User talk:Ghostmonkey57

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)

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)

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

I've never actually awarded one of these before
If I never give out another, your bragging rights will be considerable.
 * Thanks!!! I really appreciate this! Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

HTML formatting
Also, I notice you are using some HTML formatting, such as "&lt;i&gt;". This is okay to do, but you might take advantage of a few Wiki markup formatting methods, as listed on 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

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)

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)

Liberty University
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)

Feedback would be appreciated
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)

thanks
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 &#9883; e decker  talk  14:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Vaughn Walker
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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)