User talk:Connor Behan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question About Your Edit[edit]

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)

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)

Nice edit summaries![edit]

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

Edit warring over "evenly divisible"[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Brad Meltzer[edit]

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 unsourced material or original research. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you know of a reliable, secondary source that establishes that Sawyer created his own website, and before Meltzer, then please feel free to change the passage back, and include that source in the passage. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

thanks for the correction[edit]

Jizya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-seeker2004 (talkcontribs) 07:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Law & Order: SVU edit[edit]

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

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif 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 Connor Behan for their non-stop excellent work in expanding the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season articles. The articles have been transformed from looking quite mundane and 'empty' - to absolutely wonderful and detailed, all thanks to your hard work. Thank you, and please keep it up! -- MSTR (Happy New Year!) 09:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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)
No worries Face-smile.svg 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!MSTR (Chat Me!) 09:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dark Knight[edit]

Thank you for your recent edits to The Dark Knight (film). However, I feel that your most recent edit, which I reverted, is not as constructive as the rest. The previously used statement is more encyclopaedic, and just as true. He is detained by the SWAT team, which puts him in their custody. Your wording leans heavily on the fourth wall, something that is avoided as much as possible, because it break the formality of the section. Anyway, I don't want to start an edit war, so I'll open an edit request at the talk page. Thanks. drewmunn talk 07:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

weird caption on hipster pic[edit]

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)

NOt hard to illustrate goth...but for some reason people are reticent to accept that we can define what a hipster looks like


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 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment[edit]

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)

Singular they[edit]

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 Genderqueer. I also think that you should practice WP:BRD more since, on your user page, you basically say that you will revert a person if they don't provide a rationale that is satisfactory to you and that you will then start a discussion on the talk page. Actually, it's often the case that a person should start a discussion on the talk page when reverted and discuss the issue instead of immediately reverting. For example, what happens if the person reverts you again? You are going to engage in a full out WP:Edit war? Stop just shy of four reverts and think that will ensure that you won't be blocked? (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

It would be nice if there were a word for intercourse that was artistic but still neutral.[edit]

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

Contact (novel)[edit]

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)

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)

Discussion re Canadian Legislation template infobox[edit]

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)

Lennart Poettering[edit]


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

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)

"Dont be a D/J" on meta[edit]

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)

Thanks, and Good Luck[edit]

Thanks for your edit on WP:No Personal Attacks. Given the history of that paragraph I fear it will soon be reverted (I'm surprised it has already lasted unmolested for almost 3 hours), but who knows, just maybe this time will be lucky. And even if not, thanks for trying. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Big Bang[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Singular 'they' on Dæmon (His Dark Materials)[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Victoria Taylor[edit]

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)

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)
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. (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass gap reverts[edit]

Sorry to have reverted your addition to two articles regarding Marco Frasca's very recent preprint. Our policy is to wait until WP:RS's tell us Frasca had made significant progress. Any such judgment call is outside our remit. Choor monster (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

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)

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)

Brianna Wu[edit]

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. (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

Fidel Castro[edit]

Hello Connor. I recently performed a mass revert of some of your edits to the Fidel Castro article, and just thought I'd drop a line to explain why. In various cases (such as the addition of "The Framing Business" citation added here) your edits simply involved adding additional references when we already had perfectly good references in place. In other cases you added first hand sources from Counter Punch, which again were not really necessary, and in at least one case I think that you drifted into WP:Synthesis and WP:Original Research territory ("In what would become a long held criticism of Israel," a statement not actually supported by the citation given). Earlier this year, I pulled this article through GAN, and one of the key concerns then was regarding its length; that being the case, we must be very careful not to unnecessarily lengthen it any further, particularly with information that is trivial or citations that are simply extraneous. Anyway, I hope that that doesn't discourage you, but I just wanted to make my position on this issue clear so that there wasn't any misunderstanding. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

Regarding the "Grammar cleanup" section on your User Page[edit]

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)

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)

Ellen Pao[edit]

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

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)

copy edits on the Cologne article[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Videoguard/Pirate Decryption[edit]

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)

Piracy removal[edit]

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 neologism which we would avoid, but the term's been around long enough to keep when it is the common form in that field. Is there any discussion to show support for this mass action? --MASEM (t) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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 Manual of Style is that popularity of a phrase and its appropriateness for an encyclopedia are two different things. There is a strong feeling with 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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: History of music publishing, Bad Quarto, Richard Day (printer), Benjamin Motte, John Wolfe (printer). Clockchime (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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 various types of copyright infringement and it seems that the original sources used a catch-all term like this to avoid writing about the two step process every time. It could also be because they wanted to introduce a pejorative connotation which is, as I've already said, something Wikipedia should strive to avoid. To be clear, I am not disputing the hypothesis that these Early Modern English works had their copyrights infringed. When a sourced article mentions this and not another hypothesis, I assume that is because 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)
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)
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)
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:AN case, as this mass editing change, with an apparent POINTy POV, is being disruptive if you are enacting this on your own. I do recommend opening a discussion at WP:VPP or a similar page. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
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 digital piracy, media piracy, online piracy, Internet piracy, software piracy, movie piracy, film piracy and video game piracy. Notice what all of those wikilinks have in common? They redirect to an article with a neutral title and neutral text. This is because the push to make Wikipedia have non-pejorative descriptions of this is several years old. Continuing a mandate that has been neglected a bit in recent years does not sound worthy of a noticeboard incident. Replacing widely used contentious labels with widely used neutral labels is part of Wikipedia's policy and if the links I provided earlier did not convince you of that, I guess a trip to WP:VPP is indeed the best option. Connor Behan (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
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)

Well I guess my question is..[edit]

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)

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)

Sabrina Pasterski[edit]

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)

"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)

Suggestion for the 11 males outside citation:

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. (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

Very good.

As to the citation/proof you seek, the shock and awe all stems from Hawking citing this 'woman.' 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. (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


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)

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)

Proposed deletion of Eric Weinstein[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Eric Weinstein has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has been raising notability concerns, with several suggestions for deletion, for five years now, and no sign of improvement.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sleety Dribble (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Airborn (Oppel novel)[edit]

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)

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)