Courtesy links
Thanks for that. I always struggle with the right way to present citations that I've found via Wikipedia Library in order to maximize accessibility. I know not everyone has WPL and, even among those who do, not everybody knows they have WPL which is why I just added the DOIs directly in hopes that would give them the link to the open access versions but I think what you did was definitely an improvement. I will try to remember that formatting for the future. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- I just ran across Template:Wikipedia Library access a few days ago and love it. I should have used the jstor parameter rather than URL. For DOI's i think there is a crossref lookup so that is handy. Another neat thing is it can be used in mainspace on articles. Will only show text to autoconfirmed users: a convenient link and encourages TWL use and contributions for those without 500 edits yet. fiveby(zero) 15:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Nice! Thanks for that tip! Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the table
Were the two tables you wish to draw attention to: this one by Levivich and this one by Dancing Owl? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yup, those are the tables i was referring to, not that you need accept any of the existing analysis tho, just a good listing of sources. Seems the section was previously linked tho. fiveby(zero) 13:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Adding a small explainer
Basically I don't want someone coming at me and saying I was canvassing or violating policy on this one. So I am being really careful what I say. Have enough headaches right now. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- Don't see how it could be called canvasing. If something to do with the FTN thing i wouldn't worry about it, much better discussion i think than last time this happened. Was going to going to respond to your comment about "social sciences or humanities" and that was an issue for PARANKAYAA also, but thread was getting too long and crowded. Seen some spectacular failures in applying FRINGE sometimes by editors who only read the first sentence of the guideline. Nose counting historians to say anyone who didn't call the war a "draw" was fringe. That was just kind of funny but it got pretty bad when the irresistible force of the PIA editors met the immovable object of FTN. I used to think guideline should only apply to fringe theories in science, different epistemologies and methodologies in different fields and social science and humanities can be much harder work sometimes. But after hanging out at FTN for awhile my thinking is to just try and be helpful wherever possible and pretty much ignore the guideline. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate that perspective. FTN is frustrating for me because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm pretty concerned about pseudoscience - especially about eugenics - and am a deeply skeptical person, if one with reservations about the direction a lot of the New Atheist movement took skepticism, but I find that posting on NPOV/N is much more likely to get action on the sorts of specific fringe things I encounter regularly than equivalent postings on FTN. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hah, you skeptics are no fun, and "The goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors." I'm pro-fringe in that it makes for fun and interesting reading, also a pretty contrarian reader. Probably the absolute worst attitude to have in accomplishing WP's real go of summarizing and transmitting knowledge to others tho. I'll add some sources for the Lasker article when i get some time later. fiveby(zero) 14:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hah, you skeptics are no fun, and "The goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors." I'm pro-fringe in that it makes for fun and interesting reading, also a pretty contrarian reader. Probably the absolute worst attitude to have in accomplishing WP's real go of summarizing and transmitting knowledge to others tho. I'll add some sources for the Lasker article when i get some time later. fiveby(zero) 14:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate that perspective. FTN is frustrating for me because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm pretty concerned about pseudoscience - especially about eugenics - and am a deeply skeptical person, if one with reservations about the direction a lot of the New Atheist movement took skepticism, but I find that posting on NPOV/N is much more likely to get action on the sorts of specific fringe things I encounter regularly than equivalent postings on FTN. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
CARET sources!
Hey! Thanks for finding the Skeptical Inquirer piece about the CARET drones. That was a HUGE help, you have no idea and I put it all over the main CARET article. How did you ever find that? I scraped every part of the internet I could find for RS for this. LanaiGuy (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- Found a link to it on Sheaffer's blog. A suggestion for you which is probably a long shot would be to look in sources discussing the 2024 United States drone sightings to see if they mention earlier sightings and perhaps the 2007 photos? fiveby(zero) 13:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Rendlesham entry
Belated thanks for your support, particularly giving Guy Macon a talking-to regarding his "posting utter bullshit" comment, which is not the language becoming of a Wikipedia editor (or any editor for that matter). Seems that the Dunning-Kruger effect is at play here. Cheers, Ian. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)