This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jimmy Carter UFO incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
President Carter clears up some things about the incident in a newly recorded (July 2007) interview on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, a science podcast. Anyone willing to incorporate the information from the interview in this article is welcome to do so. The particular show which contains the interview can be found on the following address: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=105 195.38.3.185 12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I can give a couple more references, if needed. It is mentioned in the Jimmy Carter article. In fact, that article used to explain how it was identified as the planet Venus, but that has been removed from the article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a factual inaccuracy in the article, and many facts are omitted. Bubba73 (talk), 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What IS the correct date, and why haven't you added it on. Please stop tagging and just fix the page. - perfectblue 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a typed transcript of the report? The text on the pages is hard to read, and not all of us are used to reading cursive western scripts or English.
perfectblue 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The documents are now officially part of the state maintained Jimmy Carter Library collection, I was under the impression that this meant that they had been released as a government documents for he purposes of copyright, and if even a single FOIA request has been made they are PD - perfectblue 07:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says "then a contender for the governorship of Georgia". The sighting was in early Jan 1969 and the Jimmy Carter article speaks of his 1970 campaign for governor (fall 1970 election, Jan 1971 take office). Therefore I'm not sure if he was a contender for governor at the time. The stated reason of his speech at the meeting was to boost the Lion's Club, not a political speech. Therefore I'm changing the wording of the sentence. If there is a WP:RS saying that he was a contender then, it can be changed back. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
While I have them assembled, I decided to list other references that aren't used in the article. I saw no need to use them as a reference, because it might seem like overkill. I didn't list them under "further reading" because they don't add anything not in the references used (two books by Scheaffer, plus Peebles and Story). The other references are:
And the following two books mention the sighting but don;t give the details of the date, location, or idintification:
Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Every library gets investigations about unidentified flying objects from time to time. President Carter had, earlier in his career, before he was President, turned in an official report of having sighted something. That ended up in one of the tabloids, I think, when he was running for President or when he was President, and that drew attention to the fact that he turned in this report. Of course, since he was trained as a scientist, why, people felt that he would have great credibility on this issue. I think, as I recall, the scientists had studied it and decided it was a planet or something like that.
CNN reported what Carter said. This is verifyable and CNN is a reliable source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to think that Miles O'Brien made up the part about Carter's doubts. He is stating what Carter said that isn't in the few seconds that are in the final report. When a TV interview is done, only a small part of it make it on screen. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm yet to be convinced that "Carter is quoted as doubting" or similar is accurate. If O'Brien is quoting Carter, where is the quote? All O'Brien said is that "Carter doubts what he saw was an alien craft". That isn't the same thing as saying "Carter said he doubts what he saw was an alien craft" which "Carter is quoted as doubting" or similar would imply. I am not suggesting at all that O'Brien is lying, rather that he perhaps isn't quoting directly what Carter said but his own assessment of Carter's comments. There is a difference between "Carter has said he doubts", and simply "Carter doubts". One is explicit that it was Carter who said he doubts something, the other might be a judgement of his comments that someone else made. Adambro ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In the additional reference from the Skeptics' Guide (a very biased source on this topic, I may say), what Carter, in fact, was saying was that as a scientist by training he never thought of the existence of extraterrestrial beings on a ship from outer space when he saw that light..an object which flew..He didn't actually say that what he saw was not an alien spacecraft. He also said that they never heard anything..a helicopter.. resembling human aircraft..silence as the object flew..thus debunking the idea of a secret military aircraft. Funnier even when the host inserted the idea of Venus which he was quick enough to dispel, lol. Imagguk ( talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Bubba73 is committing vandalism to this entry. He doesn't argue convincingly of his reasons for his reverts and edits and his purported links can't be found. Imagguk ( talk) 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Bubba73 is continuing vandalism by reverting my edits without clarification. I question his impartiality in making edits on this page. He is even reporting that I'm the one committing vandalism without warning me. It's funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagguk ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism according to Wikipedia: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited.
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing.
Upon their discovery, revert vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing user. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing. When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning.
Bubba73's action of labeling me as a vandal is incorrect. As clearly said above, "edit warring is not vandalism". I appeal to Wikipedia to look carefully into this and instead review the merits of my argument concerning my edits. Imagguk ( talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There are two problems with the last sentence of the introduction: "As a scientist by training, Carter did not think of it as an extraterrestrial spacecraft. However, he also dispelled the idea that it was a secret military aircraft or the planet Venus as skeptics had suggested."
Quoting somebody is different from trying to put words in her/his mouth. If you listen closely to the intervew, Carter did not say anything to the effect that he thought the UFO was a military aircraft, despite the deterministic questioning of his interviewers. In fact, he negated this claim by saying that while the object was so close, it did not produce any sound like any human aircraft would do.
On your second point, a scientist is defined broadly as someone who uses systematic means to acquire knowledge. If he was an engineer as you say, he surely qualifies as a scientist. By the way, he trained also in nuclear physics so that may qualify him as a scientist in the strictest sense of the word.
To be objective is to reveal what a person really meant to say and not to select some parts because they fit your version of the truth. It is up to the readers to discern for themselves given the evidence. Imagguk ( talk) 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The interviewee's question was: "Have you any idea of what you may have seen?" Carter replied, "I don't really know." He said that while Fort Benning was nearby which would imply some military testing, he said that "we never heard anything (2x)" which would suggest it to be some form of human aircraft like a helicopter (because the object came very close to them). He concluded by saying, "I never have been able to assess.. even all the years that have passed, exactly what it might have been." Imagguk ( talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Either you are not being sensible or you have not carefully listened to your source. We are quoting Carter here not the skeptics, not me, not you nor anyone else. He concluded that part of the interview by saying that "I never have been able to assess.. even all the years that have passed, exactly what it might have been." Not a human vehicle from Benning or wherever nor the planet Venus. Imagguk ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't be dense. When he said he or they "surmised", he meant that on the context of prior knowledge of a possible explanation (Fort Benning which is a far 87 miles away as you've said) . However, he and his fellow witnesses quickly dispelled this initial explanation when the UFO approached at a proximate distance (meaning very close) and "made no sound at all". That's why he said, in the end, he never knew what it was. Listen carefully to your source again. Imagguk ( talk) 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, your edit shows your bias towards the skeptics' explanations and not Carter's own words. Quote him but don't put words in his mouth. You ignore my intellectual dissection of the interview. Your reasoning is faulty. Therefore, I reverse it. Imagguk ( talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a fine line between understanding what's been said and pretending to understand what's been said. Having said that, allow me to elaborate on my position. If any of the moderators really care about what's being written here, they should try to check the references that people put. I listened to the interview of Carter and this is the gist of what he said: It was a UFO and he did not know what it was. It wasn't Venus nor a military aircraft. Now, Bubba quotes Carter as if the latter is dumb. Read his text: Carter said that he thinks that it is not possible that it was an alien spacecraft. He also does not think it was the planet Venus as has been suggested. He surmised that it might have been a military aircraft but says that he doesn't know exactly what it was. The first sentence is a blooper: Carter said that he thinks. Carter said or CArter thinks is better. And I still insist that he thought of it, as he explicitly said, as a scientist by training. That's why this line should be included. On the second sentence, who suggested that it was Venus? Skeptics. That's why it should be also added. Now the third sentence really makes Carter look like dumb. I'm sure he will not be pleased reading this. As I've said before, he and his companions surmised it probably came from Benning but when it came very close (proximate) to them, it made no sound like any aircraft would do. Therefore, ergo, he did not think it was a human aircraft. In the end, he said, he does not know what it was. If moderators really care about the veracity of what's being written here then they should look at our arguments and investigate instead of merely relying on technicalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagguk ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Third opinion. You both seem to interpret the interview differently and both put forward
more than was said explicitly. If you cannot agree on the interpretation of a primary source, defer to secondary sources that discuss it. If no secondary sources discuss it,
neither should we. --
Vassyana (
talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There goes the classic smearing method of labeling. I am a person who just wanted to contribute something, not a robot 'created' to argue a 'minor matter'. Just because I am only editing this entry doesn't mean that I am a 'single-purpose account'. I am new to Wikipedia. FYI, I'm a student doing my MSc.
Let me offer another perspective: what if the original editors of this entry, e.g. Bubba, specifically worked on this topic to present a "single point of view" since he or they insist on maintaining wording that goes beyond what was said in the interview. This violates the second pillar of Wikipedia which is neutrality.
Vassyana, have you listened to the podcast? Please do and you will understand why I insist on my points of argument. I am not arguing for arguments' sake. Imagguk ( talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Why would his "knowledge of physics had meant he had not believed himself to be witnessing an alien spacecraft"? 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 08:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jimmy Carter UFO incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
President Carter clears up some things about the incident in a newly recorded (July 2007) interview on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, a science podcast. Anyone willing to incorporate the information from the interview in this article is welcome to do so. The particular show which contains the interview can be found on the following address: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=105 195.38.3.185 12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I can give a couple more references, if needed. It is mentioned in the Jimmy Carter article. In fact, that article used to explain how it was identified as the planet Venus, but that has been removed from the article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a factual inaccuracy in the article, and many facts are omitted. Bubba73 (talk), 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What IS the correct date, and why haven't you added it on. Please stop tagging and just fix the page. - perfectblue 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a typed transcript of the report? The text on the pages is hard to read, and not all of us are used to reading cursive western scripts or English.
perfectblue 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The documents are now officially part of the state maintained Jimmy Carter Library collection, I was under the impression that this meant that they had been released as a government documents for he purposes of copyright, and if even a single FOIA request has been made they are PD - perfectblue 07:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says "then a contender for the governorship of Georgia". The sighting was in early Jan 1969 and the Jimmy Carter article speaks of his 1970 campaign for governor (fall 1970 election, Jan 1971 take office). Therefore I'm not sure if he was a contender for governor at the time. The stated reason of his speech at the meeting was to boost the Lion's Club, not a political speech. Therefore I'm changing the wording of the sentence. If there is a WP:RS saying that he was a contender then, it can be changed back. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
While I have them assembled, I decided to list other references that aren't used in the article. I saw no need to use them as a reference, because it might seem like overkill. I didn't list them under "further reading" because they don't add anything not in the references used (two books by Scheaffer, plus Peebles and Story). The other references are:
And the following two books mention the sighting but don;t give the details of the date, location, or idintification:
Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Every library gets investigations about unidentified flying objects from time to time. President Carter had, earlier in his career, before he was President, turned in an official report of having sighted something. That ended up in one of the tabloids, I think, when he was running for President or when he was President, and that drew attention to the fact that he turned in this report. Of course, since he was trained as a scientist, why, people felt that he would have great credibility on this issue. I think, as I recall, the scientists had studied it and decided it was a planet or something like that.
CNN reported what Carter said. This is verifyable and CNN is a reliable source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to think that Miles O'Brien made up the part about Carter's doubts. He is stating what Carter said that isn't in the few seconds that are in the final report. When a TV interview is done, only a small part of it make it on screen. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm yet to be convinced that "Carter is quoted as doubting" or similar is accurate. If O'Brien is quoting Carter, where is the quote? All O'Brien said is that "Carter doubts what he saw was an alien craft". That isn't the same thing as saying "Carter said he doubts what he saw was an alien craft" which "Carter is quoted as doubting" or similar would imply. I am not suggesting at all that O'Brien is lying, rather that he perhaps isn't quoting directly what Carter said but his own assessment of Carter's comments. There is a difference between "Carter has said he doubts", and simply "Carter doubts". One is explicit that it was Carter who said he doubts something, the other might be a judgement of his comments that someone else made. Adambro ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In the additional reference from the Skeptics' Guide (a very biased source on this topic, I may say), what Carter, in fact, was saying was that as a scientist by training he never thought of the existence of extraterrestrial beings on a ship from outer space when he saw that light..an object which flew..He didn't actually say that what he saw was not an alien spacecraft. He also said that they never heard anything..a helicopter.. resembling human aircraft..silence as the object flew..thus debunking the idea of a secret military aircraft. Funnier even when the host inserted the idea of Venus which he was quick enough to dispel, lol. Imagguk ( talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Bubba73 is committing vandalism to this entry. He doesn't argue convincingly of his reasons for his reverts and edits and his purported links can't be found. Imagguk ( talk) 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Bubba73 is continuing vandalism by reverting my edits without clarification. I question his impartiality in making edits on this page. He is even reporting that I'm the one committing vandalism without warning me. It's funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagguk ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism according to Wikipedia: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited.
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing.
Upon their discovery, revert vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing user. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing. When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning.
Bubba73's action of labeling me as a vandal is incorrect. As clearly said above, "edit warring is not vandalism". I appeal to Wikipedia to look carefully into this and instead review the merits of my argument concerning my edits. Imagguk ( talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There are two problems with the last sentence of the introduction: "As a scientist by training, Carter did not think of it as an extraterrestrial spacecraft. However, he also dispelled the idea that it was a secret military aircraft or the planet Venus as skeptics had suggested."
Quoting somebody is different from trying to put words in her/his mouth. If you listen closely to the intervew, Carter did not say anything to the effect that he thought the UFO was a military aircraft, despite the deterministic questioning of his interviewers. In fact, he negated this claim by saying that while the object was so close, it did not produce any sound like any human aircraft would do.
On your second point, a scientist is defined broadly as someone who uses systematic means to acquire knowledge. If he was an engineer as you say, he surely qualifies as a scientist. By the way, he trained also in nuclear physics so that may qualify him as a scientist in the strictest sense of the word.
To be objective is to reveal what a person really meant to say and not to select some parts because they fit your version of the truth. It is up to the readers to discern for themselves given the evidence. Imagguk ( talk) 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The interviewee's question was: "Have you any idea of what you may have seen?" Carter replied, "I don't really know." He said that while Fort Benning was nearby which would imply some military testing, he said that "we never heard anything (2x)" which would suggest it to be some form of human aircraft like a helicopter (because the object came very close to them). He concluded by saying, "I never have been able to assess.. even all the years that have passed, exactly what it might have been." Imagguk ( talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Either you are not being sensible or you have not carefully listened to your source. We are quoting Carter here not the skeptics, not me, not you nor anyone else. He concluded that part of the interview by saying that "I never have been able to assess.. even all the years that have passed, exactly what it might have been." Not a human vehicle from Benning or wherever nor the planet Venus. Imagguk ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't be dense. When he said he or they "surmised", he meant that on the context of prior knowledge of a possible explanation (Fort Benning which is a far 87 miles away as you've said) . However, he and his fellow witnesses quickly dispelled this initial explanation when the UFO approached at a proximate distance (meaning very close) and "made no sound at all". That's why he said, in the end, he never knew what it was. Listen carefully to your source again. Imagguk ( talk) 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, your edit shows your bias towards the skeptics' explanations and not Carter's own words. Quote him but don't put words in his mouth. You ignore my intellectual dissection of the interview. Your reasoning is faulty. Therefore, I reverse it. Imagguk ( talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a fine line between understanding what's been said and pretending to understand what's been said. Having said that, allow me to elaborate on my position. If any of the moderators really care about what's being written here, they should try to check the references that people put. I listened to the interview of Carter and this is the gist of what he said: It was a UFO and he did not know what it was. It wasn't Venus nor a military aircraft. Now, Bubba quotes Carter as if the latter is dumb. Read his text: Carter said that he thinks that it is not possible that it was an alien spacecraft. He also does not think it was the planet Venus as has been suggested. He surmised that it might have been a military aircraft but says that he doesn't know exactly what it was. The first sentence is a blooper: Carter said that he thinks. Carter said or CArter thinks is better. And I still insist that he thought of it, as he explicitly said, as a scientist by training. That's why this line should be included. On the second sentence, who suggested that it was Venus? Skeptics. That's why it should be also added. Now the third sentence really makes Carter look like dumb. I'm sure he will not be pleased reading this. As I've said before, he and his companions surmised it probably came from Benning but when it came very close (proximate) to them, it made no sound like any aircraft would do. Therefore, ergo, he did not think it was a human aircraft. In the end, he said, he does not know what it was. If moderators really care about the veracity of what's being written here then they should look at our arguments and investigate instead of merely relying on technicalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagguk ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Third opinion. You both seem to interpret the interview differently and both put forward
more than was said explicitly. If you cannot agree on the interpretation of a primary source, defer to secondary sources that discuss it. If no secondary sources discuss it,
neither should we. --
Vassyana (
talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There goes the classic smearing method of labeling. I am a person who just wanted to contribute something, not a robot 'created' to argue a 'minor matter'. Just because I am only editing this entry doesn't mean that I am a 'single-purpose account'. I am new to Wikipedia. FYI, I'm a student doing my MSc.
Let me offer another perspective: what if the original editors of this entry, e.g. Bubba, specifically worked on this topic to present a "single point of view" since he or they insist on maintaining wording that goes beyond what was said in the interview. This violates the second pillar of Wikipedia which is neutrality.
Vassyana, have you listened to the podcast? Please do and you will understand why I insist on my points of argument. I am not arguing for arguments' sake. Imagguk ( talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Why would his "knowledge of physics had meant he had not believed himself to be witnessing an alien spacecraft"? 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 08:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy Carter UFO incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)