User talk:SystemFailure0x5a

February 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pentagon UFO videos has been reverted. Your edit here to Pentagon UFO videos was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg6K4FRzqfc) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your recent activity at Pentagon UFO videos and its associated Talk page, I fully support the good advice provided to you there by HandThatFeeds, LuckyLouie, and MrOllie, all of whom are experienced editors in good standing. So before going any further, please please please read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:FRIND. Then read WP:RGW and WP:TLDR. I know that is a lot of information to read and absorb. Doing so, however, will help you to understand why your attempts (as currently constructed) to add your desired material to that article will not, and indeed can not, be successful. If you have questions regarding any of those policies/guidelines, you can ask any of those editors (or me) at their own Talk pages, or perhaps better still, ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

DS Notification
- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Advanced Aerospace Vehicle


A tag has been placed on Advanced Aerospace Vehicle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"POV, OR, Fringe, etc."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Eridian314 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Advanced Aerospace Vehicle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Advanced Aerospace Vehicle 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/Advanced Aerospace Vehicle 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite partial block
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Pentagon UFO videos for edit warring. But that's only part of the problem. The other is your intense promotion of WP:FRINGE content, which, as I mention in the block log, has probably already reached the stage of a sitewide block. If you are able to closely review Wikipedia reliable sources guideline and from there go on to meaningfully absorb in what ways it forms the basis behind Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, there is a chance for a course correction. But in light of the nature of the material, I confess to having faint hope of that coming to pass (and I don't mean that unkindly, truly). 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:. El_C 11:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues With Certain Terminology
The use of pseudo-scientific is incorrect here and misleading. While most UFOlogy is without a doubt crazy, there are indeed credible military scientists, aeronautics engineers, aerospace/astrophysists, and so fourth that actually propose very scientific analysis of the ET and Non-Human Technology hypothesis. The scientific method is used extensively in these fields, and they are definitely not worthy of the pseudoscience claims.

For example, hypothesizing correctly that, if these UAP are indeed exhibiting the behavior AATIP/AAWSAP and The UAP Task Force are claiming, the Non-Terrestrial hypothesis becomes rather possible. In contrast, the "Experiment" the video game programmer conducted to demonstrate IR Glare was actually the very definition of pseudoscience. The US Navy Dept. of intelligence, the Director of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works (Steve Justice), and The Pentagon have reviewed the videos and verified their legitimacy. The FLIR experts say the UAP is definitely rotating and it's not IR Glare. If you review the video yourself, you can check the background and notice the rotation of the camera happens separate and independent of the rotating UAP.

It would be best to simply remove pseudo-science from this article, because it's been well established now the videos are real and have been reviewed by countless experts in the field.
 * As of 2020, the aerial phenomena recorded from the Nimitz and Roosevelt events are characterized by the Department of Defense as "unidentified".[22][23] Widespread media attention to these events has motivated theories and speculations from private individuals and groups about the underlying explanation(s), including those focused upon pseudoscientific topics such as ufology. Regarding the pseudoscientific explanations, writer Matthew Gault stated that these events "reflect the same pattern that's played out dozens of times before. Someone sees something strange in the sky ... and the public jumps to an illogical conclusion."[2]


 * Because of parallax, perceived differences in motion can be interpreted as being due either to faster speeds or closer distances. In this animation, assuming that all the objects are stationary and that the observer is moving gives an illusion of considerable differences in distance between the three scenes. However, the animation only shows three different overlapping outlines moving at different speeds.

''
 * Mundane, non-pseudoscientific explanations include instrument or software malfunction/anomaly/artifact,[24][25] human observational illusion (e.g., parallax) or interpretive error,[8][26][27][28] or common aircraft (e.g., a passenger airliner) or aerial device (e.g., weather balloon), with the science writer Mick West stating that one of the reported objects in these incidents are "most likely...a relatively slow-moving object like a bird or a balloon," and that "the jet filming it is moving fast, so this creates an illusion of speed against the ocean."[22][23] West stated that the GIMBAL video can be explained as footage of a distant plane with the apparent rotation actually being the glare in the IR camera rotating.[2]