User talk:Cataconia

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done. Cataconia (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

The {{POV}} and related templates are for mainspace only, not user talk pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! :(

Your edits, advice, and a warning

I was inclined to indef block you, my attention having been drawn to your earlier edits, for the emphasis relating to the apparent bias within articles relating to paedophila and child abuse, and the personal attacks on editors you feel are maintaining the current NPOV. In reviewing the entirety of your commentary I note that you have made observations that there may be reliably sourced legitimate minority viewpoints that are not represented in the article. I am not presently sanctioning you so that you may produce these reliable sources, provide evidence that they are acknowledged within mainstream scientific/medical (and legal) professions, and show they form a legitimate area of discussion within the subject area. Minority viewpoints, significant or otherwise, may only be allowed where it is indicated that the majority pov acknowledges them, given the sensitive nature of the subject. It has been decided that only the most scrupulously determined reliable sources may be used to illustrate the relevant pov's. These are the strictures you will need to acknowledge and work toward if you are to continue editing. If, however, you continue to simply castigate the editors and articles of alleged bias you will be blocked - if not by me then another. Please regard this as your only warning in regard to your editing in this area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently indefinate blocks are handed out like candy here. I don't think you have any grounds for a indef. block. Not that it would matter since the admins have absolute power here. Cataconia (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very rarely give out candy. Certainly not to strangers.

Within the area of paedophilia and child abuse articles, I would advise you that there is a very vigorous approach in regard to any edit or editor that may be perceived as pro advocacy regarding sexual relationships between adults and minors, or those attempting to portray such relationships as "normal"; they are removed. Where there are viewpoints that conflict with the majority NPOV they can only be included where the reliable sources are acknowledged by those within the majority establishment. If you can concentrate upon this, and not your antipathy toward those who edit within those strictures and those tasked with applying the codes of conduct to be found on this website, then you can continue here. If you do not, then you will be indefinitely blocked. Your approval is neither sought or required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without any specific concerns to be addressed, or any reliable sources provided to verify those concerns, this is a massive waste of time. While loudly proclaiming the failure and bias of wikipedia is doubtless very satisfying, it ignores the fact that it is in fact hard work to edit towards a genuine consensus that gives due weight to the mainstream opinion. Other editors have put in this time by becoming familiar with policies, guidelines and essays on wikipedia, and developing a general sense of its mores. In addition, particularly for developed pages like child sexual abuse and pedophilia, one must become familiar with the material itself such that undue and due weight can be demonstrated rather than blankly asserted. You, Cataconia, show no evidence of having done any of this, nor do you show any evidence of being willing to, and show many indications of simply trolling. Either put in the time, or leave, or get blocked. Your choice. You have all the links you need to start, and I am happy to answer any questions or comment on any issues you might have. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard work reaching consensus? Mass-bannings are hardly THAT much hard work, Cataconia (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then I infer that your stance is "The Wikipedia is irretrievably broken and corrupt on this subject, there is no possible fix, and I'm not going to suggest any fix because it's pointless". OK, noted. In that case, I would suggest that you edit in some other area (Category:Railroad museums in Oregon for instance), or if you don't want to do that then stop editing here and contribute to Wikipedia Review instead, they're always looking for new blood. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, stop owning the article and let wikipedia once again be a encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cataconia (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are several editors reverting you, and the only person replacing your material is you, then you are edit warring and the other editors have established a consensus. In this case, the consensus seems to be you are inappropriately using wikipedia for a soapbox for your own viewpoint, without being able to actually substantiate your point in any way. You have provided no meaningful sources, used no policies or guidelines to support your viewpoint, heeded none of the input from the many experienced editors who have commented, and in general show no interest in becoming familiar enough with the project to contribute meaningfully. Learn the rules, or leave everyone else to write an actual, meaningful encyclopedia based on the best sources we can find. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ganging up against a newcomer does not represent a valid consensus by Wikipedias own standards. OWNing articles is against wikipedias guidelines, but I guess the rules only applies to newcomer without admin powers. Cataconia (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text

{{unblock|reason=So I got blocked soon after I added a very concrete example of bias in a article. I am appaled at the abuse of administrator powers displayed here. This is censoring of information in it's purest form. ~~~~}}

, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Upon review of the responses above it is apparent to me that you have no intention in working within the projects framework, and since the subjects you wish to edit or comment upon are areas of considerable sensitivity and indeed controversy it is my judgement that Wikipedia is best without your contributions. I realise that you will see this as evidence of a suppression of a viewpoint - but one I suggest that has no grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedic work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cataconia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got blocked on the grounds that an admin made the speculation that I wouldn't "work within the projects framwork" despite having done so already and having the stated intention of making well sourced unbiased edits.

Decline reason:

If that's what you want to call disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, so be it. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cataconia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked for disruptive editing, but no one has shown that any disruptive editing has taken place nor that any will take place. The ban is completely unwarranted

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cataconia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for being rude, I realise my mistake and it will not happen again. I will only make constructive edits and comments from now on.

Decline reason:

It's not that you were rude, it's that you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by pushing your POV and refusing to acknowledge consensus. Donald Albury 23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were not blocked for being rude: you were blocked for disruptive editing; essentially for emphasising you own own point of view in your edits. Are you prepared and able to avoid edits of this type in the future?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually made a single edit in any of those articles. I have some comments such as this one: [1] which I think is fully within what is allowed in Wikipedia. The admin that banned me never could show a single edit or comment actually supporting his claim. I have stepped into someones turf and that is the real reason I was blocked. Cataconia (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there is a serious ownership issue going on here that ought to be looked into. Cataconia (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]