User talk:LuckyLouie/Archive 3

Apologies
I thought about what I said and I apologise for my abrupt behaviour. I noticed you had deleted the original discussion about Ghosts. MountainLaurel88 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I moved the discussion to Talk:Ghost at the bottom of the page. More appropriate there and opens the discussion to wider input from the community. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I know
You are an experienced editor, so please do not enable turning talk pages into forums about the topic (or Wikipedia). We all forget sometimes, but it makes it hard to ask users not to do it if you do.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a fringe theory
https://singularityquest.com/so-you-asked-for-proof-of-psychic-abilities/ Tart's innocence is not fringe theory Details of a 12 year long prestigious argument on Nature reveals this quite clearly. Is this enough to get your consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addidy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Flowcode
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bigbaby23 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO Videos
There is heavy bias in the wiki regarding fake "debunking" that occurred from a non-credible "Science writer". He intentionally ignores the source and credibility of the videos. Dozens of experienced military personnel with millions of dollars in training have reviewed the videos prior and post release. This includes post doctorate physicists, aeronautics engineers from NASA, real IR/FLIR experts, Military Intelligence, seasoned military fighter pilots and radar operators, and a fusion of highly advanced sensor data from multiple billion dollar systems. The IR Flare and Parallax hypotheses are completely unsubstantiated and are quite literally the opposite of unbiased analyses.

This is not a minority view. Please review new developments regarding the reality of these videos. New information has come up that you may not be aware of.

There is also REAL information regarding these UAP encounters that has reached many Universities. They have reviewed the complete detail of the videos and have put forward professional academic level analysis of the videos. I do not see how a random science writer is more credible than a peer reviewed university analysis from a physics department.

No pseudoscience was used. In fact, the "Science writer" is the real pseudo science fraud because his claims are completely and indisputably false.

Furthermore, it is well known and established that not only are these UAP actual advanced craft, materials have indeed been recovered and analyzed by modern atomic microscopes from Stanford University, and have in fact revealed these materials are engineered at the atomic level, which involves modifying the isotopes of the atoms in the material. This is a feat that only CERN is able to do one atom at a time.

SystemFailure0x5a (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place for this discussion is at Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:Mass Categorization
You said "You may not be aware that cryptozoology is a deprecated pseudoscience, and categorizing creatures of legend, rumor and folklore as cryptids isn’t appropriate or encyclopedic" but that's what cryptids are. If you're not going to let someone add cryptids to the cryptid category, then why does the category exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.197.239 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

EC
I keep having edit conflicts with you at Westall UFO, so I will stop for now. That article really needs attention. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some quick fixes and I'm done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

My disagreement
I hope you do not mind me getting in contact with you at your talk box and I hope you forgive me for bothering you with my disagrement with your reverts. - I do not mind any native speaker of the english language to correct me, when I have made a mistake concerning the language. If you have suggestions, how to explain things better in the english language, you are invited - and also anybody else -, to discuss them with me. - My disagreement concerns contentual regards. By my opinion your reverts erased central aspects, that could have been helpful for the reader, to understand the topic. Short, shorter - the shortest is not always the best - even if the shortening grows to be distorting the meanings. And that happened by my opinion. I suppose your reverts had been good minded, but several important aspects now are left out and I am afraid, that some sources I cited are not known to you. Please do not get me wrong, I also think shortenings by experienced authors and revisor may be helpful and worth to be thanked for (and I very often thank for corrections), and one or two changes you made I thought about thanking for, but publishing something that might evoke the impression, that I am the worst speaker of the english language you ever met, made me keep a little bit of distance. My intention is to compromise with you and so I wrote this to you, in order to start a discussion, that leads to a good consensus and maybe it could be possible to learn something from you. The worst thing, that could happen, are editwars and that is the reason, why I got in contact with the tearoom, and that is the reason, why I did not undo your changes, although others recommended it to me. So please leave a message to me, if you would like to discuss the topic with me, please tell me, if we should discuss in the talk box of the article or if we should use one of our personal talk boxes. And even if you do not want to discuss anything with me or if you possibly would like me to disappear from that article, please communicate this to me - I am open for all of your suggestions, but the best is to know about that. Have a nice Easter time and stay healty, Yrs. sincerely--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Best addressed at Talk:White_Lady. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DoneBockpeterteuto (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Joke
I came across this and of course needed to share it with you. Be careful with it, it's an antique. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes me wonder if Louis C.K. got his series name from this old Borscht Belt joke! - LuckyLouie (talk)

Ooparts
We both missed a trick there. That summary should match the main article, and I've done that. I've also told the editor about this discussion about the 2013 source which I don't think we should use at all. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point about list articles. Could apply here as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Roswell incident - The Phenomenon
Hi there! I think The Phenomenon discussion fits well on the section I put it in. The section is about "Subsequent publications and conspiracy theories", so I don't think that the fact that the 'film promotes deep state conspiracy theories' is a reason to delete for the section. The second reason, that the film does not relate only to the Roswell incident is better funded to me. Do you think it could be valid to move the contribution to The Phenomenon (2020) Wikipedia entry, rather than discard it entirely?

Cheers, Efialto
 * Let’s move this chat to Talk:Roswell_incident thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Intelligence report
Hey man, I was curious if you consider the upcoming UFO Intelligence report to be acceptable for a new article.

Reuters

At first I considered it news (WP:NOTNEWS) but the media coverage has been constant for months and it will certainly multiply when it actually hits. I thought I'd ask you because once it hits, there'll be a mess on all related pages. I'm not sure of an official name for this report so I don't know what the name of the article would even be.

The deadline is apparently tomorrow. More info --Loganmac (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure there will be enough RS coverage to warrant a new article. The name of the article would be whatever the mainstream coverage identifies it as being. There won't be any aliens, but there will be enough use of words like "unknown" and "unexplained" to stir up sensational speculation and conspiracy theories by ufo fans and fear mongers. My guess is that there will be a lot of older files where a government agency faithfully records anecdotal statements from people who feel they saw a flying saucer. There may be some later files which have large chunks redacted or blacked out. Some people will assume this is about aliens, but it is more likely about keeping details of US and foreign advanced military aerial vehicles secret. I think all we can do is summarize what the best sources say about it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree, do you think it's appropiate to wait until the report is released? Loganmac (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't have to be a vehicle to trick sensors, only present or capable of operation in the area, — Paleo Neonate  – 11:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, wait for release. WP:CRYSTAL and all that. It’s likely there’ll be a storm of media coverage…but if not, then this report can become a section of some existing article, similar to how the “USAF Roswell: Case Closed” report of the 1990s is treated. Pinging @User:JoJo Anthrax for opinions.LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect the WP:RS coverage of this report will be sufficiently broad to merit a new article, but we should wait until the report is actually released and covered by RS. Commentary from fringe-mongers within the WP:Pseudoscience bubble will almost certainly be extensive, so as always we'll need to be mindful not only of WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:FRIND, etc. but also perhaps WP:COI, as non-RS voices suggest new efforts to monetize the brouhaha (see this). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting guy, that Keyhoe. Is he published in any RS? The Oct. 2020 reply to him from Susan Gough is telling. If both you and your adversary were secretly testing some advanced unmanned aerial vehicle technology that could create false sensor readings and visual sightings, the last thing you would want to do was announce that you knew what it was. Instead you'd want to say whatever is on the Pentagon videos is "unknown", thereby encouraging the other side to keep exposing their latest iteration to you for analysis ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. For many good reasons "No comment" is the coin of that realm.
 * As for Kehoe, he has written for The Drive, which might be a RS, but other than that I am uncertain. He certainly doesn't advertise much, if any, of his non-blog output on his site. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2021/item/2223-UAP#content - ha! Its much shorter and much less detailed than I imagined. Quite possible it will fit within UAPTF.-LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed but not surprised. I wouldn't expect these people to openly reveal/confess much about what their multi-gazillion-dollar sensor suites and IFF algorithms can and can not do, and disinformation is commonly used in the intelligence business. But this detail-free document is sure to serve little purpose than to excite the see-the-government-did-not-say-they-aren't-aliens fringe folk. I believe I was mistaken in thinking a stand-alone article would be merited. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided about a stand alone article (and one has been created already. See my comment at FTN ). Such an article would be a perfect place for all the expert analysis that's coming from RS and more may be coming in the near future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO Report
As you mentioned at WP:FTN, that article could benefit from anti-alarmist (and just plain general) pruning. I have a small amount of free time coming up, so I was going to start with the citation-heavy lede and proceed from there with appropriate clothing - I was thinking something along the lines of might help protect me from the inevitable backlash. Is there any chance that you could be a pal and talk me out of it? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD is your friend. A majority of experienced editors know that the lead should be a summary, not a standalone showcase of selective quotes. Improvements to that end shouldn't be controversial. As for the rest of it, the article looks like it was thrown together in a hurry by someone who was excited about the new UFO report. The bones of a decent article are there, but it could probably use some trimming and sectional rearranging. There are enough eyeballs from FTN on the article so that it will eventually get cleaned up, but since you have some time available now, why not? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Zak Bagans
Hi, while some controversial info is disputable, I can't understand why you removed the new updates with the reliable sources. I'm going to re-establish the new information. Also, the show's info as being "false" is not true as the owners Discovery channel never accentuated that was something else and not the show


 * See the recent changes. And move any discussion to the article's Talk page, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, LuckyLouie ! I've left a message on Zak Bagans Talk page. I apologize in advance to delay with response as I don't edit very often. However, try to understand my rationale - it is related to similar pages. It looks like many editors are engaged in "witch hunt" after routine shows and add irrelevanmt info and criticism.

--Habibiroyal (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Louie, on the Billy Meier page: you are asking for a source with the correct information about the name of this community. What is your source about the wrong name? The page refers to FIGU.org web site. You are invited to see for yourself what is written there. Zutt (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Billy Meier. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

UFO Pentagon videos - Dispute resolution noticeboard
There is a dispute resolution open at the DR noticeboard in which you have been involved Here LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
My apologies, I thought that tag stayed up while the RD noticeboard discussion was ongoing, as it was discussing the NPOV discussion on the talk page, but you are correct, the wording says it comes off depending on what happens on the talk page (which has consensus that there is not an issue). My mistake. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Jack Angel (SHC) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jack Angel (SHC) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jack Angel (SHC) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

That reads as a clear threat
I am uncertain of the interweb term for what you describe here, but within the context of that user's recent edits, and in particular this alarming post that reads like a direct threat against you, I am tempted to begin an AE or ANI thread if you do not beat me to it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A welcome to Hindi Wikipedia popped up in my notifications. Might be just the universal Wikimedia LuckyLouie account applied to Wikis of any language, or it could be a new account created by someone else. I'm not sure, but given the ambiguous "let's have some fun" message from Chantern15 on his Talk page, I thought I'd ask this user. I'll be interested in the explanation, and if it indicates malicious behavior, I'll certainly take it to AN/I. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I'm sure, the responding IP 223.236.202.200 geolocates to India. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Category discussion reply posted.
I look forward to your response. Vitaly Borker article.2600:1700:7610:41E0:3969:EF8D:9281:6793 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation Statement
Hi Luckylouie, why did you state on my talk page that I impersonated you? What was the proof behind this? As you are aware, that impersonating a user is against Wikipedia policy and I did not impersonate you. As you yourself have mentioned on your talk page with your conversation with JoJo Anthrax that this could be the Universal Wikipedia Account Generation at work. I'm sure that you are also aware that casting aspersions on a user is against Wikipedia policy as well. Stating that I impersonated you, especially if it was without evidence reflects badly on me. So I would urge you to accuse me when you have evidence and not otherwise. I understand that you may have come under attack earlier due to your reverts or edits, and I understand your sensitivity towards this important issue. My "Let's have fun" comment was not a threat, it was tongue-in-cheek. Please do not remove your post from my talk page, as it is evidence of a false aspersion against me. If there are more false aspersions, I do not know what "many" is equivalent to, I would consider it to be atleast a dozen or two dozen, then I would report this behaviour to the A/N and ANI. Thank you. Chantern15 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Misunderstanding
I hope that misunderstanding does not preclude our future cooperation :).

Chantern15 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Formal Invitation To Dispute Resolution
I formally invite you to this dispute resolution, with the aim to come to some sort of consensus. Chantern15 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Why lie
Why do you edit pages with lies 2601:405:4680:A40:C52D:82BB:5AD2:434E (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My watchlist currently covers 2,463 pages. You'll have to be a bit more specific. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sound Logo project
VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yo
Lol 2A02:6B65:21F6:0:64DC:F66D:42AE:4C98 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Travis Walton
Hi LuckyLouie. Regarding this edit, I don't question your good faith, and you're a regular so I won't template you. But I remind you that WP:BLP applies and I would ask you to review that policy, as well as WP:EW. The information in question as it existed before my first edit was the Bold part of BRD, added by an editor in the past before any of our edits. My first edit was the Revert part of BRD. After that, Discussion must occur before additional edits are made, which you wisely began. Until a consensus develops, there should be no changes to the sentence in question. I respectfully ask that you follow the policies I have linked and explained. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Information contained in existing articles is the BOLD part of WP:BRD? I’ll stop there because you’re colossally misinformed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right. The information in the article before I made my first edit is the Bold part, as I said above. My edit was the Revert part. Thereafter, there should be no changes to the challenged material until Discussion is completed. I accept your comment in good faith, but I'd like to ask you to avoid comments such as "colossally misinformed". It does nothing to set the tone for a reasonable discussion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The information in question as it existed before my first edit was the Bold part of BRD, added by an editor in the past before any of our edits. I’m sorry, that’s just wrong. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Sundayclose (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Include Contradictory Statements from Chistopher Sherwood and Dana White of the Pentagon Public Affairs Office
Hello LuckyLouie,

You had requested we discuss these edits on your "talk" page. I would argue it is important to provide all the facts surrounding Mr. Sherwood's 2019 statement that Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with the AATIP program, and the confusion concerning his statement about his responsibilities at AATIP as evidenced by previous statements made 2 years earlier by Dana White, Pentagon spokeswoman who contradicts Mr. Sherwood's statement. Ms. White in Dec. 2017 stated in an interview with Politico that Mr. Elizondo was in fact leading this program, and I would contend should be part of the first section of this article. I also included Mr. Sherwood's response to Ms. Sherwood in an attempt to provide a non-biased assessment of who in fact is being candid on the issue of Mr. Elizondo's involvement with the program. Please take a look and revert my edits. I have no personal bias toward this issue, as I remain a skeptic in all things including anyone who makes claims that contradict official reporting by the Pentagon. However, Dana White served in the same capacity of Christopher Sherwood, but during a different timeframe (i.e., 2 years prior). Her statement should be included. In 2019, Mr. Sherwood says he cannot confirm White's statement, but that in itself is not an admission of whether Ms. White made the statement or not. Finally, it would not be appropriate for Mr. Sherwood to speak on behalf of Ms. White. Please consider reverting my edits. Thank you! Alanwilliams101 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion is here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring the Warrick reference. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lucky Louie. I am still new to Wikipedia editing and have a lot to learn.  I am attempting to remain completely neutral, but agree with you in that perhaps it be carved-out and discussed elsewhere within the article.    It makes a lot of sense.  By the way, I think when you said "go to the talk page", you meant the public talk page, right?  I still have a lot to learn, so please bear with me.  Also, I would like to extend an apology if you felt any personal attack when I questioned whether you might be biased. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

SPA
Regarding this, I tried to deal with the SPA's behavior here and was summarily slammed by two senior editors, including an admin, because they perceived the issue as a content dispute. Uh huh. Sufficiently slammed, by the way, that my enthusiasm for editing WP is currently near zero. If you choose to engage this issue in any formal way, all I can say is, "Good luck." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do understand. It can be tiresome to provide an analysis of the content problems and cite all the relevant policies on the article talk page for what seems like an obvious case of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. But admins really do need to make sure all reasonable avenues to engage new editors have been attempted before applying sanctions, else such sanctions are at risk of being overturned. So WP:THANKLESS, WP:ROPE, and WP:SOMETIMESITTAKESTIMEBUTTHINGSEVENTUALLYWORKOUT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have the power of foresight. Or is it Precognition?! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SCR-197


The article SCR-197 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG, sources are all primary or passing mentions."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Billets Mauves €500 20:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Trying to get WikiProject Amateur Radio back on the air!
Hi, I'm  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) and I'm currently doing my best to resurrect the amateur radio WikiProject. A lot of the articles need some serious work and so I'm trying to organize an article improvement drive in October. If you're interested check out the link to the drive and the project page. Right now everything is in the planning stages, trying to find people interested, articles to focus on, etc. So if you know anyone who would like to help out feel free to invite them! If you no longer interested in this project that's a-ok just remove yourself from the list on the project page and I'll never badger you again. 73!  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 00:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!
Thanks for cleaning up the mess I left. Can't have been fun being called names while you were at it. --ChetvornoTALK 06:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was never personally called names, but I felt bad that long-term constructive contributors like yourself were. It's ironic because while working on the article I noticed you have the uncommon ability to rephrase or summarize a body of information in your own words and sentence structure to make complex material understandable to a layman. Your only error was not adding the cites at the time you were writing it. In my view, you should have been more decently handled. Wikipedia needs more editors with your ability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

September 22, 2022
That was a lot of work. I'm not sure it was worth it, but thank you for shutting up our uncooperative co-editor. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was comparatively easy. I've encountered editors unfamiliar with the subject matter who disrupt an article even after missing citations are added by demanding page numbers, clarifications, explanations, proof of notability, etc. — so it could have been a lot worse. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Area 51 Edit
The quotation attributed to Kelly Johnson is from an unpublished internal company document. As such it apparently qualifies as original research. Although I can attest to its accuracy since I was personally in senior management of the U-2 program at Lockheed I must withdraw the edit. johnskunk1

Johnskunk1 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Filper Research Beta
As you have noted, my revision to this page violates Wikipedia standards.

In the case of being written with a neutral viewpoint, I have edited out the portions which represent my personal opinions. If you can suggest portions that are not neutral I would be happy to delete them. They are the opinions of one who who intimately involved with affected those events so long ago (although I would argue they are valid).

The fact is that most of the page represents my personal recollections. The events happened almost 60 years ago when was only 23 years old and I am now 80 but my as you can see recollection of the facts are detailed.. Most of the other participants in the program were 20 plus years older. Even the youngest would now be in their late 90's, I know for a fact that all of the Copperfield people have passed on.. As you can tell my by edits I was intimately involved from the first day to the last day of the program. I fact I witnessed the fatal crash.

Although the material has never been published could the page be published and annotated to indicate that fact?

On another subject ,you recently send me a note on a revision I had proposed to the Area 51 article. There also I had used unpublished material. You suggested that I contact the Smithsonian. I have done so and am waiting a reply. That you for our suggestion.

Regards, John Turner (john skunk1 comes from my time at the Lockheed as U-2 program manager. In fact I have visited Area 51)

As you can probably tell I am an engineer and my english composition skills are poor.

Johnskunk1 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have given you links to the relevant editorial policies WP:OR, WP:V etc. They explain why Wikipedia can't accept personal anecdotes and hearsay as a basis for encyclopedia articles. Imagine if someone rewrote the Microsoft article based on their own recollections. Or the biography of a celebrity based on "I knew them personally". But you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend this, so there's nothing further I can do here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand. It looks like the history of the Filper Beta will go unpublished. I have not means to publish the material. 60 year old history may be of marginal interest in any case.Thank You for your help. Johnskunk1 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is not how old the history is or who might or might not be interested in it. The issue is that it has not been published by what Wikipedia considers a reliable and established secondary source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not an archive, a blog, a forum, or a memorial site which anyone can add their own remembrances and recollections to. However, as you can see by this "diff", the right hand column shows the material you have added to the original article has indeed been "published". I'm not going to remove it at this time, however some other editor may come along and rightfully remove it per WP:V. I suggest you copy this material into a text file and donate it to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum who will keep it on file where it will be accessible to future researchers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)  Wiki-jaguar here, padding by and noticing this comment. Might I suggest that you record your historical information/memories/opinions about this topic elsewhere? You can do it, and there are many options! For example, if you read the Wikipedia page about Self-publishing you will find many available outlets/platforms for publishing your work in the form of a conventional book or pamphlet. Alternatively, you can record your information on a personal webpage, via a web hosting service. It is far easier to do this than many people realize, and a simple internet search for "web hosting service" will provide you with a large number of options. The main point I am trying to make here is that you have not reached a dead end - your historical insights might not be currently appropriate for Wikipedia, but they can be recorded and broadcast, so to speak, in a manner that would benefit a great many people. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As usual, that do-gooder Anthrax has butt in with a good suggestion. Here is a one time offer: in the left hand column of this page is a link that says "email this user". Use it to send me an email. I am willing to help you convert all this into a text file, wordsmith it if needed, and send or upload it to some more appropriate venue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And you're calling me a do-gooder? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot more evidence for near death phenomena than you seem to realize
Pam Reynolds' case aligns with several such cases documented by the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/. It is hardly an isolated case. Woerlee's explanation had major flaws. At the very least, if you are in favor of materialism, then leave the door open for a better materialist explanation to be created. Do not support a materialist explanation that fails to account for the data; that is deeply unscientific and equivalent to gaslighting. AvantiShri (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please move discussion to article Talk space, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

hi.
i'm new at this. regarding zamora. does the "RS" mean reliable sources? 199.254.238.56 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Use the article Talk page. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here?
I am reminded of Psycho Killer: "Say something once, why say it again?" JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

who is he
+ 2601:843:100:D350:30C9:625E:B406:A69D (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And what is he to you? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Roswell incident up for GA
Roswell incident up for GA, Talk:Roswell incident/GA1 &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record...
Regarding this, if I was referring to you as a middle schooler, please know that I would have written "everybody's favorite middle schooler." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the problem with rhetericians. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have written "credentialed middle schooler." I hate it when I miss the obvious ones. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: David Grusch
FYI, the RPP incident report on Grusch was never acted upon by an admin because some random editor did a drive by move of the bio which blanked the page history from the report. I’ve fixed it now, but that’s why it was never acted upon. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Grusch
On the fringe noticeboard a few weeks ago, jps said you had more experience in the UFO topic area that most other people. I was wondering, could you bring that experience to the Grusch page and propose (nothing binding, just a recommendation) a rough outline that you think the article should cover? That would be very helpful. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * JPS flatters. Unfortunately I’m away this weekend “off duty” with little time but I’ll have time after Monday. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your return and outline/scope/article improvement recommendations. Viriditas (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also looking forward to LuckyLouie's return. Sober heads are needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, despite what jps says I'm just another editor and not an authority, so I won't be suggesting an outline. FWIW, UFO articles like Roswell have the benefit of years of secondary expert sources who have done all the heavy lifting regarding the historical perspective, narrative of media coverage, analysis of response, cultural significance and lasting impact, etc. Trying to come up with that ourselves based on a running account of day-to-day media is folly. As I said, it's a mistake to assume the story won't change much, there will be no further developments, and all that's left to do is structure the article. So I'll probably just continue to dip in as time allows to make edits or suggest corrections. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me
My bad thanks for telling me! Shane O&#39;Sullivan the 1 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive removal of other people's posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DE H3sam91 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Here's one I think will scare the pants right off you"
Horror beyond belief, indeed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw Paul Marco at a Los Feliz area 'midnight movie' screening of Ed Wood films in the late 1980s early 90s. Maila Nurmi might have been there too. I remember thinking "who are these old people?". Ah youth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are truly Lucky! It's unfortunate that Wood didn't live long enough to experience the colossal notoriety generated by his films - I suspect he would have loved every minute of it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This guy used to host Plan9/horror/schlock midnight movie fests in those days and it was at one of those screenings I saw the aformentioned actors. These events weren't well publicized: Legend left piles of xeroxed handouts on the floors of movie theater lobbies. Apparently he knew Tor Johnson and met Ed Wood on at least one occasion. In a way, I think it was merciful that Wood died young. Alcoholism had overtaken him and he was living hand-to-mouth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the same, that Wood was in poor shape at the end. Depressed, alcoholic, no home, no money. Yet his films ultimately provided years of great entertainment for so many people. Not quite the type of entertainment he envisioned, surely. But I like to think that he would have embraced and enjoyed not only the attention (most all of which has been decidely affectionate) but also the moneys received from comic-cons, screening events, etc. And what would he have done with that money? Make more films! We might not have been able to decipher the "plot" of Plan 10 From Outer Space, but we all know that Officer Kelton would have been on the job. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Footwear
Did you know that you are my "likely sock account"? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I admit to occasionally wikistalking you, but I never imagined we'd be mistaken for sock twins. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Sock Twins. I kind of like it! Sounds like the Glimmer Twins. BTW, this is now the second time that I have been sock-associated with a long-term Wikipedia editor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had no idea I was hobnobbing with a Ukrainian-German science journalist and molecular cell biologist. After years of volunteering at WP:FTN, I have a super wide range of fringe stuff on my watchlist. But lately I notice 99% of my edits are to repair damage to UFO related articles. This can't be good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the record I'm not Schneider either, although at this point I'm uncertain who I am.
 * It is most definitely UFO season. I assume the sensationalist furor will die down a bit in a few months, but much of the Discovery Channel-level hoo-hah is, I'm afraid, still to come. Shocking Truths revealed by...uh, a guy who says that another guy knows a guy who saw something that he can't talk about. I really wish Greer would convince his pals from Up There to land at a Walmart parking lot someplace for a Saturday afternoon photo-op and autograph session. It would make things so much simpler for us. And probably for Them, too. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you deal with this kind of crap so often, can you think of places a wandering admin might consider hitting that “protect” button to reduce the FRINGE BS? I already ECPed Bob Lazar… Courcelles (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It comes in waves. David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims is getting a lot of attention and is subject to occasional flare ups. Like new day-old accounts that make exactly ten edits to other pages before hitting the article. And taking up old arguments by blocked socks. There's nothing at the moment that needs protection, but in my experience, Bob Lazar tends to attract the most dedicated and unreachable fringe/fan warriors, with Electronic harassment and Microwave auditory effect sharing second place. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

asking for comment
Hi there, I was wondering if you would kindly give your opinion regarding the following. much apprecialted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims#Credulity_thy_name_is_Daragahi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims#Wording_edit_for_the_summary Westerosi456H (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Giving tentative explanations for UFO sightings while avoiding original research
Hello, I hope you don't mind my dropping in here out of the blue to ask a random question. I've seen you editing some of the UFO articles and wanted to get your opinion. I've been going through the List of reported UFO sightings and checking them against the sources. Now that I'm nearing the end of this, I want to replace the first paragraph which is a kind of haphazard disclaimer, with a section on potential explanations. I keep putting it off because I feel like it's going to be hard to avoid the original research policy.

My tentative idea is to try to find out which book offers the most reliable set of plausible explanations, and both summarize those possibilities and highlight that sharing a name doesn't mean they share an origin. There are a few well-known examples of sightings that have been explained with very different explanations that I could use as examples. But this is getting to the point where I'm not sure of the wp:or line. If I write about Petrozavodsk phenomenon where a secret rocket launch caused a space jellyfish, can I include a modern photo of something similar: File:SpaceX SAOCOM 1A Launch (44262493175).jpg or will I have to choose between high-quality photos and high-quality stories? And I guess ultimately, is there a line that I need to be mindful of when citing a "Potential explanation" section above this clown car of wild stories, where even a source that mentions some of the examples couldn't hope to catch but a small fraction of the total circus. Rjjiii (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I appreciate the work you've done so far to improve the article, but I'm not sure this list needs an introductory section summarizing the entire topic of Unidentified flying objects with an editorial disclaimer, such as was added here. I much prefer this version or some slight variation of it. I don't think burdening the lead with plausible explanations is needed either. The included link to the UFO article takes care of definitions, historical background and explanatory context, e.g.: Upon investigation, most UFOs are identified as known objects or atmospheric phenomena, while a small number remain unexplained. In any case, we might benefit by having this discussion at the Talk page since there are a few experienced editors that can weigh in and suggest options. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps I was overthinking it. I had worried that the short lead could mislead but will post more on that at the talk page. Thanks for your input and the easy solution, Rjjiii (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

UAP definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA%27s_UAP_independent_study_team#UAP_versus_UFO_terminology

At the start of 2023, NASA updated the name of its independent study team from "unidentified aerial phenomena" to "unidentified anomalous phenomena" to be "consistent with the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, signed into law on December 23, 2022".

The UAPIST name has been changed to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team, consistent with the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, signed into law on December 23, 2022 (Public Law 117-263, Section 1673). https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/UAPIST%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20-%20May%202023-new.pdf Løbner (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Please use Talk:UFO, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

so you admit you're just editing for your vanity?
your edits on David Grusch's page are so rediculous and biased that makes me think 100% you're either an idiot or an intel community agent. Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I recommend you not continue this trend so you don't embarass yourself much more in front of other editors. Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * next time I'll connect from a different internet and different laptop. Curious to see what you're going to do then. Use your brain man don't be an ape. Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Here I was preparing an ANI report, when Bbb23 beat me to the punch. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This sockmaster often first solicits for sympathy on Talk pages of Jjhake and KHarbaugh. It may save time for CheckUsers to just watch those pages for activity by brand-new accounts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Market America for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Market America, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Market America (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Signal-to-noise ratio
I was wondering about this concept as it applies to WP articles, more specifically to article Talk pages. Even more specifically, this page. Might it hold some sort of S/N record for the highest number of unhelpful drive-by posts (and posters) as a function of either helpful posts, or article size, or article views, etc. We seem to be swimming in a sea of noise. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you see this? To be fair, that page and electronic harassment have always generated record breaking examples. I don't think of it as signal-to-noise, to me it's call-and-response or stimulus-and-reaction. People don't independently get worked up about Bob Lazar, mind control, UFOs, the CIA, etc. They are bombarded with entertainment media stimulus that promote such topics to get eyeballs, and the way you get eyeballs in 2023 is to be more extreme than the next guy. Back in 2007, Wikipedia was swamped with people who believed science was refusing to recognize breakthroughs in the paranormal/parapsychological realm. Articles were massively disrupted, disputes and arbitrations were launched by paranormal warriors. Why? Because books, TV, and even mainstream newspapers were issuing credulous accounts of ghosts, poltergeists, psi, etc. that told them as much. You couldn't throw a rock and not hit a parapsychologist "expert" on TV. But eventually the paranormal fad faded. It has been replaced with a generalized conspiracy fad, and right now the strongest branch focuses on UFOs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yike-a-roni, that was quite the testimony. Entertainingly unfathomable, for which I always have a soft spot. But if that was typical of the scene in 2007, I'm glad I waited ten years before jumping in. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, it's average folk who might benefit from cutting back on their diet of credulous pop media about UFOs, aliens, conspiracies, etc. Conversely, people who are convinced they are victims of electronic harassment don't appear to require stimulation from entertainment media/pop culture to have an 'episode' of acting out on Wikipedia Talk pages like Microwave auditory effect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

some interesting allegations...
...that concern you. it's bunk, but you might be interested anyway... user talk:archangel1966 ltb d l (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I KNEW it! We're ALL socks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * During the parapsychology fad of the mid 2000s, fringe warriors concluded I was a sock of Joe Nickell. It's really interesting to watch a similar cycle happen with UFO conspiracy advocates. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Westall
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
User acts as a desinformation agent. Tries to delete data, which doesn’t support his world view. That shows how Wikipedia is compromised, and people like this should be ban from editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.253.190 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please desist from removing factual events from pages such as Ross Coulthard’s. For reasons unknown, factual data is being deleted from his page among others. Wiki is a compendium of information, eraser of facts for political, personal or is pernicious bad faith, goes against the entire purpose of Wiki. You have been notified. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BranteFarrell (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Fame
Regarding this, I tried to give you The Imitation of JPS Barnstar, but it seems to have been removed with no discussion. Yet more evidence that The Guvmint needs to be notified that Wikipedia is being run by The Guvmint. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch
Just in case you missed the context, the IP that you're copyediting here is Sockpuppet_investigations/Oatsandcream, who has a history of sometimes adding fake little details and hoaxes into articles, for whatever reason. If you're familiar with the Skinwalker Ranch show and happy with the content, though, that's fine. Belbury (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the basic spinoff info and episode info is valid according to history.com, so I've copyedited accordingly. But I agree with not indulging block evasion, so I will try to revert any additional text added by the sock. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, hope you are well. There is a March 9 paranormaldailynews.com that mentions you, with some speculation I think you've seen before. I'd like to link/mention this article on some talkpages etc, but will not do so if you consider this WP:OUTING, so I'm asking if you do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not much I can do about such fundamental misapprehensions which have been promoted on the internet for a number of years. Link away. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)