User talk:Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x)

Welcome!

Hello, Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x), and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - Eagle^amn 09:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am still trying to get my name changed from my previous name to this one, but I gave up and just created this user anyway. Maybe oneday those 200 orso edits will be attributed to me.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Apology accepted. I think we can safely state that the film is ambitious and that Siddig's performance is memorable, but we probably need some good cites. I've seen both stated in many reviews. More importantly, we need to discuss the role of the "father-son" relationships. That seems to be the most striking and important metaphor of the film. --Viriditas 13:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

You seem to be involved in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I would say it is serious enough that you could bother to make an accout, or use an existing one if you already have it. It helps people being more comfortable talking to somebody who has a better defined virtual personna than an ever-changing string of numbers (your ip address that is). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oleg, this is a "clever" logon. And its also not an IP addr, as a quick "dig -x 21.12.52.123" will quickly reveal. Reasons for this "clever anonymity"? I don't know, but Oleg s right, we like it better when we know who we're dealing with. linas 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is a madeup IP. Its just a name like any other in my mind (actually I was thinking about naming myself after a number), there is no malintent on my behalf. I have introduced myself on the participants page of WP:Project Mathematics. Sorry about the confusion.

Welcome to Wikipedia. There is no need to present a "real world" identity here, but in ongoing conversations we do like to know "who" we're talking to, a Wikipedia identity. Because your chosen user id looks very much like an IP, you may find that it regularly causes confusion about whether you are a transient anonymous IP. That problem is lessened by creating a user page, which you have done. You can also play with your signature according to your creativity. For example, mine includes a link to my talk page. To edit your signature, use the "my preferences" link at the top of the page when you are logged in, and look at the Nickname field. See Help:Preferences for more guidance. I would also recommend that you take advantage of the village pump (especially the help desk), to speed your journey up the learning curve. --KSmrq^T 10:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--B21.12.52.123 11:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Style remarks

1. One should sign one's posts (see above). Not a real style remark, but close.
2. One should write analytic number theory and not Analytic Number Theory (the color of the link says it all). Wikipedia uses lower case as much as possible for links, section headings, and a lot of other things.
3. One should use an edit summary at all times.

Now, I am aware that one should not bug a newbie like that, but these things must be taught when one is young, to make sure they stick. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PS See also the top of the page. The official welcome, if you did not get one so far. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks--B21.12.52.123 08:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Test--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 11:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

More style tips

Hi B21. It's again me, and again bugging you. But those are things which you need to learn sooner or later, and better earlier than later.

1. Variables should be italic, so x rather than x.
2. Links should not be uppercase unless at the beginning of sentence, so "see the exponential" instead of "see the Exponential".
3. π and π instead of Pi and Pi
4. One should not start a sentence with "e is applied"; start a sentence with a normal word.
5. A formula on its own line should be :<math>x^2</math> and not *<math>x^2</math>
6. You use way too much space between paragraphs; exactly one space is enough (if you put three empty lines, three empty lines will show in the article, this is not TeX or html).
7. Big edits to important articles need to be done in stages, with consultation on talk page first.

I have more, but that's enough for now. :) Hope you can go back and fix things at e (mathematical constant). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeez... rules rules rules lol...alright then, thx for the info. I'll tidy it up a little bit.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget, I have more. :)

But I think you understand. :) Its a matter of things looking nice. So, get some practice before you start a new wiki. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to focus on contributing; there are plenty of users here who just shuffle around words and correct typos all day, they can clean up if they want. I'll keep the points you made in mind though.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 07:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good. But keep in mind that people who shuffle words around don't do that because they are unable to work on better things, rather take time of their busy schedule to make sure the encyclopedia looks nice. So although your contributions don't need to be perfect, you should not try to be too sloppy either. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: my name

I must say that all you wrote in the ==My name== section is highly silly. You are not dealing with a bunch of idiots who have nothing to do all day than shuffle words around and delete your contributions. Get used to the project before making judgements. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan (I am guessing you are Jonathan Sondow), we really do have a bunch of bright people here, including PhD's, postdocs and math professors (at least one of which is as famous as you). Articles written here do have a certain "house style" of wording, section headings, layout, etc. and articles will get edited by others to conform to that house style; don't take such editing as an insult, or disrespect. WP also has some ambitious undergraduates who often have more dreams than abilities, and these people often make disasterously bad edits to articles. We mostly try to fight them off, or work with them based on ability. You miught find yourself dealing with some of these as well, and it is very easy to have a "bad experience" that way. This is a big "kitchen" with a lot of activity. I can only recommend that you "stick with it", identify editors whom you can trust, and view others with caution. linas 17:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasnt really referring to you guys, I was referring to this guy who keeps needlessy changing words around for no good reason in my Syriana (the movie) article (look at the history of it its hilarious..this guys adds absolutely NOTHING). However what I said about just deleting stuff you don't want in there stands for you guys...basically what I'm saying is I'm though with arguing and discussing..I just dont have time for it. I'm getting my EDM (the math encyclopedia) from home in a couple of days and I will start adding a lot of stuff. I just want to contribute; and if you dont like it just delete it and I will let others do the arguing for me. I just care about the MATH thats all. If enough stuff of mine is gone (unlikely that will happen, math isnt exactly a controversy around here) I will just leave.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 17:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Sondow?! I WISH I was Sondow...the guy is a genius. Hes probably a lot more mature and intelligent than me. I included some of his formulas (cus I like them so much) and some of my own (I'll admit it). I'm just a 21 year old independant math researcher. I dont have any beef with you guys all im saying is I just care about the MATH. Please keep that in mind if I make a style mistake or dont use proper wiki whatever. I'll try to keep in the format.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 17:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment is retracted as you changed the above section. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Want to contribute, interested in content not arguments, frustrated with bad edits and deletions … Sounds like a very familiar story on Wikipedia. These are systemic issues here; each editor responds with what is personally comfortable. My frustration grew to the point that I stopped writing major contributions to articles, and now confine myself to minor edits (such as typos) and talk pages. However, my frustration was exacerbated by the fact that I was drawn to do a very good job on basic material, rather than fill in details on especially advanced questions. For social and technical reasons, the former is much harder than the latter to achieve within Wikipedia's system. It's a pity, because more readers will be affected by the quality of the basic stuff. Which leads to a caution: There is an inevitable tension here concerning audience and style. Specifically, read and take to heart the discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). If you start an article as if you were talking to a young niece rather than a fellow advanced mathematics student, you will serve the purposes of the encyclopedia better; but be aware that not all editors appreciate that or know how to do it. --KSmrq^T 02:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiatus

I'm on a minor hiatus from contributing until I have my Handbook of Integrals Series and Products and my EDM (they have to be shipped from my parents house). Once I get those in my possesion I will start working on articles in my areas of interest. In the meantime I may contribute to the EulerGamma article because I brought back Havil's great book "Gamma".

Good reading in the meantime: math style manual. More specifically, I would focus on the part where it says that articles should start elementary, becomeing more complicated as it goes along. I mention that because it seems you plan to write rather technical articles based on your above reference, and then the police from Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible will be after us. :)

By the way, Linas is also a big fan of special functions and all those tables of formulas. Ask him if you may need advice in that kind of business. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This message is regarding the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Rhobite 07:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Best mathematician

Sorry to chime in but wars about who's best are impossible to win and very hard to end on Wikipedia. It may be better to ignore it on Euler. (Just IMHO.) Pavel Vozenilek 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying he is the best, I'm just stating the obvious fact that he is considered to be one of the very greatest of all time. This is a trivial thing, and you can check by visiting Gauss, Archimedes, or Newton. All of these pages say virtually the same thing, yet for some reason people hate on Euler (it is probably because hes less well known to the general public and those are the ones that go in and change it). I will not war over it though, if it is reverted again I will take it to the talk page and ask for a vote or something similar. It is rediculous that someone is targeting Euler for this type of thing and I have to protect the damn article...--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 18:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion such statements do not belong on WP for the reason of frequent warring. When (if) stable version of articles will be available the situation may be corrected. Pavel Vozenilek 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename

I've renamed your account, as requested. Your contributions under your old username are now here, and your contributions made under this username are now at Hypergeometric2F2(a,b,c,x). Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 14:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) — I'm afraid that the article you submitted, Geschwind-Galaburda cluster, appears to be a copyright violation from this page and others ((c) Monica Watkins and/or Harvard). In general it's best not to copy-and-paste articles from the web, even if you then rearrange them or omit paragraphs, as they are almost always copyrighted. Articles at Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details), which does not allow us to import copyright material.

I've listed the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Feel free to reply there or at my talk page if I've tagged the page in error. Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of your userpage

I just reverted some vandalism inflicted on your userpage by 69.17.41.210 [1]. Just thought you'd like to know. Happy editing, Bakanov (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks!--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Jonsin

A tag has been placed on Jim Jonsin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. KenWalker | Talk 07:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As noted on the article talk page, I have deleted the speedy delete template I added. Clearly mistaken in putting it there after tracking the award you mentioned and google the artist. My apologies. I have had the same mistake made on articles I have started and it is irksome, sorry about that. KenWalker | Talk 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

comments on euler's picture

i ran across a contib if yours at ßåd Jøkës åñd Øthër Ðélètêd Ñøñsëñsé and just wanted to drop by and give you some props for saying what must be one of the funniest things i have ever seen on WP:

I think its just traditional European academic garb. This is similar to the funny hats that Gauss is pictured wearing. This is just a guess. Regardless, Euler is the man. Do not question the Euler. He could wear women's panties on his mighty head and it would be awesome, and all of the other lesser mathematicians would copy him and wear panties on their heads.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 07:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

seriously, gold.

this just made my day.

Frijole 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe...thanks :)--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 11:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Pi day!

And remember,

$\pi ={\frac {\ln(-1)}{i}}$

Toodles!--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx!--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW

Hey Geo, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah, huge mistake on my part, here it is WP:MATHCOTW also you can access it through the project homepage of WP:WPM--Cronholm144 22:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sota F.

I don't know if I'm doing this right but if this bother you in someway feel free to erase it (of course)... finally i learned to use this thing (i guess) so now can i say...

Your welcome :D, and also i'll be "remodeling" the article because i don't like the view... it needs to be perfect.

Well thats it...

Bye Bye.

PD: Sorry about my poor English, is not my native language. PD2: You talk with Sota?? O_O

-Ebisu

Fair use rationale for Image:Supernova.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Supernova.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Everett, Washington

Hi, can you comment on this edit: diff? CIreland 10:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well what is there to say? I figured that since you will be hitting the revert button only once, it wouldn't burden you any more to include some more funny but true vandalism about Everett. Think of it as non-detremental vandalism, since it didn't cause any more trouble than the previous vandal did.

It was a joke okay? I try to keep my vandalism to about once a year...all in good fun.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 11:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing pattern

Please stop deleting citations, and making accusations of bad faith - these are widely considered to be characteristics of tendentious editing. Thanks, Addhoc 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding irrelevant citations, weasle words, and deleting citation needed tags. These are widely considered to be characteristics of original research.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 23:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Irony

To each his own, I suppose... I've actually gotten many compliments on the humorous writing in my userpage, which was intentional. That you've missed the value therein suggest we have different personal styles.

One thing that is certain... I am not opposed to userboxes. You should read more carefully. The comments on my userpage refer to my support for the German Userbox Solution, the migration of userboxes from template to userspace. I choose not to employ many myself, because even my spare prose is more creative than a mass-produced box. I do, however, host several userboxes in my userspace that had no other home during the migration.

I have -- from time to time -- opposed individual userboxes that might tend to bring Wikipedia into disrepute (like the infamous "pedophilia" that became the subject of an ArbCom case), but I do not object to them generally. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rational Mysticism

It is obvious that your personal opinion is that the term rational mysticism is a meaningless, invented concept. John A. Buehrens, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, from 1993 to 2001 and author of several books on religion, has used this term and concept extensively in his published sermons. Sam Harris, noted and controversial author has also discussed the term and concept extensively. It may not be a significant concept in your world, but there are other more well-known and accomplished individuals than you or me that do find this concept notable.Richard Dates (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal hyper. I started the article because I found it an interesting concept. I am not THE expert because I started the article. I see that, like the terms mystic and mysticism (or for that matter liberal and conservative), there seem to be several ways the term is used. As I see it, from the other contributions from people with more expertise, it seems an significant concept and somewhat widely used concept. It has been used in a specific way, for example. by John A. Buehrens(who I have met and respect) as cited in the article. For that matter you could phone Buehrens directly. You can google him and talk to him. He is a real person and I'm pretty sure he would talk to you. I will let the experts expand the article. That is what I did when I started the article on the lavvu despite the fact I am not a Sami or aboriginal reindeer hunter. If you want a more elaboration on rational mysticism, ask those who have contributed more than me. If you want more information on the lavvu from that now lengthy, informative and interesting article, ask someone who contributed to the main body of that article or someone from Samiland. -- Richard Dates (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

Look, Hyper, I've got two bachelor's degrees, a master's degree, and a doctorate. I've done original research in physiology and gotten it published. What's being done on this article on rational mysticism is what is done in every encyclopedia. It's an attempt to summarize some scholar's ideas on a topic. It's not what the researchers I have worked with call original research. At this point it's a pretty poor summary and you are doing nothing to improve it. Please enlighten us on how much original research you have done and had published so we can at least know if you are talking from a knowledgeable position.Richard Dates (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry you considered that a personal attack. Your attacks against me have been far nastier and more personal. I found your attacks on the Rational Mysticism contributions were totally inappropriate. But, I hope we can discontinue this stuff. This needs to stop. If you continue, I will report you for vandalism and personal attacks. If we can agree to stop this, that would be great.Richard Dates (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiDragon-ing

Long ago you created the WikiDragon page. Do you still consider yourself a WikiDragon? I've been working extensively on that page lately and not long ago created a couple userbox templates for WikiDragons. Just wondering how it's going. Hope all's well. • VigilancePrime • • • 19:32 (UTC) 24 Feb '08

Hehe, I'm flattered that you consider me a wikidragon, but I am no such thing. If anything, I am a "WikiOgre". I focus much more on reading this encyclopedia than adding my knowledge to it. The truth is, I rarely find a topic on Wikipedia that needs any information that I have to offer, and that is a great thing. When I do, and I feel that it is relevant, I contribute.

I created the WikiDragon page as a commentary on the fact that the people that have built this encyclopedia (at least in the beginning), importing their real world information, were being ignored. The wasn't a wiki creature that even represented them, which I found insane. It seemed much more popular to proclaim yourself a "WikiGnome", even though we have enough wordshufflers and internal linkers, IMO.

Its great that you are inspired by my article but, in all honesty, your time would be much better spent contributing to articles, if you have any information to add. I think you've about taken the WikiDragon article as far is it was meant to go and then some...:)

--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been through the ringer lately with personal attacks, ANI stuff, and all the bad anti-user stuff that Wikipedia (unfortunately) has to offer, and it's really cramped my article-editing ability. I've been using the opportunity to draw catharsis from editing and vastly expanding the WikiDragon page and other pages, such as vastly slimming and improving my user ages, creating some templates, and working on other stuff, like welcoming new users. I'll get back to major articlespace editing again soon, I'm sure.

Would you maybe qualify as one of those old WDragons that "degraded" into a WOgre? That would make sense...! :-)

Best of luck to you, and thank you for creating the original WikiDragon page. It absolutely hits the user nail on the head! I hope you like (and agree with) my recent WikiDragon-ish additions to it!

• VigilancePrime • • • 07:05 (UTC) 25 Feb '08

Idea for new WikiFauna

It's called a Dragogre. Part dragon, part ogre. They, contribute through usually dramatic, bold, and often grandiose edits. These enhancements and improvements are often based on their vast knowledge or a long night of googling for references. A WikiDragon may tend to leave trivialities such as correcting grammar, adding wikilinks, and overall wordsmithing to WikiElves, WikiGnomes, and other WikiFey creatures. WikiDragons may focus on a single article intensely or may operate in a WikiDragonish way by taking a single strafing run, making a great number of smaller changes to a vast array and number of articles in short order. The half dragon part.

Then for the ogre half, are editors who for a long time makes few or no edits, but for short periods of time makes large changes, rewrites, and even new articles in brief spats of Wikiholism. The WikiOgre may make a few edits to articles he has happened on by chance through the course of a healthy, inquisitive lifestyle but only goes looking for trouble when his schedule is not full and something has sparked up the passion to edit. It'a an idea that I just came up with because I'm a combination of both. I intend to workon the "history" of them, I just need someone to comeup with a few drawin's that I could use. If you could help I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Crash Underride 08:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Tegiap

Interested to see your interest in music. I sometimes perform in stage-musicals myself, etc. Is that your scene?

Re more info, I suggest you try the Ondwelle home page[[2]] and see if that helps, either directly or via the refs listed in various articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tegiap (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Actually I am personally more interested in the pre-sensorimotor. However you might find Ashby's (1952/1960) book "Design for a brain" useful -- or the re-working of it in part C of the thesis on that website -- or maybe the later chapters of "Book A". As for the works mentioned by others, I am not really all that familiar with them -- though Professor T. looks promising. - - - [By the way, I did see your message earlier, but it took me a while to work out how to reply!!! Sorry about that.]

Kind regards - - Tegiap (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I was working from memory, and got it wrong: - - - Instead of "Professor T." - - please read "Professor Kurt Fischer".

Best Wishes, - - Tegiap (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleted image

The image was marked on Flickr as Attribution-No Derivatives. This is an non-free license and is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Furthermore, as can be seen in the log when you uploaded it was "Attribution-No Derivative Works". Therefore you stated it was non-free at upload and I deleted it accordingly.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one of what?

Are you talking about a userbox, and if so which one (I'm just curious); put up the link on my talk page. ! ) Lighthead ^þ 02:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are most welcome! Lighthead ^þ 07:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for content of Wikipolis

Hello Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x / en:User:Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) would you agree to use the name "Wikipolis" for a new Wikipedia project for all information that has relevance for politics and the political community and is not in the wikipedia due to not fit to "lexical" critieria? The best name for all information that has relevance for politics and the social and political community starting from a polis till to the United Nations... would be as discussed with frieds "Wikipolis". What do you think about to give this initiative such a name and give free the name "Wikipolis"? As I did not see an edit from you later than 2007, I would wait a wee till I continue with the project without your answer. Inf anybody think this procedure is not appropriate, please comment here or on my talk page. :-) Charis (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC) (mainly working in german de.wikipedia.org)