User talk:Ghostmonkey57

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks!!! I really appreciate this! Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you do on the Liberty University article. There is quite a bit of dishonesty and bias from those who contribute their "opinions" as you can see. I am glad you are presenting an honest representation of what the school teaches, as opposed to those who have no association to the University and think they know what is "taught" based on what others who hate the school say. Just wanted to give you some encouragement. It's an uphill fight. --Jim Line (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and abortion may be on the brink of an edit war, and I would greatly appreciate your neutral input. Please be sure to see the talk page too. Thanks! LCP (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you remaking the edit with summary. I've added a note to the Talk page more or less agreeing with your reasoning. All the best, --j⚛e decker^talk 14:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you are the editor who first added certain cases involving homosexuality to the Walker article (back in February). Although that material has evolved, it was just removed. In my view, it should not have been removed because no consensus was first reached. A discussion is in progress on Walker's Talk page. Perhaps you'd like to contribute your thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Ghostmonkey57. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]