User talk:Cathry/Archive 1

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Cathry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of the Euromaidan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

attacked Party of Regions office, after taming the fire the dead man (probably) office-guard) was find<ref>http://ru.tsn.ua/politika/pri-zahvate-ofisa-partii-regionov-ubili-dvuh-sotrudnikov-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in the Ukraie[edit]

Hello,

I saw you are very active writing about Ukraine. I would like to share with you a article I wrote about the situation in the Ukraine: [1]

It's a new blog and I will publish more on the topic. Do you think you could write your opinion there and help spread it?

Thank you! 2.125.165.6 (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, unfortunately I am not active writing about Ukraine here, because my English is rather poor I'll read your article and try to write there what i think.. Cathry (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sergei Sobolev (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crimean crisis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. please don't edit war and please use the talk page for controversial material, and be aware of WP:3RR Львівське (говорити) 22:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for useful links Cathry (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, you may be blocked from editing. RGloucester — ☎ 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you hide facts about death of more than 40 men with user Lvivske, which is supporter of Ukranian party Svoboda Cathry (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is hidden. The article says that some people were beaten, that the pro-unity demonstrators said 'Burn, Colorado, Burn'. It's all there. You are merely introducing deliberate skewing of unverifiable primary source opinion as fact. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's because I'm a Svoboda bogeyman --Львівське (говорити) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your political activity. but is clear you are affiliated person. I dont see nothing funny now, though I know nationalist supporters joked about "colorados pies " Cathry

What is a colorado pie? And why do you believe I'm affiliated with anyone? --Львівське (говорити) 05:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your edit at Right Sector: Most mainstream reports indicate that the defenders killed or wounded over 50 enemy combatants and that civilian casualties were much lower. Does any Wikipedia editor have the authority to deem this outcome a “tragedy”?

No, there were not combatants mainly (for normal people every such death is tragedy though). There was at least 6 women (3 of them 50+ years), http://vesti.ua/odessa/50496-ognennaja-rota-spisok-pogibshih .So I think that mainstream reports you speaking of are disgusting. Cathry (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"defenders killed or wounded" unfortunately, it is mistake, defenders were killed or wounded. Cathry (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Sektor boys who took part in the clash called it “another bright page of our national history”. But they’re not expected to maintain NPOV. We are.

It is remark at their official site, what is matter? Cathry (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For helpful background information, see generally MW3. “partisan. A member of a guerrilla band … engaged chiefly in demolition, incendiarism, …” --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments you've made, such as in the section above appear to be quite incivil and are very close to being personal attacks. Please ensure you focus on the content of the dispute not on the others editors involved. Continuing to make personal attacks or more incivility may result in sanctions as described above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Parry (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian crisis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Cathry. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ukrainian Insurgent Army, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the matter? Is it about my edit based on this article Даниил Романовский. КОЛЛАБОРАНТЫ: УКРАИНСКИЙ НАЦИОНАЛИЗМ И ГЕНОЦИД ЕВРЕЕВ В ЗАПАДНОЙ УКРАИНЕ http://www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/191/roman.htm ? Cathry (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's based on Romanovsky... who is a WP:POV source to be handled with care in use in a WP:BALANCED article. He is heavily referenced by Per Anders Rudling, also considered to be WP:POV and not reliable in the context of this article. I've posted links to discussions regarding Rudling as a WP:RS on the article's talk page. Please try to keep discussions to one talk page or the other rather than posting to both simultaneously. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it is your opininon that Rudling is WP:POV and i has another. But I based my edit on Romanovsky article, not Rudling. Do you think you can delete all edits you do not like as POV? Cathry (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of my 'opinion' versus your 'opinion': it's a matter of the reliability of the sources and the use of identifiably biased sources... and, now, you are edit warring on an article subject to discretionary sanctions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not prove bias of Rudling yet (and it will be very hard with plenty of historians who support him, instead of ukrainian nationalists), and you did not mention Romanovsky still. Cathry (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romanovsky is being discussed... However, I must thank you for confirming your WP:POV approach to the subject matter: "with plenty of historians who support him, instead of ukrainian nationalists". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean connected with OUN, affiliated historians Cathry (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ukrainian Insurgent Army seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

P.S. Please remain aware of the discretionary sanctions warning posted to this talk page in May. I suggest that you take it seriously. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy, my edit was based on specified source, didn't you see it? Cathry (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for appreciation[edit]

I'm trying now to create a template concerning to the support of Novorossiya and Crimea self-determination. I haven't found out yet... But maybe I can do it. Greetings from Portugal!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is nice that somebody wants to adhere to an objective view of eventsCathry (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wolfsangel because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia.
Your use of Anton Shestakov from what is essentially a WP:POV promotional Russian 'news' blog is out of order. I'm getting extremely tired of your WP:TEDIOUS editing pattern. If you wish to portray Ukrainians as fanatical nationalists who'd cut your throat as soon as look at you, I suggest you get an account for a forum or start your own blog. Your extremist POV pushing is not appreciated here. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Umland is well-known political researcher, so is Anton Shekhovtsov (who is Shestakov?). Open Democracy has little relation to Russia, as i know. I am Ukrainian citizen (Ukrainan, Russian and Jewish by nationality), but I have nothing common with this Nazi from SNA and SNPU. Please be more polite and attentive in your edits. I will undo your revert. Cathry (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Wolfsangel. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wolfsangel. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cathry reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: ). Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette issues[edit]

Please do not treat other Wikipedians as if they were a 24/7 service who should avail themselves to you and your interests the moment you call on them. For myself, I have an extensive watchlist of articles covering numerous areas of Wikipedia. At the moment, I have well over one hundred alerts on articles, other users pinging me for input on issues... all while I'm trying to copyedit, cite check and develop articles.

This doesn't mean that I won't get to pings or other issues when I have the time, but it does mean that I'm not able to respond to anything just because you demand instant gratification. Rather than pinging me regarding having opened a discussion on the RSN from that RSN, then making indignated remarks about my not having responded, please be a little more respectful of the fact that I have a lot that I work on in Wikipedia, as well as a real life (including a need for sleep). I will respond as soon as I am able, although it is not currently high on my priorities list.

I would appreciate it if you were to leave a message on my talk page to alert me to the RSN thread you've opened in order that I have a reminder of its existence. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Religion in Russia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please note that you shouldn't edit war, even if you think you're right. Note the diffs here, here, here, here, and here. Yes, there is a Category:Religion in the United States, and you've challenged two editors over the cats without discussion. If you feel that there are redundant categories, the issue should be taken up a the relevant category's talk page, not in a tug of war over the article itself. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

))))) Do you understand English? Cathry (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee sanctions in effect on Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please be mindful that this is not a warning or a threat but an informative note. All editors who edit in articles that are subject to Arbitration Committee sanctions are issued with these templates. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cathry (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikita the Tanner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk tale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Center of origin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ahura Mazda

added a link pointing to Vedic religion

Russians

added a link pointing to Indo-Iranian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polytheistic religions[edit]

Based on you recent editing, perhaps you would like to create a new category, Category:Polytheistic religions, to parallel Category:Monotheistic religions. But its gonna be a large category. Editor2020, Talk 22:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is a good idea. Cathry (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is difficulty for me it is do distinguih polytheistic and animistic religions. In fact,nearly every polytheistic religion had animistic component, and nearly every animistic had deities exept spirits. So how do you think, would Category:Polytheistic and animistic religions be a suitable name to avoid contradictions? Cathry (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not try to add animism at all, just polytheism. Editor2020, Talk 00:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't tell them apart, just leave them alone.Editor2020, Talk 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GMO related articles[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

As it looks like you're new to this topic, I just wanted to let you know we've had a history of edit warring isses in GMO related topics that have led to the above discretionary sanctions and 1RR restrictions. Part of that edit warring problem was content being reinserted that failed to gained talk page consensus in the past and have since remained removed like the edit you re-inserted at European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. Please be careful about this in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is your final warning. You've already been given ample explanation of expectations for avoiding edit warring in GMO related articles. Especially after edit warring nonsensical edits back in such as this, you are already in a position where sanctions are likely. Please stop edit warring and follow WP:BRD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I revert your deletion only one time last 24 hours, so your warning is premature. Actually I don't see nothing "nonsensical" in the information about still ongoing development of Golden Rice. Cathry (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is edit warring since you chose to revert the edit instead of gain consensus for it on the talk page. If you read the edit war warring and the relevant policies, 1RR is in this case the line you absolutely must not cross. You can still be edit warring before reaching that point. Also, do you realize that the edit you edit warred back in does not make any sense. Who is he? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Cathry. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary antioxidants[edit]

The only accepted dietary antioxidants (by regulatory authorities and international agencies) are vitamins A-C-E, as discussed under here. The FDA, for example, has stipulated this as discussed here (lay summary here) and by EFSA here.

If you're considering polyphenols as dietary antioxidants, that issue has been dismissed here. --Zefr (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Squalene. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS. The sources you are trying to use are not authoritative systematic reviews. The information you are trying to use is not conclusive and is not encyclopedic. Zefr (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only systematic reviews can be used according to WP:MEDRS.

"Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies."

Furthemore reviews - are ideal sources, but other secondary sources are also acceptable according to guideline.

You and some other editors deleted information based on secondary scientific sources, but only that part which say something good, not something bad about these chemicals. So your edits appear to be disruptive and need to be reverted. Cathry (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When two or more editors dispute content and sources, that is called WP:CON, meaning consensus does not exist and the content should not be included. You can dispute the revert and create a debate on the Talk page, go to here to seek feedback on MEDRS sourcing, or enter a WP:RFC. --Zefr (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can not and don't want dispute every your deletion, as they are all similar and against guideline Cathry (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Phytochemical, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you add senseless info i could only mention it in summary. Cathry (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice[edit]

Your recent editing history at Phytpochemical shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who started edit war. You added new info - I reverted it because it is not from relevant sources and you are obviously don't understand its sense. But, you against consensus, returned rejected edits. Cathry (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Green tea, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citations without discussion[edit]

Could you please not remove citations from Herbalism without discussion and wide WP:CONSENSUS. The sources are abundantly clear, from a wide range of organisations, and undoubtedly reliable on the matter in hand. If you have reason to believe otherwise, by all means take that to the talk page.

I note that you have been cautioned by other editors on other articles about removing sourced content. I do hope that you will now stop doing this, everywhere that you edit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at Herbalism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I second that. Your conduct is extraordinary for an experienced editor, and completely unacceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, v. bad show. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block[edit]

Hi. You've been blocked for 48 hours due to violating the Three revert rule (six times). Please observe greater restraint and be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Banana. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I deleted original research which was in article, and contributed there nothing. Cathry (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Banana.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Warning WP:WAR, WP:3RR Zefr (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely ridiculous to compare bananas with leavening agents, dehydrated onions, etc. Cathry (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such discussion in the article. The source is a trusted, comprehensive table of potassium content for various foods; the user can browse it for relevant comparisons. --Zefr (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Banana is about bananas, so only allowable info from primary source is about bananas. Your original research is dubious, as it proposes to eat spinach or potatoes to get potassium, but this items are used with salt, (and spinach has many oxalates), so their consumption are less useful for sodium/potassium balance Cathry (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no such discussion" - it is, as there is some "Top 1000 high-potassium foods" with leavenenig agents and spices in top 10. Cathry (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just nonsense. You're preventing yourself from seeing the obvious, and are making your own opinions about extraneous issues like salt and oxalates. If one focuses on potassium content alone - the point of the article paragraph in question - the ranking of banana becomes clear. --Zefr (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potassium in food is important as part of sodium/potassium ratio. If someone eat less sodium they will need less potassium. Cathry (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue discussed in the Nutrition section of the article; WP:OFFTOPIC. --Zefr (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lemon balm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valerian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glyphosate[edit]

I see that you reverted a properly-sourced addition to that piece with only a one-word explanation ("rumor"). I see above that you have been repeatedly warned about misbehavior. This is not another one, but I do want to understand your thinking. Lfstevens (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-target-cancer-scientist-in-flawed_us_594449eae4b0940f84fe2e57 Cathry (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't a reliable source at all. If you read the very top of the link, it flat out says Carey Gilliam is the research director for the U.S. Right to Know campaign, which is well known for pushing advocacy and pseudoscience as part of marketing campaigns. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not push propagandist claims here. Cathry (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not propaganda. Please do not forget that there are Discretionary Sanctions in effect in this topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is propaganda, as it not supported by reliable sources. Please do your rallies elsewhere, not at my talkpage. Cathry (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]