User talk:Swmeyer

Welcome!

Hello, Swmeyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues with intelligent design related articles

Seeing your willingness to take what the Discovery Institute and it's officers say at face value, I can understand your frustration with articles that highlight the fact that the institute and its officers, Meyer, Dembski, Wells, Johnson, and others, have an explicitly stated subtext to their agenda that they have been pursuing. It might help if you'd first read Johnson's book Darwin on Trial, in which he states explicitly what the articles now report and you find issue with. Also, take the time to read and consider this interview of Johnson [1]. In it he lays out exactly what in the articles you claim is POV.

You may want to reconsider your own strategy here. Going to every ID-related article to dispute well-supported, long-standing content in favor of content that is in line with the agenda-driven dissembling that the articles allege is 1) not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia, and 2) likely to result in your being viewed as having an ideological ax to grind. I'm not expecting to convince you of anything here, but I merely offer these things as something to think about. FeloniousMonk 02:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia was to assume good faith--your assumption that I am not familiar with what he has said isn't.Swmeyer 03:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk is right. You'll never be able to keep up this pace. Slow down. Try to become a regular editor, without upsetting the balance. Creationist editors often give up, after an energetic and promicing start. They end up leaving in a huff, blaming 'evolutionist bias', or turn to vandalising out of spite or frustration. You seem to be enthused now, but you'll never be able to keep it up. Remember, you are up against a lot of people who have been here longer than you, and who have created most of the archived talk. Please, come to the table. Let's discuss specific problems within the ID, creationism and evolution articles.

Wikipedia needs a few good creationist editors who are willing to compromise. -- Ec5618 06:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ec5618, thanks for your thoughts. I am not a creationist, and I'm especially not one if meant by that is a young-earth creationist. However, I do think ID is currently being handled in a way on both sides that I'd like to see change (ID proponents seem to exaggerate in some instances while Darwinian evolutionists tend to discount without really allowing for the possibility of hearing ID in most cases). I guess I should declare my perspective on my page. Thanks for chiming in--it has precipitated this.

Swmeyer 14:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalism

Joshua did not violate the three-revert rule, as I understand it. The rule is that someone may not make more than three reverts to a page in one day, which means that four reverts can be made, and I only see Joshua making three. I have not really looked at his edits much, but keep discussing the articles with him on the talk pages, you both seem like good contributors and I think you can resolve this. I have never edited artices about these subjects before and only know basic information about them, but you can contact me if you need any more help. Academic Challenger 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about disrupting Intelligent design

Once again, I am cautioning you against about disrupting ID related articles with specious objections to well-supported content. That includes tying others up with repeated objections that have been shown to be groundless or ill-conceived, and tossing NPOV templates or ersatz "warning" messages on articles whose content is well-supported but you happen to disagree with. You've been campaigning at the ID article for nearly a week now. But the general consensus from objective, regular editors, in other words, non-ID pushers, is that the article is accurate and neutral. That ID pushers there disagree is not justification for a NPOV template. Long term contributors to this article have been tolerant of other pro-ID editors in the past, but your actions have been disruptive and you're on your second warning. Based on the above post, I suspect you're being disruptive at other articles as well. This needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That a fellow traveler or two may share the same goal as you, ridding the ID article of criticisms and content that connects it to creationism and religion, is not proof that the article violates NPOV. You've been pushing pro-ID content in this article and others since you arrived. You need to decide whether you are here to write an accurate and neutral encyclopedia, or whether you are here to push pro-ID content. FeloniousMonk 07:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Dunc|☺ 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've read the talk page many times, believe me. But I mostly see you and Felonious Monk bickering about non neutral point of view. I was looking for some reason beyond "ID is science" as to how ID is different than creationism. I know it is supposedly different b/c ID doesn't say that the creator is the Christian "God," but I was under the impression that it still needs a "creator" (or a "designer"). So that was more along the lines of what I was asking. Your response was helpful, and the link to the naturalism talk page was good, too. Maybe the more specific question I asked on your talk page (here) will help though. And whoever posting after you on the ID page brings up the same point (more or less). -Parallel or Together? 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design and promoting pov

Before I break the news at Talk:Intelligent design about what I've found at the www.uncommondescent.com archives, I wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself. Correlating posts there to edits here, I'm reasonably certain that you are the user "MWC" there. There you've participated in coordinating and conducting a pov campaign [2] at wikipedia. Any comment? FeloniousMonk 05:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is supposed to be the problem with trying to correct a POV bias and asking for help for information? Parableman 10:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]