IronAngelAlice, there is a consistant pattern in your editing style that does not conform to wikipedia guidlines on NPOV. As your user page indicates that this pattern has existed in the past via other accounts, I must assume that you are aware of these Wikipedia policies. There is Nothing wrong with introducing material here on Wikipedia. However, when you remove material that conflicts your POV and turn articles into POV representations of a certain ideology, you are violating wikipedia policy on Vandalism and NPOV. Others have expressed the same concern that I am expressing on several of the articles that you have edited. You have received other warnings here on your talk page, and your user page indicates that you have used one or more accounts abusively. As such, I am going to issue two level 4 warnings. One for NPOV and one for Vandalism. PLEASE, continue to make CONSTRUCTIVE edits to wikipedia, and DISCUSS your changes on the talk page before you make them. Work toward consensus and do the right thing. Kindest Regards. Ghostmonkey57 ( talk) 06:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
Fetus, you will be
blocked from editing. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ghostmonkey57 (
talk •
contribs)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to
David Reardon, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ghostmonkey57 (
talk •
contribs)
Please do not recreate HPV vaccine#Prevalence of genital HPV. This is a completely unecessary content fork, as the subject of the article is the HPV vaccine, not HPV itself. Information specific to HPV should be confined to the HPV article. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I gave decent reasons for my changes on Talk:Misandry. Can you take the time to explain your reasons for
I'd like to see some kind of WP:CONSENSUS-based editing on Misandry, rather than just revert warring. If you don't have the time to engage in such discussion, perhaps you are fighting too many battles at once. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ghostmonkey's brought you to ANI. The thread is found here. J-ſtan Contribs User page 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to delete the entire section Misandry#Response to conservative commentary, which currently comprises a long quote from a Nathanson and Young review. I'm happy to see them criticized—frankly, anyone watching the Misandry article for as long as I have would be happy to see them shot—but not in this article which only mentions them for 3 sentences. If a longer N&Y section grows in the Misandry article, a well-footnoted mention of how little traction they have gotten in academe would be worth including, but it is now out of proportion, especially while we are discussing it as a trend rather than the development of a set of idea (which would be a welcome change).
The Nathanson and Young article contains a decent reviews section.
I'm asking you because I think you are the sole editor who wants this section retained. While Jgda ( talk · contribs) gave this paragraph a section heading, it seems more in the spirit of creating trouble than a serious suggestion. Is it okay if I delete this? / edg ☺ ☭ 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete if I'm the only editor who wants to keep it.--
IronAngelAlice (
talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not assume bad faith on my edits because I do not mean any. You said you were not going to do so and I took you at your word and declared the ANI dispute resolved. You said you would engage on the talk pages. Please read WHY I feel the need to include the sentence on the GOA investigation. Engage the talk page as we agreed upon. I am not trying to bully or attack you. I only want to edit as you do. I think there is a real need for that sentence. If you disagree, explain why on the talk page and we can DISCUSS it. :) Ghostmonkey57 ( talk) 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
I think we are off on the wrong foot. Let's try something different.
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
I will work with you on the edits to the David Reardon Page, and as a gesture of goodwill, I award you this Left Half of the Half Barnstar. After we work together, I'll get you the other half. Ghostmonkey57 ( talk) 10:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57 |
The part you added I had snipped both for concision (this section doesn't need to dominate the article with excessive length), and because it was not needed.
The reason I have Solanas in a separate section is I don't want her fastened to feminism, as some regular editors at Misandry often want to do; however, I don't think there should be repeated apologies and dismissals of her writing. Besides, these parts:
... should be sufficient to tell readers this person is a "fringe personality" without superfluous biographical detail; anyone that doesn't get it from these three (3) clues, won't get it from the fourth either.
Also, I don't with to create a precedent for someone to demand their favorite FOX commentator be called a maverick. Can I please remove this part? / edg ☺ ☭ 08:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed an alert here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:IronAngelAlice Ghostmonkey57 ( talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
Hello there! I am quite new to editing, and I thought my recent contribution to the Post Abortion Syndrome article was not only fair but also helped improve the article by using the reference more accurately. I've put a comment on the talk page there that explains more fully. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)