User talk:OSIRIS UAP

July 2022
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with UAPx. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't create the page. Please check the user submissions and my IP address for proof. OSIRIS UAP (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at UAPx. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again - I didn't create the page. OSIRIS UAP (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious you're either operating multiple accounts or a WP:MEATPUPPET - either way, it's disruptive and you need to let an experienced editor or admin determine the outcome. If you remove it again on this account, IP or any other account, I will be requesting immediate blocks. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do so, I would be more than happy to speak with Wikipedia on the false accusations of me creating this page. WHICH I DID NOT CREATE! OSIRIS UAP (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * lol "Speak to Wikipedia" as if it's a sentient being. Wikipedia is run by volunteers and we have policies and standards in place. Spamming a non-notbale entity is against pretty much all of them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that UAPx employs Dr. Levy, a female astrophysicist who is fighting against the patriarchal stigma of this field and the fact that you want to silence any output she has via deletion of this wikipedia page is abhorrent. OSIRIS UAP (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Patriarchal stigma? So the UAPx team includes a singular woman and you think that gives you the right to claim that the deletion of your PR page is somehow misogynist? That's ridiculous. Stallspuk (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One issue that plagues UFology is “instant gratification” - historically, a video comes out, a slew of folks make comments on it and arguments happen with zero final determination as to its legitimacy. I can assure you that UAPx is not an "obscure UFO research group."
 * They aren’t playing that game, and people mistake their silence for a lack of work. I can assure you this isn’t happening with UAPx.
 * Almost a year ago, their team signed an agreement with a producer. The abbreviated version of the agreement was this: In exchange for the producer covering all of their expenses and giving them access to the UAPx team and activities, UAPx would do an expedition. The location was selected as Catalina Island. The budget wasn’t large. They were only given 5 days, 4 of them were used for actual research.
 * They honestly never expected to capture anything given the time constraints and the working conditions - but They did. They STILL DO NOT KNOW what it is they captured. In figuring that out they are/have:
 * 1) written, created and tested custom artificial intelligence neural nets which are now analyzing 600 hours of FLIR video. This took almost a year to create - it never existed before. Now that they have this neural net, future analysis doesn’t need to wait for a year to begin.
 * 2) created custom machine learning applications that analyze images to output probability percentages of the size and shape of objects seen in the video. This needed (and needs) trained. They have to input every basic geometric shape along with all known aircraft, drone, missile and targeting pod the civilian world and military world uses - then run the system for millions of iterations on each shape to get the machine learning system to output an accurate probability index of a match/no match.
 * 3) They are STIll fighting the United States Government to obtain satellite imagery - you can see their denied and delayed FOIAs on their Twitter and discord.
 * 4) They did obtain a mountain of data from 3rd party agencies such as CalTech’s “LIGO” and the USGs NOAA - they are still in the process of parsing that data to find any correlations between statistical anomalies which may be buried in that data with the times of their captures. This requires a 60 hour a week position by a computational astrophysicist- which they just onboarded a week ago. (Welcome Dr. Ben Placek, Ph.D.) and please thank the continuing and tireless efforts of Dr. Matthew Szydagis, Ph.D.)
 * 5) As a startup company, their administration team is constantly responding to threads of complaint, social media issues, website maintenance, fund raising and new onboarding and evaluations. This is their contribution as they aren’t physicists.
 * 6) The peer review process, after submission, is not under their control. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to write a peer-review article in a respected journal that suffers from stigma caused by 80 years of pseudo-science? Once the papers are finalized (which they are not because the data is still being analyzed) then the process takes weeks at best and many months as expected. Their writing and findings must be reviewed by whichever Ph.Ds the journal selects (a blind process to them) and all questions, comments, and concerns must be addressed by UAPx with a re-submission. This is what guarantees that the final output has withstood the scrutiny of peer-review science, not just knee-jerk social media wanting bias confirmation.
 * I’m sorry that people have been programmed for this idea of instant gratification - but this just goes to show how little ACTUAL science has occurred in this field. When you do it right, these things take a LOT of time.
 * But an "obscure ufo research group" UAPx is not - having a full length feature-film about UAPx as well as an episode of History's "The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch" depicting their approach to research does not make an "obscure UFP research group"
 * FOR THE PEER REVIEW PUBLISHED PAPERS, please see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/ by Dr. Kevin Knuth of UAPx as well as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14667302/ OSIRIS UAP (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, UAPx is even referenced in other scientific publications - for example (and already included in the article is: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.04438.pdf "Multistatic radar measurements of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by cell and open access radio networks" by Karl Svozil∗ Institute for Theoretical Physics, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8-10/136, 1040 Vienna, Austria (Dated: March 17, 2022)which directly references UAPx on page 2 and in the publication's citations. OSIRIS UAP (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2022 OSIRIS UAP (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A copy-pasted wall of text as a response to my call-out of your insulting tokenism of Dr. Levy is not a good look. Stallspuk (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's funny you think I'd do anything to help the patriarchy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also you need to disclose per WP:COI PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (UAPx) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, OSIRIS UAP. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one of your recent edits to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UAPx suggests that you have been recruited to make that edit by someone else, whether it be a friend, family member, coworker, or public figure. Please understand that Wikipedia does not condone such activity; users should act in their individual capacity, rather than editing under the direction or influence of others. Additionally, please ensure that any articles you create abide by the notability guidelines and that you do not make edits to topics in which you have a conflict of interest. Thank you.

Speedy deletion nomination of Uapx


A tag has been placed on Uapx, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UAPx. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)