User talk:Halogenated

just read your 2007 comment on nootropic. trying to fix that damnable page. are you still around? -bloodleech

Hi! Care to edit this article again for logic? I appreciate your effortsPustelnik 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good faith edits! Please note that Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue do not intersect at any point if you look at a map of Toronto. Thank you. Johnny Au 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up, I meant Keele and Sheppard, though I suppose it's more South_east Asian then Chinese. Halogenated 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Botulinum toxin. Thank you. --Slashme 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently went ahead without adding it, sorry about that! Halogenated 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied · Michel 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might try for a cleanup of the treatment section, but you've done a good job on it. John Nevard (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that vandalism. Editors are usually given four warnings (levels 1 to 4) and then if they vandalize again, are reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism where an admin will take the appropriate action (i.e., blocking). Not all editors require four warnings as you can skip a level (or more) for particularly egregious cases or give an "only warning" if circumstances warrant (it's rare though). Anyone can warn an editor for vandalizing so if you have any questions just let me know. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, what Neil said. :) Cheers! Dfrg_msc 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so am I. I had a formal the other night I'm still recovering from. Cheers! Dfrg_msc 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CerebralHealth.com is not spam pure and simple! There are tons of articles on the Brain Research and Information Network (BRAIN) See http://www.cerebralhealth.com/neuroscienceresearch.php and perhaps this is where the link should go. It appears that you have not looked through the site sufficiently. There is one product that is set to launch called Synaptine, but Synaptine is by no means the whole focus of the site. Its what is first because it just came out and appears in the news section.

In my opinion, CerebralHealth.com is one the most informative sites of all the one's listed. The Better Brain Nootropics Index at http://www.betterbrain.org is an absolute mess. The article from The Scientist entitled "Seeking Smart Drugs" is now by subscription only. The Business Week article entitled, "I Can't Remember" has ads left and right. Erowid makes money off donations, so it could be considered "spam". The Slashdot link is mostly just a forum. The Society for the Advancement for Cosmetic Pharmacology and Hedweb are decent, but I wouldn't go far to say that they are outstanding resources for nootropics by any means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.118.226 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the site to be seen as an education resource, then restructure the website as an educational site and not one where the primary focus is as a commercial entity.Halogenated (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC

To be perfectly honest, I am seriously considering removing all links to any products except Synaptine which I personally developed and believe in. I have thought about Synaptine for over two years and so it is important to me. However, with that single exception, I want CerebralHealth.com to be one of the best websites for nootropics and brain health. Further, I take wikipedia references to the site very seriously and do the best I can to make CerebralHealth.com as educational as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.118.226 Philoprof (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Philoprof[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Chris 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that in this edit you changed 'usual' to 'common' with the edit summary 'grammar'. I am not aware of any grammatical reason to prefer 'common' in this context. I'm usually the sort of person who corrects obscure grammatical errors, so I'm quite curious about this one. Could you please give me a brief explanation of the reason for your edit, or point me to a web page with one? I'm not disputing your edit, to me it has almost the same meaning as before. I'm just curious about the grammar.--Angelastic (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Dairy product has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Cometstyles 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I put together List of vegetable oils back in the day, and ever since, I've kept an eye on most of the vegetable oil related articles. Waitak (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I removed the spam and non-cited blurb from the Dairy Product article. I'll make sure not to clean up and improve Wikipedia in the future. B3nnic33 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the wikipedia NPOV policy yet I'm still confused by exactly what you mean. I revised my initial entry, attempting to neutralize the tone. I'll try a third time, simply listing the domain name alone without any additional words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotick (talk • contribs) 08:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-04-15: You added this to my talk page:

"You need to take a critical look at the source you're presenting. The site notmilk.com is incredible biased towards a POV considered not scientifically viable, or reasonable. The author(s) are presenting a highly one-sided case with little peer-reviewed references, and those that are given are highly selective. There are many reasonable arguments that persuade against the consumption of milk, but this website does not do justice to most."

I couldn't disagree with you more. If you get past the homepage, you'll see that most pages on notmilk.com are quotes from several to dozens of sources, including Nature and various medical journals, both general and highly specialized. I'm not sure how much more "scientific" scientific can get?

Like most people, I consider myself to be a relatively educated person, but in thirty years I'd never heard anything like what's presented on notmilk.com, and I believe that by de-including that alternative viewpoint on wikipedia --what should be THE end-all source for information-- taints the overall spirit and purpose as much as promulgates a potentially harmful disservice to humanity.

It seems to me that you're arguing against including, what?, 11 characters (notmilk.com) that could markedly improve someone else's life, and I find that highly unconscionable.

Let the reader decide, but at least let him be aware of all the options and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotick (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the comment of the animal rights guy "HSUS picture of dairy cows being taken for slaughter" as well. I am just curious if you removed it as well a mine. That is political as well you know. obama=osama(Yomamma22) (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to read up the topic. I caught the external links being added to one of the WPCD articles ( http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/w/Water_purification.htm) as I edit the schools selection and followed him. --BozMo talk 06:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter almonds are *almonds*. See the almond article. --Trovatore (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I just wanted to say thanks for all the valuable contributions you have been making to science articles! -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also... I have granted rollback to your account which you may find helpful. (I can remove it if you don't want it.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well I added a part for the envorimental parts for Biodegradable plastic I would like to know what I said was wrong and if you would consider it to be as you would say "nonsense" but please tell me what I did wrong I would like to know because I am doing a report on it. Also if you have any information on it can you tell me? Thank you for your copperation you scincerly, wiki plastic man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.222.5 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you have removed the addition of P to the Methamphetamine? As this is the name used in New Zealand there is no reason for its exclusion, therefore I have restored it.

this message:

Sorry Halogenated.

was placed on your userpage by User:Anna10017 at 18:40, 19 November 2008. Just wanted to let you know. Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Halogenated. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]