Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia
Squasc: Reply
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 20:28, 23 April 2026 | ||
| Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
:{{Re|Renerpho}} I am unable to access the former source, as it gives me a "rate limited" error. I did a [[WP:BEFORE]] and found nothing but false positives. What proof do we have that those sources are reliable and not just citogenesis? What proof is there that it's not a hoax? '''Ten Pound Hammer''' (they/them) • ([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]]) 15:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC) |
:{{Re|Renerpho}} I am unable to access the former source, as it gives me a "rate limited" error. I did a [[WP:BEFORE]] and found nothing but false positives. What proof do we have that those sources are reliable and not just citogenesis? What proof is there that it's not a hoax? '''Ten Pound Hammer''' (they/them) • ([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]]) 15:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
::{{re|TenPoundHammer}} [[WP:AGF|Guilty until proven innocent]], right? No, just because the sources are difficult to access -- or aren't available online at all -- doesn't mean it's a hoax. It could indicate notability issues (and that's a legitimate concern in this case); but to prove that it's a hoax is a much higher bar to pass. Someone needs to check [https://search.worldcat.org/title/955696775?oclcNum=955696775], pages 430, and ideally also the older [https://search.worldcat.org/title/311243030], and confirm that they don't mention the [[squasc]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 20:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC) |
|||
