User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

metrizable / metrisable
Hi. I am not going to complain about your change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Base_(topology)&diff=1128458620&oldid=1127575235, but just FYI "metrisable" is the British spelling, which should also be acceptable. Regards. PatrickR2 (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @PatrickR2 Hi, before doing this change, I had searched some dictionaries on the Internet, and I found no entry for the word "metrisable" in
 * https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=metrisable
 * and in
 * https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=metrisable
 * Additionally, in the Google search engine and its main text area, if you type "metrisable", then the tool of finding typo adds a red underline for "metrisable", meaning that this word has some typo, you can test that. Tnx, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the Cambridge dictionary does not have either of the words "metrisable" and "metrizable". And a search in google books returns many instances with "metrisable". Even the first instance in https://www.google.com/search?q=%22metrisable+space%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsbqctGX-1iIHa0LRkyJPTyMY6UwXg:1671609313927&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvhPD6nYr8AhXZEFkFHTlwDyAQ_AUoAXoECAEQCw&biw=1298&bih=724&dpr=1.25 has "metrisable" in its title (and it's by a reputable editor (Springer).  But really it does not matter. PatrickR2 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

River/map discussion
Hello Hooman Mallahzadeh. I happened to revisit the discussion you started on WP:VPP about the use of maps in our river articles, and in the process of doing so i noticed that you notified the Geography Wikiproject; that in itself certainly isn't a concern, probably to be commended, but i did want to mention to you (in case no one else has) that the way you did so could probably be construed as canvassing. Please understand, i don't think that you intentionally canvassed according to our definition, just that some might think so: Think of this as a point to remember next time you want to draw in other editors to a discussion. If you look at what, it clearly shows your opinion, gives arguments to justify that opinion, and asks editors to go to the discussion and vote for what you want; a more neutral message might have been along the lines of "There is a discussion at VPP about the use of maps in river articles; your input would be welcome." D'you see the difference? I will end by repeating ~ this is not to be regarded as a complaint, simply a suggestion to be more careful next time. Hope to see you around. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 12:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)