User talk:Feoffer

can you include on the LHO article? Apparently, there is some confusion to the moment when they are referring to either DARNELL or Wiegman film or both, although Anna Paulina Luna Task Force seem to said they would indeed write to NBC for the release of the original Darnell film, so perhaps both Darnell and Wiegman films can be written into “Other investigations and dissenting theories” section on the Lee Oswald article as recent events such as “in March 2025, Luna alleged, during a congressional hearing for the further release of documents related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that efforts were underway to release a film taken by Dave Wiegman Jr. of NBC capturing the unidentified "prayer man" filmed during the assassination, theorized by some to have been Lee Harvey Oswald.^[1]” 77.99.93.28 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC) 77.99.93.28 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, you don't need me to do that for you, I'm not special. Suggest it on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald see if it gets consensus or not. It might, or it might not. It might be more appropriately covered at Luna's bio, for example. After reading the source you cited, I'm not sure I actually know anything more about Oswald, but I certainly learned things about Luna for example. Feoffer (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to El Grande Americano, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Consensus would be needed first. Lemonademan22 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Feoffer, I have reverted some of your edits and wanted to explain myself. There are a lot of good edits here that you have made, so don't take my reverts of some things the wrong way. This topic is an incredibly difficult topic, fraught with all kinds of good and bad research and two centuries of obfuscation. It is important that for this topic in particular, that everything in it is backed up by high quality secondary sources. I think Dan Vogel does some great stuff, and I hope he publishes his work in a book, but he hasn't done so yet. You can find some things in his biography of Joseph Smith: Making of a Prophet though, and I highly recommend looking there. Epachamo (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Charlie kirk was assassinated... change the name! 2600:4040:720A:E200:93A:47BE:425A:2AD3 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. Kirk was assassinated. I've argued that the name should be changed precisely as you suggest. Wikipedia move discussions take 7 days before an admin closes them, so it will be a few more days. In the mean time, remember that the text of the article uses the term assassination a lot and at the very top of the article. Feoffer (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Feoffer, I saw your FAC notes at Talk:Joseph Smith, where you've been updating the article. I'm not knowledgeable enough to help out with drafting, but once you get far enough along in the process to seek input at Wikipedia:Peer review, I wanted to extend an invitation to {{ping}} me. Sometimes it is hard to find reviewers there, although it does seem like there are many active Mormon editors so perhaps you will have good luck regardless. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do! :) Feoffer (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arcturians (New Age), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lindsay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

One of your edits seems to have introduced a duplicated sentence, in each case followed by a sentence seemingly describing the same thing, but I'm not well-versed enough in the subject to tell if one of them is just fine to drop. Edef1c (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me! The article had been covering that circa 1831 with the priesthood restoration, but those teachings predate 1831, so I moved them up. I fixed it now, thanks! Feoffer (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I was clearly having a bad month last November, when I should have awarded you this, but better late than never I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Just wanted to swing by and express my appreciation for your efforts on the Joseph Smith article. I've had ambitions to take it to FA status several different times, but it's never quite happened. Whether you actually do take it to FA status or not, here's a barnstar for your efforts thus far - thank you.

Trevdna (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Feoffer (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Archives of the Impossible

I think I found out about it some time ago from you linking or mentioning something that led to it, and I finally got around to reading about it the past few days. I was surprised to find it was easy WP:GNG passing! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Excellent work! thanks for reminding me! Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Final Events 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Events 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 until the discussion has finished.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't have a lot of time to write links but please check the discussion here. NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Keith Raniere has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Age of Disclosure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Davis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

😃 ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Imminent Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That I want a pet space critter? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This could be a fun video game. I just asked ChatGPT what I could feed a space critter. Here's what it told me to stock up on as a pet owner: asteroid dust munchies, astral fruit, astro-protein bars, galaxy snacks, gravity-tuning leaves, interstellar seeds, meteorite mice, moon-inspired insects, moon-milk, nebula nectar, phosphorescent algae, quantum nuts, space leaf lettuce, space protein, and spacetime energy drinks. Now we need to work on the game mechanics! Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

hahah! In all seriousness though, I've thought about some sort of educational interactive that starts just before the Battle of Midway that could help students understand why the Fu-Go balloons had to be covered up, and thus why the Mogul balloons had to be covered up in 1947. And indeed, why _anything_ you find that might have come from a potential enemy needs to be covered up -- human, space alien, or otherwise. Balloons sounds so silly until you realize they were basically ICBMs without the missiles. Feoffer (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It too so much discipline to call the article Space animal hypothesis instead of Space Critter. Critter is adorable. Feoffer (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

In the 1990s, congresscritter was a common term to refer to politicians. I was using it regularly on Reddit some years ago when I was told that I was using it as a slur. It's not. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Must be the same person who said it was "derogatory" when they created the stub. Nobody who used the term used it that way ("It carries the slightly derogatory connotation that members of congress are some sort of non-human creature"). What in the world? Some people really do think quite literally, I guess. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Imminent Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs book cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Feoffer. I’ve been admiring your work on the Roswell incident FA - congratulations on promoting it. It really set the standard for how to handle high-profile "mystery" events on Wikipedia.

I am currently at FAC with 2024 United States drone sightings, which has similarities to Roswell: mass public confusion, varying government responses, and the challenge of balancing "fringe" claims with mundane explanations. I believe I have resolved the concerns on the review page, but a previous reviewer suggested the nomination would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. Given your experience, I would value a review from you on the article, particularly on its prose or sourcing.

I know how time-consuming these reviews are, so I would be more than happy to return the favour. I noticed you've been working on Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system - I would be glad to give that (or any other article) a review or a copy-edit if you would find that useful.

No pressure either way, but if you have a moment this weekend, I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to the Scientology topic. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Scientology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Scientology topic on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I have started a new thread at § Invitation and open discussion on Scientology-topic.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

We had a long discussion a while ago [] where you were arguing that Brodie was not independent enough to even be mentioned without the label 'Mormon'. I would ask that you consider your arguments then in light of our current discussion, where you are using her as the main reliable source for a fairly important claim. Epachamo (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If you notice, my argument was simply that ex-communicated mormons are a type of mormon. Feoffer (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to interject my good UFO friend Feoffer, but I teach Logic 101 and that's not an argument. That's just one proposition, and an argument requires at least two, so "Ex-communicated mormons are a type of mormon" at most can only be a conclusion (of an argument). --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Well the full argument would be that (1) all people who joined the church are Mormon. (2) Fawn Brodie joined the church. (3) Therefore Fawn Brodie is a Mormon. For a fun aside, The 2007 song This Is Why I'm Hot is a great tool for teaching modus ponens vs modus tollens. All that is "fly" is also "hot", and the singer asserts his onw hotness by affirming flyness, only to then pointing out the listener's own lack of hotness implies the absence of their flyness. Feoffer (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

What about apostates? I had a girlfriend in that category. Don't know the song, 'm gonna check it out; thanks! --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

While no one identifies as a "Ex-Presbyterian", among US Mormons and Catholics, apostates typically still identify themselves by their background: "ex-Mormon" and "lapsed-catholic". Brodie, a Mormon, wrote a book on Joseph Smith and was subsequently excommunicated, but she was a member of the church at the time of authorship, so it's moot anyway.  :) Feoffer (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely not true at all. This has been empirically evaluated by Jana Reiss in her book The Next Mormons. The vast majority of ex-Mormons simply move on. Epachamo (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh I have no clue what the percentages are. I just know folks like Grant H. Palmer and John Dehlin other such people use the term "ex-mormon". I've never met an "Ex-Presby". Feoffer (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have no clue, then maybe you should stop throwing around words like 'typically' with such confidence. Epachamo (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I mean.. there are some 300,000 just on reddit. it's not some obscure term, we have a whole article on it. It's certainly not "un-typical" or "uncommon" lol. Feoffer (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what your threshold for 'typically', but there are over 10 million former mormons who are not on reddit. Seriously, read Jana Reiss's book she wrote with a professional demographer. Most just move on. Clearly there are those who take on an 'ex-mormon' identity. But this is not typical. Epachamo (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

As an example, Marco Rubio was baptized a Mormon when he was eight years old. [He moved on and identifies as a Catholic, but never removed his name from the records]. So according to the Mormon church, he is still counted as a Mormon. Epachamo (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie was born into the church. She didn't 'join' the church. The church thought she was a member, but she did not think of herself as a member when she wrote the book. Epachamo (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Her excommunication implies her membership. You could say she had "weak faith" or something, but she clearly was a member. Feoffer (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I've got to side with User talk:Epachamo in the general, here. I had to make the Catholic Church excommunicate me because I was not one of them, not because I was. So excommunication doesn't imply membership. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

In this US, it is highly actionable to publicly announce excommunication of a former or non-member. Brodie was by definition a member until excommunication -- membership is not inferred from inner feelings. Feoffer (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

With your criterion, I’ll always be a Catholic (because Catholic baptism is indelebile). So it must be a wrong criterion. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

So, it probably sounds like splitting hairs, but there's a reason for the precision. Assuming you have never resigned from your church, you can still be subjected to church discipline procedures. The second you say "I resign" -- you cannot, and it becomes potentially criminal to subject you to discipline. The LDS church has an iron-clad respect for that line, whereas many religious-inspired American criminal organizations like NXIVM did not. If Brodie had not been a member, the LDS church would NOT have excommunicated her. A few years ago, there was some high-profile LDS church disciplinary process and midway through the trial, the guy said "I resign" -- and everything just stopped, exactly like they're supposed to. The Nation of Islam never gave that deal to Malcolm X. Feoffer (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The Mormon church has 'iron-clad' respect for this because they were threatened with a lawsuit in 1989. Before then, the church handbook of instructions literally did not allow for resignation without a disciplinary hearing. Epachamo (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying the church defamed Brodie as a heretic after she had resigned? That's a huge charge, I've never seen that before. Feoffer (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The church still does defame her as a heretic. Brodie never resigned. Resignation didn't exist in the 1940s, and she was long out before her book was published. She was excommunicated as an apostate. Her book to this day is still impugned as anti-mormon literature, [], . This is a pretty standard viewpoint from within the church. Tell a Mormon that Brodie is a neutral historian to a believing Mormon and you will get a visceral response. Epachamo (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Resignation didn't exist in the 1940 Well, I mean from a secular legal perspective. It's in the bill of rights. :)

Her book to this day is still impugned as anti-mormon literature This is a pretty standard viewpoint from within the church

Sure, but then, they would say that, wouldn't they? But she's not "anti-mormon" in any sense that is analogous to say, anti-Semitism. Feoffer (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not it was legal is a different question. What happened in practice is there in the historic record. Anti-semitism distinction is also not really relevant. The point is that she has been labeled an anti-Mormon. Epachamo (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Before 1989, the church would allow requests to leave the church at their discression, you could not just resign, you had to go through a disciplinary court. Even in today's Mormon church, you often have to get a lawyer to leave. According to Brodie herself, she very clearly had no faith, not just weak faith. Labeling her a "mormon" historian implies she represented the viewpoint of the mormon church. The mormon church did not feel her view represented them and considered it "anti-mormon", so much so that she excommunicated her. Labelling her as a "dissident mormon" implies that she wasn't a trained historian and her work is otherwise tainted. Epachamo (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I long ago forgot what actual article text is under discussion. We wouldn't want to suggest her book represents a faithful perspective, of course. Mentioning her excommunication for Heresy would probably provide all the context needed. Feoffer (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning her excommunication impugns her as a biased historian, something reliable sources do not do. Epachamo (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

THanks for all the improvements you've made to the UFO pages! Glad somebody out is reading. :) Feoffer (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It's a pleasure to re-read about classic UFO cases while I take breaks from work. --ReaderOfSci-FiNovelsAndPhilosophy (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Epachamo: replying here so we don't flood the others with crosstalk. Grandison Newell's braggadocios confession to spreading false rumors is the "smoking gun" that Smith and his followers fled Ohio due to religious persecution. I've spent a long time trying to make sense of Smith's fleeing in the night yet never being pursued for extradition. Thanks to your interventions, I understand it now. Readers are going to want to know why the 1838 arrest warrant disappears from the table, and wikipedia should admit the truth: the warrant didn't exist, the old article was wrong. Feoffer (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

This begs the question, how long should the mention be in the article? Is there a set amount of time before readers have been notified? Even if Brodie were completely correct, she did not say it was a criminal charge, and was brought by a private citizen, so was probably a civil charge, this out of scope for the article. I also don't think we can flat out say the warrant didn't exist. We don't know Brodies source for the claim, but she did spend time in the Missouri/Illinois area researching documents that might not exist anymore. I think it deserves a mention in a different article, probably not a table entry. Epachamo (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

she did not say it was a criminal charge Neither does the article.

I also don't think we can flat out say the warrant didn't exist Removed that from the article per your concerns. The article can be agnostic on its existence.

It's now the briefest of mentions, but it's clear that Smith fled Ohio in the night because of persecution and lies. The current text no longer claims any criminal warrant existed, just that one person claimed he persecuted the Mormons out of Ohio. Sources routinely split Smiths's life into periods of NY, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, and readers want to understand why he transitioned from each phase. We report he moved to Kirtland to join Rigdon and other converts -- a mere mention of an event doesn't automatically imply criminality. Feoffer (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

If it isn't about a criminal charge, then why is it in the article? His criminal charges did not have a significant bearing on his reason to leave Kirtland. I don't think we tell the story of Joseph Smith in this article, nor do I see this as standard practice on Wikipedia. That is why we have the main article. If users wonder why he moved to Missouri, they can reference that article. Epachamo (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Saw this, and admit I can't discern the quality (or content) of the source cited in the article's lead for the sentence in question: Meier's prophecies repeatedly blame Jews (whom he refers to as "gypsies") for future atrocities.^[1] It would be helpful to know if the info is or isn't factual and due. I assume you speak German and might be able to suss things out. If not, no problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	Just wishing you a happy holidays. I hope your holiday season and coming year are as interesting or as peaceful as you need them. Rjjiii (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much Rjjiii! Thanks for being such a total joy to work with! Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Feoffer. Thank you for your work on Possible interpretations of UFO reports. Another editor, 11WB, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Much of this article is unsourced, meaning information is lacking verification. It is also written like an essay and contains WP:OR, which is not allowed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|11WB}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

11WB (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The page Possible interpretations of UFO reports has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Most all of that "background" content you have been adding to Bob Lazar serves only, in my opinion, to provide vague support for his claims, and is not helpful or encyclopedic. If your intention is not to provide support, vague or otherwise, for his sensational claims then why not start adding irrelevant information about the state of Nevada, or MIT, or metallurgy, or the criminal justice system in the US, or or or... The topic of that page is Lazar, and it should be kept that way. There are any number of other pages on WP where I assume your desired content is and certainly far better suited. Lastly, supporting your edits with speculative comments along the lines of "he might have known this" is obvious WP:OR, in this case perhaps a technical violation of WP:BLP, and, most importantly, not encyclopedic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

If your intention is not to provide support, vague or otherwise, for his sensational claims Nope, not my intention at all. Somewhere along the way, you began to think I was a pusher of Fringe POVs, when I'm nothing of the sort. My personal POV is closer to: Travis Walton used a fire lookout tower to stage a hoax and Bob Lazar was part of the Mirage Men lies. Feoffer (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Still from film of J Allen Hynek Swamp Gas Press Conference.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. tjd (he) ^T/C 02:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I am continuously confused that you consistently go the accusations of bad faith that my objective is to obfuscate, undermine, and present a sanitized version of history. One look at my edit history would demonstrate how laughable this accusation is. It is starting to feel personal though. These accusation cross multiple pages. Please stop. If you disagree with a particular edit, explain it on the talk page, without casting aspersions of my motivation. Epachamo (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)