User talk:IronAngelAlice/Archive Jan 2008

Warnings

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)

Wikipedia:DTTR --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

HPV vaccine

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)

Misandry reversions

I think I gave decent reasons for my changes on Talk:Misandry. Can you take the time to explain your reasons for

• repetitive etymology section,[1] which I think is unnecessary, and is contraindicated by WP:DICDEF
• expanded criticism of Nathanson and Young, [2] following a 2-sentence mention that I think should indicate to most readers N&Y's leanings
• need to change "discourse" to "commentary"

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)

Sorry about some of the reverts. Ghostmonkey was following me around and reverting much of what I had done the past few days. I was moving to fast, and didn't notice you had done a much better job on the etymology, etc. I did end up reverting one of the reverts I made! hehe--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor and self-revert (or just delete) the Etymology section? If I took it out now I would be seen as editing against WP:CONSENSUS. The rest is being discussed on Talk:Misandry. I think the recent batch of reversions may have given certain parties to disrupt and edit war.

Also I could use some help in citing sources saying the discussion of misandry as a subject is discourse occurring within conservatism. The identification of individual authors on whatever spectrum won't cut it for our purposes, especially since one or two of the authors cited are being quoted by conservatives but themselves really aren't. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for gonging Etymology. Much appreciated. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Ghostmonkey's brought you to ANI. The thread is found here. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to conservative commentary

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)

Previous versions of the Misandry article contained a proper section dedicated to N&Y, so this may be restored someday. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reardon Edit

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

Please restore the 3R warning on your talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I did not violate 3RR. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." I agreed with your edit, and KEPT IT IN WHOLE! I added one sentence in order to clarify the fraud/illegal obtaining of funds by PWU. I think you may have misread my sentence, so I went back and changed it. I also think that you misunderstand my intentions on the article. I am trying to work with you as we agreed. Please read WHY I felt the additional sentence was necessary, and if you disagree with it, explain why you disagree, and we can discuss moving forward. That was the entire point of my ANI request in the first place. I am trying my level best to be civil with you. I ask that you look past and disagreement we might have, and see if we can resolve the situation amicably. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Barnstar

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

SCUM Manifesto

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:

• excerpt from SCUM Manifesto, plus
• that she was a schizophrenic who shot someone famous, plus
• the Echols note that she contravened the sort of radical feminism which prevailed in most women’s groups across the country

... 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)

Wikiquette Alert

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

GhostM, I'm simply not going to be bullied by you.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to bully you. I've continually tried to work with you. I don't know why you feel the need to continually refer to me in such terms. What beef do you have with me? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Moved over from userpage

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)