User talk:Philosofool

Invitation
Banno 23:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Comps, then wikis...
 * Welcome. I thought you might like to comment on WikiProject Philosophy/readability given your comments in Philosophy of science. Banno 20:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

History of science
Please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject--ragesoss 01:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting references
Hi. I'm glad to see you have an interest the Beer article. One of the problems we've had with that article in the past has been the lack of reference material. As such I don't quite understand why you are so keen to remove reference sources. Apart from one source where you have to register, the sources are simply a click away and the material can be read. This is not POV stuff. It is sourced. If you have uncertainties about the way the information is presented then please help to improve it. Join me in a discussion. Help me improve the article. Will you do that? SilkTork 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. What I don't like about the references is that they're not clearly on the point of the claims; I didn't find the information after looking around of the page.  Also, I think the claims are misleading.  Lots of brit ales are greater than 4%. I recently found the average of 3.7% for all bitters in Terry Foster's "Pale Ale." However, Foster is quick to point out that the median ABV of beers labeled bitter is higher than this.  The average is calculated like this: if there are 72 oz. of Bud (god forbid) in my fridge at 4.3% ABV and 12oz. of Fuller's ESB at 5.6% then the average is (72 x 4.3 + 12 x 5.6) / 84 = 4.48... but the median ABV is (4.3 + 5.6) / 2 = 4.95.  So if for some unbelieveable reason, there's more Bud than ESB,  well, the average ABV represents Bud more than ESB.  That's fine information, but it's not really clear that it's the most pertinent to understanding british beer.  Why not the median instead?  Same goes for Belgian ale and global lagers.  Anyway, I'll look into the article and see what I can write to improve it.

Some great recent edits and improvements. I'm pleased you have decided to tidy up the beer article. It has always been on the verge of being a featured article, but due to the size and complexity of the subject, and an uncertainty how to approach it, it has been pulled one way and another. Also, due to its general interest nature (almost everybody has drunk beer), people like to come along and add the bits they know. Even when they bits they know are not that useful or accurate! I like some of your suggestions for improving the section on beer strength. I've coped some of them into the section while keeping the bits that people have in the past said they found useful. See what you think. Cheers! SilkTork 12:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 *  Also, due to its general interest nature (almost everybody has drunk beer), people like to come along and add the bits they know. Even when they bits they know are not that useful or accurate! Ahh! I know, it drives me nuts! "This one time I had a beer that my friend made and it had sage in it instead of hops. He said that that the way Robin Hood probably had his beer. Then we went to the Ren Faire and got drunk on mead." Ahh!!!

Belgian beer
I would appreciate it if you would explain to me why the introduction I used (quoting a well-known and authoritative expert) was "not encyclopaedic"? Also, I do not understand why you replaced the entire first paragraph when you only complained about the quote. I had corrected the inaccurate information in the last two sentences and now they are incorrect again. Thanks. Mikebe (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * an encyclopedia article begins with information of the most general kind and proceeds to the more specific. The particular quote that you included was about a fairly specific aspect of beligian beer--it's quality and role in Belgian society. Also, quotation is not the preferred manner of presentation in an encyclopedia, because an encyclopdia is supposed to represent the shared view of authorities, not the view of a single one. To quote a specific authority rather than to summarize their shared view is to give that particular authority special consideration. The general view in any scholarly work, encyclopedias included, is that quotation should be reserved for those cases in which the particular wording is an object of focus, or in which an author is substantiating their particular interpretation of a text. So for example, if I want to say that some Belgians believe in beer styles, I might quote some writing of a Belgian on the subject of beer style in which he says something that strongly implies that he believes in sytles. Or (as a case of the first kind) I might notice that a particular author uses the word "types" when discussing Belgian beer. I hadn't noticed the other corrections. philosofool (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the explanation. I am going to edit the first paragraph again to fix the incorrect information. Mikebe (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted to you on the IPA talk page and I want to add something, but it's not relevant there, so I'm posting it here. I recently got the information about changes in Belgian beer strength from 1900 to 1950 and, as I have been telling you, there is no connection with that law, but there is a connection with the state of the country -- war, peace, reconstruction, financial crisis, etc. I hope we can avoid these kinds of discussions in the future. Peace. Mikebe (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pouring Beer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pouring Beer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)