User talk:Michael Johnson/Archive 1

Pearcedale and deaf children

 * Wow! I hadn't known that Pearcedale was a place where deaf people were taught particularly well.
 * Could you explain this a bit more, and go into detail?
 * Thank you for adding to the article, it sounds interesting!
 * --Bronwyn Gannan 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Sorry I don't have any further infomation - you could try contacting the school. --Michael Johnson 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

why did you revert my edits just now?
??? Jerry Jones 01:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Far right
Why did you revert my edits for far right? Who gets to say what is far right or not? Please do not change it back its clear POV violation.

Jerry Jones 03:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: far right
I dont remove far right from every single bio as you can see most of my edits I actually leave the term "far right" in the body of the article just as long as it is used correctly and not stated as a POV. I only remove the term far right when its used as a fact. Stating "This group is far right" is an opinion which can be debated. I never remove the term "far right" when its used as a explaned viewpoint such as:

EXAMPLE: This neo nazi group is described as far right by the ACLU, SPLC, etc.

I will only remove it when it says:

EXAMPLE: The ALPC is a far right neo nazi group.

That is stating an opinion as a fact. Readers have to make up their own minds. You should show them they are a far right group and let the information speak for itself dont tell them. People do not come to wikipedia to get a repeat of CNN.

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 05:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU has nothing to do with it. I just posted it as an example on how the articles need to be written to conform to wiki NPOV policy. I have experience with politics but that is not the issue anyone who follows wiki NPOV policy knews you cant state opinions as facts. I do not remove the term "far right" when its used correctly and doesnt break wikis NPOV policy.

Jerry Jones 05:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool and Manchester Railway
Hi Michael. Thanks for merging the two articles: I'd been putting off doing it for ages! --RFBailey 15:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ASG
Just saw the change - I do have unreferenced info on the WAGR Msa series built at the Midland Workshops - do you think its worth a separate article of unsubstantiated info about the local species? I had tried to start an art, at Msa garratt, but am open to suggestions... SatuSuro 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your info, very very useful - anecdotally the msa boilers were poorly constructed and most of the wagr msa's had to be written off before their user date. Will probably follow up on this again soon. SatuSuro 12:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Safeworking
I notice that you have put some work into the Safeworking article. It currently doesn't meet Wikipedia Guidelines and someone has proposed to delete it. Do you have the time and inclination to upgrade the article to meet WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V and generally make the article refer to what other authoratitive sources have said about the subject? Stephen B Streater 09:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississauga and the Region of Peel controversy
Please provide a reason for your vote on this page (someone--likely WikiWoo--is objecting to your reasonless vote). "per nom" is usually enough. Oz Lawyer  13:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
Amnesia, coming off a few issues - and I leave messages like I do! Sorry about my missing the point of the main Garratt article, and fogetting that I had started the ASG one (!) Things seem a bit cloudy about early contribs at the moment. Ho hum! SatuSuro 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note - I missed the class of the 442, and as for the ASG article - I know I can find further material specifically about the ASG issue here in wa - and later this year I will be able to get to retrieve my negatives of ASGs on death row in Midland in the early 1960's!!!! Best Wishes SatuSuro 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No humour????
Re orangutans, no place for humour, hey? It was fairly harmless and in response to a reasonably silly comment. It wasn't much worse than the other responses. oh well - don't worry, I won't repost it as it only needs one editor not sharing a sense of humour to remove it. But I guess we all see things differently and you seem like a good editor. regards --Merbabu 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

reverting Talk:Narrow gauge lines of the Victorian Railways
i was leaving a comment in the context of your conversation, and then left my thoughts on wat to do with siding articles. you may also wish to read this 3 revert rule --Dan027 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * i wasnt threatening you, i just noticed u have a fairly low edit count and wasnt sure how familuler you were with wikipedia policy. in future it might be adviseable to make a request if your going to move comments another use has made, if i have come across as threatening or abit short i apologise--Dan027 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD
You were right the first time - it just needed a header on the discussion page to stop it blending into the previous discussion in the log. Cheers, Yomangani talk 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD with the same problem
When you create an AfD discussion page you need to add ===PAGE TITLE=== to the top of that page (replacing PAGE TITLE with the title of the page you are proposing for deletion). I fixed the nomination for When Corruption was King, so it is now in the log for today. Yomangani talk 09:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

When editing, please supply a summary
It helps me because I tend to treat all edits without summaries as vandalizam or spam until I can check the changes made. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock over at Australia
Is User:124.189.53.223 a sock of User:Jtorey? What's the bet that after a few more reverts, there will be another user or very similar anon IP? --Merbabu 12:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gauges
Is there a current moves to identify gauges in rail arts? I noticed youve put in some for west coast arts in feet and inch - while someone was doing all the two footers then also put the metric as well! SatuSuro 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not complaining - its great that the west coast tas rail arts get any extra editors checking them out - that way they become better, just noticed the two footer stuff got the two foot first, and then there seemed to be the adding of metrics as well - I'm such a 3' 6" person being west oz born and bred - and I dont even remember what that'd be in metrics - so if anyone puts it in - the more bits of info the betters - anyways keep up the good work. I have just obtained a copy of  the new 'A history of wagr passenger carriages' by may and gray - which has a huge amount of significant wagr dates - so as long as I dont get distracted...  SatuSuro 12:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

your reversion
No, it's not OK to revert it without discussion on the talk page. I'm re-verting it now, and you can raise it through the proper channels. Tony 12:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's you who have difficulty with the concept. One of the public companies governs the succession (by analogy, appointment) of this "chair in common", not both companies. Tony 13:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing the Evolution page
Do you mind? That page is insisting that Evolution is fact and not theory. I am simply adding facts with reliable book resources that Evolution may not be true. You seem very prejudiced about this, and I want to know why. I said nothing rude and said "may" and "believe" and said nothing more than is fact that creationists have proved facts, too, and are not crazy religious coots who wish to believe in a higher being. I feel quite offended that you are not allowing the truth to be known that evolution is very much a biased theory and that creation is also very accredited with facts. ''Yes I do mind. Your edits are adding POV to a featured article. You obviously don't understand what scientific theory is. If you want to make these type of changes to the article, I suggest you discuss it on the talk page. --Michael Johnson 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)''

Editing the Evolution page
The entire topic is POV. Evolution and Creation are on opposite sides of the board, but both have validations. The Evolution page acts as though it is an undoubtable fact, and that Creation is a proved hoax. That is considered deception. That can be considered a factual error, and the Help Page says I can correct the error myself. That was all I was doing.

''Unfortunately that is your POV, which is not supported by the scientific community, nor by most editors on Wikipedia. You should read some of the past debates on the talk page. You will find your edits are not regarded as "corrections" to the article, but are introducing unsubstantiated POV. You would have to support your edits with refereed scientific papers to get them accepted. --Michael Johnson 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)''

Reversion
I reverted to a vandalized version, eh? Grr. I guess that's one of the cons of using popups. Thanks for your astuteness. -- Grace notes T  &#167; 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Garratt
Thanks, Michael. Yes, it is apparently in 'A Hunslet Hundred' by Tom Rolt and quoting Edgar Alcock re his BP days:

"....When we in the Gorton works were in difficulties over the spherical pipe joint in these first Garratt locomotives we tried one thing after another without being able to ensure anything like complete steam tightness. Then I turned up my engineering index and found that something about spherical steam joints had been described years before in connection with one of the locomotives built for the Festiniog Railway in North Wales. I looked up the description and studied it. Then two of us went down to the railway to see the Festiniog locomotives actually at work, and when we came back we were able to build up a joint which was successful and formed the basis of all the future improvements which have been made until the present day...."

Its on the web at:

Unfortunately I am not able to check it out at the present.

Regards, NoelWalley 13:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairlie
Sorry, should have posted originally here not the fairlie talk - do you have any info on the 1870's wa fairlie? SatuSuro 05:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well between user:Gnangarra and self I am sure we will eventually find something - usually its just the one photo and thats it, but you never know SatuSuro 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't write random stuff on my user page you are creeping me out
--202.164.195.56 13:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Was alchemy supported by the educated and rich?
Was alchemy supported by the educated and rich? I don't think you are making a strong point in regards to creationism. ken 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Please refrain from sending me messages.
I think you are willfully ignoring the obvious. Alchemy was supported by the educated and wealthy. You can try to ignore this and twist things but please keep me out of it. I wish no more messages from you. ken 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Thank you too!
Thanks for the kind comment - and keep up the good work on Richard Dawkins etc. I am in the north of England, and it's cold and wet, so there are no cockatoos here - but plenty of fieldfares just arrived from Scandinavia. My son (19) is in Sydney for a month, and strangely enough he just sent me an email referring to parrots too. He called them parrots, anyway - he is not a birder - So what would they be, in a Sydney park? Snalwibma 08:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution
Hi! I saw your edit on the talk page of Evolution, and, as it so happens I'm working on one of the main spin-offs of Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, which has a highly inadequate section on the very point - affect of creationists on US education - that you feel strongly about, I was wondering if you'd care to help out? I'm afraid the whole thing needs work: it seems to have been written with a little too much attempts to be "balanced", and you know what that does. I'm ruthlessly removing that undue weight in favour of facts. Anyway, cheers! Adam Cuerden talk 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn.S Shouldn't write these things when tired. Meant that for Orangemartin, though I would like your help if you're willing. Adam Cuerden talk 09:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan and Evolution
Regarding that sounds fascinating and I'm surprised I hadn't heard about this before. (It is especially surprising since some elements of the Taliban seemed ok with evolution and I would naively had thought that most of Pakistan would be more moderate). Do you have somewhere where I can read up on this? (preferably a reliable source so we can maybe add it to some of the relevant articles here) JoshuaZ 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!
I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian Standard Garratt. ASG sub article in Garratts
Michael, Thanks for you suggestion re re-locating my stuff to the ASG page. I didn't realise there was a section on 'our' garratts. Its ok if you wish to move it to the ASG article with link from the Garratt page. No sweat.

One thing I did notice and think is incorrect in the Garratt article is the implication/suggestion, plus a citation that the Garratt at Willimstown is an influenced by Garratt. The ASG in a totally different design to the UK originated garratts. Oberg is clear its an ex-ASG, the AHRS's "Railway Museum : North Williamstown", 1973 revision, have a pic and citations on pp.18 &19 as an AGS. You may like to adjust the entry.

Surprised that there is a bit of fear of an Aussie-centric flavour to the articles - as this country's diversity in rail guages and classes and checkered history means Australia was/is an important rail history. P.S. I'm also a Victorian. Tonyob 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Gawd what a mess now - I do hope it gets fixed up!!!SatuSuro 07:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies - talk items that should be on other pages and genral mayhem.. Will try and find the Msa stub with the possibility of canning it in favour of - and possibly work with an idea of the west oz garrats as a subsidiary article to the main - if I can access the info to give such an article idea enough flesh... I mean accidents, strikes, royal commisions, and the m, ms and msa - it might be good if I can track down the obscure refs I know exist... SatuSuro 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Orangutan
Hi Michael. I do hope it wasn't your intent to wipe out the entire article with this edit. In any event, I rolled it back.--cj | talk 22:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I never seriously thought it was ;-). I was just letting you know why I reverted. Happy editing, --cj | talk 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And there I was last night watching the reverts and trying to alert one of them them the issues! went to bed and woke up to find that, cripes. SatuSuro 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me asking - was it the popular culture section -? Thats what the argument on the talk page was all about SatuSuro 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your doing that - as the argument last night was really frustrating to watch. SatuSuro 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And merbabu got literally bashed by the protagonist - anyways there are now at least four admins with that on their watch list now -that might help... SatuSuro 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good one! Have a good christmas! SatuSuro 00:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Michael, nice work with Orangutans in Popular Culture. FWIW, I didn't edit because I had given 3RR warnings regarding the article and was trying to stay neutral in case I needed to block someone, but agreed completely with removing the pop culture list from the main article. What you and Satu have done looks like a fantastic compromise. Here's hoping someone else thinks so, too. :) By the way, I live down on the peninsula and I was very interested in your userpage and website. I hope you have a very happy Christmas and new year, Sarah Ewart 14:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've got a live one.
Hi Micheal. You've remarkable patience. Of course, you needn't feel obliged to answer every line that a troll throws out. All that's really important is to prevent damage to the article. I just added another cite. If he starts edit warring on The Origin of Species, stop by my talk page and I'll help you avoid breaking 3RR yourself in the process. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. And if he does sneak by, it'll be for a day or two tops before he's reverted by someone; very little in the scheme of things. Couple of other links on the "on religious grounds" bit:, , although those are blogs so can't be cited directly, I found them pretty interesting as leads. Later, &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking Yada Yada on Evolution talk page
With respect, how did blanking Yada Yada on the Evolution talk page help? While the complaint is no doubt malicious, and many of the comments less than polite, you have effectively made the case for the complainant. I invite you to revert. --Michael Johnson 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Guinnog 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've restored the section; will you help me though in trying to ensure it remains focussed on trying to improve the article? --Guinnog 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

a user pic
If you wanted to, you could release this photo under the GDFL and use it on your user page. Jus' sayin' :) - CobaltBlueTony 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right.
Thanks for the advice. Xiner (talk, email) 00:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

SA Garratts
Do you get the australian railway history mag? the latest has some good stuff on the sa garratts SatuSuro 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some good cross refs for asg and all! SatuSuro 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

>>BTW I almost blew a boiler last night - popular culture in Monolith - aargh - I am just waiting for it ASG- in Popular culture  :))  SatuSuro 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - as I am in the middle of about two or three potentially problematic issues - I was hanging back from being bold - will follow up likewise in future SatuSuro 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are short of a laugh this am - my interaction with a newbie and wombat....SatuSuro 00:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User: Wonkydonkey (Talk | Block log | Logs)
 * 23:13, 8 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:SatuSuro  (my mate hesperian blanked the talk item while I was replying....sigh)
 * 2:46, 8 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wombat
 * cheers SatuSuro 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is when I was doing my honours degree in asian studies - I was exposed to the stream of thought that could actually provide a very serious academic appraisal of the rubbish that these eds put up - the whole post modernist appraisal of the place of animals in popular culture is actually tied in to at least 7 ot 8 serious tomes in the state - and the po-mo academics really do have a good argument - but the eds who pick up on this stuff look like they wouldnt know what a book looks like - if I go crazy enough later this year I'll have to dress up one of the animals in popular culture (bleeuuch...) articles just to nail the issue...:) SatuSuro 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What does disputed mean to you?
Because when 20+ people call the neutrality of an article into question, call me crazy, but I'd say a dispute exists. Why don't you ask the koala bears and the kangaroos and see what they say. JQLibet 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussions and the policies. Thanks for not answering my question. So I'll ask it again. How many people need to post on the discussion page that they disagree with the neutrality of an article for you to admit a dispute exists? Sorry to hear that the koala bears got wiped out. I'll miss the little buggers. I bet it's global warming's fault. JQLibet 03:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly all of these people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptics) have no status in your mind. They might argue a dispute exists as to the neutrality of the global warming article. You asked for scientific sources, and that page lists plenty. You'll also notice I already linked this page among others in my discussion on the global warming page. Thanks for paying attention. And I did not know that koalas weren't bears, but I fully and freely admit that I was wrong on that point (see how easy it is?). JQLibet 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, the fact that a variety of people have accused you of bias and of introducing POV with your edits should suggest to you, as it would any rational person, that you might indeed be a biased introducer of POV. Just a thought. CleanHarry29201 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image on your userpage
I'm not sure if you've realised, but the image on your userpage does not have a copyright tag, and hence, it may be deleted unless you add one. Just letting you know. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest Light Railways
February 2007 - Has an art on K1 - best I have seen yet SatuSuro 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Talk:California Gold Rush about Australian connections
On a featured article, changes like this should not be done until approved by consensus on the talkpage. Ronbo76 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since yesterday afternoon. You can see the feature article tag (surrounded by brackets) at the top of the article when you begin an edit. It is on the Wikipedia Main Page right now and due to remain up for most of today. Ronbo76 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk:California Gold Rush Please see that paragraph as it references what I am trying to pass on to you. Thanks, Ronbo76 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because that is contra Wikipedia principles. But, if you read the paragraph I cited, you will see the thoughts of user:SandyGeorgia who placed her comments there. Ronbo76 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be bold, and look up them up yourself. Respectfully, Ronbo76 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

South African Garratts preserved
G'day Michael Yes, I made the distinction of South Africa's preserved and operational garratts from the rest of the continent. In SA there is at least one main line 3'6" tourist garratt and in P'maritzburg (Natal)there is a 2'6" tourist 'toy' garrat operating. Unsure if the numerous industrial railways still have working garratts - though I saw some a few years back. Also saw a preserved garratt in George. I note(above)you have something going around the Californian goldfields - I inserted a small piece on Australian historical connections and links into that article, regarding Edward Hargraves and the follow-on discoveries in Australia by the ex '49er returning to OZ. The working group on that article want to hold off on my stuff for a few days and then discuss and determine if they want to proceed, modify or cull. Regards Tonyob 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael The changes are ok; however let me do a final verification before putting it on the article page. Tonyob 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ned Kelly POV
Hi, would you care to explain how my edit to Ned Kelly was "POV" that required reversion? Here are the three points I added (and that you removed): I'm particularly curious about what was biased or otherwise non-neutral about the third statement. Thanks. Stevage 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He was one of the most important figures of 19th century Australia
 * ...and has been immortalised in numerous films and songs.
 * [he was] hanged in Melbourne at the Old Melbourne Gaol.

South African Garratts and Ned Kelly
Michael

Back again after getting a verification on at least two garratts in South Africa. Also saw a bit on Ned Kelly (above) and having an interest in this subject offered a possible citable solution at Stevage's talk page. Kelly is important in any discussion of nineteenth century Victoria and the 'Jerilderie Letter' co-written by Kelly and Joe Byrne stands as one of the most important pieces of literature in Australian history. Like him or not it is an incredible 8,000 words. See Alex McDermott (ed.) "The Jerilderie Letter: Ned Kelly", (2001). Regards Tonyob 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

hi
Thanks for the support. I think Creation-evolution_controversy is a doozy of an article to get straight.Trishm 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and Common Descent
While I disagree with your view that section doesn't belong in common descent, it appears people who vote on these things have a bitter distaste for creationism and want to keep it out of other articles that aren't strictly about creationism. So it seems like the inevitable will happen, and when it does, I would like to drop this section into the creationism article. Since you are an editor of the page, I would like to ask you where it should be place in the article? Pbarnes 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for working so hard to remove vandalism and POV edits! --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Can you please explain why you have reverted my very reasonable and NPOV edits to the Natural selection article? thanks Peter morrell 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, you said: Reverts Your edit to Natural Selection was POV and full of weasel words in contradiction of scientific concensus. Please see the articles talk page where your edit has been fully discussed. --Michael Johnson 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC) OK here are the words...where exactly are the weasels?

Natural selection is a theory of how a species might change through time. According to this theory, selection is the process by which favourable traits that are heritable might spread throughout a reproductive population, because those individual organisms possessing + specific survival-enhancing traits would be more likely to survive and reproduce than those lacking such survival-enhancing traits. If these traits have a genetic basis, then the genotypes associated with the favoured traits would be expected to increase in frequency in the next generation and so the population in question would be likely to possess these traits with increasing frequency. Given sufficient time, this process could potentially give rise to adaptive radiation in a changing environment and perhaps even speciation. - Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species, by analogy with artificial selection, by which a farmer selects his breeding stock. + Natural selection has, somewhat unquestioningly, become one of the cornerstones of modern biology. However, while the evidence that some form of evolution has occurred is very strong, the specific evidence for natural selection is rather thin. Being the only credible theory in circulation, however, it tends to enjoy passionate belief among most biologists as a true process, yet it still lacks the elusive and concrete proof that it is a confirmed and repeatably observed mechanism in the real world. Until such concrete proof is forthcoming, it seems doomed to remain merely an unproven theory and hence a source of conflict and debate within the sciences."

I can see no weaseles here...in fact it is extremely cautious and elegant phraseology as compared to the purple and misleading prose of the original. Can you specify exactly which words you find so offensive and unscientific? thank you Peter morrell 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * your reply is pathetic you can't even spell...what you really mean is nobody will change this article until you and your mafia say so. I have clearly explained on the talk page why NS is not a process, is not empirical and is merely an interpretation, a concept, a theory, which means my amendements were correct. I am not a creationist, never have been and never will be, so please stop making that slur. The so-called evidence you and your folks have summoned is hopeless and totally insufficient; all you have done is demonstrate the truth of my amendment to the article. It is pure gangsterism for a bunch of dudes to defend a dogma in the light of intelligent (and very mild) criticism. In many other respects this article is incomprehensible to the average person and is riddled with errors and undefined terms that make it as clear as mud. Peter morrell 08:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "weaseles?!" Pete.Hurd 00:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks, Michael, for your unexpectedly courteous reply and sorry about the word pathetic it was rather strong. I don't mind spelling or grammatical errors. I still teach 50% of my time; I only retired from full-time teaching. However, I will seek to substantiate my claims regarding the true philosophical meaning of the term natural selection and why it is indeed merely a concept and not an observable 'process.' The article does not contain many references and the section i edited contains none at all so it seems a bit rich to ask for reliable refs to support my contention, but I will try and do that. My sole motivation is to get greater clarity, not to mess up the article in any way or to diminish the importance of NS as a concept in biological thought. The article makes many conceptual blunders in my opinion especially in its very ambiguous use of the terms phenotype and genotype...however, that is another story. It is also way too heavily laden with technical terms so that the sense of what is being said is lost even to a biologist who is not already saturated in modern evolution theory. Technical language is a big barrier against understanding and I am sure the gist of this article could be grasped better, even by a non-biologist, if effort was made to really state things in ordinary terms but accurately. Obviously, I am not going to get any chance to attempt that in the present hostile climate of suspicion against my mild edits. I will go to the talk page in future then as you suggest to make suggestions. Thanks again for your time and response. Peter morrell 07:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries!
Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection
Briefly I have obtained some good quotes now to show that NS is indeed a theory and is referred to repeatedly as a theory, a hypothesis and a conception as well as being, predictably, referred to as a process and a mechanism. I did not say NS is the cornerstone of biology...it was already there in the article, a piece I did not change as it is incontestibly true; just as Marxism dominated sociology for decades, so Darwinism has taken hold of biology and so it would be pointless to argue about that very obvious point. My bone of contention all along, as I think you know, is that NS is not an observable 'thing,' but is indeed a human construct, a concept, an idea, a theory, an interpretation, a way of trying to make sense of deaths within a species or population. Therefore, when the article says NS is a process, that is misleading...it is a partial truth...it is really an alleged process not an observed process but an alleged process or a theory or one way of seeing certain events. I would say this is very obvious. Anyway, I will present my 'evidence' to the NS talk page so I don't expect you to continue this exchange on our user talk pages from now on. thank you Peter morrell 13:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your later reply, Michael. I have a busy day, so not much will get done; I have to type up all I have found, so until that's done, no progress on this issue. I notice in the wiki article called Philosophy of Biology that NS is referred to as a concept! Now there's a thought! cheers Peter morrell 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael, you said: "I can think of three examples of natural selection that has been observed in wild vertebrate populations, for what it is worth." can you please give those examples and explain what you mean by observed? I have an analogy between natural selection and murder...I don't believe all killings are murder and nor that all deaths within populations signify selection; do you follow? thus, NS becomes, like murder, a concept, a mode of interpretation rather than an actual observation. I am sure there are other and better analogies, but I think some of the confusion between saying NS is a process (which clearly many biologists are happy with) and saying it is a concept (which many philosophers prefer) boils down to this type of point. More on this when I get stuff typed up, of course. thanks Peter morrell 06:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I get you, but you said you had 3 specific examples...what were they? and also the idea that "over several generations, changes occur within a population of animals to better adapt them for their enviroment," is not in itself an observation but a human value judgement. What does 'better adapt' actually mean? It is in fact, once again, an interpretation riding piggy-back upon alleged observations. Maybe you can begin to see the point I am driving at? It is just not good enough to claim deductions as observations; there has to be a very clear and strict distinction between the two. Woolly thinking is pretty rife in biology generally and assumptions (even pretty wild assumptions) are often taken as facts, which they plainly are not. I'm sorry if what I say seems like mindless nit-picking, but it is crucial to the whole argument. As I said at the start, NS is not an observation, it is a judgement concerning deaths within populations. It's as much a theory as anything. But thanks again for the chance to banter. Peter morrell 07:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for the three examples, Michael, now you need to say how these examples of change in species are examples illustrating NS. For example, you need to show that the changes are responses to alleged selective pressures and that they are irreversible. can you show that? the problem is, if you can't show that, then they merely serve to illustrate species plasticity and reversible adaptive change, which is not such a big deal. You need to spell out exactly how these three examples conclusively prove NS. thank you Peter morrell 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks I get what you are saying BUT for NS to be real surely the products have to be mutually infertile and new species? what you have described is merely change in a species, I don't see that as a big deal. Showing these changes does not prove evolution by NS. Such minor changes in a species cannot lead to evolution which means a new species is formed mutually infertile with its closest relatives. Has that been observed in these cats and budgies? No, it has not. Therefore what you have described is not NS in the sense Darwin meant it: as the engine of evolution. Unless you still think I have missed soemthing in which case what? Did you understand/agree with my comment about observation and assumption? as in the difference between murder and homicide? thanks Peter morrell 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When you have replied to my own questions and responded to the numerous points I have made, Michael, then we can continue. Why you base your views on evolution on the garbage creationists write I do not know. And about which you worryingly seem to know so much. Did you once switch camps? My views are entirely based on the literature of evolutionists in which, as you would know if you read them, it is 50:50 as per the terms mechanism or process versus concept, hypothesis and theory for what 'natural selection' is. Why do you think this term is so hugely problematical for most philosophers and historians of science as well as many biologists? your simplistic views do not even acknowledge the size of the problem. Now please reply to my points. thanks Peter morrell 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael, I am not pompous enough to believe that I have an exalted intellect! far from it; it is a fairly simple matter. The difference between homicide and murder is one of concept. Murder is a type of homicide, an interpretation of a specific type of killing; just as in my view NS is an evaluation or judgement about certain observations in populations. Deaths in a population are all that we can observe; BUT, according to selection theory these deaths result from specific forces at work in that population such as changes in climatic factors, predation, food supply, etc. As you pointed out with your 3 examples, any population can fluctuate in its composition. However, the theory of NS proposes that the whole of the flora and fauna of this planet in their present form have resulted not only from this random [haphazard] process of NS but that this has also involved irreversible steps at certain key points such as when amphibians became reptiles or when mosses became pteridophytes, etc. Therefore, natural selection (as it is interpreted within evolution biology) involves a kind of progression which is an inescapable aspect of the whole theory of evolution, is it not?

I also have a problem with your desire to isolate the idea of NS from evolution and carve the whole topic very strictly up into discrete separate bits. Darwin did not do that. He saw NS as an integral part of evoltuion and so it is. Indeed, it is meaningless without the fact that it is used as a thoery to try and explain how evolution occurs.

Until you can accept that murder and homicide are conceptually different 'things,' then I don't see how you will understand why many biologists, and virtually all philosophers and historians science, prefer to call NS a concept, hypotheis or theory rather than a process or mechanism. Do you follow? Until we reach that phase in your understanding of this topic, then you will not be in a position to see what I am banging on about! In that sense, maybe we are wasting our time, but in general terms I don't think we are. Indeed, this division of NS into two distinct 'schools of thought,' shall we say, is an important aspect of the topic and that is why people objected to the changes I made to the NS article. They can't see either that homicide and murder are actually very different things, just as an 'observation' and an 'interpretation of an observation' are also very different things. Let me know if you definitely are sick of the discussion, but I do intend to type up my fully referenced account of why 50% of evolutionists seem to prefer concept to process, and present that to the NS talk page. BTW those quotes all come from some of the top classic texts on this subject. So it is not true that I am "out there all alone" on this. cheers Peter morrell 12:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Vehicles and vessels
Some things can fit more than one category :-) Have a look at vehicle &mdash; perhaps you'd like to remove "ships" from the definition there as well? Regards, – Kieran T ('talk ') 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ID
Sorry. I didn't mean my comment to be taken the way you did. I did see the bigger picture...I figured my agreement with what you said was obvious enough that it didn't need to be said - it was that obvious in my head! :) Guettarda 20:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Doom
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orangutans in popular culture - they are all saying merge back to the article! what a clueless bunch! :( SatuSuro 09:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Boy if I had the wikipedia equivalent a 12 bore shot gun, I think I'd know where I'd like to let if off ....SatuSuro 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply
It's not entirely a case of "less articles on Wikipedia". It's more of un-needed branches of articles. As I've stated before (in AFDs and elsewhere): trim the sections in existing articles, instead of just moving it to a new article because it's too big. Imagine if that was the case for everything on Wikipedia: we would have crufty articles such as "list of movies featuring Adam Sandler", "list of titles won by athlete" and so on. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, so it obviously will have lots of information, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise these crufty pop culture articles will just continue to flood Wikipeida. Preventing edit wars is one thing, but useless cruft just to please some editors isn't much of a solution. RobJ1981 04:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Monoliths in popular culture
An editor has nominated Monoliths in popular culture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry.


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Remember that fight we had when I got offended about the red fox being an invasive species? I had just now remembered that while looking back at some of my first edits in my "not-so-great" editing days. I'm sorry about all that stuff I said about humans. I guess I just got a bit offended that people calling me an invasive species. Sorry. A•N•N•A  hi!  02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Estrada de Ferro Oeste de Minas
Hello Michael,

I wondered about that myself. My error came from List of Rail Gauges which I assumed to be correct. The trick is now to track down the original source of that error. Railroad Gauge Width does not mention the EFOM. My 1969/1970 edition of JANE'S only mentions a Viaçao Ferrea Centro-Oeste (VFCO) (Comprising former EFBM, EFG, and RMV) as having both and  gauges. So I'll take your word for it and proceed to correct the list of rail gauges.

Ciao, Peter Horn 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction, correction: Railroad Gauge Width does mention under Brazil. Peter Horn 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Hi Havent talked for a while - have just uncovered my 1961 (!) records re the WAGR and have enough info to start some stubs apart from populating the WAGR article itself. Apart from our common ASG article - would you have any articles from other states that you would consider sufficiently ok to have as /templateexample about a diesel or steam engine class stub to follow for the WA ones? I am hoping in the process to either recover or find my very very small stub about the Msa garratt as well... Would appreciate any clues as to the nature of engine class stubs or arts you might consider ok. cheers SatuSuro 04:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - have you heard the stuff on the radio about the reintroducing the dingo in some areas? would be enough to make some doggers roll in the graves eh? SatuSuro 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah my father was on the vet surgeons board here many moons ago and there was the panic stuff about cross breeding with feral alsations etc here - so there have been some very weird breed specific law and regs and moral hit the pollies over here over time - i think itd be an interesting article - breed specific legis state by state. but time, and research...sigh too many wagr locos to think about now - gotta uncover my gunzburg and singleton materials for a wagr template - cheers and thanks i like the g article - i will eventually be able to link the m and msa arts i hope (in time) - im off now thanks for the chat cheers SatuSuro 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for corrections on the msa - it is a very poor start (ie my effort so far) - cheers SatuSuro 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do NOT copy and paste content to rename pages--use the Move tab
The Melba Conservatorium Victoria article page should have been Moved to Melba Memorial Conservatorium of Music--not transfered via cut&paste. Using cut&paste separates the content from its edit history, which is a problem with the GFDL license, among other things, which admins then have to clean up. If you have done the same thing with other articles in the past you can report them at the Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thanks. Seattlenow 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: My contributions to the Royal Anthem debate...
Thank you for your comments, they are useful. I have only written stubs because I'm not naturally a writer. This fragmented and awkward reply is testament to that. Of course I have opinions, but on wikipedia I always try to be neutral. When it comes to Australia's Royal Anthem I struggle to see how putting it to the bottom is 'neutral'. But if I can't be bothered to fight my corner my opinion obviously isn't worth much. Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fudgie_Frottage article
Please revisit the AfD page [] and article to see if the nomination status should change. Benjiboi 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthem
I'm happy to revisit the Australia article on this. Consistency throughout our articles on Commonwealth nations is important, and IMO the push for the RA being removed from the infobox of a FA was misguided. --Pete 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rational Response Squad
Hi,

When you editted the Rational Response Squad article you also wrecked one of the headings, so I have reverted your edit. 

More importantly, you should discuss your reasons for removing the section about the RRS' memberships & requests for donations on the talk page before removing it.

--PEAR (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made further edits to the article . I think it's a good compromise, that section of the article no longer looks like an advertisement but still provides a good summary of the RRS website.


 * I'm looking forward to your input.


 * --PEAR (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Sapient
Hi. I'm contacting some people who have worked on the Rational Response Squad article because someone changed my redirect of "Brian Sapient" (which I made to redirect surfers to the RRS article) into an article on Brian Sapient himself. I'm not sure one is merited, particularly given what that editor started off with the article, and have begun a discussion on that new article's Talk Page. Your input would be appreciated. Nightscream 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
Michael, I'll be glad to put the text in my sandbox, and you can work there. I'll be back with a link. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go; you can mess around in there all you like. That's how I developed all the other text, in a way that allowed everyone to agree, disagree, comment before it was brought in to the article.  Feel welcome to edit around in that section of my sandbox, leave the other sections intact.  User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2 Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, also you might want to review Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive14 in archives to see concerns of other editors on the lead (that conversation is just a few days old, but was just archived). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Michael, are you done in my Sandbox? Can I delete that section now?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why?
I added sources, the Bee Movie Game is real, why deletion? --Naruto134 00:00, October 1 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah hello, I added future game tag, thats a tag for FUTURE games. Just because it's not out yet doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. --Naruto134 00:00, October 1 2007 (UTC)

Global warming
You warned me "You have been reversed by three different editors, and have now exceeded 3RR. Please take your proposed edits to the talk page.", when in fact I am warning you not to delete my posts in their entirety. I have no issue with you editing my posts, but complete deletion is mean spirited and an abuse of your position

These reversals were not based on anything other than the whim of a fickle editor. My edits have the same merit as anyone else's.

Now you have said that I should take my edit to the "talk page", however I see no point in the talk page when you are so sure of your absolutist position. What is the point of the Wiki if you are using your draconian total delete method. In fact, your bias is a threat to the viability of this media. --Ronjamin 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Template WWII
Could you please tell me why did you undo my edit?87.14.234.106 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I discussed a lot with user Daufer in his talk page about the reasons. In a few words RSI's relevance is negligible and is already included in "others"87.14.234.106 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Campo-Iro
Can you tell me why the page is created was so speedy deleted. I find it rude to not first give a warning. This is my first article and if my article can't stay, at least I like to have the source code emailed to me. I cannot find this anymore and I think it should be polite to do this anyway with a speedy deletion. I understand the size and complexity of wikipedia, but this seems to me a wrong way of treating new users.--Veronica falcone (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Legality of the Vietnam War, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Michael Johnson (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a stub. Stubs are not against Wikipedia policy. It was also linked to other, sourced Wiki articles which expounded on specific legal issues involved in more detail and thus were sufficient sources, pending expansion of the article. Stayman Apple (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Australia
I am enquiring about this revert you just made to Australia. You provided no edit summary or talk page note for the revert, despite being a good-faith (and apparently-constructive) contribution, and I was wondering a) on what basis you felt the information should be omitted from the article and b) on what basis you believe the edit should be reverted without summary, discussion or notice.

Thanks,  Daniel  02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You should be directing your explanation and discussion to User:Thefreemarket, the user who made the edit in the first place. Reverting a good-faith editor without explanation is poor form. - Mark 03:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On30
Thanks for digging up some decent references. There was an ongoing problem with somebody trying to use the article to promote their own products, so as a precaution I also removed others that looked like they were just mere mentions and links. I'm glad to see it prompted efforts to improve the article. Pairadox (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Federal monarchy
I've nominated this for deletion if you care to check it out. Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Look 4ward to your comments.--Gazzster (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia
This may be a handy reference when dealing Macedonia issues Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 04:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Calthrop
On that page, you removed by bot adding orphan twice. After that, you added nobots. Just so you know, if you want it to stop putting that tag on, put disambig at the bottom, since it skips those. I have dine it for you, but for future reference, be aware that that is what you do.  Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue
seems to be on the tasmania article as well - any idea of the numbers they expect could be there by now? a red ip no has multiplied the number this am but i am not up on the reproductive capacity in ideal situations SatuSuro 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beverly Jane Fry
I have nominated Beverly Jane Fry, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Beverly Jane Fry. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Threatened fauna of Australia
After 3 1/2 years and nearly 40,000 edits, I finally know what it feels like to be accused of vandalism over a simple mistake. I can confirm that it is no big deal, and therefore the people I've seen get completely bent out of shape over it have no excuse for their subsequent behaviour. Thankyou for the insight. Hesperian 05:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

GA reviews
When you pass an article for WP:GA, please make sure you actually write a review of said article. Simply updating the banner on the talk page is not enough. Very short reviews are also not helpful at all, either, since the goal is to help improve the article along the road towards eventual WP:FA. The more you can write to help editors improve the article, the better off you are. For one, Virginia Beach, Virginia should never have been passed outright. I see numerous copyediting issues in the article, and an on hold would be more appropriate. Please don't simply pass articles simply to just pass them along.

Also, don't forget to update the WP:GA page as well.

Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you've placed comments now, though they were pretty short. I won't boldly delist at this point, but I have added some comments, as the article is still in need of a good copyedit, and there are still some issues (too many red links, manual of style issues with dates and reference citations). From the completeness perspective, it does pass, though. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll admit I was a little quick to respond, and probably should have waited. I apologize about that. I should have a little more patience here. I would encourage you not to withdraw from the process over this; half of this is my mistake for being somewhat of a dick,... Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See you back soon
Sorry to hear you are leaving, I hope it's not permanent! Wiki is here to stay and we need editors like you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Medford, Wisconsin
You shouldn't be adding so much information about a notable person to their hometown's article. Medford, Wisconsin is about the city, not the city's notable residents. It's fine to list their name and what they're notable for, but not their birthdate and date of death. An interested person can find out the details about that person's life in their article. I can find it in a policy/guideline if you want. I hope that you have not become discouraged enough to leave Wikipedia! Piotrus is right - we need good people like you to stay! Royal broil 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Independance?
Why do I want Independance for Scotland? It's not to say up the English, I have a nephew and niece who were born and brought up in England. I only say that when we beat them at football. It's about believing Scotland would be more prosperous as an Independant country, It's about our proud history, It's about still feeling betrayed at Scottish politicians selling our Independance down the river for a handful of Gold. As Rabbie Burns said " a parcel of rogues in a nation " It's about all of these things and much more, a passion for my country that I can hardly put into words. --Jack forbes (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just like to add, I've never worn a kilt, never played the bagpipes, and you don't see much heather were I live! Not that there is anything wrong with these things, but it does'nt define what a Scotsman is. --Jack forbes (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question for you. I lived and worked in Melbourne more than 20 years ago and talking to most people I could have sworn Australians would have voted for a republic. What did you mean by the votes were wedged? --Jack forbes (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Are there any plans to have another vote on the matter, or have they put it on the back burner? --Jack forbes (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Australia
There is a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents that regards a situation you are involved in. Speaking on this, please keep comments on the content, not the editors. LaraLove| Talk  15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins refs
Why did you delete the refs section? I know at least two of the books exist - I own a copy of Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think, so why are they fake? Autarch (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I see my mistake! Autarch (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Global warming refs
An Inconvenient Truth is an professional documentary film about global warming, why you said that it is an irrelevent factoids? Actually, I only translate the two refs from the same topic on wikipedia of other language. So, I think it is good to keep it. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigokk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC) ok, I accept your point. and thanks for your interpretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigokk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Evolution page
The scientific community are mostly evolutionists. The unabiased community believe creation is also accredible. Whether it is accepted or not by the majority of the public matters little. If the public believes 2+2=5, does that makes the numerical equation that we know has the answer of 4 suddenly a 5, just because the majority of the community says so? No. Evolution is no more credible than it was when Darwin's "Origin of Species" was created. There is plenty of information validating the alternative of origin, which is creation. Many religions may find this page offensive, for it acts entirely conclusive and definite. If the page was edited to be a possiblity, it would be fair to both atheists and religious.

''Actually the scientific community is made up of scientists, who on the whole accept evolution by natural selection because it best explains the facts they observe in the natural world. You are right - 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how much you might want to believe a religious text says it does. I'm not sure what atheism has to do with anything - plenty of people who believe in God also accept evolution. BTW please sign your posts with the signature button on top of the edit space, or just type in four ~. --Michael Johnson 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)''

Is this youre talk page? I noticed someone on my network got blocked (which got me blocked shortly) and ended up reading what happened. Very intriguing. I always have and still do believe in evolution as a most rational and scientific theory. But I noticed parts of it were confronted as lacking evidence and/or disproven, so I read his edits and some of his links and now am not sure. I guess I accept most of the theory. We should talk.

Anyway I wanted to ask if I edit a RELIGIOUS (there should be a seperation) section that that guy did, is that ok? I notice he got blocked, infinitely without warning, for making those sourced edits, while the sources weren't so bad as some of his older ones. Props to you for having the integritiy to defend the guy who edit wared with ya cause you knew it was right. I guess the other admin. didn't like his warnings of exposing it all. Let me know because I will surely look like a sock puppet account if I do that. I initially wanted to edit the ipod section because some of it was REPEATED lol! But looks like you guys are tough and only admins have power, so you can do that one if somehow we can share credit or just let me. I just lack time to find the top sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't find the place I was talking to you in so I'll reply here. I doubt this was a strawman attempt, I think you misunderstood. I AGREE you supported the editor; perhaps my explanations wasn't perfectly phrased having not fully investegated the issue, but sure good faith. I AGREE Genesis has nothing to do with evolution, I think I said the religious section SHOULD be seperate (the irony is having read it, it is called Vedic EVOLUTION, and it accounts the world to be just over 4.3 billion years old, and accounts for 8.4 million species including primitive man not fully formed as man yet, but that is another issue I don't wish to argue. If desired, you can answer the few issues I'm confused about Darwin's theory which, though I find mostly scientific, can't answer) I'm not a member of either of these groups, I'm not even Christian lol but for once they were pretty rational and science based. What do you think? http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2 and www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

The question is why would my efforts become futile if the edits, in the HINDU not the evolution as biology, seem well sourced right from the org that is being quoted, why would they be reverted? Would I too get blocked and if so why? I was hoping you would any THIRD party from starting an edit war, I do not have the time for those games. I suggest you review Hindu evolution section and either revert the edits or tell me, specifically, what is wrong and why. I'd like to learn, but not raise faulty or negative arguments. I'm here to read and on rare occasions fix mistakes, but the latter seems to be something I may need to avoid. Thanx.

-sfvace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo again. I can't find the NEW SECTION place, but I think I see the sign button below and will try it. Thanks.

Now you're talkin; so Darwinian evolution does not answer the origin of life and it's still a matter of debate? Agreed. But are you sure, I see so many times of it stating we evolved from single cells that CAME FROM MATTER. This part hasn't been proven and the evidence is contrary to it; one of the main aspects I can't accept thus far. How can a theory, in this case the change of life and etc., work if the basis of it is still inconclusive? Newton's law of gravity G= M1 x m2 / D2. would not work had we not established gravity; luckily Einstien filled those gaps and relativity is more universal, as seems Vedic evolution. The other issue is how come all this new evidence I'm finding isn;t being addressed. You SAY it's established fact, I always believed that, now I see many contridictorary points and you don't even try to help explain? This seems strange.

Either way as we both agreed the Hindu evolution portion was RELIGION, not the biological section, and it was sourced, so abiogenesis or not it is the Hindu theory which was directly sourced so I'm confused as to why it was deleted along with the poster. It's like saying the Biblical aspect of good/evil isn;t compatible with altruistic science. Of course not, but that don't mean if somone can't edit a wiki with adding Bible quotes. I guess is those in charge of wiki retain the right to publish what they believe, usually factual sometimes not, while deciding if any evidence against it is allowed. Ok I was just interested but I can forget it and still read but never publish since it's easy to get deleted. Later

Brain scratcher questions; How did fish evolve out of water? Where are the million fossils of birds with little or half formed wings before wings fully evolved? Aren't genetic losses like mutations only damages in the gene code? If not, why don't scientists seek radiation type of effects to help further evolution? How do we know humans weren't always around or that species come or get extinct? (Think outside the box and consider cremation and that there are probably ever species we know of and don't knwo of somehwere in the universe)

If you can answer these questions scientifically and logically, I;ll maintain darwinian evolution is rational science and won't switch over to the creationists. Otherwise, wow, religious or not we were in many ways very wrong. Sfvace (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hi. I'm reviewing talk pages at the moment (they're miserable, by the way). Speedy deletion policy is applied on articles as well as talk pages (and other namespaces). When I add a speedy deletion tag to a talk page, that's meaning the talk page itself is useless and helpless for our encyclopedia project, it doesn't mean that article is OK, but I don't have enough time to review articles as well. You can remove your objection tag --OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have to have useful talk pages only, otherwise, they're unneeded.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Simpson Charges Dismissed
Just though you might be interested in the fact that the fraud charges against Adrian Simpson were dismissed earlier on today. Shame that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheetahKeeper (talk • contribs) 05:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Klammbachwaldbahn
Why not create an article Insignificant narrow-gauge railways in Austria? Most of the articles in Category:Narrow gauge railways in Austria give some context that indicates a degree of notability in that they at least go though towns or other sites of interest. This (and a couple others) give no indication whatsoever of notability. Being cited in a comprehensive list isn't evidence of worthiness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bongomatic (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)