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

 * }

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

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)

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)

Community restrictions
O Fenian (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)

Warning
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)
 * 1) Calling me a liar here and my edit "deceptive" here is rude and WP:UNCIVIL.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.

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)

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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)

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)

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

Warning
I must insist that you stop making personnal attacks against me. Lionel (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't appreciate you accusing me of "misrepresenting sources" and vandalism as you did here

Here is the case I found unacceptable: You added "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA." 

This replaced the original first sentence of the section "Ostracism" which stated "Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded:"

Here is what I wrote from the very same source: "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."

You'll note specifically that one version claims all gay groups were supportive of NAMBLA, which the article goes to great lengths to point out is about pedophilia which omits that the main focus for the gay left was to help protect gay teens.

The original content was: ''Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded: in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands" Flyer for March on Washington [see p. 23] ). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments." ''

Warning
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Allen Ginsberg, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please note the definition of Controversial: "one where its related articles are constantly being re-edited in a circular manner, or is otherwise the focus of edit warring." Ginsberg qualifies on both counts.

Lionelt you added the controversial tag to support your edit war. stop posting frivolous warning notes here. Cat clean (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. - Schrandit (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)