User talk:Penalica
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Penalica! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
Coincidence of names
[edit]I reverted your edit because militant atheism redirects to League of Militant Atheists, a Soviet Russian organization. (I'd make more of a fuss except that the sound of breaking glass you would hear is that of people in greenhouses throwing stones 
.) Welcome again to Wikipedia.
November 2023
[edit]
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Parapsychology. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- What is the definition of "mainstream scientist"?. On the contrary this statement as it is in the article gives an undue weight to the article. There are many scientists also working on this subject and supporting the idea.
- Our struggle must be to put pro and contra sources in the wiki and interested people should go into detail about the subject themselvews if they see necessary. The links attached to the sentence is enough to give an idea to a reader. However, some vague sentences like "mainstream scientists" "concensus" are just subjective and biased and leaning to persuade or dissuade the reader for his own opinion.
- I object to the reversion of the tag that I have put. Or the sentences must be reformulized. Penalica (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
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.