User talk:Philosophus

Leadbeater Article Discussion
I could not find any post of yours on the article's discussion page so I am posting this here. Glad you are willing to communicate. To begin, what is your background regarding this article: Are you a theosophist, a fundamentalist, a skeptic, an atheist, a satanist, please catagorize your approach. Secondly, what books of CWL have you read, and what biographies? Thirdly, what are your motives in editing this article? And lastly, what caused you to open this article on Dec 12 and revert all the text I had improved and revised?RAmesbury (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind
There's some confusion over here, if you scroll down to the end of that section. I thought it was time to call in an expert. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I tried to post this in the Bleep discussion but ran into an edit conflict. Just as well, since it was a digression. I'll post it here, just because I wanted to get it off my chest. : )

Your version does seem to be a compromise, and I appreciate that. It's so much better than the extreme position insisted upon by Kww and Michaelbusch. So I'm neutral on this issue. But, frankly, I want to put in my two cents here that I feel like the word "pseudoscience" is problematic. I read a lot of science, including Pennock's excellent critique of Intelligent Design, and I don't think I've ever come across that word before I came to Wikipedia. I don't recall Pennock ever using it in his book. I just don't know why some editors are so in love with it. I think it doesn't mean anything to the majority of readers. And I feel that affixing a label, as if these issues are black and white, is a poor substitute for clear writing. Why this obsession with plastering this label on articles? I feel like it gives science a bad name, as if scientists aren't capable of being more nuanced. I showed in my earlier post regarding Google News archives that the word is not at all common, and was rarely used to describe the movie. Sorry, for this digression. TimidGuy (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced that some other wording couldn't be devised, and I will think about the matter. --Philosophus T 06:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, gosh, thanks for thinking about it -- and for not being annoyed by my having come here to vent. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Configuration integral (statistical mechanics)
Hello Philosophus. You're the guy who made this article into a redirect back in December. Have you seen today's edits on the article by User:Vql? It looks like our previous advice is not being taken. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PROD on Obie Fernandez
Hi, The PROD you placed on the above article has been removed by an IP reducing it to a one-liner, implicitely contesting it. I took the liberty to source and expand the stub a bit, hope I have addressed the core concerns you expressed in your PROD (WP:V, WP:N and a possible COI). Cheers, MLauba (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United Nation of Islam
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is United Nation of Islam. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/United Nation of Islam. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation's stance on net neutrality
I'm interested in the claim you made here, that the Wikimedia Foundation is against net neutrality. Could you get me a source for this? I didn't find anything about net neutrality or the open web in the 2015-2016 annual report, and this blog post seems to contradict you. Thanks -- Sharradan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)