User talk:Second Quantization

Mea Culpa
I wanted to offer you an honest apology for my behavior on the Anita Sarkeesian talk page. While I stand by my general stance, I was far snarkier than necessary (I blame it on editing while traveling, but that's no excuse). I confess I am kind of amazed there isn't more reliable critical reaction (positive or negative) to Ms. Sarkeesian and her project. I tend to think it's because the field has been so completely occupied by proxy battles that there's no room left for anything else, but that's for another day. I obviously believe your proposed text was unhelpful, but I wanted you to know that when and if you (or I, for that matter) find a reliable reaction--positive or negative--which adds to the article, I will absolutely support its inclusion. Thanks, and again, sorry for the snark. Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Second Quantization (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Reliability
Is the Secondary Sources Reliability WikiProject still active? I remember you as being one of the founding members along with the (it appears also-retired) History2007 three years ago when I retired from WP for a few years. I don't really remember anyone else, nor am familiar with the new features of WP, so, apologies for bringing you out of retirement to ask. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 20:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Religious explanations of gravity listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Religious explanations of gravity. Since you had some involvement with the Religious explanations of gravity redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)