Talk:UFO Phil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I don't believe this category applies to a fictional character. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


If this is an acceptable source (Rick Still clearly states that he plays the UFO Phil character) I recommend merging Rick Still to UFO Phil, it's obviously the same guy. Still the actor has no notability aside from his character "UFO Phil". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the merge as I stated at the Rick Still page. I agree 100%.--Thunderpilot (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes both pages should be merged.--Kingdomofnye (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


I wish people (rick still) stop changing the info about Rick Still not being UFO phil. UFO Phil is Rick Still and Rick Still is UFO Phil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored what is stated by third-party sources; but have included the claim by Rick Still that he is not UFO Phil. Wikipedia needs to go by what is published in third-party reliable sources. The claim by Rick Still needs to be mentioned in the article; but to be blunt, a person claiming they were previously lying about their identity is going to have credibility problems, and is not going to be able to outweigh those third party sources. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It's likely Rick Still doing his Tony Clifton thing. In any case, a WP:SELFSOURCEed claims about a third party should not be included here. The claim needs to be published by a reliable secondary source first. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the existing third party references that state they are the same person - the self sourced statement is a primary source, not about a third party. It seems reasonable to state in the article that Rick Still claims to be a different person from Phil Hill, using that primary source. It helps demonstrate in the article his doing the "Tony Clifton thing". --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious that Still's generating a fake controversy about his identity. See the recently added red banner running across the top of UFO Phil's website: "ALERT: WIKIPEDIA UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE BAD ALIENS !!! Wikipedia is no longer an accurate or reliable source of UFO Phil related information. Wikipedia's entry on UFO Phil includes claims that a UFO Phil imposter is the real UFO Phil."
To use this to 'demonstrate' anything about Rick Still would be OR. Neither should we print whatever Rick Still wants us to print to further his fake controversy (Primary sources may be used "but only with care because it is easy to misuse them"). No harm waiting for a 3rd party source to publish details. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
In no way shape or form am I claiming we should use the statements of Rick Still to be construed as evidence that they are different people. Also, your statement "Neither should we print whatever Rick Still wants us to print to further his fake controversy" works both ways; ie: neither should we intentionally ignore the statement because he wants it. The question is what gives best encyclopedic coverage within the scope of our policies and guidelines.
What I am stating that as a primary source (which, as your quote of policy clearly states, may be used with care), we should reflect the statement made by Rick Still about being a different person. This is not original research, it is his direct statement. I am not suggesting that we use his statement at (which now only contains his statement, although the history of Rick Still's official website can still be found on[1]) as a basis for any factual claims about him. Instead, it should be provided in the article as part of complete encyclopedic coverage. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC) contains all sorts of claims that are frankly dubious ("I had access to his personal documents during my time working for him" etc.) and extraordinary. I can see your point about giving the subject the best and most complete encyclopedic coverage we can, but I believe that doing so entails waiting for secondary sources to cover the statements made on - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Rick Still also had a page about his self on wiki too. It has be merged with UFO Phil page. Rick Still had be well known to be "ufo phil". Rick Still is an actor/voice actor. He is just trying to dirty the water about the issue. Both UFOPHIL.Com and has the same IP address. I am tried of Rick Still mudding up the waters.Thunderpilot (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we can't let Rick Still, Phil Hill, or anyone simply dictate what a Wiki article says. It has to be backed up by legit references. That being said, the only reference I see that UFO Phil is played by Rick Still is IMDb, which we know can't be used as a Wiki reference. There is also that dubious article called "Be Still, UFO Phil" from But, every quote attributed to "Rick Still" in that interview seems to be a deliberate lie for whatever purpose. Example: "I’ve been to important schools of drama like Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg, Actor’s Studio, several of Jeff Goldblum’s summer pool parties." It seems to be this reference is not a good one for determining the truth. However,, a respected source, has this to say: "UFO Phil whose real name is Phil Hill". I find many sources that say UFO Phil is played by a guy named Phil Hill, but only one that says he is this Rick Still person. In reading this thread and the various edits to this article, it seems a few select editors are convinced, for whatever reason, that UFO Phil is Rick Still even though there isn't any reliable source to back it up. I think we should ditch the emotional baggage and go with what appears to be fact: UFO Phil's real name is Phil Hill. Just my two cents as a frequent observer to this subject. Thanks. Bulletblunder (talkcontribs) 19:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Bulletblunder (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If the Still vs. Hill thing is notable and important it will be covered by reliable sources that are independent of promoters (such as and we'll certainly report what these say in our article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
But there isn't a single reliable source that says UFO Phil is played by a man named Rick Still. Where does this information come from? And why is it not sourced? Scissorfidelity (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Scissorfidelity (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────LuckyLouie, do you see now why this article should be covered by our BLP policy if we are to identify UFO Phil with a real person? Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how BLP applies here, based on examples like Pee-wee Herman, Stephen Colbert (character), and others, but fill me in. (A possibility is that the article could contain a section on Rick Still, which would enable WP:BLP). - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Just that we can't say that Still plays the part without clearly reliable sources with a high bar for reliablity. We can't even suggest it without the sort of sources we need for BLPs. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove mention of Rick Still for now. While I have no doubt in my mind, the link requires original research by synthesis of data from the internet archive and other sources, so isn't acceptable for a Wikipedia article. That said, the existing article correctly reflects that UFO Phil aka Phil Hill is a fictional character - which seems fully in line with the sources we have, so is acceptable in its current form. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I would, however, argue that the link to should be removed entirely. The source can't be viewed as reliable (he confesses to having lied, so you can either assume he lied before or lied now, either way, he's not a reliable source). And if we are going to accept that there's no link between the two people, then the url is regarding a lie from a third party. This doesn't seem appropriate in an EL section. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have checked with Chaves County New Mexico, the county that Roswell New Mexico is in, and the is no one born in that county that is Named Phil Hill. So the info that rick still is saying about phil hill was born in roswell NM is false. People please do some checking. Rick Still is UFO Phil. UFO Phil is a fictional Character nothing more.Thunderpilot (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, see WP:NOR. Well, at this point the article is mostly sourced to Sources that suggest Phil Hill is a fictional character have been denigrated. The article may even end up back as it was, with Hill treated as a real person who believes in aliens. Which is why I'm stepping away from it for a while. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Also someone may want to take care of potential BLP liability problems at wikimedia commons concerning a headshot of Rick Still uploaded by User:Ufophil. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
What potential BLP issues do you forsee? Beyond providing more WP:NOR material for the identity issue, I'm not sure I see the concern. The uploader went through OTRS, so the copyright concerns should be fully addressed already on those files. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We all know that Rick Still is UFO Phil. There is NO PHIL HILL. I have checked with Roswell NM. If you use a computer program, the same one that the casios use to ID people, UFO PHIL and Rick Still is the same person. I am really am tried of the crap from Rick Still/UFO Phil drama. UFO Phil Character is the meal ticket for Rick Still. Im sorry that the admin people can't see that. I am done with this. If Rick Still wants to Muddy the waters for what ever the reasons, so be it. I have lost all respect of Rick Still/UFO Phil or whatever he wants to call himself. People please do your own research.Thunderpilot (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that Thunderpilot has been editing as (talk · contribs), I believe inadvertently. However, he may also be editing as (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please explain to me why if UFO Phil and Rick Still are NOT THE SAME PERSON, why does both and has the same IP address of I will tell you why. They are the same person. I when to and asked that question to "ufo phil" then the web site ip address change the next day. Now both web sites have the same ip address again. It just makes me think that something is fishy about this whole thing.--Thunderpilot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Also for both websites godaddy is manages both sites too. Thunderpilot (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

They are clearly the same person (as are additional characters in the UFO Phil world); but there are no third-party reliable sources that confirm this fact. As a result, we cannot claim it in the article. Using original research to attempt to identify them is not usable as Wikipedia content, likewise non-published claims and statements cannot be used. Until a third-party reliable source documents the connection, we are unable to make the statement in the article - particularly since great care has been taken to attempt to deny and conceal this fact which has obscured the relationship between the actor and the character. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check out this website. Thunderpilot (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither source is usable for this article. Both fail to meet the criteria of being a reliable source. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Well I see the "ufo phil" put a "birth certificate" on his web site. I do not belive its a real one. I see that there are a lot of "610" on it and his dad name is William edison Hill. His mom's last name is tesla from new york city. I really think its a fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderpilot (talkcontribs) 05:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now on rick still is also showing the birth certificate too. this is raising some major questions. It really looks fake.Thunderpilot (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is most likely the type of drama that Rick Still/UFO Phil want to happen.Thunderpilot (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The People vs. George Lucas[edit]

An anon reverted my removal of this. It lacks a reliable source, so I removed it again - but I'll also bring it up here.

The original line stated: "In 2010, Phil appeared in the documentary film The People vs. George Lucas, that features one of Phil's songs, "Dear George Lucas"." with a reference to

There are two problems here. First, per WP:RS (specifically the section WP:USERGENERATED), we cannot use IMDB as a ref, it fails as a reliable source. And second, that source lists in its credits that UFO Phil played by Rick Still. Which, per the above discussion, we cannot claim the two are the same person - therefore to hold true to claims on the websites and, it would mean that the act was actually performed by the so called "imposter". Per the above this would be a third party, and so should not be mentioned in this article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The material was restored, this time sourced to
The problem is that the site still fails the WP:USERGENERATED section of WP:RS. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Associated acts[edit]

An IP has removed twice the mention in "Associated acts" of the infobox to remove Rick Still. This is a separate issue from the characters real identity. Both the character and the actor have stated working together in the past, so they are associated. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

They are ABSOLUTELY related, as you have stated. However, Rick Still is not notable (see afd). Tom Green, George Noory, and Dr Demento are notable and should remain. (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the AfD (I'm the one who created it); and if that AfD results in a deletion, then it could make sense to remove the associated act at that time (although, even then, if adequate refs remain for the association it could remain here, that is a separate discussion from both the identity and the AfD). But, for now, the mention should remain in this article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
(Undid revision by Thunderpilot. Rick Still is not notable. Hill also worked with Doug Jones, Billy Aaron, and Tony Plinko. Should we list them all in the article? (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A person needs to be notable to have an article about themselves, but being mentioned as an associated act is a different question. The determining factor is the quality of the reliable sources as well as talk page consensus. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rick Still and Ufo Phil worked together. here is the proof. (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Has "Ufo Phil" worked with other people? I really don't know. But here is just one of many examples (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC) I wish that people when they updated anything on Ufo Phil page or any other page please provide proof. User adding a lot names and most if not all were from the UFO Phil movie. If we read they were played by Rick Still. Yes I know that does not meet Wiki standards but come on people. This is getting very uncool with this "updating war". Admin people can there be a way to have a cooling off time with this. I will bet that "rick still" is still causing drama to bring traffic to "ufo phil" so he can make some money.--Thunderpilot (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Also "Les Micheal and Ufo Phil" never been together in person at the same time at an event. Just on and the ufo phil movie. which means that editing of film. If they were at an event like comic con at the same time standing next to each other so people can tell that "they were not" the same people will be fine. We don't have proof other then which anyone could "edit".Thunderpilot (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Additions to "Associated Acts" are all REAL PEOPLE Phil Hill has worked with, contrary to what Sockpuppet THUNDERPILOT is arguing via his bad grammar and spelling. (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
10:23, 24 March 2014‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,042 bytes) (-186)‎ . . (→‎top: ok, stop - any entries here must have a reliable source or they are BLP violations) <--- Wholeheartedly agree with Dougweller on this statement! Thanks for being levelheaded. (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
And thank you. Thunderpilot isn't a sock, but he did create a sockpuppet once. Hopefully he/she has learned now not to do that. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I only have ONE account at wiki at this time. I dont know why that Thunderpilot (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[dead link] and≈--Thunderpilot (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete UFO Phil page[edit]

I think that we (wiki) should delete the UFO Phil page. Is Ufo Phil really that important to have a page. He mainly has youtube videos. There are a lot of people on Youtube and they dont have a page here on wiki.--Thunderpilot (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; there are plenty of third-party reliable sources to establish notability of the character, and the article survived an AfD in June 2009. However, if you disagree with the strength of the listed references, you can nominate the article for a new AfD to see if consensus has changed over the past 4+ years. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to nomination it for it to be deleted.aFd--Thunderpilot (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC) I really do not think that we need an UFO Phil page because there are many "characters" on YouTube that do not have a page on wiki.--Thunderpilot (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scissorfidelity/Archive which says "User|LosAngelesRogers}}, JeffSkyBullet (talk · contribs) and HitchhikersGalaxy (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to each other. Based on geolocation and behaviour Bulletblunder (talk · contribs) is  Likely connected to this group as well. All four named accounts are  Likely Scissorfidelity (talk · contribs). I would suggest semi-protecting the article as there is considerable disruption from socks and IPs." It looks as though the IP would have been blocked if they'd edited very recently.

This is why I think that the UFO Phil Page should be deleted because UFO Phil/Rick Still adding drama. --Thunderpilot (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on UFO Phil. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on UFO Phil. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)