User talk:Mehandas

Welcome!

Hello, Ramsmenon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  dave souza, talk 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Please stop POV-pushing on Intelligent design. Thank you. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove or alter properly sourced and carefully considered statements in this, or any other, article. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. .. dave souza, talk 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a small FYI. I liked some of your intended edits on the ID article, but not all as it does seem POV. This article is pretty heavily debated and because of this you need to provide citable sources that can justify your edits, or provide a rationale as to why the current edit does not follow the source cited. In short, it requires much more work. But I found the edit at line 35 interesting - (i.e. is it really the goal to fundamentally redefine science or is that just the opinion of die hard atheists?). I think that is fertile ground for investigation. I think the other edits could explore the nature of naturalist thinking in the past with current thinking (and how it has changed) without being POV. Again, more work (that I can't put into it). As you will find out, it's the people who spend large amounts of time that get their way with the article, not necessarily what would be academically correct. So, take all those editors who throw the NPOV rules in your face with a grain of salt. Also, only make one change to one section at a time. In an article like this, it is too hard to defend multiple edits across the article all at once like what you are attempting to do. -Nodekeeper 11:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To address your talk page post:

'the UNEQUIVOCAL consensus of the scientific, community be that intelligent design is not a science', when all that the sources backing up this statement, does is give a list of scientific societies that reject intelligent design?

This may be slightly inaccurate, but your version is much, much more inaccurate, playing down the extremely high level of support. And unequivocal has the meanings "not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation" which are entirely accurate in this context.

The next portion of my edit was basically correcting the straw man, saying proponents of intelligent design assert to wish to change the scientific method, so as to incorporate the divine element. However most proponents of intelligent design claim they are not changing the scientific method , but rather they aim in using it to show the existence of a creator. It may seem to you that they are modifying the scientific method, but what they assert is what THEY assert. Hence the encyclopedia cannot state intelligent design (or it's proponents) aim to change the scientific method.

You obviously have not looked at the sources, in which major ID proponents SAY they want to revise the scientific method. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)