User talk:Michael Johnson

Klammbachwaldbahn (continued from Archive1)

I don't know if you've read WP:NOTE, or in particular WP:GNG and the Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines in WP:NOTE, but it doesn't seem likely that this 6km railroad has received "significant coverage". Of course, that's not he only criterion, but the notability guidelines themselves suggest that merging is a way to increase notability above the (fuzzy) threshold. Also see WP:NOTDIR. I'll drop the topic, but suggest you reconsider the aesthetics of short, not very informative articles that are unlikely to be meaningfully expanded, versus articles that group a number of closely related topics that together are interesting. Bongomatic (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson

You're not the guy that sang "Give Me Wings", are you? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regions etc

good to see you are still around - we have a new steam engine enthusiast here at the wa project and i can hardly keep up - cheers Satu Suro 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gawd could i let loose on the top note here - but not today :) Satu Suro 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Socialism

You really would think that Prussian 725 would have more pressing matters to deal with than to come to my talk page, he's confused enough as it is! :) Jack forbes (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

for the copyed. (You missed the 'Portugalas' though. I spotted it too late, but didn't bother to change it.) Peridon (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ego censoring facts

Didn't your talk page have many comments, not just mines, now Gone? Whoa. Ok Long story short I confronted some illogical unproven aspects of Darwin's theory for NON Religious reasons, but much of that was not allowed for no good reasons. I ended my attempts at reason with a few questions against Darwin's theory and knew better to read your reply because it would be more of the same bad stuff. By mistake I read it today so;

I KNOW what the textbooks say (Circular reasoning/Appeal to popular opinion) but my questions were to CONFRONT people like you. I'm not the uneducated one, I write books on these types of issues. Pretending my CONFRONTING lies are "Rants" or what ever might make your ego feel better but we both know that's all you can do. And regarding your strawman I DO believe in evolution but not parts of Darwin's theory or abiogenesis. Delete all the comments, SAY it's true, it won't make it so without PROOF or logic.

The evidence shows we did NOT evolve from cells that came from matter, we can NOT prove ALL species that were around at ALL times/places, we CAN regulate over population and maintain needed resources, etc. GENETIC changes are not PROVEN to be random. The rest of the theory is true. Leave me alone now. If your open minded (IF) see my vid on this matter (Youtube.com/playitalready) WITH THE LINKS that opened my eyes. You can comment there where you can't abuse your power so easily. ByeSfvace (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my talk page, I'll do what I like with it. Good luck with your hypotheses, unfortunately I don't find them very convincing. And no I'm not interested in a debate. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a vandal, apparently

Khamosh has undone your revision to the Anthony Flew article, accusing you and Huon of "vandalism". (Please note that there is nothing new in him throwing around accusations of bad faith, as he does it all the time to me and Jeff5102.)

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Michael, Please go to the Flew's talk page and read my old comments there. I can not waste my time writing the same comments over and over again for each one of you. I'll not agree to the new intro. (that is clearly biased and intentionally manipulated) as long as my old comments are not answered. Regards, khamosh

Michael, please be careful of WP:3RR? You're at 3 reverts on the Antony Flew article. --El on ka 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Flew poll

Hi, I've started a poll at Talk:Antony_Flew#Fully protected for three days. Please would you post on which version of the introduction you prefer.

Thanks,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton delisting

See Talk:Bill Clinton#Why still listed as GA?. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New tas loco arts

As there is complete silence from tas eds at the mo please help with project tags on newarts thanks - cheers and happy new year Satu Suro 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Anthony Flew poll

Hi,

I have started another poll on the Anthony Flew article, at Talk:Antony Flew#Poll on inclusion versus removal of Flew's criticism of Richard Dawkins.

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Random question

Hi Michael. I found your page in the "what links here" for my user page, and remembered this incident, User:Michael_Johnson#For my own records:. Just wondering, did anything else ever come of it? Thanks, and feel free to ignore this if you would rather not answer.--Jac16888 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins

His childhood religion is relevant, because the reader researching about Dawkins can then easily see what tradition he comes from in his background. The background is part of any biography and useful for getting the full picture. Please can you reinstate if u agree? Bletchley (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

NO. Just because a few editors have wandered in and support you POV you don't get to wrap it up. And please don't edit my talk page contributions. Let's summerise it here - we are told that this field is important and the examples of Einstein and Dawkins are referred to - yet in the Einstein box the issue is regarded as so complex the field refers to the article, the Dawkins box repeats the same infomation twice, the Darwin box gives three mutually exclusive classifications and leaves the reader confused, and so it goes on. And some editors want it because they can't find the contents box. The religion field is pointless, often carries inaccurate infomation, is subject to oversimplifcation, and a magnet for edit wars. Lets get rid of it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize my responses here, as the infobox talk page is getting too cluttered. Taking your points one by one:

a) Einstein: sure the box refers the reader to the article. There's only 2-3 infoboxes that do that out of >300 of them. That is a very sensible way of dealing with an outlier.

b) Dawkins: that is upto local editors to decide. At present it has no religion field, so I think that should make you happy. WP says that editors can locally decide on any infobox fields on an article by article basis. That is why an argument to throw out a whole infobox field based on one outlier, when it works for 99% of the time, is invalid.

c) Inaccuracy: Not so. We encourage referencing. Local editors will delete wrong entries.

d) Edit war magnet: the whole of wikipedia is a big magnet :-) That is how consensus is hammered out. Bringing out open discussion is always a good thing.

e) "Pointless:" We have explained many times what the point is. Please refer to the infobox talk page for the points.

f) Oversimplification: That is the nature of all infoboxes. They are summaries and by definition simplified "headlines." It is understood that the reader reads the article for amplification. A similar example is "nationality". In most cases it is clear. But in 1% of cases some scientists have anomalous nationality status...the infobox piques the interest and the reader goes to the main article for expansion. Bletchley (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scientist friend in Austria, not notable so no article. She does not believe in God, but she does not really ever talk about her beliefs, nor does she write about them. That side of her life is fairly unimportant to her. In Austria, if you were registered as Catholic by your parents, a percentage of your income is deducted by the Government and given to the Catholic church. You can nominate to stop this if you please, but she does not. Why? She comes from a conservative family and lives in a conservative area. It is easier for her to go with the flow, and she does not care enough about the issues to want the grief that she would receive from stopping it. If we were to write about her, the only reliable sources we have would indicate she is a Catholic, but this would be totally misleading.

This applies to many scientists. In the era of state religions it would have been dangerous if not fatal to express a religious view not in line with the state. In the 50's, in America, when atheism was next to communism, being an atheist could have been fatal to a career. And less you think I am being one sided we have no idea how many Soviet era Russian scientists whom reliable sources label as atheists were secretly theists. My feeling is that most scientists just want to get on with their work, with as little outside grief as possible. If that means going to church once a week, so be it.

So I think that unless a scientist has written about their own beliefs, or perhaps a reliable source has discussed them in some detail, we should not discuss them, other to say perhaps that so and so was brought up in the xyz church, etc. But to put this in the info box, as a hard and fast fact, just like date of birth or nationality, is wrong. We just cannot be sure. And where we do have them discussing their religious views, as per for instance Einstein, we find they are too complex to be labled like that anyway. So what is the point? --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal, I agree with you that religion should only go in the infobox field if there is a source where the scientist has self-identified him/herself, eg. Michael Faraday, or where it is amply self-evident, eg. Gregor Mendel where he was a monk, or Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who is probably the most famous Jesuit. For scientists, such as your Austrian friend, where there is no source where she has expliciticly bought it up and that religion is nominal, I agree it should be left blank. And I agree I was therefore wrong to put a religion in Enrico Fermi, when he was only a nominal Catholic. I believe such guidelines can be clearly written on the infobox page without, need to delete the whole field. Did you want to have a crack at drafting something up? (In the odd few cases, like Albert Einstein, where there is a large section on religion in his biography and no suitable single "label" exists, it is acceptable to just put "see article" in the religion field. This has been there nearly a year in the Einstein article and has survived 100s of pretty vicious local editors there...so you don't want to delete that or you will start a huge war against their local consensus :-) Better leave sleeping dogs lie, and not fix something that ain't broke. Bletchley (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as Theory and Fact

Don't revert soured, valid edits. 98.210.190.11 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what can you POSSIBLY have against my edit to Human Evolution that you felt necessary to revert? 98.210.190.11 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]