Bigtimeoperator

State of the Union

I apologize for referring to your edit as vandalism. I clearly was incorrect, and overreacted. KI 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on "breech"

Come on, let's use some common sense here. Just because ABC f'd it up doesn't mean we have to perpetuate it. --PKtm 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Chicago Manual of Style, chapter 11 ("Quotations and Dialogue") sections 8 ("Syntactic and typographic considerations") and 69 ("Use of sic") point out that minor typos can be corrected, when the intent is clear. While those section aren't available online, here is a part of the Q&A on quotations which addresses the point (emphasis mine):

Q. In quoting historical letters or correspondence, what is the current accepted practice as far as leaving mistakes or clarifying mistakes for modern readers? Is it dependent on the work?

A. In scholarly publishing, corrections must be acknowledged, either with the use of interpolations in square brackets or explanations in the notes. Using [sic] to note that an error occurred in the original is also conventional. Some minor errors or typos may be corrected without acknowledgment. All this requires considerable editorial judgment. Please see CMS 11.4, 11.8, and 11.69 for more guidance.

—Leflyman^Talk 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bigtimeoperator 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And yes PKtm, I see that I misspelled "rightous" [sic] on your page. Bigtimeoperator 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's been a misunderstanding. PKtm's note on my page about "a wave of truly bad edits to Lost pages" wasn't in regards to you/your change, but to the sudden appearance of nonsensical additions recently made to the LOST characters' bios.—Leflyman^Talk 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. When you jump to conclusions about what's on someone's talk page, keep in mind that you're not seeing the whole dialog, typically, since the thing that's being responded to is usually on the other editor's talk page.

I do think that Chicago Manual of Style aside, insisting on inserting "(sic)" in a Wiki article of this nature is just not common sense, and I stand by that. However, we can certainly disagree, and frankly, you should expect that in Wikipedialand. I certainly didn't intend to insult you, and I don't think it's appropriate to sling accusations of "being a dick" (for that is certainly what you imply by "reciprocate" when you write, Anyway, I wasn't a dick about the disagreement, so perhaps next time this happens you should reciprocate and remember that all of your asides are public.). As are yours. So please don't be so quick to take offense. --PKtm 04:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)