User talk:Trevyn

Spam cleanup
Hi, I just wanted to say nice job cleaning up the New Atlantis spam. I removed some links added by Biopreparat, and I was going to list Egocasting for deletion but you beat me to it. Wmahan. 15:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Buff..er
Hello fellow pedant.

I know, and shockingly enough for the Intarwebs, actually agree that a restite water buffer and a mineral redox buffer are not exactly 100% absolutely chemically comparable to a buffered pH solution in an aqueous acid-base solution...but, considering "buffer" is a disambig page, where else does one direct the reader to learn about the principle of a chemical buffer? Surely not the overarching page which does not yet exist of chemical buffered system!

Sure, rocks make up only 99.999999% of the Earth and their chemical systematics are overlooked by chemists who learn about the 99.99999% of chemicals and mostly artificial systems which aren't silicate, but rocks contrary to popular conceptions, behave according to chemical principles (its shocking, I know, because they just sit there for 3 or 4.55 billion years a lot of the time doing fuck all) and, thus, chemical analogies allow us geoloists to explain to other life-forms on this planet how those compounds (ie, minerals) behave in hydrothermal and magmatic systems.

Just so you know.

And thanks for the spelling checks. Rolinator 05:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I figured you were going in that direction, and it wasn't any sort of out-of-the-blue pedantry. I'd spent the whole day tearing my hair out trying to disambiguate between acid-base buffer solutions and acid-base buffering agents, when people like to use the concepts interchangeably and call them both simply "buffers" (and it should probably be one page called Acid-base buffer anyway), so when your page came along...yeah. Anyway, I like the sentence you added, it really increases the clarity for someone like me who isn't familiar with geologic buffering. However, I am not amused by your planting the notion of a generic chemical buffering page in my head. I like links that are precise and flow well, even if that means there are some extra articles involved. —Trevyn 07:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the survey and for suggestions. We will posting results on my user page when the survey is complete, but feel free to post on my talk page and I will send you a summary.Corey 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NPWatcher
I am currently working with the developer to fix a few bugs with .NET 3.0, so we had some AfD script issues. Sorry for not cleaning up afterwards. FirefoxMan 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Foie gras mediation request
Hi! I'm writing to let you know that I've opened up a mediation case (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-27 Foie Gras controversy) in which you are listed as a participant. Please read me comments in the mediator's response area there, and we can decide on a text for the article. ST47 Talk 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
For catching the vandalism on my user page! Not really sure how I could have missed it... And yes, my vanadalism counter's not a template because I like to re-do everything using my colour scheme ^_^ ShakingSpirit talk  09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Foie gras mediation
Hello Trevyn. Looks like ST47 is trying to get the mediation back under control and has started a point-by-point list of issues. You may wish to give your input, as the rest of the mediation seems to be rather hoeplessly tangled. Regards, Ramdrake 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Azlon
A tag has been placed on Azlon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Kateshort forbob  10:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk
Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active here on wikipedia. With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil Pulling Nominated For Deletion
As this has already been merged with Mouthwash I am nominating this for deletion. --BenBurch (talk)

Nomination of Oil pulling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oil pulling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Oil pulling & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fotiallian listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fotiallian. Since you had some involvement with the Fotiallian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Miyagawa (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)