User talk:Sgerbic

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

TUSC token b57886a212c826c663608bfecd17b794

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgerbic (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Postmodernism

My name is Steve Pittman. I am a regular reader of Skeptical Inquirer and have considered joining the GSoW but never have.

Two editors on Wikipedia (Patrick_Welsh and Tsavage) have been revising the Postmodernism page extensively. In particular, they have been moving all criticism of Postmodernism to the Criticism_of_postmodernism page. A consequence is that a naïve visitor to the Postmodernism page is going to conclude that there is some there there 🙂, but I agree with the statement on the Criticism_of_postmodernism page: "It is frequently alleged that postmodern scholars promote obscurantism, are hostile to objective truth, and encourage relativism (in culture, morality, knowledge) to an extent that is epistemically and ethically crippling." and "Thus, while common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress, critics of postmodernism often defend such concepts."

Stronger versions of those criticisms formerly appeared on the Postmodernism page but have been moved to the Criticism_of_postmodernism page and weakened considerably.

I am a Wikipedia editor but do not have extensive experience. I would like to help address the problem by editing both pages, but I am sure that some disagreements will end up in arbitration, so I would like to proceed carefully and prepare for that.

I am not looking to join GSoW now, but would like to find other interested parties with whom I could collaborate.

I note that Hogo-2020 was actively editing the Criticism_of_postmodernism page back in October but hasn't been active for a while. Based upon his comments on Talk:Postmodernism, it is not clear if he would be a helpful collaborator. Do you know anything about that user? And are there members of GSoW who might be interested in collaborating with me?

Thanks! OneSkyWalker (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That isn't an area I know anything about, and most of the team are working on science and biography articles I think at the moment. Post a message on the Project Skepticism page here on Wikipedia and I bet you will get some extra eyeballs. I don't have any interaction or know of the editors you mentioned.

I think that it's always best to edit in good faith and discuss changes on the talk page, I wouldn't know enough about the topic to be able to weigh in at all. It's okay to remove parts of the article that do not have great sourcing, something we forget to look into, check the citation first. If it is not a reliable source, remove it.

And thank you for your kind thoughts of joining GSoW, we will exist for many more years still. We have lots of editors on the team and also have great relationships with people who are like us ... just normal editors here on Wikipedia. We have long since stopped "outing" ourselves here on Wikipedia because Wikipedia does not protect us from being outed in real life, and though I'm very public, it can get ugly as every post I make is followed by people who are caught up in a cult of misinformation and double and triple down thinking that when something they believe is challenged, you are attacking them personally. Its sad, but I've been in this rodeo for so long I've seen most everything.

Continue editing and making relationships with people here on Wikipedia, most are wonderful people. You can contact me personally if you wish on social media I'm happy to give my opinion, though I would know zero about postmodernism. Sgerbic (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply Susan! The only social media accounts I have are X/Twitter (but do almost nothing there), Quora, and Medium (but a free account, so I never publish). I have never had a Facebook account. I might be a GSoW member by now if I was on Facebook. I did not think to look for you on X/Twitter, so don't know if you are there. OneSkyWalker (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I'm on Twitter by my name. Lots of hate on there for me from the UFO community, so please don't out yourself. But as they are reading this now, you can be assured they are taking note, sad. Sgerbic (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi OneSkyWalker, You do realize that you are free improve the article directly, right? (Although, as a general policy, it's nice to check in on the talk page before editing the lead or making unusually large changes to the article—especially when it is being actively developed.)

Pop on by and share your suggestions for improvement!

I should add, however, that it concerns me that you are planning the sort of edits that you expect to wind up in arbitration (and actively seeking collaborators for this?!). That's only a last resort when all efforts to build the encyclopedia cooperatively and by consensus have been exhausted. Patrick (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hello OneSkyWalker,I'd be happy to work together on this. Just send me a message either on my talk page or in the relevant talk page of the article, and we can discuss any content you think the article might be missing. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification

Just a heads up, there are accusations that you are the leader of a 200+ member anti-UFO cabal on a somewhat viral Twitter post. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No matter what I say, they won't believe anything that does not fit in with their conclusion. Sgerbic (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Moving a page back to sandbox

Hi Sgerbic. You invited me to reach out to your talk page if I had more questions regarding my AJ Parr article, which, as you kindly pointed out has a lot of issues. You also said that "unless you are holding onto some wild card amazing set of citations in your back pocket, if this came up for AfD I would vote delete." Based on what you said, I was thinking that if in short term I do not find more references or ways to improve the article with better sourcing, instead of deleting it, I could try moving the article back to the sandbox for further practice and improvement, do you think that could work? UncleAlb (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You should always start in your sandbox and then only after having extra eyes on it, make it live. I'm not sure how you would unalive it without it going to a deletion. Maybe ask whoever it was that was offering advice in that other thread. But yes, always start in your sandbox. But as I said, unless you have something that I'm missing you want to add to prove notability, then that article is going to be up for deletion. And if so, just let that happen, what good is it in your sandbox if you have nothing to fix it? Sgerbic (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank H. H. Roberts, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Research Council and Carnegie Foundation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)