User talk:Ghostmonkey57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What vandalism is not

Hi. Before issuing "last warnings" to other users for vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL carefully, particularly the section on "What vandalism is not". Vandalism on Wikipedia has a very specific definition; stubborness, edit-warring, and POV-pushing may be obnoxious or even block-worthy, but they are not vandalism. It's important to understand Wikipedia's definiton of vandalism before warning other editors; please don't abuse the term. MastCell Talk 06:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanking large sections of articles, deleting content that other editors have provided, and injecting massive POV into articles IS vandalism as per the policy. Especially when the user has used other accounts abusively and appears to be conducting edits in a discernable pattern. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
No, editors delete content all the time, often because they believe it violates various policies. IronAngelAlice has provided an explanation for his/her edits. You may not find the explanation satisfactory; it may not be satisfactory; but it is not vandalism. MastCell Talk 07:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
MastCell, IronAngelAlice did not provide explanations for all her edits, further intentional POV injections made by abusive sockpuppet accounts does fall under Vandalism. I already explained this once, I am not going to explain it again. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Every edit to fetus that I see in her contrib history is accompanied by an edit summary briefly explaining the rationale; I also see simultaneous talk-page participation discussing her edits. Per WP:VANDAL, "Significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." There's also a large warning instructing editors not to use vandalism templates in a content dispute (which is what this actually is). Finally, as a general principle, template warnings are rarely helpful when applied to experienced editors. MastCell Talk 07:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not just the Fetus article, but also the Reardon, Misandry, Feminazi, and a host of other articles that IronAngelAlice edited. I could only list One article in the template. The problem is the pattern of conduct and the significant POV injection into several different articles, all of which seem centered on women's issues of some kind. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting material into wikipedia from a feminist perspective, but when you do so, and at the same time remove the hard work from others, AND use an account that has been used abusively in the past, AND have a consistant pattern of editing that violates NPOV it becomes vandalism rather than an content dispute. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I watch the Misandry article and can't speak to the other articles you mention. IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) has performed a reorganization in Misandry that I consider an improvement, introduced a few new ideas that I have mixed feelings about but seem basically worth addressing, and has added a few sources that I find inadequate but at least they are sources. If you don't mind my saying, it seems like a good faith effort and not vandalism.
On the Talk page IronAngelAlice admits a goal of addressing the article's slant which she perceives as anti-feminist; seeing how that articles was written, I don't find this surprising. The current state of Misandry is the result of it being a WP:BATTLEGROUND. What would help here (and I mean help the article) would be some communication between the two points of view in hope of trying to develop a consensus, or at least a compromise. Per WP:NPOV, multiple points of view can be accommodated. Trying to tag the other editor out doesn't really benefit the article.
One way to get started would be to go thru the recent edit history and point out a few diffs of edits which you think could have been done better, and propose how and why you would change those on Talk:Misandry. (Another way is just to quote passages, preferably briefly.) If the other editor agrees, great; if not, discuss, counter-propose, compromise, invoke policy as needed, and seek third opinions.
My 2¢. Hope it helps. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous comments from IP user 209.82.180.172

Thanks for addressing that so quickly. Helps much! / edg ☺ ☭ 07:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. As I said, I am in a hotel. It's doing crazy things to my browser. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it helps to check "Remember me" when you log in. If privacy on that computer is a concern, you can clear this later by logging in with that box unchecked. Cheers. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll do that. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MastCell and Weight

I see you're running into content policing action by MastCell at David Reardon. He also misuses the WEIGHT argumetn at post-abortion syndrome. He has ignored my requests to respond to [Proper Weight].

For MastCell, the weight has already been determined by the opinions of pro-abortion researchers who have declared the issue closed and that their views represent the majority of opinion. Any facts that undermine that view can and should be deleted in order to conform with the WEIGHT of her experts' opinions.

You may find some support if you look at evidence based medicine, in which you will see that the opinions of experts are the lowest ranked of all evidence regarding the benefits or risks of a medical treatment (in this case, abortion).

I invite you to weigh in on my Abuse of Weight discussion at WP:NPOV discussion page.--Strider12 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi GhostMonkey57. Just thought I'd stop by and email you some holiday greetings, but it looks like your email is not set up. To set it up, you would have to go to "my preferences" at the top of your user page. Maybe you intentionally don't have this set up? Anyway, Happy Holidays and New Year to you.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A question has been asked of you, here. Incidentally, even if you prefer not to set up your own email option, I hope you'll feel free to use mine. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Reardon: Please slow down

Your recent edits to the David Reardon page do not appear to be neutral. Please slow down.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were past this. If not, I will go back to the Admins. Please take time to read WHY I think that the GOA sentence is necessary. I am trying to make the Reardon page NEUTRAL, and I agreed with all of your last edit. I keep everything in it, just added one sentence to clarify the GOA investigation. Slow down and read through the reason. I mean no bad faith.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

[edit] Couple things

[edit] I've never actually awarded one of these before

If I never give out another, your bragging rights will be considerable.

The Barnstar of Peace
For your good-faith efforts to work with IronAngelAlice. Very happy to see this. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!!! I really appreciate this! Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

[edit] HTML formatting

Also, I notice you are using some HTML formatting, such as "<i>". This is okay to do, but you might take advantage of a few Wiki markup formatting methods, as listed on Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. A longer list can be found on WP:MARKUP. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

[edit] AfD on Elisa Bernerström

Just a heads-up that since your !vote, notability has been asserted: I've added a note on the AfD that:

Someone has just added a line to the article asserting notability in that "She is one of two confirmed women to have been decorated for bravery in battle in Sweden before the 1900s." I don't know the source of the "two confirmed women" part, but even if this phrasing were deleted, the original source does say she was decorated for bravery in battle ("Med anledning av detta tilldelades hon medaljen för tapperhet i fält.") Certainly many women have fought in wartime but few indeed, particularly in such an era, have been decorated for it, and this seems a reasonable fact on which to base notability: see WP:BIO "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." --Zeborah (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained deletion

I've added back your unexplained deletion here. If you want to delete it again, please explain it first. Fredsmith2 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)