User talk:Cathry

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

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 (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) 10:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

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 (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) 12:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vedic religion

Russians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

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)

Polytheistic religions

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)

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

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)

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

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

GMO related articles

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)

Edit war warning

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)

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)

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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)

Dietary antioxidants

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)

February 2017

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removing sourced content

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)

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

Edit warring notice

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)

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)

Unsourced content

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)

Removing citations without discussion

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)

Edit war warning

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)

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

3RR block

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)

May 2017

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

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 (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) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Glyphosate

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)

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)