User talk:Sgerbic/Archives/2012/04

Hello!

Hi Sgerbic, I am currently a student at Clemson University and I am taking English 103. Our current assignment is to write a Wikipedia article, and I was wondering if you could take some time to read what I have started and give me some feedback! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifaction Thanks! Ajdu93 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a very attractive page, I know almost nothing about the subject, but it looks like there is good information on it. You didn't write that page completely right, but are working on a stub? There is an extra ) right by footnote 1 and I changed the reflex to reflex|2 cause I think it looks better, you can change it back quite easily if you want. Did you choose my name at random, because I don't know anyone at Clemson University that I know of, and my expertize is psychics, not petrifaction? Make sure you tell your professor that I think he/she is wonderful to give you this assignment. The page says it needs more citations, but that was from 2007, it seems like you can probably remove that flag now. There is no rule that says how many citations are needed, looks like you have everything cited. Do any of the authors in the citations have WP pages? If so you might want to link to those people's pages. Maybe another picture would be nice? (I'm a photographer so the answer is always more pictures). Hope I helped a bitSgerbic (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

First I would like to thank you very much for your help! What I have written to date is only about half of the assignment-the rest will be done this week. I hope to be adding more pictures as well. Our professor has yet to show us how. And yes, that page is a stub. I did actually choose you at random. I looked through the histories on some pages and noticed you were pretty active in the editing process so I chose you! I'm not sure if any of the authors in the citations have WP pages, I'll look into that. Thank you again for your time and advice, and I'll be sure to pass on your comment to my professor! Ajdu93 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Independent Investigations Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skeptic Magazine

Robert Todd Carroll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skeptic Magazine

Skepticality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skeptic Magazine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry

Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the topic, but a few of my editor friends went and looked. I think it is possible they may have left some comments on the talk page. My opinion is that the lede should say "there is nothing in science to support this theory". Also all the references seem to come from one source. That's my two cents from only a quickish look. Sgerbic (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it.

I wish I could just add "there is nothing in science to support this theory" but I think I'd need to find a reliable, verifiable reference to cite.

It seems reasonable to me to discuss what science meant at times in the past, what reliable scholarships says science means now, and to include a section on what "occult science" meant to one or some of the theosophers writing in the late 1800s. I have a reliable, verifiable reference on that.

Thanks again, Factseducado (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You thinking just the opposite. If there was a WP page that said the moon was made of cheese and you wanted to say that there is no proof of that. You would not have to have a citation. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous statement.Sgerbic (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes it so much easier. I didn't know I was allowed to do that. Thanks! Factseducado (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture lede

Hi Sgerbic, welcome to the Acupuncture article and talk page, where if I'm not mistaken you made your first edit recently. I see that you reverted my edit with the edit summary (ES): "No the lede before was better." While your opinion is as valued as any other editor's, the discussion will advance (and your edits will tend to be taken seriously) only if you explain your reasoning with references to WP policy. Please join in at Talk:Acupuncture#Tweaks_to_lede.

BTW, your comment on your user page that you believe "that sometimes things need to heat up in order to make people think critically about their beliefs" is fine IRL, but on WP the opposite is practiced: see WP:DR. Satire, ridicule and poking fun are common in public discourse today, and I agree they can be fun (e.g. S. Colbert's deconstructions of the Cheney/Bush administration), but WP values cool, calm civility as a means to make a rational argument. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)