Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Again, welcome! - Meelar 22:28, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for rewriting conceptual blending in a neutral manner. My initial draft did seeming jarring and pompous. Nevertheless, you wrote "This theory is one among many; no theory of cognition to date has been widely accepted by the cognitive science community, nor has any been successfully implemented in the sense of yielding a system able to replicate the phenomena of human cognition." While that is strictly true, and it does not place blending on a pedestal, it also gives the impression that most "of the many" theories are equally likely candidates. Surely that's not the case. As per contemporary dogma, a couple of theories must have a broader base of support (blending doesn't have to be one of these theories). It would be instructive to place blending within such a context. I don't think that would go against neutrality. Thanks again -- Gyan 03:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)-
--
Hi there!
Magnetoencephalography is indeed used experimentally to make functional maps of human cortex - Sarang Dalal at UCSF/Berkeley, for example, does it; I watched him do a subject last week. He's not the only person working in this field, though. MEG's research use to assess high-frequency (>50 Hz) discharges that are poorly detected by surface and subdural elecetroencephalography isn't in question; you can read about one very recent foray here.
So I'm putting that sentence back :)
-Ikkyu2 06:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hello. I'm a steward. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus recently. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.
You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on yiwiktionary, where you are an administrator. Since yiwiktionary does not have its own administrators' rights review process, the global one applies.
If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights, and demonstrate a continued requirement to maintain these rights.
We stewards will evaluate the responses. If there is no response at all after approximately one month, we will proceed to remove your administrative rights. In cases of doubt, we will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact us on m:Stewards' noticeboard.
Best regards, Rschen7754 04:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I sincerely appreciate you trying to straighten out that edit war. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Barak. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Barak~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)
10:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm The Banner. 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 Arthur Griffith seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Changing a "doubt" into a clear "accusation" has nothing to do with maintaining a neutral stance The Banner talk 13:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Arthur Griffith. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The Banner talk 19:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply