User talk:Tierlieb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] [sic]
When you see a [sic] you are seeing an ancient short form that means -- '"Yes, I know this is a questionable spelling, but this is a quote, and that is how it is spelled, or punctuated, in the original, so don't go fixing it!"
You changed a bunch of places where I spelled Kalashnikov, as Kalishnikov, and a half-dozen other alternative spellings, because that is how it was spelled in the original.
You got grumpy with me, inappropriately so, I believe.
You won't find a [sic] after every error the officers who compiled the allegations made, because (1) I didn't anticipate other editors wouldn't understand that this was quoted material, and I didn't use [sic] at first; (2) the officers make so many errors, it is hard not to overlook some, or grow so used to them that they seem normal.
But I used it here, and you changed it anyway.
I am checking the originals as I change back to the spelling in the original, to make sure I don't restore any instances where I actually did make a typo. -- Geo Swan 04:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another instance -- Geo Swan 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Don't worry, I know what "sic" means. And even if I had not known, it is linked. So I thought "If that guy writes 'sic', it probably is like that in the original". But, you know, I have this strange habit of thinking "well, maybe I should check what the original source says". So, I read it. Now I admit a mistake: I read only the first text that I encountered (about Mohammad Ahmed Abdullah Saleh Al Hanashi. I found that there was no mention of the word on pages 55 or 56 on the first document refered to, no menation on pages 201 and 202 of the third you mentioned, plus, in the beginning of the text, the word is written correctly. But now I see that the part about the "Kalishnikov" referenced the middle document and there the typo is. So I see you're right. You don't have to double-check those articles, I'll do that. Tierlieb 12:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
