Why was it "changed back"?
This is how I decided to add information in here: I was looking for what "forensic" means, as I dont't have english as my native language. After searching a lot, I got to see that was its definition.
The change I've made is just because if that was in there it would have been much easier for me. I just wanted it to be that easy for the next person.
Now, why would Quuxplusone change it back to a simple and complicated redirection, while it was providing more information AND the link to the other defitinition as well?
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask that. I'm just not sure what's the best thing to do here. But I don't feel like that "update" from Quuxplusone actually helped at all.
I don't want to start a fight or anything like this. I just want to know better about wikipedia rules, or some kind society agreement, if there is any, on how to deal with this situation, as I'm still a newbie in here.
--Cawas 06:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe all that's missing is to add something like this:
Be aware that forensic is not forensics, just like fly is not flys.
Please, follow to forensics for more detailed information.
--Cawas 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- ← (discussion continued from my talk page) I think you're misunderstanding both the purpose of an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary, of which there are plenty online, including Wiktionary) and the meaning of the word "forensic" in particular. "Forensic science" is precisely a synonym of "forensics." There is no difference, any more than "gasoline" and "petrol," or "to run" and "running." (By the way, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on flys because "flys" is not a word. The plural of "fly" is "flies," which as you can see is redirected to an appropriate place, rather than getting its own stub article.) "Forensic" and "forensics" mean the same thing, and thus point to the same place. If you want lessons in English usage, read a dictionary or Strunk and White. --Quuxplusone 21:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry I sounded aggressive. That was my first contribution and you took it out without giving any reason. I did my best to do it a good contribution and you kinda crushed it. I still have a lot to learn in English, that's probably evident on the way I construct my phrases and my lack of vocabulary. But I really believe you are being precipitated here and I'm trying to not do the same and just "re-add my contribution, just because I believe it's the right thing".
I wasn't looking for plural of fly, the insect. I was looking for the Present's 3rd Person (this is another bad construction, I know) from the verb To Fly. I believe now I was wrong in that. I just got it in my memory for some reason. I will, by the way, try to improve my English, not because of you, but because I like learning. It's just not possible at this point of my life. I can write down each single reason to you if you really want to read. I actually read all links and references of our conversations before making any reply.
You just said over there "forensic science" is equal to "forensics". Nobody is arguing with that. But then you said in the final "forensic" is equal to "forensics" while it isn't. The definition I gave to forensic there might be small or incomplete, but it is correct (as in it's not wrong) and it is far from similar to forensics. By the way, take a look on the Wikitionary itself for forensic. I bet you'll be surprised.
I'm sorry I can't think of a better example, and I don't know the correct construction for To Fly as in "The airplane flys in the sky". I won't be looking for that at this moment as I think it's not relevant. You probably could get my point by now.
If you still can't agree with me that forensic should be, at very least, a stub then well, maybe this is a good time to request for comment. I couldn't care less for such a word I won't be using again. I'm discussing the concept in here, and hell, I love concepts and talking. :)
--Cawas 06:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I think I got a solution.
Maybe it's even better to just give a better visualization to "forensic" on forensics, as the definition is in fact already there, although a little hidden. And also add a link to Wikitionary. I just don't know how to do the second part yet.
What do you think? I actually like this better.
Side note: for some reason, I though I had put more text to the definition... I either lost it somewhere or I never actually did it. While it's still irrelevant to this issue right now, it does make a fool of me. :P
--Cawas 07:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)