article. All that's needed is that it's possible to verify things; it's important for people to use good judgement in avoiding citation overkill. In any case, I've changed the wording to something milder, in the hope that this is acceptable to all parties. Jowa fan (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently your edit was not acceptable to Nightscream. I have gone with the abundance of citations since I think this is still better than the sensationalist wording that was there before. Connor Behan (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jizya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-seeker2004 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, concerning your edit here, "judgment" and "judgement" are both correct spellings. Odd, I know. 99.2.148.171 (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realize that! I guess the "e" spelling was the one I had seen more often.Connor Behan (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	"The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless editors who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality." This Barnstar is awarded to R (Happy New Year!) 09:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks a lot! Now I just wish the Warren Leight episodes were wonderful and detailed :P. Connor Behan (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and I can definately agree with you there! Leight needs to lift up his gain... 13 episodes to go, could be our final season! I need to stay positive... can't live without my SVU fix! —

R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, The weird caption on the hipster pic is there because thus far, no photos of hipsters have remained on the page. There is a bizarre sense that we cannot identify hipster elements in a photo. You would never have this problem on an article about punks (show a pic of a guy with a mohawk) or goth subculture (show a pic of man with dyed black hair, white face makeup, black eyeliner, and a cape). But for the hipster article, editors have this view that "we cannot define what a hipster looks like", and in the past several photos have been purged. So this pic of a hipster has a disclaimer saying we don't know if he considers himself a hipster.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you've added a number of inadmissibly poor sources to Abortion in Canada; I recommend removing them and the content cited to them, then potentially re-adding it if you can find reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five sources I added, the two that are most often seen as reliable (CBC and the National Post) contain all of the information I mentioned. The others were just there for interest sake but I have now removed them. Connor Behan (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you like to elaborate your rationale in the General Discussion section?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you always enforcing your personal preference of not using "singular they" in articles, like you did here[3] and here [4]? Look at the Singular they article. The use of singular they is accepted well enough by scholars. In the case of the Corrective rape article, you messed that up by making it seem that corrective rape is only about the rape of females. You should have just used "him or her" to begin with if use of singular they bothers you so much. You also removed valid information and called it fluff.[5] I wonder if Roscelese, who has also edited the Corrective rape article, and who (looking at your talk page above) you have had dealings with, agrees with all the edits you made to that article.

There are articles where singular they is best employed. Let's also remember that some people are ambiguous about their gender. See

When it comes to "singular they" it seems like a small number of editors actively oppose it, while the rest don't care one way or another. So except for a few screw-ups, there is nothing to lose by being pedantic. It is actually a common convention to use one gender pronoun to cover male / female / ambiguous. For example, one of my "he or she" edits was altered in this way by another user: [6].

There were two pieces of "fluff" that I removed from the Corrective rape article and maybe I should've split them into two edits. One of them was a non-neutral comment about how South Africa is not yet a true democracy. The other was a confusing statement about the public-private divide. It basically said that if private lobbyists had their way, treaties like CEDAW would not condemn gender based violence as much. This seems biased as well and only tangentially related to the article. Anyway, since I wrote my user page, I haven't had to revert very often because most Wikipedians are reasonable :). Connor Behan (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "fuck"? David F (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made a BIG change to the article Contact (novel), completely rewriting the part about the plot. I think you did a very good job. That was a lot of work. Congratulations. -GroveGuy (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! It's such a good book... I didn't want the article to miss the best parts. Connor Behan (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up the Civil Marriage Act page. Your work on the infobox reminded me that there is a flaw in that template, when used for Canadian legislation. I've suggested a new Canadian legislation infobox template be created, on the WikiProject Canadian law talk page. Would welcome any comments you may have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can you elaborate your rationale for removing my edit on the Lennart Poettering page? Thx! 59.182.241.210 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this into its own section.

There is plenty of controversy surrounding PulseAudio and systemd but I do not know of any surrounding Avahi. Even if there is some, it is better to put it in the article on the software. Introducing Lennart as a "king of controversy" at the top of his article, seems a little biased. Connor Behan (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Connor, I think your idea of the essay as sort of navigation tool into the meta realm is worth while working on. I plan to translate "WP is not a finishing school" (WP ist kein Mädchenpensionat) on User:Serten_II/sandbox. Feel free to contribute. Serten II (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit on

yes - that was a lot to remove; but a very good rewrite. Clear, concise, and didn't remove any major points. Nice work. TY. — Ched :  ?  03:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, it kept the major points, but removed all the POV and random trivia stuff. A very good rewrite, and I'm glad someone did it, thank you for the work. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to know when an article purge goes over well. Thank you both for coming here. Connor Behan (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most contemporary 'Grammars' in the UK find the use of the singular 'they' acceptable in all but the most formal situations. I believe that US is less lenient about its use and also about subject-object agreement. I know this is one of those matters that people have strong feelings about so I am posting here. Please 'ping' if you wish to reply.… … ps, having seen some discussion above, I prefer judicious use of singular 'they', simply because it's less clumsy. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this change many times but I actually had Pullman's characters in mind this time. Lyra uses the singular 'they' but the more educated characters in the book do not. I always thought this was intentional. Connor Behan (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An acute observation (which I had not noticed, you are probably right about PP's intention). However, are we speaking like Lyra, like the 'educated' characters of her (slightly old-fashioned) world or standard modern UK English? Geoffrey K. Pullum is one of those who claim that the 'rule' against use of singular 'they' has never had general acceptance and that 'good' writers have been using it for centuries, for reasons other than to characterise the speaker.Pincrete (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From one of your recent edit summaries: "Adding back a percentage of former content even though it has been merged. This article must be an *accurate representation* of what we are arguing to keep or delete. See AfD."

The discussion is not whether the article is of a suitable quality for WP, it's whether the subject meets the guidelines. Padding the article with fluff doesn't make the subject any more or less notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that I'm on the keep side of the debate, I didn't think the quotations and sources I added would be considered fluff. If the article is still here a year from now (with info on her new job), those are passages that I would still want included.

Nevertheless, you're right that the size of the article should have no bearing on whether it passes or fails

BLP1E. I was worried that some people would mistakenly consider this, just like some people including the nominator, regularly refer to "vote counting". Connor Behan (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

So I add a helpful bit of detail about reddit right when it is first mentioned in the article including a wikilink to it and it is reverted by 'Uncle Mitty'. Very unhelpful edit on his part. 87.231.139.167 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have reverted your addition to two articles regarding Marco Frasca's very recent preprint. Our policy is to wait until

The page Brianna Wu is subject to discretionary sanctions and/or arbitration enforcement, as per the Gamergate page. You recently violated WP:BLP there; please don’t. I confess that I don’t know how to use the notification template, but you're an experience editor and you can check it out if you have questions. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that I have nothing but respect for Brianna Wu. I added what I added because it was a piece displaying numerous honourable qualities, written by Wu herself. Having seen that the edit went over poorly (and garnered the "BLP vio" misnomer), I will not attempt to add it back. Thanks. Connor Behan (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you've unknowingly stumbled onto one of a group of BLPs "polished" by their friends on wiki. Negative or potentially negative claims are immediately removed from the article and talk page; discussion is not permitted. This is why your edits and edit summary were redacted. 107.107.63.148 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's because editors must air on the side of caution when a well-meaning person is put through a year of misogynistic abuse from all corners of the Internet. I think the statement I added was neutral but I understand those who disagree. Connor Behan (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Connor. I recently performed a mass revert of some of your edits to the

Thanks for explaining but I think you missed the point of my edits. I did not add any citations. I simply moved external links with no context into the main text to more closely follow the manual of style. Since citations are mostly metadata, it is possible that my edits (which increased the number of bytes) actually decreased the visible word count. At the very least, the "mass revert" must be refined to remove the non-functional BBC video and the duplicate Wayne Smith piece. I can wait a few days if you want to handle this, otherwise I will make some more edits. Connor Behan (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Connor. Thanks.
You might appreciate an anecdote about Winston Churchill, if you haven't heard it, who occasionally, although rarely, was guilty of grammatical sins. When once challenged by an aide for ending a sentence with a preposition while talking (he would never have done so in writing) Churchill retorted: "That is a degree of grammatical fussiness up with which I will not put." --- Professor JR (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard there was some story about Churchill and prepositions but I didn't know the details. Thanks! Connor Behan (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read quickly and missed that it was her father. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes the only way to get through my todo list is to skim. Happy editing! Connor Behan (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making copy edits to the article. However, re [7], can you please look at the talk page? Specifically this [8]. Also, the tag should stay in place until all the problems are fixed, not before the problems are fixed or when one out of many problems is fixed. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor, please do not listen to this bad advice from Volunteer Marek. If there is a discussion to determine that the article is poor quality, it can be removed from the home page and have orange maintenance tags added at the top. Otherwise, please don't tag this article. It already has a tag for being a current event, subject to rapid developments. This is sufficient warning for the reader. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you appear to be working under the misunderstanding that just because an article is listed on the main page it can't be tagged for problems. That's ass-backward. It's wrong. It's not based on any policy I can think of (indeed, that would be against policy). Please don't dispense this misinformation with this tone of faux-authority as it is clear you're out of your element when it comes to content and content related policies. And seriously, edit warring by an admin is bad enough by itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the standard phrase for the activity. The problem with the phrase "to be accessed without a subscription" is that it does not address the fact that the incident covered by the BBC does involve a subscription and the keys from this valid subscription may have been used to authorise other decoders. Most of the piracy on DirecTV involved pirate smartcards or, when the complexity of the smartcards were increased with additional components, Modified Official Smartcards or MOSCs. There was an attempt about twenty years ago by the programme providers to have the phrase "signal theft" adopted but that failed. The phrase "piracy" and the phrase "pirate decoders" are even commonly used in academic papers on the subject and as such would have far more credibility as reliable sources than unsubstantiated opinion. Jmccormac (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you are taking mass action to replace "piracy" with the more legal definition of "copyright infringement" or equivalent across a vast number of articles. While there might be a few cases where this is okay, the use of "piracy" as the description in some fields (like music or video games) is the most common term used in sources, and should reflect that. I would understand if this was a

I realize that it dates back hundreds of years, but companies in the fields of commercial music and games have a vested interest in popularizing the term "piracy". One of the points being made in the

free culture movement, of which Wikipedia is a part, that "piracy" in the copyright context will never be neutral. This is why opposition to it seems to come up a lot in the relevant talk pages: copy protection, software industry, modchip, warez1, warez2, copyright infringement of AV, etc. The people in these discussions who argue to keep the word seem to be doing so purely because it is common. This same reason has been deemed insufficient at a copyright infringement trial as I recently learned from making these edits. Connor Behan (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It does seem to be a mass action that is based purely on opinion rather than reliable sources. The term is used in academic papers and is strongly supported. This kind of mass action replacement is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. The term has been in use for decades. One generally errs on the side of caution rather than relying on the hot air of an opinion. Jmccormac (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you mean these academic papers? Thanks for the assertion that my opinion is only an opinion whereas your opinion is based on something more. Once again: loaded language can be common. Connor Behan (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am citing the facts. [9] The term has a long history in technology. If you wish, you can also search through patents for the term and you will find many hits. These tend to be academically reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if a reliable source says that Secu-ROM is designed to prevent piracy, it is just as true that Secu-ROM is designed to prevent copyright infringement. I am not changing the information imparted by Wikipedia, only the words. And a neutral word is better to use than a word that draws ire from a percentage of our users. That percentage might be down to 10 with many people forgetting the original mission of Wikipedia but the point stands. Connor Behan (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are, in good faith, replacing the word (or forms of the word) “piracy” with other words. The word “piracy” has a particular meaning and history of use in the studies of literature in the 1500s and early 1600s. Using the original word is more accurate to the concept and faithful to the sources. To replace the word “pirated” with another word or phrase has the effect of adding meanings and connotations that the sources did not intend. For example, to replace ”pirating” with the phrase “making an unlicensed copy” is not accurate in the sense that the goal of the so-called “pirates” was not to make a “copy”, but it was a more elaborate activity: First, it was to make a handwritten “approximation” of the original performance, that would then be memorized and performed. Step two: Yet another person might eventually use the approximations as well as the illicit performances in order to create a printed book where no “original” printed book existed in the first place. That’s very different from what your alteration is suggesting. Another problem that’s created by changing the word "pirate": the concept of “pirating” is a hypothesis that was created by someone who used the word “pirate” when creating it over a century ago. The commonest and most fundamental danger to any hypothesis is when it is not “locked down”: adding variations to the meaning opens the door to other variations and it leads to meaningless. In that sense, there are reasons for maintaining the original vocabulary. If you object to the wording, you might find original sources who agree with you, you should find them and add to the article. As can be seen in the article you edited, the theory of “pirating” in the Jacobean and Elizabethan era does have its detractors and those who object in various ways to the wording. If you find fault with the original wording, removing and replacing the “fault” on Wikipedia doesn’t fix the problem. The fault needs to be seen and argued about in books and among scholars, and through some kind of critical consensus the concepts and understanding can be eventually improved,and that improvement can then be reported on (with references to the original sources) in the article. Clockchime (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC) I should be specific and mention some of the edits that I question:

Yes, the process above does not describe "making an unlicensed copy". It describes "making unlicensed derivative works". So I should have been more careful when making that edit. Nevertheless. I do not see how the word "piracy" differentiates between the two. It has been used to mean

weight demands it. I just think there are better ways for us to label it when we are not writing a direct quotation. Connor Behan (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You have a point when you suggest that the word “pirate” may have “a pejorative connotation which is … something Wikipedia should strive to avoid”, but I think that it it’s use is appropriate when it is a widely used term, which is the idea found in the article

WP:LABEL, where it says: “Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.” I think that’s fair, and should be followed. The word “pirate” has been used (in this specific sense) in reliable sources as far back as 1600s in a book on the history of printing. As far as fixing the problem with an in-text attribution, the WP articles on this topic are very good in that way, and for that reason, verifying that the word is used very often by the sources is not hard to do. When you suggest that the use of the word “sounds like an exaggeration”, I think you may also have a point: The various early 20th Century theories about the supposed “piracy” that occurred in the late 16th Century are elaborate, and they are supported by not enough actual evidence. They also use words that I think you might correctly find fault with. To stick with this example, they use the word “pirate” all over the place, and I think that they may end up regretting it. However, I say: they are stuck with the word usage. And if such a fault is symptomatic and rightly contributes to the downfall of the theories — then I say let them crumble. (That contrary idea seems to be creeping into the books and WP articles.) However, let’s not be too quick either to pull the trigger or to clean up their language. These ideas were expressed by some very eminent scholars, and they have been accepted and expanded on by others. There is at least one account from the 16th Century of a person in the audience trying to write down a play as it is spoken. And there are certainly printers who made a career out of appropriating works they didn’t have a right to. I think (responding to what you said above) the use of the word “piracy” is not just an attempt to “load” the idea rhetorically, it also is a time-honored attempt to describe something larger: a “life of crime” by certain printers, or at least a more complex activity than just punching a button on photocopy machine. Clockchime (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Since copyright infringement required much more work back in the day, there is probably some merit to the idea that they needed a separate word. One that indicated a whole process of making a copy, avoiding detection and setting up the means by which to profit from it. Even though I think in-text attribution should be followed more closely with this word (using quotation marks and phrases like "according to"), I would be happy to let other editors make the call for the types of articles you mention. It sounds like you're mainly talking about acts of "piracy" that took place before the industrial revolution. My main concern, on the other hand, is the period of the last 50 years, in which the term became more controversial due to publishers applying it much more broadly. Connor Behan (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to request that you stop making these changes across swathes of articles until you get wider consensus to do so. There are likely proper places where "piracy" is not the right word over "copyright violation", but looking at your many recent edits, you appear to be doing regardless of the topic. If you don't stop, I will have to open an

WP:VPP or a similar page. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course I'm discriminating based on topic. I leave articles untouched if they use "piracy" to describe the hijacking of vessels. And as my first edit summary since March 16 shows, I also leave them untouched if they use "piracy" for elaborate acts of copyright infringement from before the computing era. All it took was one user who brought a well thought out argument to this discussion instead of saying "people who disagree with you might exist". My main concern is curtailing the use of

WP:VPP is indeed the best option. Connor Behan (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

While those piracy redirects all go to copyright infringement, the term "copyright infringement" itself is too expansive to reflect the narrow concept of what piracy is considered in these areas. That is, while "piracy" is a form of copyright infringement, it is not the only form, and using that term as replacement for "piracy" is making a more vague statement. (To be clear, piracy in this form is the wholesale taking of a complete copyrighted work and making it available for others to obtain without proper licensing/fees to the copyright owner. In contrast, copyright infringement can include what commonly happens on YouTube with automatic takedown notices where a portion of the work is included and flagged, which is not considered piracy by any means). The word "piracy", even if it is a loaded term, is readily accepted in these mediums as a neutral term for "unauthorized duplication" or similar actions that fall under copyright infringement. It is a fair concern to avoid non-neutral language but I think in this case, piracy has become a more neutral term by sources when discussion copyright infringement issues. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of The Dark Side of the Moo, the term "pirate" is correct;^[1] unlike most typical bootleg recordings, it contained material that had been officially released elsewhere and was reproduced without permission. What makes the LP significant is acquiring the original recordings at that point was difficult, requiring an import of long-deleted flop singles, so it was more acceptable than your typical straight pirate which were quite popular in the Far East in the 1980s. And any number of Grateful Dead tapes are "unauthorised" or "semi-authorised" (I've got one where Bob Weir tells an audience member his bootleg will sound better if he stands back about 40 feet!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that people knowledgeable about the music industry use "pirate album" to mean something different from "bootleg album". However, I think the former term still has an opinionated connotation for the reasons above — "anti-piracy" groups try to cast these albums in a light that is "always bad" without considering the more acceptable nature of Dark Side of the Moo that you've pointed out. Is there really no substitute? Do "unlicensed album", "unauthorized album", "unofficial album" all introduce an ambiguity as to whether the illegal step was making the recording or distributing it? In any case, I don't know why you cited FACT here. It doesn't discuss the naming of albums. And even if it did, it's a lobby / advocacy group. Connor Behan (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the scope of the article isn't transphobia how is it different to a list of people who were murdered because they have red hair or because they were blue eyes? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because those lists would either be really long or really short. We could find a million blue-eyed people who have had their murders recorded. But I'm sure only one in a million display evidence that the murder happened specifically because the perpetrator was prejudiced against people with blue eyes. The transgender community is much smaller, having been virtually unknown until a few decades ago. And yet, bias against them is pervasive enough for several works to argue that it informs a number of crimes even when it is not the primary cause. Connor Behan (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was the reason George was shocked by the paper, the fact that even one female solo paper was cited. There are 15 solo papers so 14-1 but 3 are self-citations by the 3 authors. No one will ever say it if Wikipedia does not. It is self-evident from the paper itself. thanx76.16.211.203 (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No one will ever say it if Wikipedia does not." That sounds like the story of my life. In my first few years of editing, I was constantly thinking that I should start a blog about some little known fact and spread it around just so I would have something to cite later on. Even now, there are things on Wikipedia (like birthdays) that I know to be false but cannot correct because normally reliable sources say the opposite. Maybe we can ask Takei to confirm on Twitter that this was his specific reason? Connor Behan (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for the 11 males outside citation:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/stephen-hawking-offers-new-resolution-of-black-hole-paradox.829394/

Talks about the Forum's surprise a 'girl' was involved in this, they do talk about the initial paper on page 3 (which only cites men) and then you cite the final paper which includes the work of a 'girl' cited by the PhysicsForum and retired Harvard Physics Professor Lubos Motl.

just a suggestion

as to a photo, the metadata on some of the blackboard photos (Forbes 30u30) shows it is owned by a P.Mitra, maybe ask him for permission, a Prahar Mitra is listed on Harvard's site as working in the same room as her.

76.16.211.203 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That user who said she was a "19 year old girl" clearly did so out of surprise. But going from that to the paper count would be reading too much into it :). I just talked to Prahar. He said he's going to look for the original file and send a permission email soon. Thanks. Connor Behan (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good.

As to the citation/proof you seek, the shock and awe all stems from Hawking citing this 'woman.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3266108/Forget-black-holes-Women-biggest-mystery-universe-claims-Stephen-Hawking.html In fact, according to the MIT blogs, one of her former office mates is hinting that Hawking is flying to Boston this Thursday to meet her even though his public talk is not until Monday. (Cleaning staff were preparing an office a couple doors down.) Even if no one supplies an external source as to the ratio, leave it in for a few months--clearly this physicist's work intrigues Hawking, and someone will report something at some point. This is like the mountain coming to her rather than her going to the mountain. Interesting to say the least.

Moscow just created a Russian language wikipedia page and I cleaned it up a bit but my Russian is rusty. If it is your native tongue, feel free to improve it. A famous Russian is credited with providing Hawking air transportation to the USA. 76.16.211.203 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because a Democratic National Committee operative asked colleagues in May if a citation for the source citation of DWS's $17 million in fundraising could be provided by a Wikipedia editor, back in May, and you just provided the requested cite, I expect some editor(s) might think you're part of the "plot." Looking at your last 1,000 edits, I'd wager that possibility is remote. Do I win? Activist (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I don't work for any political party and only saw this citation in the email leak that recently became available. Connor Behan (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I appreciate your feedback however it was not appropriate to remove all of my work. I agree it could be edited. Deleting it entirely is not assuming good faith Assume good faith (WP:AGF). JLOPO (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were an eager new contributor who simply didn't know that book reports were not appropriate for Wikipedia. But then I saw that you got some advice about that very thing a year ago. Airborn certainly is a good book, but do you really think there are enough critics analyzing it to make your passages citable? Upon searching, it looks like there's an Airborn Wiki. So perhaps it would be best to preserve your work there if finding citations proves difficult. Connor Behan (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Connor! I see you made some constructive edits to

Hey! Thanks for posting your suggestions in a ready-to-use wiki format. The infobox, which I hope to edit soon, sounds like the main thing that hasn't been addressed yet. I will just spend a few days looking for sources first since it's a good idea to limit our use of the self-published ones. Connor Behan (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Connor! Thanks for giving this a look. Please let me know if you have questions. RD at Tides (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks for your revision. Judging from it I can see that you are a very experienced editor here. Excuse me, could you please answer my question? Thank you in advance. --Sir Gossip (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jamie Chung article, you mentioned her husband by using the "module = " parameter which generates a whole new infobox. There is no need to do this with Template:Infobox person. If you just use the "spouse = " parameter, the idwiki editor who reverted you will probably be happy. Now the question I had was how you got into the habit of using "module = " to encapsulate "spouse = " in the first place. My guess is that you were looking for a workaround to mention spouse information with Template:Infobox musical artist. The maintainers of this template have decided not to mention spouses, a decision which I don't really agree with. For people who act as well, it makes sense to just switch back to Template:Infobox person and have embedded musical information, which is what I did with Anggun and more recently Christina Milian. Connor Behan (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I’ve done what you say. Now I understand that there’s no need to embed the template {{marriage}} in the template {{Infobox person}}. I also changed id-Anggun in accordance with your advice. Of course, your guess is quite correct. I was about to add spouse information by using "spouse = " parameter when I saw that the parameter was invisible. I could not understand that. Thanks for your explanation. As for Jamie Chung’s image (deleted by you) I proceeded from this critical remark containing an obvious allusion to pieing. I only wanted to oppose this critique and find unambiguous evidence for the most widespread opinion that Jamie Chung possesses many attractions. Best regards, Sir Gossip (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The {{

original research), then perhaps such a section could be included. But a single anonymous troll on the talk page is nowhere near this threshold. Connor Behan (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

 Thanks I’m less experienced than you. So I didn’t know the points mentioned by you. Now I’ve got no objections. As for

WP:OR I must note apropos of this that it is easy to adduce some publications, among them the following article: "Самые красивые азиатки" [The Most Beautiful Asian Girls]. Section "Джейми Чунг" (in Russian). Look.tm (Fashion portal). 14 February 2017. Unfortunately, such pseudo-articles do not pertain to consistently scientific investigations WP:reliable sources. Besides, every pretty Asian girl is usually called Gyulchatai. --Sir Gossip (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Recommending a better place for your contribution is not hostile. If someone tries to remove this information from sex differences in psychology, I will fight to keep it there. If you think this is not enough, start a topic at Talk:Google's_Ideological_Echo_Chamber. I would start one, but I'm working on other edits now. Connor Behan (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Google's Ideological Echo Chamber shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You're way past three reverts there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have clicked "undo" a grand total of two times in my history of editing Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Both of them were to revert the anonymous user above. And these were edits that very clearly should have been reverted. Let me take a wild guess about what you're talking about:

• Jussim stuff: When I added this, I didn't know that you had removed it before. I have not added it again, but I suspect that I will since the talk page is almost unanimously in favour of it.
• Assage stuff: When I saw you remove this, I added it back with a reason. Perhaps if I search the history I will see that you had removed it before. So I'll give this to you as two reverts. The sentence will be snow kept if it goes to the talk page since Assange is clearly as notable as Shapiro and Gab. You may think the tweet is idiotic but he definitely made the job offer and I can find plenty of other sources for this.

3RR applies to a single dispute. Your interpretation seems to be "no more than three reverts in the entire history of an article" which is completely incorrect. Connor Behan (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR applies to 3 reverts made within 24 hours, regardless if it's the same dispute or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have easily violated it. One, two, three, four within a span of 15 minutes. Connor Behan (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential edits (no matter how many) count as a single "revert." I mention this because you have (IMHO) contributed to the quality of that article more than any single editor. I would hate to see that end only because some are less interested in article improvement than playing "gotcha." James J. Lambden (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an

thank you for your contributions to the wiki page on Julian Assange. I would like to share with you the following screenshot and document: https://snag.gy/eLGI6g.jpg ; this screenshot is from this document: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_25_esp.pdf

as you can see in both the screenshot, and other parts of the document, the ruling does in fact mention Julian by name.

this was brought to my attention by a generous activist who works for Julian around the clock and is consequently very familiar with his situation and surrounding details.

I hope we are able to find an agreeable final product for this section of the article.

Thank you again Nolanpowers (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So VIPS got it right and teleSUR got it wrong. I guess the absence of Assange's name from the press release is what misled them. Should we continue to note this error as a way of "calling out sources" or just indicate that the ruling mentions Assange?

Also, since "safe passage" is mentioned above, I don't see much of a reason to keep the third paragraph. After the SOTT source (run by the mystic Laura Knight Jadczyk), it seems to just say that the IACHR wants all parties involved to behave in a legal manner. Isn't it a trivial statement that a court tasked with interpreting international law would also support the application of said law? Connor Behan (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response,

First, yes, that is correct, and i think that is a good guess. I have already made an edit to include the correct info that was reported, meaning that I took a nice quote from VIPS that quotes the ruling itself and names Assange's case. I'm satisfied with this and would welcome any further contributions.

I do not think any information here should be removed, although I am open to rewording or rephrasing, I think everything mentioned has noteworthy importance, and am frankly stunned by your perspective on the larger, general, overall perception of the situation. To get to the point, there have been many assertions from many parties, including the current president of Ecquador, who are talking publicly about Assange and directly asserting that he lacks certain basic human or civil rights. If you watch the really massive news organizations you can find tons of voices saying things like this, but the examples are very real and from people of power, as Ecquador has actually followed up with their public statement that assange has no right to free speech because he strayed into politics, by placing him in near isolation and cutting off his communications with the world.

Obviously I haven't found a way to include that analysis of why the third paragraph is important yet, because it is not specifically mentioned in any of the secondary source material and would technically be 'original reporting' - although it seems quite obvious and hopefully at some point something i read will give me a useable quote in that regard.

Thank you again

Nolanpowers (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that quotation makes it clear that Assange is mentioned so I agree that it's a good idea to include it.

Your other stuff is a head scratcher though, as I did not make a claim about the overall perception of the situation. Of course I don't think a whistleblower should be a political prisoner or have his ability to communicate infringed. What I'm talking about is a certain sentence that is devoid of information: "The ruling also opined in favor of adherence to all applicable laws, including and [sic] all internal laws of the state providing asylum as well as all relevant international laws and treaties." This is merely a question about what is stylistically appropriate for Wikipedia. Connor Behan (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Between 2018-08-13 and 2018-09-12 on en.wikipedia.org User:Nolanpowers (talk | contribs) and User:Connor Behan (talk | contribs) both made edits to some pages in common. You can see a chronological list of all their edits on the Interaction Timeline or a table view on the Interaction Analyser.

These are my individual contributions, sections which are relatively recent, and did not exist until recently. There is a tremendous amount of missing information from both of these pages. I appreciate the portions of your contributions that have added information, rather than those that have modified it, or deleted it. Although there are exceptions. It is overwhelming to address all of the issues at once. I hope you will take spirit that I believe we share a common goal of providing content that will help the articles get successful WP:GAN submission.

There is a strong disagreement between you and I about how accessible these articles should be to those who are not experts in various fields. Because of this tendentiousness, I find your following my posts around to be stressful, frustrating because you do not explain yourself, insulting because you write off the edits as 'cleaning up" in the title yet offer no actual detailed explanations as to the actual actions that you take.

Hounding or following is a real issue on WP

Nolanpowers (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By your own link, I first edited

assume bad faith

, it would be you who is following me. My recent interest in the article comes from the very real possibility that Ecuador is planning to stab Assange in the back. I do not have the slightest interest in who you are as a person.

And if I'm not allowed to defend myself, what would you like me to do? Of course my edits are contributory! The summary field just isn't long enough for writing a micro-analysis of every phrasing change. But let me indulge you now. When I deleted the second half of the last sentence of the third paragraph (something that you ambiguously referred to as "the sentence"), I did so to combine it with the sentence that begins "The decision, according to multiple reporting outlets..." If I did not do so, the short section would contain the phrase "safe passage" three times and sound like repetitive filler. I also put both mentions of the VIPS memo together. It is awkward to cite it once to say that some reports were accurate about Assange being mentioned by name and then to cite it again later just to say "VIPS Steering Group publisher an article..." So now I'm bringing both things up at the same time — discussing the correction to teleSUR and then saying that the VIPS article with the quotation you provided is among the corrections. Lastly, I deleted "duplicate refs" as mentioned in the edit summary. Soon I will convert them to properly formatted references which you did not do. Clearly, there is no actual substance / information that I deleted.

It is particularly clear that your edits should be checked and cleaned up (hopefully by someone with more free time) because of the following:

• You introduced the grammar mistake "including and" which another user already corrected
• You referred to Assange as "Julian" or "Mr Assange" in an encyclopedia
• You type the same reference many times without giving it a name
• You copy and paste a URL without using e.g. Template:Cite web
• You do not indent replies on talk pages

Of course these issues are common among Wikipedians who are less experienced or editing outside their native language and I have all the patience in the world for them. But it's a different matter when they chastise me for trying to correct them. Most users do not get this benefit — the main reason you did is that you brought up a very interesting development in Assange's situation which I was not aware of. I hope you continue making contributions but learn to be far less protective over the issue of whether your exact choice of words is preserved in a living document. Connor Behan (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have removed the sections added to Wilkinson's and related articles per

Thank-you for erring on the side of caution since I wasn't aware of the past discussion. However, I'm sure it will be possible to restore much of the deleted content after taking a few more precautions. I could argue that the Farb / Wilkinson statements qualify per

WP:RSN where none exists. Connor Behan (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The New York Journal of Mathematics retraction controversy.The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Connor Behan. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Connor Behan. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Connor Behan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

1. Have You seen Episode Manhunt recently?

2. Would You be Able to Answer my Questions correctly if Posible?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I haven't seen Manhunt in a couple years but I remember it pretty well because the episode is awesome. Are you asking about the main villain's accomplice? Connor Behan (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://putlocker.fyi/show/law-order-special-victims-unit/season-2/episode-19/

https://lawandorder.fandom.com/wiki/Manhunt

In the Bowery Stalker's warehouse, Cops found partial fingerprints and some DNA, but couldn't match any of it to anyone in the system.

Why r [Dumb Cops] wasting their Time interogating [Parolee Frank Tagart] whose DNA is Already in [System]?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

The links you provided look like more than enough to answer those questions. Taggart was a suspect because he had a tattoo similar to the one that was apparently seen during the kidnapping. Connor Behan (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that You wanted to Re-Watch the Episode. I'm glad that You stil Recal the Episode but It is Stil Vague in my Opinion.

Last Year when Cops searched Warehouse, the Stalker's [fingerprints & DNA] did Not match Criminal Records, so [Stalker is Somebody who Has not Been arested Yet] so [Why r Cops acusing puting Frank in Line-Up for Stalker Identification]?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Maybe they thought Frank worked closely with the kidnapper despite not being the main one?? Connor Behan (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cops Kept suggesting that Frank is [Actual Stalker]. I thought that You wer Going to say, "It is Posible that Hot Annie's abduction is Not related to Stalker, so Tagart might Be guilty of Kidnaping Annie."

1. Why did Dumb Cragen think About geting [Court Order to compare Tagart's DNA to Sarah Kimel's sexual Asault] despite [Tagarat's DNA is in System]?

2. What the Fudg is Going on Here, do Cops automaticaly Believ that [Annie's abduction is Not related to Stalker]?

3. Marty Poter the Good Samaritan identifies a Guy as Annie's kidnaper, But He turns out To be Cop so Why is that Cop in the Line-Up?(73.220.163.13 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I dunno man. Those details can be unearthed by rewatching the episode ten times. I am not able to do so this month so it's up to you. Get to the bottom of this for the good of aspiring detectives everywhere. I believe in you! Connor Behan (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. r You available or do I need to Ask someone Else?

2. any Good Useful Website besides [Wiki & Tv.com]?(73.220.163.13 (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• This is a long term troll Connor, please ignore him and remove any further posts--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of your conduct here. First, you added a pro-fringe opinion piece that was attempting to incite a canvass [10]. There is no evidence of a canvass in progress, and the best way to handle that is WP:DENY. When another editor removed that from the talk page, you edit warred it back in [11]. After I removed it here, [12], citing reasons, you left a little passive aggressive null edit summary here [13], as if the explanation you had already been given were somehow inadequate. Is there some reason you think that benefits the talk page? Your latest edit summary looks like you want to debate this, here is your chance. Geogene (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I overreacted before reading some of the other articles in your link. You and

User:Ahrtoodeetoo are right that someone this active in conspiracy circles should not be listed in the media section. Where I expect to have disagreements, either with you or other maintainers, is in saying that there are both fringe and non-fringe writers who accuse the Russian meddling investigation of being overblown, e.g. Glenn Greenwald and Nate Silver who have so far been excluded. If one of them were to write about the article, I would push for this to be noted on the talk page, given that Wikipedia should be transparent about criticism it receives. Connor Behan (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

That article had three problems that made it inappropriate: (1) it was unreliable; (2) it was fringe; and (3) it was attempted

R2 (bleep) 21:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Well it's over now. I fell for an op-ed by someone who defends Info Wars so I'm going to let other people deal with the bias in the Russian interference article. Connor Behan (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit summary, the user Ici22222 is part of an ongoing sock problem with an editor who is making unsourced edits about production companies and awards, and edit warring across multiple accounts and IPs in order to force their preferred version of plot summaries to remain. I did not do a check of all the awards listed in this article, but as the restoring editor, you are free to take responsibility for the content of the edit. Undoing the edits of socks, especially around problematic content areas, is standard. It's also fine to reinstate those edits, but the reinstating editor is the one who becomes accountable for verifying the veracity of the included material; as for the plot summary, restoring the plot's wording rewards the puppeteer, but I have no interest in edit warring against legit users. Can't speak to the other edits you commented about, but wanted to provide context for mine. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I didn't know Ici22222 had a history of making unsourced edits about awards. In this case, the sources check out though and I think most of them were added by Ribbet32. Connor Behan (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I'm glad they look good. Grandpallama (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments continue to misrepresent what I wrote [14]. Please be more careful. Semantics do matter when they appear to make a content dispute into a personal dispute. I did my best to focus on content and policy, and am happy to refactor to that end. --

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Hello Connor! I have recently rewritten much of Conformal field theory and expanded it, too. Would you like to give some feedback and/or correct mistakes and omissions? I do not know that much about CFT beyond the 2d case, so your input would be greatly appreciated. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sylvain... thanks for the work! There are a bunch of topics (like the embedding space) that might be too much on the technical side. But there are definitely some things I can add to the sections you started. To start, I just wrote a bit about scale vs conformal symmetry. Connor Behan (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! Thanks for bit about scale vs conformal symmetry. Technical topics may not be for that article, but there could be several articles on conformal field theory. And ideally there could be a number of contributors, although I had little success so far in trying to convince specialists to write in Wikipedia. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tag categories for deletion (as you did here) unless you have already created the discussion. Currently (as of the time I'm writing this), there is no deletion discussion for the category mentioned in the diff I provided. ···

You also did it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And no discussion exists for any of them. ···

Join WP Japan! 16:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Tagging is the first step on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. When you see that a tag was added less than 20 minutes ago, odds are that I'm filling out the second step as we speak. Connor Behan (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your padawan. You can fill everything out and then submit them at about the same time. That way, people don't follow the link to the alleged discussion and find nothing. There should not be 31 minutes between you tagging the categories and creating the discussion (which is what happened in this case). ···

Join WP Japan! 17:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Af'El. Since you had some involvement with the Af'El redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]