User talk:Cat clean

I saw what looked to be some bad editing of categories so I try to clean using Wikipedia:Categorization as the guide. If I made any mistakes please let me know with a message here.

welcome

Hello, Cat clean! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you for the kind welcome. Cat clean (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Ginsberg info

Thank you for your recent edits on the Ginsberg page. This is an argument we can never seem to get away from, but the NAMBLA nonsense is just not relavant to Ginsberg. Plenty of people on the page will say that's white washing his background, but there's nothing to support that NAMBLA held very much importance at all. I gave up on it a long time ago because we couldn't escape that illogical logic trap. The absence of info somehow didn't prove the absence of importance, ugh. I'm just saying, if someone tries to argue with you on those edits, I'll definitely have your back.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your note, I have no sympathy for those who abuse children and feel they should be treated or punished or whatever will stop them. But slinging labels around on people who are not abusing children takes away from addressing those who really are abusing children. The sourcing from some of these is NAMBLA itself which of course wants everyone to believe they have support. Everything I've read about victimizing children is that it is usually someone they know (often family or relative) - not "stranger danger". Cat clean (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community restrictions

The article John McKeague, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

O Fenian (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about different editions of the same book is noted, I had no idea about "The Troubles" but was alarmed at the category use with bad sourcing. I still question the category since it all speaks to him as abusing children and not in adult relationships. Cat clean (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Lives goes into slightly greater detail about him. His homosexuality was widely known about by the RUC (police) and fellow loyalists, and he was generally seen in the company of "young men" (from memory, it might be phrased slightly differently). While a liking for "young men" (of legal age I assume, hence the "men" distinction") would have been tolerated, if his liking for boys would have been known about things would have been rather different, and he would not have maintained such a prominent position within loyalism. So basically he was a homosexual and a paedophile, not just a paedophile who abused boys. O Fenian (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. If this is an accurate description then the article should be updated to read not "homosexual paedophile" but "he was a homosexual and a paedophile". Cat clean (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Calling me a liar here and my edit "deceptive" here is rude and WP:UNCIVIL.
This substantial revision on nambla was done (1) without discussion on the talk page and (2) without consensus. nambla has a controversial tag. I've invited you to join the discussion on the talk page here, again here and so has another editor here. Since your first nambla-related edit on 8/27 two and a half weeks ago you have not made a single post to the talk page.
The apparent majority of your edit history is "Undid revision ... by Lionelt". Following me around and leaving rude edit summaries is WP:STALKing. Please stop.

While you have a new account, your editing suggests that you are experienced. Notably your familiarity with AN/I and BLP/N. Lionel (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did lie and your other edit was certainly deceptive. As for your other concerns it seems unsubstantiated rumors and unsourced content is a recurring problem. My aim is only to improve the encyclopedia so I will insist on reliable sources and that categories align with those and not an editor's bias. If I see more of the issues come up I likely will again ask for other editors' opinions than rely on your or my judgement. As for those substantial changes they were all clearing up substantial changes that you had made like "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA" which does not match the source. I replaced that with "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups." This is sourced and accurate and not misleading in any way. Cat clean (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Horatio Alger, Jr.. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Courcelles 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to talk with TerrierHockey ‎ on their talkpage yet they simply reverted my edit re-adding unreliable sources like alternet.org which anyone can submit an article to and it seems no one fact checks them. I was re-removing contentious material that was very poorly sourced or misrepresented. Cat clean (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at WQA

Hello, Cat clean. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.