4 ms·

> I think some janky editor messed with it last year and nobody has noticed or checked the sources. Wikipedia isn't concerned with that kind of thing. Compare

> I think some janky editor messed with it last year and nobody has noticed or checked the sources. Wikipedia isn't concerned with that kind of thing. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_configuration , where the article states "R and S refer to rectus and sinister, Latin for right and left, respectively", despite the facts that (1) it's not like the Latin word for right is obscure; (2) the claim was highlighted as false (in a different section of the article, where it still also appears) on the talk page in 2018.

AStonesThrow 1y ago
But this is truly the correct usage, despite your original research; you (and the nobodies on Talk page) should have referred to the reliable secondary sources instead. Chemists are better at Latin than you gave them credit for. https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/z1ms9-63w28 https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/z1ms9-63w28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recto_and_verso#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recto_and_verso#Etymology
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 1y ago
    > No, you're just a moron. Please edit swipes out of comments. It's one of the first and most important things we ask for in the Comments section of the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      Well, how would you characterize what's gone wrong in AStonesThrow's comment, which: (1) Makes a total of zero factually correct claims; (2) refers to citation of secondary sources as "original research"; (3) includes a swipe; and (4) cites a chemistry textbook claiming that rectus and sinister are "Latin for right and left" as support for the idea that "chemists are better at Latin than you gave them credit for", without bothering to provide any support for the idea that those definitions are correct?
      - tomhow 1y ago
        Someone else's conduct doesn't excuse your own. If their argument is false, sure, correct them. Our role as moderators is not to evaluate accuracy of comments; discussion is the way to find the truth. Our role is to uphold the guidelines, and your comment started with a swipe of the kind that has been clearly outside the guidelines and norms on HN from the very beginning. We've called out your parent commenter before and will do so again if they clearly transgress the guidelines, but in this case, the swipe in your comment was an escalation and was more egregious than anything in the parent comment. For the record, nobody flagged the parent comment, whereas several community members flagged yours.

AStonesThrow 1y ago

But this is truly the correct usage, despite your original research; you (and the nobodies on Talk page) should have referred to the reliable secondary sources instead. Chemists are better at Latin than you gave them credit for. https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/z1ms9-63w28 https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/z1ms9-63w28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recto_and_verso#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recto_and_verso#Etymology

thaumasiotes 1y ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 1y ago
  > No, you're just a moron. Please edit swipes out of comments. It's one of the first and most important things we ask for in the Comments section of the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    Well, how would you characterize what's gone wrong in AStonesThrow's comment, which: (1) Makes a total of zero factually correct claims; (2) refers to citation of secondary sources as "original research"; (3) includes a swipe; and (4) cites a chemistry textbook claiming that rectus and sinister are "Latin for right and left" as support for the idea that "chemists are better at Latin than you gave them credit for", without bothering to provide any support for the idea that those definitions are correct?
    - tomhow 1y ago
      Someone else's conduct doesn't excuse your own. If their argument is false, sure, correct them. Our role as moderators is not to evaluate accuracy of comments; discussion is the way to find the truth. Our role is to uphold the guidelines, and your comment started with a swipe of the kind that has been clearly outside the guidelines and norms on HN from the very beginning. We've called out your parent commenter before and will do so again if they clearly transgress the guidelines, but in this case, the swipe in your comment was an escalation and was more egregious than anything in the parent comment. For the record, nobody flagged the parent comment, whereas several community members flagged yours.