Eschaton1985

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Eschaton1985, welcome to Wikipedia! I want to applaud your editing technique; Editing Wikipedia is very difficult, editing wikipedia on UFOs is very very very difficult. The best "editing" is actually done on a talk page, and your suggestions were very welcome improvements.

So, I guess I'm the project's go-to guy for finding Reliable Sources on old UFO sightings, now??? I didn't know that until you showed up, but I'm happy to wear the hat. Defending the project from spam, medical misinformation, vandalism etc is a completely different skillset than writing an article -- I can write articles, but I could never do what others do where they monitor all incoming edits, forever. I'm amazed at the editors and admins e who can do that and not burn out, I feel like I get the "fun part".

But the flip side of that is that we DO need an influx of people who have a lot of domain expertise to help us see ways to improve the articles, as you did. I know a LOT about UFOs, but I'm just one person, and I didn't know there was video tape of Hudson Valley UFO.

An ideal Wikipedia would document every "culturally significant" UFO report, just as we document every "culturally significant" Marian apparition. In my free time for the past few years, I've tried to help make that goal a reality... After five years, I've made it from June of 1947 to December of 1951... At that rate, I would have got to Hudson Valley sometime around 2061? So we definitely welcome you here and are glad to have you, we need all the eyeballs we can get. Feoffer (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Feoffer, thanks for the kind words. I unfortunately don't have the time to really devote to wikipedia like some do who share the "fringe belief" that being a wikipedia editor is a worthwhile use of their free time (if it was the consensus view we'd be having a very different conversation, now wouldn't we? haha). I plan to pop in here and there where I know the most, or where I see things being done that just don't seem right.

I truly admire what you did for the article we worked together on, so really I think I view myself, in my limited ability to contribute, as more of a second set of eyes to your own when able.

And, as I'll probably be saying to a lot of people here for a long time to come, thanks for all the tips and the help. Maneuvering this bureaucracy, however necessary, is bewildering! Eschaton1985 (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Maneuvering this bureaucracy, however necessary, is bewildering! Well ya know what we say about Wikipedia -- it's a good thing it works in practice cause it certainly doesn't work in theory!

IF you have ties to the Ufology community -- can you please help us find out where Luis Elizondo was born? One journalist said Miami, but we're told it was actually someplace in Texas, but we don't know where. Right now we just list United States. It's small thing, but we're being told that the subject of the article takes personal offense to the error (which admittedly does sound exactly like a born Texan, doesn't it?).

Obviously, it would have to come from an authoritative or reliable source, not a message board comment. Mr. Elizondo could list his birthplace on his official site, on social media accounts linked from his official site, or through literally any media source of his choosing (e.g. George Knapp). Feoffer (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume he's not allowed to correct it himself? Anyway, despite my interest, I don't have those kinds of ties. Eschaton1985 (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume he's not allowed to correct it himself? I mean, technically, as a general rule, it's bad form for people to edit articles about themselves. But the bigger issue with a user showing up claiming to be the subject of an article is verifying that they really are who they claim to be. If Lue wanted to handle this all on his own, probably the easiest way would be to email the project from an account that's verifiably his. Feoffer (talk) 08:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just an update. Someone got the Herald-Tribune to issue a correction, so we now correctly report his birthplace as Texas. Feoffer (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Very cool! Eschaton1985 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your recent editing history at 1984 Hudson Valley UFO sightings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly invited the person who keeps reverting my contributions to the Talk page, and there are open statements by me on the talk page which support and explain the contributions I have made. Will this warning bring any external observation to the problem? I hope so. I'm going to see if there's a way to get eyes on this problem before it gets worse.

You've been involved in the page as well for much of its progress now, and as you are perfectly aware, my edits have been continuously disrupted, even while my work has caused others to improve the page, flesh out its entries, and I have even been able to remove a spurious categorization. I am demonstrably acting in good faith. If you know of any way to peacefully get your compatriot editors to talk to me instead of simply reverting my edits with comments like "this is better" (an unsubstantiated claim which they typically do not even bother to explain), I am very interested in hearing about it. Eschaton1985 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally I just read your edit of the section. It is much better than previous attempts by both me and the person who was antagonizing me. I appreciate the help. Eschaton1985 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

Off-wiki postings like It is Possible to Beat the UFO Skeptics of Wikipedia at their Own Game! indicate you are an WP:SPA here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bear in mind WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Superficial politeness only goes so far. As I mentioned once before, Wikipedia has an extremely steep learning curve. Talk page WP:CONSENSUS is the result of informed, policy-based discussion rather than internet debating skills. If you are truly here for the long term to help build the encyclopedia, I'd advise you to start with articles outside the WP:FRINGE topic area to help familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all: yes, that's me. I did not attempt to hide it, and I encourage you to read my entire reddit post on this topic if you haven't already.

However, my opinions outside Wikipedia differ from my edits here. While I do have a different point of view from yours, I do believe that it is possible for us to reach consensus on the article we are editing together. To me, that DOES mean upholding the skeptical view of the Hudson Valley incident. To that end, I have:

1. Agreed not to try to use Night Siege as a source, even though it contains information of historical interest. I did this in order to try to foster a sense of cooperation and flexibility. We may not see eye to eye on how best to maintain NPOV, but I can certainly assume a posture of flexibility and deference when it seems that the difference of opinion might stem from my lack of experience relative to yours.
2. I have questioned whether or not we should include a youtube source of the video. I am actually still unclear why this is allowed on a fringe page, but again, I have restrained myself from pursuing the question out of deference.
3. I have attempted to improve upon the skeptical position in the article by reviewing those sources and adding information from them which more accurately conveys their stated point of view.
4. I have repeatedly added language which makes it clear, when expressing ufological points of view (however close to my own they may be), that these opinions are those of their source alone.
5. To be completely clear: I am attempting to edit this page so that it provides NPOV information about the event. My initial interest stemmed from the video one of your co-editors posted which frankly portrayed an extremely uninterested, inefficient, and poorly-written article. When I found it in that exact state, I was compelled to contribute so as to improve the article. I think you would agree that since my involvement, the article has indeed improved greatly.

Eschaton1985 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)