User talk:Rjc1

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altered your userpage a little

Hello again Rjc1. I see you have some great help from an experienced editor. This is just a note (from me, on your "talk page"), to let you know that I altered your "user page" to add a link you can click on. Normally altering other people's user pages is frowned upon, but in this case I hoped you wouldn't mind. If you prefer to undo my changes, you can do so after clicking the "view history" tab at the top of your user page, which is at User:Rjc1.

Feel free to ask any further questions here or anywhere else. Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Demiurge. I have been using it to get to my sandbox. I do appreciate that. I didn't see it right away because there is so much coming at you when you are new to this medium. At the time I had other concerns.--Rjc1 (talk)

Conversation with Jim Cullen

Hello Jerry,

Let's continue the conversation here on your talk page, since it is taking up a lot of "real estate" on my talk page at this point. If you need an answer quickly, leave a brief message on my talk page. I get an email every time you do. For more routine matters, "ping" me by including {{U|Cullen328}} in the wikicode here (or anywhere else in talk space). This will send me an alert when I log onto Wikipedia.

You made a comment to the effect that I was including some prepackaged text in my response to you. Not so, although I do answer similar questions repeatedly. I type similar though personalized responses each time. I am an "old school" kind of guy, and every message I write (other than obvious warning templates, which I rarely use) is written keystroke by keystroke in response to a specific situation. I am a human, not a bot.

Please be aware that we cannot link to a website that hosts copyrighted content without excellent evidence that the copyright holder approves of that hosting in a legally compliant way. Wikipedia is far stricter about copyright than most other websites, because we are devoted to free content. Accordingly, we need to maintain a "bright line" between free content and copyright restricted content.

I will look into the article you mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter incident

I have Exeter incident on my watch list. Please leave the talk page as it is for the time being. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Conversation and Exeter

Cullen328

Hi Jim (human not bot), :-)

No problem moving over here. It will get me to understand how this whole talk-thing works a little better. I'm using two browser pages next to each other now to see what you've written on the right, and respond to it on the left. The techniques you have to develop here are interesting.

This morning when I awoke, I realized the last thing I entered on your page was run-on from the previous discussion. You probably saw what I did. I cut it and re-pasted it as a new section with a title so it would have some degree of neatness to it. Then I saw the note you left on my talk page. . . . Sorry I took up so much room on your page. I thought the page was long, messy and run-on when I woke up. That's why I repasted it as a new section.

Regarding linking to my website: I understand what you are saying about copyrights. When I wrote that about having those pages on-line, I was praying that, at the very least, you were permitted to go to them and read them. They are my concrete proof that everything I am going to say concerning Exeter is 100% legit. I am open to any suggestion you have to accomplish this. That's why I did all this on my website all these years. I wanted people anywhere to be able to see what I put up and that all the data was 100% legit. Anything else connected to from my site was put on-line by the people who created it. I have no commercial sales stuff on my site anywhere . . . no ads for anything, etc. This was not easy to accomplish. I purposely kept it that way all these years so that people could see I wasn't in this for the money. It is strictly educational. You can see that in my mission statement.

My research is totally not politically connected with any specific UFO group. Some of the researchers that wrote me liked what I was doing so much they sent me their data to use. Ted Phillips, Harry Willnus, Wendy Connors were amongst them. They wanted people to see what they had researched. I was actually a little amazed by this when they wrote me.

As far as Wikipedia having access to the Exeter material permanently, if desired, that's up to Wikipedia. They are just page scans. It's taken from a book I bought back then. The Exeter case happened two years before my own little event. --Rjc1 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can read anything I want. However, we can't include a link within a Wikipedia article that reproduces scans to copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder.

Your comments about your website not running ads and not being connected with any UFO group, while interesting, have no bearing on the issue of use of your website in Wikipedia articles. Also, the concept of "100% legit" is not one that carries much weight in Wikipedia discussions. Our articles ought to do one thing only: summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. So, when improving a given article, we determine through consensus which sources are reliable, and summarize what they say. No original research. No unreliable sources. It's that simple. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, the fact that you, and hopefully anyone else adjudicating this can read it is tremendously important to the Exeter topic. I wasn't sure. From what you have said, this should get really interesting . . . especially the *no original research* and *no unreliable sources* part. With much respect, --Rjc1 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions before beginning

Just two questions before I can begin:

Rjc1 As you already know, the name of the page is titled [| Exeter incident]

Jim, if you can bear with me for just a moment longer . . . to be able to describe the problem to you I have to make sure I am understanding the page properly, all the concepts involved, and the exact meaning of what Wiki is saying at the top of the page. Just two more questions.

1) Am I correct that the reliable, independent sources for that page include, amongst others, the references, footnotes and external links listed at the bottom that Wiki page?

2) The top of the 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)”

Am correct this means that the *Exeter incident page* needs additional citations or the page isn’t completely supported yet? If it will save you time, a yes or no is all I really need to make sure I’m on track here. I’ve already clicked on the links there and read what it says. —Rjc1 (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim, I'm back. (May 2015)

Cullen328 Remember me? I was here July 2014 and then disappeared. I've been working hard all that time.

I’m writing the next 4 paragraphs just to let you know what I've been doing since then and that I'm about ready to begin editing. It's also to remind you of what we already discussed approximately ten months ago. Hopefully this will save us some time. If you could read ‘’all’’ 4 of them before answering me, I believe it will be a real time-saver and help us avoid rehashing most of the things we’ve already discussed.

After speaking with you, I spent a great deal of effort absorbing the things you said to me, learning about the objectives of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and gathering and organizing other things I felt were needed to accomplish my purpose here in the most professional manner possible. If you remember, that purpose was a critique and re-editing of Exeter_incident, in which I had noticed some major problems. Although it took me a lot longer than I thought, I believe I am finally comfortable enough to present my case regarding that page. It is now all in line with Wiki guidelines and thoroughly covers NPOV, Verifiability and NOR, amongst other things.

I realize the topic of UFOs isn’t really your cup of tea but I'm hoping you’ll give me some much needed guidance in protocol before I edit and deal with the discussions that will ensue. Since I’m a “first timer” at editing on Wiki, any input as to the proper way to approach this whole thing would be greatly appreciated. I think it definitely helps that I’m not a “first timer” in case analysis in this area, which some at Wikipedia call “fringe.” It also helps that I’ve been doing serious forensic case analysis for a good twenty years, and that my main motivation concerning all this actually extends back to 1967 (2 years after Exeter). Additionally, I’ve always been very good at remaining respectful and calm with people who may tend to become emotional in their discussions. The reason for this is I have always worked hard to let facts (not opinions) do my talking and . . . when I am wrong, I simply admit it. I'm not here to drag anything out or beat a dead horse, but I am concerned with accuracy to source.

If possible, I’d like to be able to present at least some of my critique (which details the problems) before editing anything. I waited until both it and my *item-gathering for support* were complete before even thinking about the editing. (However, I can start straight from editing if necessary.) The critique is fully-supported with certificates of verification (i.e. page scans from a main source-book used by authors Nickell and McGaha in the construction of an e-paper they used as part of the Exeter_incident Wiki page). The scans have been saved to my website, with various excerpts circled as proof of various points. (N.B. There is no other connection to my site other than these things sitting there isolated. I am not asking for any links to my website to be placed on Wikipedia. The source-book material is simply there to prove both my points to general editors and fringe theory adjudicators, and to demonstrate the need for the editing changes I will be suggesting.)

I’ve also worked very hard to make what I have to say the least inflammatory and personal. However, there is no question that no matter how gently I phrase it or what I do, this is still going to ruffle some feathers. I am prepared for that as it is unavoidable. However, I am only a caring, educated messenger concerning the history of the Exeter UFO case, not the creator of the present situation. Wiki's present version of Exeter is missing a rationale as to why the case remained unsolved all these years. I am just here to mend that via some adjustments to the presentation of the case which will more accurately reflect witness testimonies and reduce some noted bias and advocacy within the present version. --Rjc¹ Respectfully 14:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jerry. I suggest that you explain on the article's talk page what you see as the current problems with the article, and sketch out your planned improvements. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Hello Jim. I've got some of the current problems with the article sketched out. There are others. It's hard to get them in the summary and remain relatively short. Do I need more concerning planned improvements? The authors of the article linked to at footnote #9 based their solution of the case on one sighting when there were actually many unsolvable sightings which influenced the Air Force's final decision concerning the case.

Once I factually demonstrate which rules were broken regarding the use of the artlcle on the Wiki page, the actual number of sightings, and show people portions of those testimonies, I believe people will realize that something is off. They should be able to see the reason as to why adjustments need to be made in the introductory text which will reflect this as well as some other items which will pop to the surface as we explore this.

I can demonstrate, with their own words, that they performed a re-do of a case which they themselves said was unsolved for 45 years. The re-do left much information out; information that is vital to the 1965 case as delineated by John Fuller, the person that wrote the original book "Incident at Exeter."

Could you possibly look at what I already wrote? Anything else I should do at this point? Thanks!

Talk:Exeter_incident#NPOV_dispute --Rjc¹ Respectfully 14:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]