User talk:Johnstone

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 14:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Poll

Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll please come participate Sam Spade 03:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Catholic acceptance of evolution

I see you've added this to the main evolution article; can you do the same to evolutionary creationism? Maybe it only needs a smaller mention in the evolution article, hmmm... Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Johnstone (Add: This article is about God (with a capitalized "G"). For the generic usage, see gods.)"

{Copied from Talk:God]

Johnstone wasan't right about there is no god,because if there is no God then whose controlling all the world?If johnstone now says there is no God,i prefer him to read the Holy Quran,he(johnstone) should read the Book i ask for...Read the Holy Quran full and then tell me what you'd got.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.69.94 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC) This strikes me as a POV hijacking of a definition. If you wish to have a separate "Christian God" or a "Monotheistic God", that'd be one thing, but unilaterally deciding that the page should only address one particular aspect of the definition smacks of agenda-pushing.[reply]

Since I'm sure that your intent was not to push a personal agenda, but to improve the objectively neutral Wikipedia, rather than revert, I invite you (Johnstone) to correct this yourself; please do so as soon as you reasonably can. -- orthogonal 10:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not "POV hijacking" any more than having an article titled "Moon" be about one particular planet's natural satellite, or an article titled "evolution" be about only biological evolution, are "POV hijacking." All are simply instances of article titles corresponding to the most frequent usage of a term, as suggested in Wikipedia:naming conventions, which states,

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

Besides, there is (now) a separate article, deity, for the common noun.--Johnstone 23:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Johnstone, wherefore didst thou removest the Pope Quote from the Evolution page? I thought it was good there - not many people know the Pope said that. Also considering all the hard work you put in to make it perfect, don't you think it ought to stay? :P Graft 17:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I moved the quote to evolutionary creationism, because I tended to agree with the suggestion by user:duncharris that it was a little bit out of place in the evolution article. Not that it wasn't on topic, just that it fits better in the other article, as it currently stands. However, an entire article devoted to "Evolution and religion" might be more appropriate still.--Johnstone 23:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Christmas

Thanks for moving all that wild stuff from the end. The article was otherwise near-ready for "feature" status. Sfahey 23:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Johnstone 22:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stem cell

Thanks for the concise intro (and clarifications) to the stem cells article ;) --Nectarflowed 09:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Johnstone 00:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:Spacetime curvature.png

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I added an {{unverified}} tag to that image. You may want to update it with information on its source and copyright status. ^_~ -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 12:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done.--Johnstone 01:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-ByS A-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I'm looking into it, but it's an unfamiliar subject to me, and it will take some time to be able to make an informed decision.--Johnstone 13:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Existence of God merger

I'm attempting to develop a consensus in favor of merging the Arguments against the existence of God and the Arguments for the existence of God articles. A beta version of the resulting article is available at Existence of God. To date, there seems to be consensus in favor of this merger on the "for" talk page, I'm now trying to get a consensus together on the "against" talk page. Please visit Talk:Arguments against the existence of God to weigh in. I'm copy-and-pasting this message to everybody who has contributed to that talk page. crazyeddie 05:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ID experience

I hate to be pessimistic, but I doubt that the other editors will stand for you removing the CSI criticisms... even if they are fallacious. I went through this exact same process in Archive 10 regarding the ludicrous pyramid analogy... pointing out how it was a false analogy and only useful for misinforming the reader. They got mad and basically just bulldozed me with non-sequitors and mob fever. I wish you the best, but until we can get a majority on our side, we can't win any of these games. The opponents are perpetual moving targets, they put words in your mouth, and then when you do make a good argument it's met with conspiracy-like accusations ("Well, that's what the Discovery Institute would want us to think ID is!"). And when you go to change even one word in what they perceive to be their section of the article it is automatically reverted without hesitation. They persist as though the day they first heard about ID they took an oath to ref use ID even one gram of legitimacy.

Based on my experience, tonight I have come to two conclusions. (1) If we are going to succeed in making an article free from misinformation, we need organized collaboration, and we need numbers. I started a wikiproject page for us to meet and discuss. Recruit anyone you know that might be interested. However, (2) in the end, this might not be worth the effort. What is a few paragraphs on a barely-recognized encyclopedic website really worth? Any changes we could make would likely get edited away by a thousand cuts down the road, anyway. I feel like I've torched the better part of a month just trying to get one measly paragraph into the intro... and I've already seen it eroded away like a sand castle in a hurricane.

In non-controversial articles, wikipedia's method evolves. They blossom, they flower, they sparkle with the insight of a thousand different points of view. But in controversial articles, wikipedia's method erodes. They're flat, they're ugly, they're unstable, and they are always obnoxious.

My hat's off to you if you continue to fight the good fight. As for me. I'm stepping away until we have at least 8 people volunteer their efforts at the project page. Until then, I'll just channel all my thoughts about ID into something useful, like a book.

Feel free to write. David Bergan 04:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you've said here. Also, I've been astounded by the quantity, and impressed with the quality of much of your writing in the ID discussion page. One of my first impressions upon seeing your contributions was, "this guy should write a book," so I'm glad that you're considering writing one. In my opinion, since you have a lot to say, you'll probably be spending your time more effectively doing that. If you need a (pre-publication) reviewer...

Having been a contributor for a while, I'm well aware of the limitations of Wikipedia on controversial subjects. Perhaps the best thing that can happen is that this particular systemic deficiency of Wikipedia will become generally known to the public over time. I, too, have occasionally felt like I've wasted time in contending points with closed-minded editors on articles. But I've also always been keenly aware of it, and have subsequently tried to limit it as much as possible.

Unfortunately, some editors are more intent on skewing articles toward their own POV than in creating a general NPOV knowledge base, and even a relatively small number of them can harm the NPOV-ness any given article. Witness the evolution page, where its caretakers won't allow any criticism whatsoever to appear on it. (And I'm not an anti-evolutionist. It's just that no subject, but no subject, is beyond (sometime unjustified) reproach.) When I discovered the following words from Dembski, I had already experienced it: "we are dealing with a naturalistic metaphysic that shapes and controls what theories of biological origins are permitted on the playing field in advance of any discussion or weighing of evidence. This metaphysic is so pervasive and powerful that it not only rules alternative theories out of the court, but it cannot even permit itself to be criticized. The fallibleness and tentativeness that are supposed to be a part of science find no place in the naturalistic metaphysic that undergirds Darwinism." (Intelligent Design, p. 114) Empiricism, not naturalism, is the basis of science. Science should and must go wherever the evidence leads. If an extraterrestrial intelligence of any kind seeded the earth, we'd never realize it if all we do is insist that life must be explainable through the action of natural laws alone.

As for ID, it raises several questions that I find very intriguing: Is there a metric that only a designed object could possibly meet? If so, do any (or many) natural objects—especially living things—meet that metric? Is it impossible for algorithmic processes (such as nature is supposed to be limited to) to yield the type of complexity exhibited by life?--Johnstone 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for specified complexity

I noticed you put an RfC on specified complexity, with particular reference on my edit, which asserts:

When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false.

Do you believe this to be false? Though this statement is not a direct quote, it is a fair assessment of professional physicists and mathematicians that have read Dembski's work (with the possible exception of Robert Hermmann). If you are looking for a dispute here, well go ahead. But if you are searching for truth, then perhaps you should pick another battle.

Thanks. --CSTAR 17:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my full request for comment is as follows:

"* specified complexity. Much work was recently put into the article by User:CSTAR . This request if for statements such as "When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false," and the math in general, to be reviewed by peers (although WP:PR isn't appropriate since I don't intend to submit it for WP:FA).10:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)"

As implied by the posting, my intention was simply to get more mathematicians to review it—not to initiate a dispute or battle. But since no edits have been made to the article since September 4, it obviously hasn't helped. Looking at it now, it seems to me that the reason I mentioned that particular statement is that it's not NPOV. To be NPOV it should be reworded to something like:

"Most professional physicists and mathematicians who have read Dembski's work claim that when his mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false."

A few of footnotes for the statement, pointing to appropriate examples would also make the article more useful to the reader.--Johnstone 00:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Thanks mightily for the copyedit you're in the midst of Planetary habitability. Just please, leave the mn|name|# as is. Thanks again, Marskell 11:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigal Son

Hello - you absolutely made my life so very easy. My church has a magnificent copy of the Prodigal Son. We sent it out for restoration, and just got it back last night. I asked the restoration expert if she knew the origins of this painting, and she did not, but suggested I research this. I went to Wikipedia, and presto, there is your photograph and history of the painting. Wonderful!

We have only a copy, but it is an excellent piece, and made, we think, in the Victorian era.

I have one professional photograph of it now, and we have another professional photographer coming to take a picture of it soon. Would you like a copy?

Sarum blue 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shroud of Turin nominated for FAR

Shroud of Turin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. PeterSymonds | talk 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from poor design

Hi Johnstone. I've added the prod (deletion) tag to Argument from poor design because it doesn't seem to be a concept that exists outside of Wikipedia (see WP:OR, WP:V and notability criterion). Perhaps I should have contacted you first since you started the article; sorry that didn't occur to me until after adding the tag. I did leave a note on the talk page a couple days ago. Gnixon (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Mind of God

The article The Mind of God has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to meet relevant notability standards. Unable to find any significant coverage; it's occasionally named in lists of Davies' books, but not discussed in its own right.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]