User talk:Catcus DeMeowwy

Question

How do I use the refs param on the reflist template {{reflist}}, ie. {[reflist | refs =

• reference

- rest of references appear (from reflist) -

{Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring on Chinese herbology

@Catcus DeMeowwy I second @BZPN's comments. When you enter any information into wikipedia, the sequence is BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. Looks like BZPN is attempting to discuss with you, but you are choosing to revert instead. Yes, BZPN is reverting you as well so that does mean both of you are crossing WP:3RR territory and one or both of you could be blocked. I'm not saying this as an admin or anything else other than an editor, like you are. If I can propose something to both of you.......


• @User:BZPN stop reverting the article, that will prevent you from getting further on the admin's radar for 3rr. If you see any further repeats of OR, or MOS, please put a note on the talk page then alert an admin.

• @Catcus Demeowwy Why not work on the article in draft space or on your user space. This will give you time to get all of the references you need before you move it into article space.

My hope for proposing this is to stop this edit war between you two. Believe it or not, I got into multiple edit wars on en.wikipedia and as a result, I'm indef banned on en.wikipedia and (unless / untill) the sysop over here says so, I'm on Onestrike over here. You don't want that same thing. Take the smart choice, please! Wekeepwhatwekill   ^Speak! 00:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The reverts were massive and made while I was editing, the article was WIP and it created conflicting versions. His removed 17K chars and mine added info, which he also cleared, also without discussing it. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 00:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

edit on talk page (earlier rev id) (relevant). { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Relevant warning in section: { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 01:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

27 April 2026

Please do not add wrong information into articles, as you did to Chinese herbology. Your changes appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please provide a source for your information or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Question

Just a question, why are you editing so mych about Governments of Countries? ExplorerofSpace (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

From template: link. I'm done once I do a quick 2nd check on the new link just found. Is there a problem?

{ Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 12:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, just wondering. ExplorerofSpace (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Heilbronn, Germany

The page you wrote, Heilbronn, Germany, has been marked for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was a mistake, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can read more about the reason here. BZPN (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know I think the redirect is legit. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 22:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

They are, but they need to make sense. If a city is called "Heilbronn" and a page with that name exists, creating a redirect from "Heilbronn, Germany" makes no sense. It's the same as creating a redirect from, say, "Biłgoraj, Poland" to "Biłgoraj" when there's only one city in the world named "Biłgoraj". On the other hand, if there are several cities named Heilbronn in Germany, then such a redirect creates an even greater unnecessary problem when it comes to article naming. BZPN (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I will keep it in mind in the future when working on the country city names/redirects. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 22:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Probiotic redirects

You made several redirects to Probiotic, but the article doesn't exist. Why did you create these? Per WP:RQD, they will need to be deleted. Additionally, creating redirects with quotation marks around the title isn't something that's necessary. CountryANDWestern (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You can delete them then. There was those articles (pro+ Prebiotic(s)), which I am probably not going to create and the other one, which I will probably end up getting around to for that red link. In a lot of media I have seen, or when people are talking about probiotics, they usually go, "probiotics" if they are talking to lamens, so the lamen term went on, plus they are all fake/quack 100% of the time also. Now the link goes in my talk page archive and I will have something to remind me rather than putting it to the back of my mind hoping to stumble upon it again one day. Thanks { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 13:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for 24 hours for being unkind or rude.

Once the block has ended you can make helpful changes. Please read Wikipedia's blocking policy and remember that adding spam, making changes that do not have a neutral point of view, making personal attacks on others, not respecting other people's privacy, and vandalizing pages are not allowed. If you do any of these things, you will be blocked again.

If you think this block is unfair, you can ask to be unblocked by adding {{Unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Catcus_DeMeowwy (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

I woke up to like 10 edits from one person picking fights. The article isn't even about me. I want the problem to be over (and it will probably be gone in 24 hours anyway) so that I can continue. I maintain that his edits are dogshit (and he is picking MORE fights about MY edits on MY talk page/archives). The fact that I get blocked and he doesn't is crazy. He should be blocked too (because his edits are bad) and he has had countless warnings over on the noticeboard about edits - warning after warning as he continues - without getting a punishment, and he also started this (and kept it going). Or I guess you finally found something to block ME for because with every warning you gave him, I got a warning too(?) about how "both of us can be blocked," and he can be cringe and bad as he wants to be, which you let it keep going until I say something (from his duplicate topic creation on admin noticeboard) that gets me blocked, while he sits there, not punished at all for his edits. I will be able to do link suggestions/newcomer tasks again in 24 hours anyway, which is what I was doing when this started, and how I found Chinese herbology for this to get started anyway. His edits are objectively dogshit. But this is unfair, and I want to say how he sat there spamming the noticeboard, creating other topics, and being so self-important with his massive amount of chars put into defending this whole ordeal (not the article, which he never would of padded - and it would of been up to me, which was ALREADY a WIP when he started - and so that nobody here forgets that he kept it going with his spam (through you warning us BOTH every step of the way) until finally you came up with an excuse from my edits to block me and only me, even though he had far more warnings (or did have, with every single warning being at us both and never at him.

Decline reason:

Your comments here and your section header wording shows me that you have clearly not understood the reason for the block. Further inappropriate comments about other users or their changes will result in an extension of your block and the removal of your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. -- CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The edits that he made about this warring = over 8,000 chars; that's 10x as many characters as he left Chinese herbology with after blanking a WIP page, which I maintain he had no intention of padding after he cleared it, by the way. Great edits not dogshit at all. }} { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 14:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Declined

For calling his edits dogshit. They are objectively bad. The summary (first mention) was on an edit summary of my own talk page, and archives. The revision was restored instantly for the talk page to be vandal-free. The second mention was him making duplicate topics on the noticeboard to pick more fights with me, and he got warned for this bad edit, and so did I.

He types out 8K characters defending himself and saying admins should "be careful" for accusing him of using AI to defend his dogshit position in this, 10x the characters he left an actual article on Wikipedia with. He doesn't care about the article and would never of padded it out (but he pads out the noticeboard with his topic). He got warned every step of the way with that too, by the way (so did I).

I understand the reason for the block, now what. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 14:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Because you have abused this talk page by making bad unblock requests or disruptive changes, you are no longer able to change or post to this talk page while you remain blocked. If you wish to appeal your block further, please send an email to the unblock mailing list at simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I have increased your block to a full week and removed your ability to change this page due to your further comments above. If you understood the reason for your block as you said, you wouldn't have continued to describe the edits or position of the other user as "dogshit." After the block expires, hopefully you can find ways to better collaborate without being unkind. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from changing Wikipedia in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of admin mailing list. If you think this block is unfair, you may ask to be unblocked by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private, please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. Ternera (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)