No, I wouldn't consider myself a philosopher. I can see that based on a read through of the forum there is different interpretations of what a philosopher is and what you need to do to be one. For me, I am more of the understanding that a philosopher is someone who is educated in logic, reason, the thoughts and processes of those that came beforehand, etc. I suppose my distinction is that just by philosophising somewhat, this doesn't make you a philosopher in the same way that adding a few numbers together doesn't make you a mathematician. I think perhaps my distinction lies in the fact that I am studying philosophy in an academic environment. That said, I have probably learned more than twice as much about the subject through my own self-made study. I suppose that while I think that philosophy is a discipline, it doesn't require university education to be a philosopher.
Now, with that idea about philosophy why don't I give myself the title? Simply put, I consider myself a student of philosophy. I don't feel I have the philosophical knowhow to be able to think or write anything of great substance. I don't think I am particularly bright, but I am working to actually obtain my, admittedly poor defined, philosophical goals. For me, I take inspiration from Socrates' wisdom through ignorance attitude. Albeit, I don't think that I have quite the same outlook as Socrates does on the subject. I am less about questioning of others (although I do this) and more about listening to the authority of philosophical authorities with an open mind and allowing myself to try and breakdown their ideas logically.
So to summarise, as I said earlier, I consider myself a student of philosophy.
Apologies if this message constitutes a rambling mess, I am writing this in a rush on my lunch break at work.