User talk:Betaparticle1002

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

- LuckyLouie (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree, and I think there has been selective application of these guidelines by one or more people, particularly in regards to "gaming the system" and "the purposes of Wikipedia". Unfortunately, this seems to have led to a subpar article that was lacking in basic and up-to-date information, as well as coherent organization. It still needs a lot of work. If you're interested in discussion regarding recent edits, please feel free to refer to the most relevant sections of the talk page. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, I wanted to say thanks for all the work you put in finding those resources for the AARO page. I was tidying it up, and writing about the report, and a lot of them came in handy. I did found some of them, but hadn't seen the Smithsonian or the BBC one.Good on yah!

Thanks also for identifiying the page as a bit of a mess, yes I agree, it needs a bit of work - it has evolved from the previous orgs, so its unclear in some cases, which parts of the article are reporting to which body. Anyway its a work in progress! I'm going to try to make it a bit clearer. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah of course, and thank you for all your work. The article is much better now. I might still add some things, like the letter that was sent by Congress to the DoD asking that AARO be fully funded, which was reported on by at least the WSJ. We'll see though, since it seems like just about any edit to this article is an uphill battle no matter how well-sourced or reported on something is. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get yah. These sorts of articles can be hard work at times. Don't worry. If something needs to go on, and its valid, I'm happy to assist. The article is still a bit odd, as its basically a conversion of an article for the different preceding body. I'm going to do more work on it. I was going to add a para about funding, so that letter you mention could go in, as it has RS for it. I think I have seen other references to calls for increased funding, I'll see if I can find them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]