User talk:Michael Johnson

/Archive 1

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)

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)

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 SatuSuro 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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,

&mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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. --Elonka 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Flew poll
Hi, I've started a poll at Talk:Antony_Flew. Please would you post on which version of the introduction you prefer.

Thanks,

&mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton delisting
See Talk:Bill Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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 SatuSuro 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New Anthony Flew poll
Hi,

I have started another poll on the Anthony Flew article, at Talk:Antony Flew.

Regards,

&mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Random question
Hi Michael. I found your page in the "what links here" for my user page, and remembered this incident, User:Michael_Johnson. 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

Evolution as Theory and Fact
Don't revert soured, valid edits. 98.210.190.11 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Talk:Intelligent design
Just out of interest, could you elaborate on which arguments you find most persuasive? I'm struggling to see many relevant arguments at all, let alone persuasive ones. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Dean
Hey, a reference which you gave for the article Ivan Dean http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21582109-921,000.html redirects straight to http://www.themercury.com.au/ are you able to find a better source? Stony ¿ 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sansonic
PLS do not delete my whole thing on Starbucks Pakistan. You are welcome to adjust 1/2 sentences etc, but in the interests of all parties do not delete the whole thing. I now have improved sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansonic (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/History of the Yarra River
You say the page is almost entirely duplication. What part of it did you find to be unique? =- Mgm|(talk) 12:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion (AfD) process
I am new to the AfD process, and this is my first one to initiate: Articles for deletion/Human equivalent. You made an interesting comment there. Perhaps you are right, the dispute may have started elsewhere, but I started from Team Strawberry and human power articles, so when I first saw this article, I thought that the content was of doubtful authority.

Also, the reference to the garden book was unlikely to be relevant to the article, but without the book itself I couldn't be sure. I have left the book reference there while the AfD process plays out. If Human equivalent is indeed a scientific term worthy of being defined in a separate article, then the reference to the garden book can be deleted, both there and elsewhere if it is irrelevant to the article where it is cited.

Please educate me about the process for this AfD, but also about irrelevant book references, which may be SPAM. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What worries me in this AFD is the lack of assumption of good faith. We have an article originated by an established user, who has used as a source a book that is clearly a reliable source. Yet it is nominated on the assumption that it is somehow a form of spam, without the nominator or others voting for deletion even being able to review the source. A much better option would have been to tag the article asking for further sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hat/Hab
You need to close hat with hab to show the software where to close the tag. It looks fine now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:A Partial Print
Talk:A Partial Print

I have added an opinion on this page with reference to the CSD tag. Please can you take a quick look and decide where you want to go with the CSD tag. Thanks Trevor Marron (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of Melbourne
I don't know why you're against showing both a general transcription and an Australian transcription?

In articles containing both it is standard to show the general first and the local second. – Marco79 05:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My Steve
Please feel free to discuss your concerns on the talk page instead of just tagging. If more people pulled the finger out and helped to improve articles instead of just tagging it would be alot easier to fix. ZooPro (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages of narrow gauge
Talk:Narrow gauge railway and loading gauge RockyMtnGuy is quit, if not absolutely, right. However no one may have made formal research or done the calculations. But it stands to reason that if the centre of gravity is too high in relation to the rail gauge the equipment will keel over, guaranteed. Peter Horn User talk 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Arms
I've just added my response to the comments on the Charles Darwin talk page about his arms. Not sure if it notifies the other contributors, but I would appreciate some feedback. They were not a small amount of work and I'd hate to see it wasted. Cheers! A1 Aardvark (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Armenians in the Republic of Macedonia
Why do you want to delete this page.--Hovik95 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tropic World
(Move to Talk:Tropic World) --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Belugaboy535136
this will interest you.  Zoo Pro  23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Michael Johnson! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Daniel Goossens -

March 2010
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing [mailto:oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org this address]. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Zoo Pro  11:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? ZooPro claimed he was the director of a Zoo. User:Michael Johnson asked him which Zoo, and so ZooPro posts this message saying that Michael will be blocked if he doesn't arrange oversighting of "the personal information [he] posted". Come on - get real and stop wasting people's time, ZooPro. --Merbabu (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are threatening me with a block? What a laugh. Get a life, preferably not in the fantasy world you apparently are currently in. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Inline citation(s)
Re Talk:Matadi–Kinshasa Railway and Matadi–Kinshasa Railway, etc, I see that you haven't added the inline citation yet. Peter Horn User talk 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article Rail transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo gives 765 mm as the railgauge . Peter Horn User talk 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do - have the source, and found the reason for the confusion. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Done. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the note, it helps a lot.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Snailbeach
I see you have added the SDR to the two feet six inch railway category, which seems odd as its gauge was a couple of inches less ? RGCorris (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stalking me again ?
Seems that you are stalking me again Michael, I would encourage you not to. Zoo Pro  02:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Track gauge cats
Hi. I see you are reverting track gauge categories. The proposal to move narrow gauge railways to their correct metric categories was discussed at WikiProject Trains and received support and no objections. The current system is confusing and inaccurate with e.g. both 750 mm and 760 mm lines being described as Two foot six inches, which they are clearly not. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied on the talk page of the 2'6" gauge category. The issue was raised at WP level, and has not met with any opposition there. Metric rail gauge categories are fine for countries where the metric system was in use. For those countries where the Imperial system was in use, railways should be categorised by Imperial gauge categories, unless a clearly metric gauge railway was built in an Imperial country (e.g. there was a metre gauge industrial railway in Northamptonshire, UK). Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made further comments at TWP. The proposal was made, and notice was also given that it was intended to be proceeded with. All that is needed is clarification at the various Imperial gauge categories similar to that I made at the 2' 6" gauge category. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael E. Zimmerman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael E. Zimmerman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Michael E. Zimmerman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)