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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)