User:Rjc1/sandbox

URL ADDRESSING
Exeter_incident - This works

The Muscarello sighting - This too.

Enter Officers Bertrand and Hunt - O.K. we've got the format and how to do it. HAPPY CAMPER

NPOV_tutorial Test this link

User_talk:Rjc1

This next link to what I wrote on the Exeter incident talk page works just fine:

Talk:Exeter_incident

As does this one

Exeter incident talk page


 * See INTERNAL LINKS for - how to

WORKING OUT SIGNATURES
Rjc1  O.K. But, color of Rjc not what I really wanted.

Test signature: Rjc1 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)    O.K.

See if I can figure color: Jim's signature on my page: Cullen328  Let's discuss it

Same signature form with my name and a change: Rjc1   Respectfully   GREAT!

BOLD and ITALIC
'''Just a test to see what happens if I. . .''' Bold - Yes

''Use Italic. . .''  Yes

Use bold-italic. . .  Yes

BOLDING AROUND QUOTES
''' "Practice makes perfect." '''

BOLDING vs NOT BOLDING URLS
Verifiability

Verifiability

INTERNAL LINKS
WP:NPOV WP:VER WP:NOR

No_original_research Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Verifiability

I have found I can link to select places on Wiki internal pages by doing the following:


 * Enough Heading Text on a page becomes part of a Table of Contents generated by the page. You can link to any item you can see in the TOC.


 * a)	click on the item in the TOC.
 * b)	In the page’s address box: Copy everything to the right after /wiki/.
 * c)	Surround this by double brackets
 * example: User:Rjc1/sandbox


 * (That internal link used on a talk page takes us to that specific heading on the page.)

TESTING FORMATTING OF PHRASES
Wikipedia guideline (quote):

No original research means that articles may not contain previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, opinions, or theories. This includes any new analysis or synthesis of these facts. ''Basically, Wikipedia is a record of human knowledge, viewpoints and summaries that already exist and are expressed elsewhere.” YES, This is correct format.

O.K., what happens if I do this
PROBLEM: Great, it doesn't indent unless the : (colons) are used at the beginning of the line.

What happens if I do this
Something happened with the spacing between this and the italicized title below. You should never have two headings right after one another. You always need at least one regular line of text to follow a heading. Line-spacing becomes lost.

ITALICIZED MIXED WITH REGULAR TEXT
Typing something within an italicized sentence "and not have Wiki-speak ITALICIZE the quoted part." See if I do this by using regular quotes instead of single apostrophes? O.K. GOT IT NOW.

THE PROPER WAY TO USE THE od RETURN-ARROW CHARACTER:

 * Type something then press return and THEN, type the od (which will appear all the way at the left margin.) Begin typing immediately after it.

THIS WILL HAPPEN. Thus, this is the proper way to use the od return symbol. (If you do use it.)

INITIAL OPENING TO DISCUSSION RE: EXETER INCIDENT
To interested adjudicators of the Exeter_incident Wiki page

As adjudicators are aware, the present version of the 1965 Exeter case on Wikipedia highlights the case using a Skeptical Inquirer article as a cornerstone to the entire incident. Our focus is drawn to the mention of that article twice; once at the end of the introductory summation of the Exeter case, and again at the end of the case itself, in even greater detail. This accords it a rather significant role in the portrayal of the event. Of all the other references mentioned on that Wikipedia page, none have been accorded this much space or prominence.

It is well within editorial jurisdiction and responsibility to question the reasoning behind this privilege. Any article accorded this much significance on any Wikipedia page should certainly require closer interior examination. This is especially necessary if it is not following or is bending Wiki guidelines. A recent examination of the SI article and how it was implemented on the Wiki Exeter_incident page has exposed this issue amongst others.

The following is a basic summation of the first two problems. The need for resolution of a third will become apparent as we proceed.

The Main Problems With The Exeter Page are Threefold: A) NPOV Issue:  The Skeptical Inquirer article, 'Exeter Incident' Solved! A Classic UFO Case, Forty-Five Years ‘Cold’ by James McGaha and Joe Nickell (footnote #9), is used as a cornerstone to the Wikipedia Exeter incident page and readers are directed to their study from that page. However, knowledgeable people regarding this case are aware the cornerstone used is not neutral and has broken a number of Wikipedia’s general guidelines, some of which Wikipedia has emphasized are non-negotiable. Wikipedia should find this unacceptable since any article worthy of cornerstone status and expanded on any Wiki page should, at the minimum, follow basic Wiki guidelines.

B) VERIFIABILITY AND BIAS Issue: There are bias and information suppression issues within McGaha and Nickell’s workup on the Exeter case of which Wikipedia, to this time, seems to have overlooked. Those issues are fully illustrated and confirmed via previously Wiki-requested missing citations, now accessible on-line; (i.e. scans from John Fuller’s 1966 original book) The citations make it obvious many important testimonies which refute the basic premise of the study were omitted. Due to this situation, the present overall Wikipedia page, in its present form, is tainted with bias, and the footnote #9 e-paper, does not warrant the prominence and space presently accorded.

Comments are invited and welcome. --Rjc1  Respectfully  19:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to Jim
Hello Jim,

Reading the Wiki section on POV, NPOV disputes, I realize I need to be sure what I have written is formulated correctly and used with the proper tag. There is much Wiki documentation in this regard. After reading it, I'm not sure whether to use the POV or NPOV tag at the head of the page. Since the Exeter Wiki page problem deals with breakage of NPOV Wiki guidelines, omission of facts, etc. I am thinking the NPOV tag would be best. I was wondering if this is correct and you concur. Also, when should I place the NPOV tag on the main Exeter_incident page, and exactly where on the page?

If you can, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at several paragraphs I placed on the Exeter incident talk page, and possibly make any suggestions you think are appropriate to both formulating my concerns, and drawing other editors (including fringe area adjudicators) into a discussion concerning those things. Is it detailed enough? Anything else I should be doing to conform to Wiki guidelines?

Thanks in advance for your time and expertise.--Rjc1  Respectfully  14:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ans to Jim at Exeter talk page

 * It is not really an alternative source. The reliable source is one of the prime original main sources which the Skeptical Inquirer article is based upon; John Fuller’s 1966 book “The Exeter Incident.” The title of the Exeter incident page would not exist without it. The following three links establish this source.


 * Exeter Incident cover
 * publisher
 * date & address


 * Additionally, I am following what Wikipedia has instructed me to do, however you are absolutely correct concerning the use of the word bias at this time. You had told me to summate my concerns.


 * a quote from Wikipedia’s Primer for Newcomers


 * Verifiability


 *  "For information to be included on Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable. This means that others can check for themselves to see that whatever is included in an article can be confirmed elsewhere. Just saying something is true doesn't automatically make it so." 


 * I am an “other” and an editor and, to aid in editing, have checked my editing and the Wiki page for verifiabilty. This included the Skeptical Inquirer article since it had so much to do with the page. As I did this I noticed some Wiki article anomalies regarding some of the guidelines Wikipedia had me read.


 * As Exeter incident adjudicators know, a header on the Exeter incident Wiki page says:


 * '' "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2014)’’ ""


 * Looking at the above Wiki page header, one notices that previous vetting has indicated some items of verification are missing. The page’s announced need for certificates of verification clearly informs all the Wiki page itself isn't fully verified yet.


 * As stated above, I have brought a number of source certificates with me which pertain directly to that request. Certain things have failed verification from one of the S.I. article’s most primary sources, the 1966 John Fuller book.


 * Responding to your answer


 * Paragraph 2: Jim, just to momentarily clear the air about your last comment. No negative connotation was intended concerning the word adjudicator. It was just meant as a delineation of tasks. A person who edits determines the final context of a text. A person who makes a formal judgement on a disputed matter is an adjudicator. Your job at Wikipedia is multi-faceted.


 * Paragraph 1: What is interesting is that Fuller’s book was deemed important enough by the ‘'Skeptical Inquirer'’ article to be used for various references in the “Solutions” and “Solved” portions of their paper. So Fuller is O.K.ed for ‘'their'’ use but has been “fringed” for me. Either he is “fringed” or he isn’t. Evidently there were some things he said that were worth examining.


 * Continuing onward:


 * A problem with this privileged use occurs when one selectively chooses some things of Fuller’s to examine without making a solid effort to examine the rest. If there is specific information in his book that can be studied for factualness (or not), it should be permitted. This leads one to ask what other information the Skeptical Inquirer article may possibly have omitted. Fuller’s book contained a transcript of tape-recorded testimonies made by numerous witnesses to the Exeter events (N.B. A hint the case was not simply one event.) In actuality, it was the totality of those events which comprised the essence of the case. The original investigators and even USAF were forced to realize that even if it were possible to solve one incident, the other incidents had to be taken into consideration as well. Fuller wasn't the only one to document the events.


 * In the Hynek UFO Report, the same book cited by the Skeptical Inquirer authors, Dr. J. Allen Hynek related the following.


 * Hynek concerning the Exeter case


 * It is also pertinent to note the Wikipedia article mentioned Mr. Raymond Fowler as an “also” but failed to recognize the true importance of his workup, both to the Air Force examination and the A.F.’s final determination concerning the case. Please do not get confused between Fowler and Fuller in this next section. They are two different people.


 * Focusing on one of the things Hynek had said regarding Fuller and Fowler regarding this case,


 * Hynek concerning Fuller and Fowler


 * The extensive report from Ray Fowler contained signed statements from witnesses, and additional information he had gathered. That report plus the Air Force/Pentagon’s eventual inability to resolve this were the major contributing factors as to why the Air Force revised its original theory concerning the Exeter events. The events remained *unsolved* thereafter. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Fowler’s entire report on this was read into the Congressional Record during a hearing on UFOs. Reading the Skeptical Inquirer e-paper, one discovers Fowler and his report is not mentioned therein.


 * To do an honest study of something, you don’t delete the data first before studying it


 * I realize you don’t want to look at anything that Fuller says because he has been Wiki-fringed. However, Fuller did tell us that at the start of his investigation he went to see Raymond Fowler (bringing a tape recorder and notebook) both so he could evaluate Fowler for himself, and gather information regarding witnesses who Fuller might then tape-interview. Ray Fowler verifies this.


 * John Fuller concerning the tapes


 * Fuller found Fowler to be quite competent and thorough, and Fowler eventually provided the names and addresses of a generous number of eyewitnesses to a number of sightings at Exeter. In the course of interviewing Fowler’s witnesses, Fuller then discovered several other leads. The names and addresses of the individuals Fuller interviewed were eventually included in his book along with their sighting descriptions, a number of which had been previously written up in a number of newspapers. (Newspapers, Editors, etc. were named as well. Fuller had discussions with some of them.) Therefore, the majority if not all of this could be checked. This is how one knows there were numerous additional events to Muscarello’s which occurred and how this fact was verified. Some of these events had larger number of witnesses, circumstances and details which were even more impressive than Muscarello’s. They could not be explained by either outside investigators or USAF. There were upwards of 60 witnesses. When you discount Fuller’s work, you are only discounting a few, but you are also discounting the taped and transcribed testimonies.


 * Additionally, from above we can see, John Fuller’s book was not the only source for this information. The Air Force’s inability to explain the available testimonies, etc. was part of the reason USAF was eventually forced to reverse its initial estimate of the case. Raymond Fowler had pressed the issue and they found they could not explain it.


 *  The reason for discussing the preceding 


 * Concerning the Skeptical Inquirer paper: Any honest effort to study this case, spurred by simple curiosity, should have included contacting newspapers, editors, claimed witnesses, and libraries which store this type information to verify (or not) those sightings mentioned. This was not accomplished by the Skeptical Inquirer Exeter incident authors. They said it was “beyond the scope of their investigation.”


 * Click here if necessary to verify this


 * From a scientific standpoint, to not check what could and should be checked is unacceptable. The elimination of this information from the study without examining the stated evidence which thwarted original solution by investigators and USAF immediately renders it only a partial investigation which could not possibly lead to a complete definitive solution for the 1965 Exeter case, and could potentially skew the results.


 * When Fuller’s interviews were eventually completed, Fuller had the witnesses’ voices on tape. He told us he had recorded them so he could bring it back to his editors to prove he wasn’t just creating any of this himself. As we said, the Exeter Incident wasn’t just one sighting, it was ‘'sighting(s).’' That’s what the Air Force couldn’t explain; the solid, unexplainable testimonies. (The very ones Wikipedia is removing from the table for discussion, and from history.) Those testimonies, discovered and closely examined during his first-hand investigation, eventually drew Fuller to this topic in later years.


 * But we have now established there were more sightings and more witnesses which remain undiscussed and are presently being erased from people's awareness.


 * Statement to the number of witnesses


 * The importance of Ray Fowler’s report concerning the Exeter sightings is further demonstrated by the fact, on April 5, 1966, the House Armed Services Committee unanimously voted Fowler’s entire report on the Exeter sighting into the Congressional Record during the first open Congressional hearings on UFOs. This can be confirmed via the Congressional Record. As we discovered previously Hynek, after his own examination, was impressed with it . As he told us at an above link, the Air Force had even used a great deal of it in their Project Blue Book report. During that same congressional hearing, Hynek testified to Congress that the Air Force could not solve it. (It is in the record.)


 * Because Fowler and his report were accepted into the Congressional record, praised by Dr. Hynek, were used by Blue Book in its report, and were influential in the Air Force’s decision concerning the case, we realize he and his report were not just an "also" as presently indicated on the Wiki-Exeter incident page. It is without doubt he, his report, and the witnesses testimonies most certainly deserve a more accurate accounting therein, with the goal of attaining proper balance in the article.


 * I have additional pertinent information to contribute. The rest of my comments are not based on anything concerning Fowler or Fuller, but rather on the 'Skeptical Inquirer' e-paper itself and its application to the Wikipedia page. This will include the approach taken by the SI study and whether or not it is actually valid. Support for my comments is based on many of the same sources used in the S.I. e-paper, and certain Wikipedia guidelines. It is hoped that knowledge concerning these things will allow one to acquire a more complete understanding of the Exeter case, and to realize my reasons for eventual proposed editing changes.--Rjc</b><sup style="color:#707">1  Respectfully  18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How we arrived at this talk page discussion
 * Of course I will certainly do as you have suggested. Aware of both how difficult your job is and what I needed to say, it is why in our pre-discussion I asked for your guidance, looking for the right procedure and protocol to present this and stimulate discussion. As you are aware, it is my first time doing this. You sent me directly to the talk page with the instruction to sketch out my improvements. I sketched out what the problems were. Then I asked you to see if there was anything else I should do. All of a sudden you were the person I was discussing the actual case with. I did this the best I could under those conditions. Please understand I wasn’t trying to draw you into this. I was just trying to figure out the best way to present it. You didn’t like a book I was using as source because you said it wasn’t a “reliable” source. But the book is on the SI e-paper’s references list and used in their e-paper discussion.


 * Turning an unreliable source into a reliable one
 * In my defense, Dr. Hynek was actually the one that said the original Fowler/Fuller material was reliable. I used a photostat of his exact words from his book to demonstrate this. Any other words I used were not intended as blogging, but rather necessary to demonstrate that the data analyzed at the time of the incident was considered valid by all investigating parties. Fowler and Fuller provided this data. It was considered reliable because it was well-documented, they checked it, and it directly affected USAF’s final decision. I was planning to demonstrate all the investigating parties and how various things were verified. This information is important for an unabridged understanding of this complete case, and any studies performed without it are incomplete. The actual case is comprised of more than simply ‘’one’’ incident, even though that was the title of Fuller’s book. Fuller spent 221 pages detailing this. Hynek commented on it.


 * Responding to your *illogic* comment - and regarding John Fuller
 * Is it more logical to besmirch someone’s character so completely that original data from the case at hand (testimonies, etc.), is totally removed from the possibility of discussion and obliterated from history? Does Wikipedia believe this will actually aid present or future investigators’ analyses which seek to accurately depict and solve the Exeter incident? We have evidence that the chief civilian consultant on UFOs to USAF for approximately twenty years had indicated Fowler and Fuller’s material was extremely important to the analysis and original resolution of the 1965 Exeter case. Those two gentlemen were prime data gathers whose material was used by the original investigators. Doesn’t any paper claiming solution for an event need to be ‘’accurate to’’ and encompass the ‘’total’’ pertinent material the original investigators (including USAF) used in their decision making process regarding the case? Don’t we need to know ‘’what’’ they felt was specifically important about it? How can anyone claim a valid, definitive solution derived sans this? Awareness of this missing data is surely reason enough to examine the SI article regarding its claim.


 * Hynek regarding the case, and Fowler and Fuller


 * Suppression of original data
 * If an unwanted outcome of “fringing” and the manner in which it has been applied here is ‘’suppression of original data,’’ we have done something wrong. In this instance, this thinking needs adjustment, Fuller’s data regarding this case needs to be kept in the mix and, at the very least, kept available for discussion. The information Fowler and he gathered at the time was not only important to those original investigators but also affected both USAF’s decision and Fowler himself for the rest of his life. These are some of the things I will discuss at the Reliable sources noticeboard. ‘’But the other items I found regarding ‘’the application of the SI paper to the Wiki Exeter incident page and Wiki guidelines’’ should probably be discussed first.’’ They do not depend on the outcome of this discussion concerning fringing, and they affect my proposed editing.


 * Misstatement regarding one of the main original data gatherers - Raymond Fowler
 * Although it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, I did demonstrate the need for a rewrite of the Wiki article concerning an apparent misstatement of Fowler’s actual importance to the original investigation. He was more than an “also.” I believe I proved my point with the posting of the Hynek UFO Report link and Hynek’s statements concerning Fowler’s contribution and why it was important. Another glance at the bottom of the preceding URL will confirm this. This should be corrected.


 * Concerning one-sided discussion
 * Also, in this instance, “I can use this material but you can’t” and total blanket fringing of individuals with no regard to circumstance is ill-advised logic and is geared to generate a one-sided discussion of the issues. It is certainly *censorship of both myself and the original case material.* This technique is guaranteed to keep any aspiring editor from a fair, relevant discussion of the Wiki page regarding Exeter 1965 and is not really in Wikipedia’s best interest.


 * A final important question
 * Which is a more “reliable” source, a discussion which incorporates *all* the evidence thought important by and affecting the decision of the original investigators, or one in which select parts of it have been eliminated from the possibility of discussion?


 * Jim, this is what I explained to you I wanted to do. If I am doing something wrong, I'll correct it. Sincere thanks for your assistance in helping me get this portion of my discussion a little more concise. -- <b style="color:#070">Rjc</b><sup style="color:#707">1  Respectfully  01:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)