User talk:Eric Winesett

Hi, Eric-- I will try to expand on the articles I've started but just haven't had the time yet. I never intended for any to remain stubs indefinitely.--Greg Lawrence 19:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

-- Some observations:

(1) With all due respect to Nancy, it would seem obvious at this stage that the Citizendium article is not the place to learn what ID is. If someone wanted to take the time, there is a list of articles on the Discovery Institute website: [url]http://www.discovery.org/csc/scientificResearch/[/url] . There is even one titled "Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects."

(2) It is my opinion (and I made comments about this on the ID talk page) that

Being bold

Thank you very much for your encouraging comments at Talk:Contraception (medical methods)/Draft. What I've been doing is going ahead and editing in any changes (small or large) except those which I think have a significant risk of being rejected by others. Perhaps I need to adjust that: only those with a larger risk of being rejected could be suggested first on the talk page, while those with a smaller risk of being rejected could be edited in and then reverted (with explanation) by others if necessary. My habits might be based on a misunderstanding that I and some others had earlier, that reverting was against the rules; I think it turned out that it was only reverting without explanation that was against the rules. So perhaps I can be bolder in general. Yes, some of the changes you did were the same as some things I had suggested; others were different. I only went through the article once so there may have been things I missed. I agree with you that an article should have things like subject-verb agreement fixed before approval. --Catherine Woodgold 07:35, 3 June 2007 (CDT)