Miscellaneous desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 14[edit]

List of supercentenarians who died in 2014[edit]

Nobody has added any new supercentenarians to the list or even editited it for two weeks. Is it because no supercentenarians have died at all this month? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user page [1] contains a list including some, no sources, though. There is another table located at a link with "invisionfree" in it that Wikipedia says is blacklisted, that contains a list with 5 unverified deaths in December (and only those 5). Here are obituaries for all of the unverified for December (save for Elizabeth Meier): [2], [3], [4], [5]. I have no idea if there are others - and the blacklisted site is, obviously, not an RS, I guess, but the obituaries are (I'm assuming).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get into "invisionfree", and by the way, it is more commonly known as "The 110 Club". Anyway, I can't browse forums or read their shit because they don't let guests browse forums or read their sections anymore.Deaths in 2013 (talk)05:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd - I know nothing about any of this, just hunted down the above - but I had no problem entering their site, nor reading the forum posts that came up. Maybe it was just some odd luck. At any rate, the other sources listed should have the info you're looking for - at least for this question.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1,400+ supercentenarian list[edit]

I want to create an article out of the 1,455 oldest people list of my page, User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff, but I can't copy or paste anything, since the right click of the mouse is broken, and that means I can't even update the table, let alone relocate it. So can someone else please do it for now? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy and paste with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V without having to right-click. Tevildo (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)CTRL + C copies highlighted test, CTRL + V pastes it where a typing cursor is located. Also, I'm not seeing much in the way of sourcing, which would be needed for any entries that we do not currently have articles about. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this page is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me wonder whether my own subpages break the rules. —Tamfang (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which logical fallacy is this?[edit]

"You can't complain that X breaks the rules because W, Y, and Z break the rules as well." 69.38.167.222 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a logical fallacy? Or is it just a lawyer's argument? It reminds me of one of Bill Veeck's axioms: "If everyone is corrupt, then no one is corrupt." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That fits a few things in the List of fallacies, including Two wrongs make a right and Nirvana fallacy, depending on context. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia world it is also known as other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a logical fallacy, it is an informal fallacy. Logical fallacies are errors made in logic, that is in violations of the formal rules for connecting two axioms and in drawing conclusions from them. Informal fallacies are the collective term for other errors of reasoning. --Jayron 32 23:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with Association fallacy, an informal fallacy. However, simply because there is a fallacy with the reasoning doesn't mean the person is wrong. See the formal fallacy argument from fallacy. Sometime it is OK to ignore all rules. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this tu quoque? It seems like it is but maybe I am misunderstanding. 81.138.15.171 (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Two wrongs make a right is of relevance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]