Talk:misle

RFV discussion: February 2018
Rfv-sense: To mislead. DTLHS (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The cite in Electronic Design does not use misling: . DTLHS (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The Quiddities citation, which I have just expanded, is discussing the existence of the word as an error, and speculating on how it could perhaps be used. This is arguably like other dictionaries' example sentences for words, which have been considered unallowable — CFI does not allow "made-up examples of how a word might be used." The District of Columbia Register [sic]s the word to call it out as an error / misprint in the original / whatever. The Holbrook citation elsewhere discusses the author's realization that the term is an error arising from misunderstanding, although I suppose the citation still works. The error seems very rare. This seems like a very rare, but possibly attestable, . - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It looks like we need another citation if this is to squeak by, so I have added one. Kiwima (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider this still uncited. I removed 2017, which was from forbes.com, which is not published in physical form as far as I know. I'm also very suspicious of 1999, which I could only find on archive.org courtesy of OCR and riddled with obvious scannos. But I think that given the title and the author's penchant for wordplay, 1999 should be given the benefit of the doubt. That leaves only 2 cites. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added two more. It is now cited. Kiwima (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , you're still being very careless. Please check that your quotes actually say what you claim they say. I had to remove another one because it actually said "misfiling". As for the DC Register, I actually can't find it online at all — can you produce a link to demonstrate that it actually says "misling"? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The link is, but getting it to show "misling" is tricky, because it is snippet view. I am fairly confident, in part because of that "[sic]". Kiwima (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't view it, but thanks for the link. It does seem odd to include a citation that explicitly considers the word to be wrong, but without context, we may not be able to determine why they marked it with [sic]. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The [sic] seems to indicate that the D.C. Register didn't like "misling" any more than you do, but clearly the person they are quoting used it. However, in case you have decided that quote is not satisfactory, I have also added some Usenet links to more cites. Kiwima (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree that it's cited now. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully you can check your quotes in the future and we won't have to go through this again. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)