User talk:Pierdeux

March 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Auto-antonym, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sundayclose. I would have thought that the Wiktionary article (which I linked) would be considered a reliable source. Isn't it the case? In a further addition to the page, I linked a couple of Wikipedia articles; that too, I presume, would be considered reliable. Pierdeux (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the wikis is considered a reliable source (including Wikipedia) because they are user generated, meaning anyone can edit with no editorial oversight. Sundayclose (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Auto-antonym, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Seriously, you need to read WP:RS. You quoting an example is not a reliable source. You've been around for 11 years. You should know this. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Sundayclose. I sense a level of escalation which I don't think the facts warrant. Please allow me to respectfully put to you the following:

I believe that my entry (the one about the word Lucifer) which caused your latest comment (02:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)) was made prior (21:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)) to your earlier reply (22:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)). You may have overlooked it earlier, but in no way was it inflation on my part.
I was, by and large, aware of the guidelines. But thank you for pointing them out to me. I took the time to read them anew, which was useful. This, for me, also highlighted the fact that most of the Auto-antonym page does not abide by them. I don't say this to argue that "anything stands". Yet, I would argue that rules and guidelines exist in a context. The context here is the existing page. I thought that by mimicking other entries, I was on safe ground. But maybe Wikipedia is tightening its moderation of late. So be it.
I wish to point out that the Auto-antonym page is, roughly-speaking, made up of two parts: on the one hand, the Nomenclature and Linguistic mechanisms sections—which deal in general principles and should, rightly, be more heavily referenced than is currently the case—and, on the other hand, an Examples section—which deals in specifics and needs hardly any referencing at all, an example either standing on its own merit or not at all. To illustrate this last point, allow me to compare this to mathematical theorems: when you prove Pythagoras's theorem, you show that the famous relation (between the lengths of a triangle's sides) has to be as stated; but to prove that it were wrong, you only needed a single counterexample. To show that a given word is an auto-antonym, you only need to show two existing specific contexts where the meanings are opposite. (By contrast, the impossible claim that "here is a thorough list of all auto-antonyms" would need referencing on a massive scale...)

This last point begs the further question: what is the point, in an encyclopedia, of giving a list of examples? (This is a question for the discussion page, I suppose.) I did ask myself this question. And my answer would be: as with many other pages on Wikipedia, here is a page that conveniently gathers together already existing information. After all, that's what Wikipedia does: improving knowledge by gathering together existing knowledge in coherent wholes.

Finally, a word on our back-and-forth. In 11 years on Wikipedia, I have never experienced this kind of interaction with a moderator. In previous interactions, I was able to correct or complete mistakes on my part over a number of small-step increments. (Seldom are pages good on the first try; likewise for users' contributions.) Sometimes contributions were reverted (say, because a different editorial line was taken). And so I may be naïve, but I have a sense of apprehension about our current interaction: I would be saddened to think that it is indicative of a new trend on Wikipedia. Pierdeux (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, but one does not have to be an administrator to ask for adherence to Wikipedia policies. As for other problems in the article, "other crap exists" is not a sufficient basis for making more bad edits. Wikipedia is always a work in progress and will always have problems. Feel free to challenge or fix problems, but don't add to the problems. Please read WP:V, a core policy on Wikipedia. Citation to reliable sources is required, especially after your unsourced edits have been challenged. I stand by the templated warnings above. Read the policies I have linked. Stop adding unsourced content. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]