Talk:Westall UFO/Archive 1

Wish List & Speculation
Vufors, you seem to have a predilection for deleting text that I write, and replacing it with your own. I am happy for you to argue with my contributions, or challenge or critique them, but merely erasing text and riding roughshod over it, seems to smack of barrow-pushing. May I be so bold as to enquire who you are, and what your connection with the Westall flying saucer incident actually is?

Vufors, I am very happy to collaborate with others on this topic, but, please, leave the cloak and dagger stuff in the closet. Let's be open and collegial, it really is the only way forward.

Shanelj (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Shanelj


 * 1) Well your statement that "Unfortunately, no evidence, on the public record, exists of any investigation having been carried out by Mr Brian Boyle" is an assumption. Because you don't have that data does not mean that it never existed etc.

Oh jesus, you're all morons. 58.6.184.26 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Now, as an academic you should have known that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
 * 1) As you are a “new fry” (with respect) into the Victorian UFO field, and especially dealing with activities that took place over 42 years ago, you for one, especially as an academic, should realise that you are on the extreme end of the long trail. Some interstate researchers some with over 30 years in this field constantly surprise me when they for some odd belief think that they would be privileged to the internal operations and internal field research of groups in Victoria, on topics that when all is said and done the said interstate researches (say today a 55 year old) at the time (say 1966) were only 13 years old. Also, I have spoken to even the children who saw this object (Westall) and even their memories of the day are varied and vague in the extreme, add that to the subject problems.
 * 2) Then this next statement by you - "Naturally, many of these people, in good faith, would welcome the publication of any (and indeed all) further investigative data that hitherto has not been made available." is nothing more than a "Wish List". I am disappointed in the fact that your, demanding information from someone who for all we know, owns that data! If the said parties (Owners) wish to sit on their data, eat it, publish it, or burn their data etc - then that is their right & privilege. Neither you nor anyone has any right to dictate or demand anything, over the legitimate owners rights & needs.
 * 3) Then we have this from you - "Were these responses to the Westall incident the day before? Did some direction come down to the cartoonists from their editors to make light of the situation - and for what reason? Their timing - in two state-wide newspapers - is amazing". When it comes to the Wiki format you need to read up on what is acceptable and what is not. The statement is grossly speculative.
 * 4) "May I be so bold as to enquire who you are," Well no! You should know better than to ask me that. Follow the rules. Before you run off down the conspiracy trail, there are many reason why one may use an  Anonymity tag or profile, please keep that in mind. SEE Wiki - Anonymity
 * 5) "I am very happy to collaborate" as I.
 * 6) “the cloak and dagger stuff..." Again this is emotive and a prejudice based assumption on your part.
 * 7) “Let's be open and collegial, it really is the only way forward.” Yes lets be. Then you should follow your own advise, I realise your writing a book, however, you have the opportunity to show by example, place all your data, all your notes, lists, drafts and discoveries, the witnesses names, addresses, phone numbers, interviews, video, tapes, private & public photos, maps, notes – all items… not bits or low quality part – the whole. So that we the general public can view your data and equally in a open a collegial way produce our version of your book as soon as we can. These previous demands absurd in the extreme, are similar to what other with an agenda to write a book, produce a documentary, busy body around or resolve an issue or simply for profit etc, they roll out the absurd as a collective wish list, fishing, bate or in bully tactic formats. They would tax you and they would tax me, with the above in mind, I can find a host of reasonable reasons why I may not issue the full data, can you?
 * 8) I would be interested in your views, comments and rebuttal. Keep up your interesting research into the Westall case.
 * 9) Best RegardsVufors (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good morning Vufors.

Thank you for your lengthy responses to my missive. Your replies were certainly illuminating.

It seems to me that the main point in looking at the Westall flying saucer story is, simply, but importantly: what was it? I don't yet know the answer to this question myself, although there have been clues along the way. I wonder what in your opinion (or in your knowledge, even) you think it was? Does anyone know (in Victoria, or elsewhere!)? Perhaps the answer lies here in the Australian Capital Territory in some musty manilla folder!

Best wishes,

Shanelj (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Shanelj
 * 1) Firstly, I apologise if my text was excessively elevated or belligerent in any sense at all. It was not a put down or to suppress your good intentions. The reality or truth of the matter resides in time and in the Victorian hemisphere. A friendly warning to you ;) watch the illusive help/gifts of data from the Sydney side, a examination of that data leads straight back to Victorian groups and newspapers. With that in mind don’t let the Sydney research mafia 'edit, forward or after thought' any part of your new book… seek independent people not related to Sydney.
 * 2) I do recommend that you try and speak to Paul Norman or John Auchettl. Now you will have a problem with this as both, may I say after so many years of being generous with their data and time, now they seem to have taken a back seat when it comes to this case… Why? Well many reason as I see it, but they are very suspicious of press, writers, TV, film maker et al… not because they dislike them on a personal bases, but because they have been burnt by them consistently. They may talk with you but I bet you don’t get to much extra info out of them. I once asked Auchettl why he had stopped feeding out the info and his reply was simple... “It’s finished… it’s as dry as a bone, we ran it to the very end and then some more but its dry and I am not going to waste another second with it we need to get on with the next task”. Never-the-less give both a try. I last spoke to Norman about 4 months ago; I bumped into him at Southland Shopping Centre. I have not seen Auchettl for about 15 months now… I am told that he is in or has been in the US (?).
 * 3) Do I have an answer? Well no nothing at all… and I have had a good look at the case. Mind you it is one of the best. But it has all the hall marks of the real UFO mystery. It’s full of data but never a reason why?
 * 4) Will you/we solve or answer this case… well in my honest opinion NO!
 * 5) The closest explanation/ in-depth reasoning that offered hope? The best I was able to gather came from four reports. I got these from Auchettl lectures at the Royal Society of Victoria. I don’t remember the details but:
 * 6) Auchettl noted that there was some linkage to the 1966 “Balwyn ufo photo”. It seems that he had another look at that case and did another investigation and image analysis. http://ufocasebook.com/australia1966.jpg.
 * 7) The next item of interest (from my point of view) was that Auchettl found the soil sample taken from the Westall circle had a similar physical texture or hardness with those that he had analysed from the 1989 Jolly Farm crop circles in The Mallee wheat belt of Victoria. In the CH7 TV production of the 1990s “The Extraordinary” you can see the Auchettls soil sample and how hard it was. The grass had been levered over by a heat source (Microwave) at a node in the stem and the soil baked rock hard. He did emphasise that the two soil events were not directly related but the data was surprisingly similar. Again the soil samples were on display at various locations.
 * 8) He reported that the original research team (PRA) did a check with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SEC at that time), and discovered that there was a power surge down that line. I believe (from his graphs) that reports into the SEC were collected for that day by PRA and then ranked against the average daily reports, although not absolutely compelling, Auchettl reported that it was above and significant.
 * 9) That the so called 5 aircraft may have been counter rotation vortex stems with a harmonic frequency. He showed us a mathematical model and the reasoning behind his research. As the object rose through the air, it displaced the air in such a way that a five point rotating patterns emerged, visable due to either ionised particles or vapour points due to pressure gradients.
 * 10) ”Perhaps the answer lies here in the Australian Capital Territory in some musty manilla folder!” Mmmmmmmmm? May be? But from what I know, these files have been destroyed by the DoD. I do find it interesting that they are not in the National Archives… not even a mention. I know that the documents existed in the past; I attended a few lectures by Auchettl where they were displayed in an OHP presentation. They were also on two or three display boards at one of VUFORS displays at the Royal Society of Victoria. But I would say they are gone forever, from the national record. Disgraceful behavior by some imbecile in the DoD!
 * 11) Best Regards Vufors (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vufors.

Thank you very much for your reply. No hard feelings mate from any of the above. Your commentary was robust, but at least you only called me "new fry" and not "small fry"!

Thank you especially for the information supplied and the suggestions made. Very helpful and much appreciated.

Would it be better for us to communicate directly by email, rather than "in public" on this site? If you are open to the idea, please feel free to email me - I presume you have access to my email address?

Best wishes, Shanelj (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC) I watched the start of the 'documentary' on this sighting and have read this page. What seems to be lacking is any knowledge of who would have investigated such a sighting at the time, mention is made of the police and the RAAF and then someone suggests Canberra. In fact you should be looking to the Aeronautical Research Laboratories at Fishermans Bend. If it was 'an experimental aircraft' they would have been the experimenters. If something else they or the CSIRO would have investigated. By the way, if it had been an experimental aircraft it would probably have been flown at Woomera not in Victoria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.249.100 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates and New Page Ref Data
Shane,

It seems that you are a slow learner; well it looks as if you do not grasp the Wiki format, so again please “do not reduce the data” because you feel it does not fit your idea of data. Wiki frowns on this practice as the reduction process has no boundaries and eventually people like you would reduce the Wiki entry to just about nothing. Shane, sometimes wiki data and references are place into the text as that is all we can find or have at that time. This data should stay there as an arrow or pointer for future access or upgrades, once people like you have removed it out of the public eye the expansion process will not transpire. Watch your step you have a book & financial barrow to push on this entry, which in its self is grounds for all your data/references to be pulled under the Wiki code as a troll for a book production and sale. For example your last stupid effort reduced a photograph, when in fact you should have replaced it with the correct one, you do have that photo! Fix the data/page don’t reduced it! For goodness Sake... ask for the data in this discussion area and give people who look after the wiki ufology pages some time to get home from work to scan the pages or ask for, get to or find correct data etc before you change something again because it does not fit your mind set… FAITH, people may surprise you and your inbuilt bias and greed for knowledge. Vufors (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vague stuff and unsourced statements
There appear to be a lot of unsourced statements here. I've removed what I consider to be the worst, but this is very confusing and needs a lot of cleanup. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gallery now updated. Vufors (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

query re reference 15
Hello VUFORS,

I've tried to look up footnote 15 at the State Library of Victoria but I haven't been able to find it. None of the librarians have heard of or can find anything called Around Melbourne. Can you give me any more information about what it is or where I can locate it? Thanks - it sounds interesting.

P2468 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Witnesses
For privacy reasons I'll stick to first names only here - My mother (Jennifer) and her friends (Patty and others i dont know name of, bidgood or some surname like that) were attending the school at the time of this event. She even mentioned the event to me in the early 90's. Although I always thought it was the primary school that had the witnesses. That could be a missunderstaning on my part. It may be worth chasing up Students from Clayton south Primary school about this too. They would have been in sight of the flight path. My mother also said John Farnham attanded the school at one point as well, although I don't know if that is true, or if he was a witness.

The story as I remember it was my mother and everyone was outside, when they saw the thing come down. Some students were quite close in that they could see it on the ground a ways over a couple of paddocks over, and some activity (ie people moving about) around it for a fair few minutes before it took off again.

As for the mystery small planes, all this area was farmland, any number of places would have still had crop dusters and private air strips at the time.

A while ago someone even tracked my mother down and asked her about the UFO, so someone is still researching it. (Shane perhaps?) From my years attending the primary school myself, that area especially "the grange" was always considered rather "spooky" and to go there alone would usually give a sence of fear and dread. I once brielfly explored the place, and recall an out of character sence of dread myself; which just made me all the more curious.

At the time of the incident, Before they bulldozed most of the Grange to build a golf course and subdivide the area, it was OPEN paddocks surrounding Grange bushland reserve- as a child my mother explored the area, and stumbled on the ruins of some (afaik undocumented) building there, all of which remained intact was the remains of an old fountain tangled up in the undergrowth.

From what i read here.. the "weather balloon" is the prefered explanation - is it typical for weather balloons to be crewed?

There was also another UFO event that made the papers in the early 2000's with heaps of wintesses in west Victoria over the state parks, which I cant find any mention of at all. (I was however surprised to find this article in the wiki instead!) Here I was thinking the story was just a curiosity of my mothers youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.121.160 (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The information in this article seems to be quite outdated and perhaps even inaccurate. Does not convey what the 300 witnesses say they actually saw. 2600:1700:4550:E510:C9C9:DE5C:3A41:292A (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing footage
Should we say something about the misterious dissaperance of the news footage of this sighting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.209.15 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Major clean-up
This article requires significant editing, particularly the removal of content that is unreliably sourced. Please restore content if, per WP:FRIND, it can be appropriately sourced. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

3 January 2024
Shane Ryan is reliable. As the public reality of the subject there is no absolute proofs available to show reliable in the sense of university publication, so non highly reliable publications but authentic investigative documents should be accepted c.f. my recent edits at Poltergeist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poltergeist&action=history → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enfield_poltergeist&action=history where I support that there was no poltergeist if there is no proof or consensus - I am not an advocate for the unrealistic and unproven Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC) The cite AV template exists Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Shane Ryan, an English lecturer at the University of Canberra" source Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) data of this source suggests reliability Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 03:54- corroborates linkedin.com employed in Australian Parliament Canberra Education and Visitor services..."educate people about parliament" Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) if they were patently unreliable the editorial screen would block the use of the sources by "blacklisted" (as I recently came across on a different article) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC) ref. 8 " Dr James E. McDonald, Andrew Greenwood. Audio of McDonald interviewing Greenwood" was added 21:01, 3 January 2024 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The syntax includes "apparently":

"From approximately 11:00 am 6 April 1966 more than 200-300 students and a teacher from Westall High School apparently witnessed"

"the testimony of"

"A man aged in his sixteenth year digging up carrots on a market garden witnessed a craft in the air and "didn't believe" what he was seeing. The testimony of the gardener was of: a craft"

These are conditional that the information depends on the acceptance of the status of the subject: is a witness account not a scientific investigation so that excludes any possible university level reliable source in the first case - i.e. science generally has not vindicated the claims as valid but the sources exist,are not debunked either, that the witnesses are not university professors doesn't necessarily discredit their reliability, "Channel 9" were contacted (something did happen), no one became rich from the statements i.e. there is no obvious ulterior motive: for lying and maintaining the statements 45 years+, suggests authenticity (and no mention of a psychiatrist to suggest delusion) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"According to the students"

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Another child apparently witnessed" added the conditional 22:01 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

4 January 2024

 * 1) huge number of quotes
 * 2) the multiple citations at the end of the paragraph include links to video search results which makes verification & attribution implausible.
 * 3) cited entirely to primary source eyewitness reporting
 * 4) something extraordinary.
 * 5) See WP:V and WP:FRIND for policies and guidelines

So for 1. huge number of quotes is not a reason to disallow the content (you didn't show policy where it does disallow)

2.: not sure how verification and attribution is implausible - simply is plausible because of the links to the video search results, as the video search results are the sources for the content: i.e. the content matches the sources at the video links, the cite AV template exists so this shows that citing videos is possible I simply can't appreciate the nature of the problem that you'e describing, please restate how 1. is a concern for the article then I could concur or criticise, other than restating appreciably I think this critiism is an error that is all - because the AV template facilitates accessing the sources; the sources are named in the videos and I shows their names as usually in the references, so attribution is infact possible.

3. & 5. WP:FRIND: the subject isn't a fringe theory, if it were then the information would fulfil "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" which is the definition given in the link at the first sentence.

The views of the witnesses are UFOlogy, a field which doesn't state that UFO 's that are subsequently inexplicable, don't exist, the contrary, that they do exist in the situations where no rationalle explanation is satisfatory to provide a view on the event if the contrary explanations (in this case a weather balloon) discredits the primary sources sufficiently to annul any suggestion of extrtrrestrial (a). So to restate (a) "its particular field" is ufology, of this field there isn't any signifiant deviancy from the prevailing view: the view of the primary witnesses is supportative of other claims in ufology which are not defied/annuled by rationale explanations: the sources don't state anything which "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream view", obviously.

If your criticism that is a fringe theory because isn't proven scientifically, so is a fringe theory of physics or aeronautics for example, isn't proven is obviously the case and I don't deny that science has not empirically/scientifically proven the existence of supposed extraterrestrial craft, but by the same considerate, no sources in science (that I'm aware of, and if there is please show the source that does) has disproven the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial craft or alien extraterrestrial. Infact the sources (which you seem to expect me to accept are unreliable) are supported by mainstream science: i.e.:
 * Mike Wall The search for alien life www.space.com
 * SETI Institute Finding Life Beyond Earth is No Longer a Dream
 * Neil Dagnall Department of Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University "recent work indicates that a significant proportion of the population believe that extra-terrestrial life exists and that UFOs are evidence of alien life (Biasco & Nunn, 2000, Chequers, Joseph, & Diduca, 1997, Gallup, 1997, Patry & Pelletier, 2001, Swami et al., 2009)".
 * Peter Linde (assistant professor in astronomy at Lund University, Sweden) The Hunt for Alien Life: A Wider Perspective ISBN 3319241184
 * Peter Ward (professor of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle) Life as We Do Not Know It: The NASA Search for (and Synthesis of) Alien Life ISBN 1440628564
 * Louis N. Irwin, Dirk Schulze-Makuch The Astrobiology of Alien Worlds: Known and Unknown Forms of Life "The Definition Issue The search for life on other worlds thus requires us to have a generic definition of what we are searching for"
 * etc

So given that science hasn't positively proven (so this debate would therefore by necessarily irrelevant and a type of insanity to engage in because there is no such thing as extraterrestrial craft as proven by science) all that reverting or finding pseudo arguments stating no such sources are admissible/possible does is deny a scientific inquiry into the subject given that the subject of ufology is not a closed subject, to the contrary it is an open inquiry into whether or not such craft exist, and like any other scientific inquiry finding the answer by intelligence depends on locating surveying and collating evidences from nature/sources to then formulate opinions. So what I'm stating is that the reversion is a suppression of that evidence - which is simply the evidence of or not of extraterrestrial or other highly advanced craft (or of delusionary individuals thinking there is such a thing). That there is no current proof, so there is no way to find the level of reliability which would fulfil the obligation of showing proof of westall ufo is real, but the article title, doesn't provide the condition that anyone would need to do that, just that it is an unidentified flying object - which the sources fulfil i.e. the query, if: "ufo" therefore the automatic response is witnesses are the sources. That ufo the subject is within wikipedia, you are supposing that I need to prove ufo's exist because for example the article aircraft has all proven sources which show reliable data on a known reality - in the case of ufology that I show not proven fulfils WP:MAINSTREAM: "While what is considered "mainstream" may sometimes be a minority view in society". The witness accounts don't provide "explanations provided by the highest-quality sources" but the sources aren't trying to prove ufo's exist academically or at a university level; there is no conflict or debate to which a contrary could be found, as no debate at university level of thought exists for research papers to be produced, which discounts the need to consider that they could be tricking, persuading, erroneous and some other higly reputable, reliable, and high-quality source could disprove their statements: no-where in wikipedia does it state extraterrestrials exist, here the sources aren't university quality sources but the publications are reliable: Ryan is a parliament employee, McDonald was a physicist, the Herald Sun (isn't blacklisted in wikipedia) youtube sources aren't inadmissible: "Many statements of fact made in Wikipedia can be reliably sourced as being disputed by somebody somewhere. This is irrelevant to our task of writing a mainstream encyclopedia" this shows in ufology the subject matter is ufo's and the sources are the witnesses not opinions of secondary academics, government officials or anyone else who would contend that they are not reliable, if the evidence of the claim of ufo is only available at the primary source (there is no way to replicate the findings of the primary is why the primary sources are admissable in this case where in other cases not: i.e. in scientific experiments we find reliable proofs which are replicatable objectively).

With regards to 5. WP:V I think you've not understood that simply: "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research." which I've done, everyhting is shown in sources, I put the references at the end to not clutter the text, if you would prefer I could show the content in the sources by attaching direcly to each sentence and quoting in the source (to provide matching verification). The article doesn't need to prove the existence of ufo just to show that the event occured, which is shown by the Dandenong Journal, the JE McDonald interview (corroborated by the interview with McDonald which shows he was in Australia plus the exactitutde of similarity of the voice patterns, tone etc of both Youtue sources, since in the Greenwood interview the speakers aren't visible). Please view: Sources that are usually not reliable which is the criteria for not including, except "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:", which isn't applicable, (i.e. the sources didn't publish themselves so infact they aren't primary sources (with regards to "primary source eyewitness") but does show conditions where experts aren't necessary.

With regards to 4. by "extraordinary" I think you mean WP:V "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves": "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim": WP:EXTRAORDINARY, but I didn't show that claim I simply quoted the sources: there are multiple witnesses and other credible individuals (Ryan, McDonald) plus the sources I've shown above, which indicate, the possibility of extraordinary: extraordinary is the ordinary in ufology proving an extraterrestrial craft existed/exists would be the extraordinary cliam. Within the field of ufology stating ufo is not a claim (which is obvious as the field exists not is debunked or ridiculed or a pseudoscience or a delusion in the subjet of psychiatry). The foot of the page doen't show category physics or contends is a science subject. We all know is not proven, at least it is easy to find ufo's are not proven, in other areas of wikipedia, so the expectation of claim isn't present, just that the event existed ( which is proven by Dandenong and McDonald (plus kingston local library; that the children and teacher did infact see something (the market gardener is therefore corroboration of these proofs), so showing the witnesses allows us to explore the evidences of the proofs.

If I am wrong in the opinions of reality of any of these response statements that please show how then I will of course concur.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking out the links to policy. Regarding your first point, it's not the quantity of quotations. It's the quantity of quotations throughout a paragraph which ends in 7 citations at least one of which were video search results. The policy at WP:V states that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." I don't see how the version I reverted, could meet that standard. I disagree with your interpretation of points 4 & 5. Feel free to ask for additional input at the Teahouse if you think I have gotten the policies or guidelines mixed up. Regards, Rjjiii  (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and using inline citations, . You're correct about my meaning regarding "extraordinary", and after being able to compare the article directly the source, I feel more sure that the article doesn't meet that portion of WP:V or WP:FRINGE. I'll go over one quote below:
 * Cited to: https://archive.ph/20180807165829/https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/audio-reveals-creepy-details-of-australian-ufo-mystery/news-story/471c724255b0388ee4e930a4d35028e7
 * In my view this does include an extraordinary claim (WP:V/WP:EXTRAORDINARY). While published in a newspaper, it's published as a credulous summary of an interview. I am reading the first 3 paragraphs in the newspaper's voice (date, report, number of witness, differing accounts), and nearly everything else is framed as a "claim" or "speculation". The interview between the teacher and the ufologist is a primary source and this article is not adding analysis (WP:V/WP:PRIMARY).
 * The news article even more clearly doesn't meet WP:FRIND/WP:FRINGE. The guidelines at WP:FRIND are an explanation and expansion of the policies at WP:NPOV. So that it does not seem like I'm asking you to read a third document in a row, I'll copy some of the relevant points below:
 * Regards, Rjjiii  (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regards, Rjjiii  (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regards, Rjjiii  (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regards, Rjjiii  (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Dunning investigation/verification
I was about to remove the reference 20 as Skeptoid is not a reliable publisher but subsequently reasoned that although "fraud" in the intro of the eponomous article could be a reason to doubt his aptitude for truthfulness "In 2010 Dunning was awarded " Parsec Award created by Mur Lafferty "podcaster and writer" "Novels, Novella" (does not indicate adherence to fact), Tracy Hickman "fantasy author", "one of the most recognizable honors in science and fiction podcasting" does not suggest very much his credibility as an investigator and discoverer/uncoverer of the truth (in a the supposed world of error, delusion and deceipt) Independent Investigations Group does indicate credibility, so I didn't delete his critique. I discovered that he has made some errors in his account of the reality of Westall and his argument:


 * provable error on Greenwood's testimony:

"The second half of the event had a much different character....By the end of morning recess, Greenwood said he turned away, and when he looked again the object and the five airplanes had gone."

Greenwood states the UFO vanished but the planes were still there, though he forgot what happened to them JEM And how did it disappear? AG Well this is one thing we just don't know, it vanished. JEM All of a sudden you were all looking at it? AG No it did one of these accelerations and then no-body could pick it up again, it was gone JEM You did see it accelerate. AG Oh yes JEG It didn't disappear in mid-air? AG Oh no ...pick it out, you could see it accelerate.JEM It went off so fast you couldn't follow it. AG We couldn't JEG "Were the aircraft still there?" (11:26) AG Yes the aircraft were still there. (11:28) I can't remember what happened to those (11:31) I know they were there then, but I just can't remember what happened to the aircraft (11:35) So cigar shaped, what ratio? Length to width and so on? (11:44)


 * No evidence found to support

"The Air Force personnel Samblebe referred to...Some reports say the Air Force men burned the area to hide the evidence, but according to the farmer who owned the land, he burned it himself to stop people from trampling onto his property."

I haven't found any sources at all showing "according to the farmer"


 * Statement of realistic conclusion but no evidence provided as why the reader should agree

"Something else that's grown over the years has been the number of witnesses at the school...This number is probably artificially inflated...it's fairly certain that at least some of the witnesses simply went along..."

Is the opinion of Dunning but he doesn't provide any academic support for his knowing "fairly certain", which is the same language as an authoratative source but no qualifications to support how anyone would think his certainty is our certainty. Thinking about the account of Greenwood rationally (without including the necessity of introducing "a serious problem"

"This number is probably artificially inflated by what behavioral psychologists call the bandwagon effect...Some of the students most likely did see something, but it's fairly certain that at least some of the witnesses simply went along with the crowd in accordance with the bandwagon effect."

"This introduces a serious problem. The descriptions of what was actually seen have now become diluted with made-up descriptions by an unknown number of students who didn't see anything, and there's no way to know which is which."

and so "there's no way to know which is which." being the logically possible consideration which we could all partake in), if there were the hundreds of students outside (as Greenwood states, and I can't think of why if he were lying some other source which would have very easily proven to the contrary from within the school or student group doesn't exist, although I found no evidence of contradiction to Greenwood, sources corroborate not contradict) engaged in physical activity "on The Oval" they would have course all seen the same, and students do infact engage in physical education en masse. Dunning would prefer to state that somehow only a small number of students saw and the others didn't as a possible, but this would indicate that Greenwood (and other corroborative sources) are simply lying as to what happened. Dunning's scepticism is based on possibility but the introdution of doubt as to the truthfulness of sources which dicredits the sources doesn't infact produce a contrary argument to if they were all outside or not (by discrediting the charcter of Greenwood, or evidence that infact at that exact time students were all inside) as a possibility. So all Dunning does is introduce the possibility of doubt without any realistic aspect to know the doubt.


 * No evidene or sources support found

"Employing this strategy, we can bring what probably happened at Westall into better focus...it landed in the schoolyard...are much less reliable and probably safely discarded...We can say with pretty good certainty that whatever the object was, it was too far away to easily judge its actual size."

I haven't found any soures stating "schoolyard" plus Kingston City council made the UFO park at the Grange because sources state that is where it landed. If " the farmer burnt the field to stop" while then asserting how the craft was always too far away

"Such reports are sensational and most likely to make headlines, but to the investigator who knows his business, there is good reason to dismiss them. We can say with pretty good certainty that whatever the object was, it was too far away to easily judge its actual size."

isn't possible. Dunning doesn't provide evidence to support his "pretty good certainty", this aspect of his argument particularly has no logical value and no value as an argument (by his own argument), since the reason the farmer burnt the land is to stop people for some reason needing to walk on the area: burning the land doesn't stop people generally, only if there is some reason that specifically burning grass would stop them (no-one goes to land to look at grass (unless they were students of grasses), burning the grass doesn't stop people for any knowable reason - so no reason to burn the grass if no reason to go to the Grange.

So given I detailed all these contraries I deleted the passage only because of the first error, which is that Dunning states: "they all vanished" which is simply an error which is easily proven and provide the subsequent reasons as support. There isn't any way to link to skeptoid if it contains an obvious error in restatement of fact, since this embroils a reader in error while continuing to find arguments of error to which Dunning is the source for knowing the error. This is not a reliable basis for knowing error that the source cannot determine the facts of the argument to use to argue with. I'm not familiar with any other of Dunning's works and considering his award from "Independent Investigations Group" (a charity) I don't find any other criticism to make and attribute the error to the fact of his willingness to take a position to the contrary when the sources and the nature of the evidence are strongly in the favour of the existence of more than a sceptical position allows. Which is to state, it was infact difficult for Dunning to prove the contrary (which he employs himself to do and worthily maintains his position doing), which is why I found these failures. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Second-guessing WP:SECONDARY reliable sources because they conflict with your own research and interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources is a classic example of WP:OR. WP:PARITY supports the use of WP:FRIND independent sources such as Dunning to provide the needed critique of WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

7 January 2024
Your criticism is general, but for example: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one." you didn't indicate how I should determine which is which. In addition to which No original research does not apply (I didn't show anything which isn't currently not attached to a source): so I'm of course failing to appreicate your problem which you could help me to understand by reiterating by policy where the problem actually exists. As I stated previously, the sources are not blacklisted by the editorial screen...if you describe exactly the problem with the sources then I could concur. I think reverting my entire work isn't helpful and no-one could resasonably presume everything I added is erroneous so removing all isn't necessary, and is damaging to the article. For example: "Clayton South", the details of the UFO park: these are not a debatable aspect of inclusion, in the least. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Those edits removed secondary sourcing and added at least seven citations to the same interview between a ufologist and teacher. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I just showed "10:00-10:15 am" not "11:00 am" is the case/reality of the information (unless you could find any contrary evidence) I don't appreciate how reverting to 11:00 is an improvement whatever the rationalle in policy you think you would like to admonish in my direction. I'm expected to provide a reason to you when you think falsity (unless I'm mistaken in which case show how I made an error in thinking 10:00-10:15 is the reality) to the reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Granted, you may be trying to improve the article, but you're creating problems because you appear to be unfamiliar with policies and how they work. For example, you may be unaware of WP:EDITWAR. "10:00-10:15 am" not "11:00 am" is the case/reality of the information (unless you could find any contrary evidence). No, that's not the way Wikipedia editorial policies work. Factual data included in articles isn't decided by Wikipedia editors cherry-picking details from YouTube video interviews. See WP:OR, and see WP:RSPYT.


 * This article could be improved if more good quality WP:FRIND sources are found. As it is, there's WP:SENSATIONAL coverage by secondary sources. For example: : the story is framed in terms of "creepy details", "unsolved UFO cases", "baffling events" etc. clearly a tabloid treatment and an overly credulous approach. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

well I finished my necessary changes and obviously some editors could state this is in breach of edit warring indications but as I indicated the versions resulting from 13:53 & 04:18 re-included both not verifiable and false information which I could very easily prove (and will indicate the details of after this communication) and so, as a strategy for proceeding to negotiate the probelms of the article, with the much less quantity of information it is much easier to verify the facts, and I didn't re-include any more information than those which are absolutely certainly facts (at least not debatable as core facts of the subject) which are peripheral to the claimed incident, specifically "Clayton South" and the Local culture section changes. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't examined your changes, but it's not Wikipedia editors job to "verify the facts" by scouring primary sources to see if a secondary source says the same thing as a primary source. We simply summarize what reliable secondary sources say. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't allow the article to display false and non verifiable information Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring, refusal to accept feedback, and general disruption at articles of focus resulted in a block at Simple English Wikipedia:
 * https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simpul_skitsofreeneea
 * This is very similar. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The latest edits they made, like this one, appear to be WP:POINTY and argumentative rather than work intended to improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

As a human I cannot think about a subject if provided with the wrong information, so for my own benefit and so therefore I presume for other editors to remove these parts provides the only possible beginning for a disussion on the subject, as those wrong informations were in wikipedia reality (should have been) excluded before any changes were made to the article by me which then other editors could disagree with or not. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

So what I'm stating is that (and this is because LuckyLouie didn't follow the procedure WP:BRD "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it.") I didn't make any contentuous changes only necessary adaptions to the currently existing sources, as both Rjjiii & LuckyLouie made the version as the supposed acceptable version to begin the discussion from (which is 13:53 & 04:18) but that version is not acceptable and neither editors verified if the informations are acceptale by verificationaility or truthfulness to the sources so the choice to now have me accept the version to begin the discussion isn't as WP:BRD "if it is not an improvement". Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

if you would like to review the edits, which I can provide a guide synopsis of, but really it is only necessary to review the deleted parts and verify that I deleted correctly, then we could begin a discussion on the informations which are contentuous. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You state "Yes, I agree." but I already indicated there is no source which has this information in so stating policy cannot be the reality of proceeding, obviously. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC) You would state that some criticism exists but you haven't proceeded to verify if I made the correct choice or not. I gave the reasons, you are expected to verify if the change represents the reality of the source. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) You think some policy is greater than the source then don't let me stop you living that reality. You would have false information in the article or criticise me instead of following the expected and neccessary procedure. Obviously, in peer-review, I made the choice, you now refuse to review and instead proceed to threaten me without just cause. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are all the edits to review (and I suppose I'm wrong to expect peer-review when you haven't proven I was wrong to make the edits at all before the criticism. Your criticisms have no worth without the proofs, which you could determine by the review and legitametly criticize me for making an error with):

"According to the students, the object was descending, overflew the high school, and disappeared behind a stand of trees."

"At approximately 11:00 am"

"with a slight purple hue"

"twice the size"

"Approximately 20 minutes later the object reportedly reappeared, climbed at speed and departed towards the north-west."

"unidentified aircraft"

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed all these parts as I didn't find them in the sources. The only other changes were removed the day and repitition date, re-added the links to the front page of Dandeonong, re-added "Clayton South" and re-added the UFO park information. Without the proofs that I made a mistake (which don't exist as much as I know, or I wouldn't have made the changes) your criticism are just an abuse via policy in my opinion. I want to make improvements and a good article you would have the reality a false representation of me without the proof. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SOUP I'm afraid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article has a lot of quotes and info about ufologist's Shane Ryan's documentary but also seems to provide some clear facts like dates and places:
 * Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some more okay-but-not-high-quality news sources:
 * UFO playground makes contact with past. (2013, December 18). Moorabbin Glen Eira-Kingston Leader, 3.
 * Mark Dunn. (2014, August 7). UFO all hot air. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 23.
 * And some primary sources likely not needed but relevant:
 * https://speccoll.library.arizona.edu/collections/james-e-mcdonald-papers (only in-person access to McDonald interview recordings)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20121111210012/http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Westallhighschoolufo/ (early 2000s discussion group ran by Shane Ryan)
 * https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2017/10/westall-document-located-which-shows.html (launch document scans from Keith Basterfield)
 * I've updated the 1966 citation in the article to link to a scan on archive.org.
 * I'm not interested in trying to update while a dispute is ongoing, but these 4 news sources, the Skeptoid source, and the (primary) government source about the park should allow for more clear references going forward. Rjjiii  (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20121111210012/http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Westallhighschoolufo/ (early 2000s discussion group ran by Shane Ryan)
 * https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2017/10/westall-document-located-which-shows.html (launch document scans from Keith Basterfield)
 * I've updated the 1966 citation in the article to link to a scan on archive.org.
 * I'm not interested in trying to update while a dispute is ongoing, but these 4 news sources, the Skeptoid source, and the (primary) government source about the park should allow for more clear references going forward. Rjjiii  (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm meant to ignore the fact that as a consequence of reverting you introduced false and non verifiable information, in order to appear/be polite, isn't constructive if we are both working on the same goal of progressing the article. I didn't have any way to avoid explaining to you your error of not following the policy (WP:BRD)  you provided, which would have been if you had maintained the edits I made which had a value, as I just demonstrated above, which you could now verify if you reviewed the changes which were necessitated, which still no-one has done: which would make a peer-review value of the situation; therefore upholding a principle of wikipedia which is to create an encyclopedia, as contents is the reason why we are all here in principle. I found the errors so it is not true that I am simply trolling (SOUP).

If someone reviewed the edits that would create a situation of discussion with more security since it would be possible to know that what I am stating is true.

Irrespecive of whether editors proceed to review or not: in discussion of the article: the Dandenong is the closest source to the immediate accounts of the supposed events of the day, so that would be the reason to maintain that reference, which is reference 1. Reference 2 Foster both editors chose to revert and not change the article so I'm presuming you both think that Foster is acceptable as a source. So I added all the sources under Further information and I don't know how to now use the sources as the reverts occured. Since both editors returned only media sources to the article would that mean that these types of sources are considered applicable for the addition of information to the Reports section, and if so, what do the reverting editors consider would be usable of the information within the sources? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm certain Basterfield & Clarke: Princeton should be returned, which is kirkmcd.princeton.edu: Kirk McDonald (Professor Emeritus) Research Interests, Experimental High-Energy Physics Department of Physics, but what should be taken from the source if there is an apparent problem with the information which I used previously? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

five unidentified aircraft (21:12, 7 January 2024)‎

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westall_UFO&diff=prev&oldid=1194218837 Approximately 20 minutes later the object reportedly reappeared, climbed at speed and departed towards the north-west. (21:31, 7 January 2024)]

twice the size (21:52, 7 January 2024)

with a slight purple hue (22:13, 7 January 2024‎)

At approximately 11:00 am (22:26, 7 January 2024‎)

According to the students the object was descending, overflew the high school, and disappeared behind a stand of trees.(22:52, 7 January 2024)

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

8 January 2024

 * @Simpul skitsofreeneea Regarding the "Princeton" source, do you feel that interviews between ufologist James E. McDonald and the eyewitnesses, conducted in the 1960s and transcribed or summarized by Australian ufologists, would meet the guidelines at WP:FRIND? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Succintly, no and because there isn't category: physics in the article, if it were that JE McDonald (JEM) or Kirk T McDonald (KTM) had proposed a theory from their scientific positions.


 * JEM interviewing Greenwood (G) is the subject, that JEM interviewed all the other suppossed witnesses doesn't describe he advocates or espouses their accounts. If it is a responsibility of academia to investigate public statements or witness, then JEM was the person who took that responsibility.


 * If Basterfield & Clarke page 1 is their qualifications, and I didn't find any evidence they are anything other than researchers within ufology organisations http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/ (KTM) is the publisher, so that would indicate an undoubtably reliable source as Professor Emeritus of High-Energy Physics Princeton University alone, unless some contrary evidence exists and I haven't found any yet, but I haven't exhaustively looked for any which would change this reliability status that I give here.


 * Your question necessitates that it is a fringe theory but no-one has proposed any theory and all the academics (KTM & JEM) have done is interview (JEM) or republish (KTM) the accounts of people, as far as current researching by me or any other wikiepdia editor has shown, not qualified to know about science sufficiently to propose any theory at all, which is G isn't qualified with a doctorate or PhD, presuming he has no doctorate or PhD, as a school teacher. So I'm supposing you think JEM, as a legitimate orign for a fringe theory is fringe theorizing by vectoring G's account, that is by accepting it (and the other statements at all) academically, and not criticizing (which is a little bit silly to think because that is just the reality that people have something inexplicable to state within the subject of atmospheric physics). I think it isn't fringe because it is that JEM and KTM, their names and reputations, are associated with the information, they haven't theorized.


 * With regards to the sources of Westall, "fringe theory" (beyond or outside the accepted range of known science), it is simply because of the reason: the universe is simply much larger than is possible to envisage by normal processes, as it includes the possibility of infinity whether we accept it is or it isn't. The probability that other life in the universe cannot exist is discounted simply by a probabalistic consideration in the first instance (of the vastness of the universe) and by a lack of proof that it doesn't in the second. Simply that no proof has been found that aliens don't and can't exist means therefore the probability that we have already had an encounter with an alien species from a different planet cannot be discounted. This is obvious. That no proof exists to state aliens don't exist so there is no way to discount the idea of other planet superior intelligence and technology aliens existence. So stating Westall sources are fringe or whatever the supposed discrediting critiques could state of their supposed flies in the face of all reason statements no serious relevant scientist or thinker could ever succumb to the desire to discount the problem of we (the species homo sapiens) are not superior in our own world, for the reasons that I have just shown. That is all I can state in response to your question and I'm sorry if that seems brutal to your sensibilities (if it does). I showed above scientists are looking for aliens "00:58, 5 January 2024": Talk:Westall_UFO, so I think isn't fringe, because reliable sources show scientists are looking. How to therefore classify the information is simple; is a scientific situation with no explanation in science. Which science it belongs to, so it would be atmospheric physics, high-energy physics (I am not in a position to disagree, as I have no qualifications to refute JEM (atmospheric) or KTM (high-energy physics).  There is no way to categorize the article to either. Theoretically if either category were made today (by a wikipedia editor) then it would be fringe I suppose, but that is not any reality that will occur. So if no science is applied to the article there isn't any core for the information to be a fringe of. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Succintly, no [...]" Then don't use it in the article?
 * There is surely a language barrier issue at play here. Some idiosyncracies in your writing ("falsities") indicate that you speak a Romance language. Is English your native language? If not, would you consider trying another language Wikipedia for a while? It seems like you are taking this personally, but your edits run afoul of multiple core policies here. Rjjiii  (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There certainly seems to be a language issue here. Yet the ongoing problems associated with WP:RS and WP:FRIND, combined with the WP:IDHT responses (I'll leave it at that) here and at FTN, suggest to me that perhaps the best way forward is to blanket revert Simpul's edits and start afresh, one item/source at a time. My skills are such that I might break all of WP in a blanket revert attempt, but if someone more skilled would do that, I am willing to work with any editor, using an ample supply of WP:NORUSH, to evaluate the individual bits of content that Simpul wants to add. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked me a question I replied no. That is the succinct answer. The reason I gave is there isn't any theory provided by JEM & KTM. I haven't made any more edits and I stated I don't intend to make any more without consensus. "your edits run afoul of multiple core policies", the information was incorrect by policy as I showed above, which no-one has yet verified by review. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * KTM chose to publish. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC) No-one publically has proven anything about UFO extraterrestrial, but if there were no physics in the subject then the subject matter would be psychiatry. In open physics no-one is engaging with ufo science. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) If closed physics which is governmentally classified physics, is engaging in ufo science, then this isn't something wikiepdia can use to determine if Westall is fringe. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

9 January 2024
Please do not blanket-restore the recently deleted content. Instead, I suggest that we use this Talk page to discuss your desired content one item/source at a time. Please do not post a wall-of-text of every single item in one go - just one item. You, me, and (hopefully) other editors will discuss the content and source without using disruptive walls of text, and in so doing reach a WP:CONSENSUS about whether or not the content/source will be included in the article. Then we will move to the next item, and then the next, etc. How does that sound? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well the reversion just returns content which isn't found in the sources, is a misrepresentation of the sources as I already indicated above, which any editor could have determined for themselves by reviweing my edits. I already stated this now you want me to restate the reality. There isn't anything to discuss than that because you could easily prove or disprove what I am stating by doing the necessary and expected activity of an editor. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) There isn't any consensus to information which doesn't exist in the sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC) I don't "desire" any content, the content I added isn't my preference. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The changes I made were necessary to obey the facts of the sources being used to provide the information as I just have indicated, if someone would like to verify my changes: is my suggestion, then the discussion could begin without the need to mention the obvious policy situation of original reasearch being "prohibited":

""Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia."

which doesn't allow me to discuss the changes, as the reversion is prohibited (unless reviewing editors would indicate how I made an error by review/verification) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not a promising start. One final time: use this Talk page to discuss your desired  preferred content that you have attempted to add to the article one item/source at a time. If you are unable or unwilling to do that...well, good luck to you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * five unidentified aircraft (21:12, 7 January 2024)‎ specifically the craft were not unidentified they were identified as light aicraft of planes as the soures show


 * Approximately 20 minutes later the object reportedly reappeared, climbed at speed and departed towards the north-west. (21:31, 7 January 2024) none of whicch were found in the sources


 * twice the size (21:52, 7 January 2024)


 * with a slight purple hue (22:13, 7 January 2024‎) sources don't show "purple hue"


 * At approximately 11:00 am (22:26, 7 January 2024‎) don't show "11:00 am"


 * According to the students the object was descending, overflew the high school, and disappeared behind a stand of trees.(22:52, 7 January 2024) none of whicch were found in the sources


 * "14:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)"


 * feel free to start at the top, I made the changes because the sources don't show the information


 * Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 21:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I already indicated the current situation is prohibited, I didn't create the current situation, you would prefer to insist on making discussion of a prohibited situation. I have already indicated the reasons for changes in the editorial summary and above. This is now the third provision of information on the changes that are expected unless other evidence is found to contradict my position in the article. So what I'm expecting is you would confirm or deny that the discussed changes are legitimate. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I give up. Pinging User:Rjjiii and User:LuckyLouie, as perhaps they are better equipped to understand this situation, which to me has become impenetrable. I do wish you luck going forward, Simpul skitsofreeneea. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't ping them. I pinged them myself &  which isn't a very difficult thing to achieve considering you were able to type the reponse.


 * So I read the dispute resolution process page and I see discussion of Talk page before involving other editors. So the discussion I'm stating is: the sources don't support the information that has been returned to the article 04:18 7 January 2024‎, 10:53 9 January 2024‎, (2 x) by Rjjiii, 13:53, 7 January 2024 (once) by LuckyLouie. The 1st revert 22:01, 3 January 2024‎, Rjjiii reverted (link to editorial summary) which I don't dispute in this dispute and would be a different dispute). So after this revert I responded to the suggestion which we can all see at:


 * ""Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and using inline citations""

- Rjjiii (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2024


 * So from the 1st revert we can see I begin to make corrections to the existing contents/material since it isn't representing the reality at:
 * 01:11, 5 January 2024‎; which I state "At" isn't true, because it indicates that 11:00 was the exact time of the incident, but that is not the intended contents (not possible for 11:00 to be the exact time),


 * etc (you can see this explicitly in the editorial summaries), I excluded the other changes I made as they aren't relevant to the current problem of reversion:


 * 01:21, 5 January 2024‎ "source doesn't show this"
 * 01:35, 5 January 2024 "not "a" "multiple" (Foster) - added quote for V" (which is to state the source shows the latter ("multiple") not the former ("a"), the source is Foster, and I added a quote in the source to aid verification by subsequent editors, or readers
 * 01:46, 5 January 2024‎ "deleted was not found in these sources"
 * 02:02, 5 January 2024 "deleted "20" is not found in sources: is a misrepresentation of as found in Foster as is shown under "Picture of Westall High School."
 * 02:21, 5 January 2024‎ "information was not found in Foster Dandenong or Dunn"
 * 02:25, 5 January 2024 "replaced the sentence with corrected content from Foster with quote for V"


 * So the first edit to return the information that I state is prohibited, that editors could confirm or deny as being the case/true by reviewing as shown above was 04:18, 7 January 2024 Rjjiii (ii) then I rereverted, to then be reverted 13:53, 7 January 2024‎ by LuckyLouie who states WP:BRD, but neither editor obeyed: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it", as is observable 01:21 - 02:25.  So here at the next edit from the 2nd revert (LuckyLouie) I re-add the url from Dandenong 20:19, 7 January 2024 and the same edits with different summaries re-iterating the changes as I showed above, to the last revert 21:12, 7 January 2024 ‎(Rjjiii (ii)). Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So in synopsis reverting 01:21 - 02:25 5th January & 20:19, 7 January 2024 & 21:12, 7 January 2024 - 22:52, 7 January 2024 was prohibited by WP:OR Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We can observe this fact at No original research/Noticeboard:


 * "Additional notes:


 * "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia."


 * where I filed a notice: No original research/Noticeboard ‎Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Rjjiii (ii) is also me. I have a separate account for my phone, and haven't been able to use my laptop as much the past few days.
 * JJA did ping me above.
 * The changes described above addressed one of my concerns, but not other issues with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE.
 * Rjjiii (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't provide any response to anything other than the problem of the article having non verifiable information. Whatever your thoughts are on what we could discuss, the sources are attached to the contents but the contents isn't attached to the sources. So that content is OR without the sources to prove the details shown are from any source at all: obviously as OR indicates. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) When I look at the article I see the contents and the reference numbers. When I then activate the references I don't find the contents. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC) for example:


 * Rjiii is an editor in wikipedia.
 * Rjjiii is not Rjjiii 1. proof/evidence by source does not show Rjjiii is not Rjj iii


 * Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * as I made to illustrate within: User:Simpul skitsofreeneea/sandbox Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

10 January 2024
00:16, 10 January 2024‎ was good as I can read the actual article now, although it does help with the legibility of the type from previous versions, it doesn't address the issue that I indicated above; and I didn't find any evidence of the contents in the more legible version either. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC) considering the value of peer-review your review would create trust and confidence in the changes I made, or vice-versa if you discover something other in my changes. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) A definite improvement to see/read the reference though, obviously: I'm-prove...-(the reference)-meant Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My most recent edit is only adjusting the citation in a footnote to provide a link. I believe that was the goal of your 3 previous edits.
 * Some of your other concerns are resolved by reusing an existing reference. Some passages were cited to reference 8 "Academic Throws Light..." years ago. That reference is still in the article and needs only to be put next to the content:
 * "with a slight purple hue" ref 8
 * "twice the size ref 8
 * Rjjiii (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 8 has "Shaun Matthews (not a student at Westall)" is a new source for the current version, the current passage has only "school"" Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC) I did find "about the size of "two family cars" " yes Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) & I found "purple hue" also. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 8 has no author Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC) is a https://www.newspapers.com/paper/the-age/3673/ Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So I made the suggested "8" @ 01:21 but ref's 1 & 2 are still problematically associated to the contents. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 23:58, 6 January 2024 (edit summary) the relevant summary "10:00/10:15 not "11" via ref.2" the relevant quote from the reference indicated: here which was used to re-determine "11:00" (as one evidence) plus the absence of any indication of it's existence in the sources 1 & 2, as the other evidence, as previously shown above. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)