Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
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!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
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)-
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)
- What a wonderful improvement to the MEG article! -Ikkyu2 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Your admin status
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.
Your account will be renamed
22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
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 13:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
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. 19:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)