TuukkaH

Welcome!

Hello, TuukkaH, 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!  --Merovingian (t) (c) 13:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Schwartzian transform

hi TuukkaH. Thanks for your comment. I've made reply at my talk page. Xah Lee 09:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Conditional statement

Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't noticed that see-also link. I still think the article called "conditional statement" should begin with a general definition, and establish some context before diving right into programming jargon. Does the new intro to conditional statement seem bad to you? -GTBacchus 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm not fully in terms with the Wikipedia disambiguation system. If there is a commonly understood meaning of "conditional statement" that warrants an article, then the computer science article should be moved away. If the term in logic is more important than in computer science, then the main article should be a redirect to the logic article. If there are several relatively equal articles, then the main article should be a disambiguation page. Perhaps. But in any case, conditional statement in computer science is very specificly a kind of statement (programming), so that's why I don't think the present organization is the best. What about just a disambiguation link in italics to the logic page, and the current introduction there? --TuukkaH 17:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, too. Perhaps I edited too hastily; nothing that can't be fixed anyway. I don't know whether the programming article or the logic one warrants the title, conditional statement. (Should we be having this discussion at Talk:Conditional statement?) A disambiguation message at the very least would be good... I've just done that now. -GTBacchus 18:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating and carrying out this improvement :-) --TuukkaH 19:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom case against CarlHewitt

Hello. I think I should let you know out of courtesy that I used one of your edits as evidence in the arbitration case against Carl Hewitt; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence and search for your name for details. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, no problem at all. I think the edit is properly in context. --TuukkaH 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Type system cross reference list

Template_talk:Type_system_cross_reference_list#assembler_untyped.3F

Programming language

I am willing to agree that my first stab at an introductory paragraph for "programming language" might not be ideal. However, the current first paragraph is likely to be incomprehensible to all but the most knowledgable of people.

The first paragraph should provide a brief summary/definition for a reasonably intelligent person who knows nothing about computers. Later material can get technical and dense.

Let's work out some good wording that encapulates this rather nebulous of entities.

Derek farn 14:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Programming language for wider audience, and replied. --TuukkaH 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, rewrite may have been too strong a word on my part. Perhaps reorganise and expand would have been a better description. I think we are in general agreement on the kind of things that need to be said.

I did not intend to claim the material as all my own.

On a related note of misunderstanding. I thought that exception was to be the main page with exception handler pointing at it (or at least only saying something olong the lines of "An exception handler is a code that handles exceptions"?

Derek farn 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion what you did was a rewrite, I don't recognize any of my points left in your version. Instead, the section now looks like it's of the same topic but written as your personal essay, starting with some questions, bringing in some somewhat related concepts and then ending in your point of view. I wouldn't take that as a neutral point of view, which is supposed to describe the significant opinions instead of telling what you think is wrong with them.

Considering exception (computing), we did agree that they can be merged, which I did. Made more sense to merge the newer and smaller into the older. I added a note at the talk page that you suggested renaming, let's see what people think. I mentioned earlier that Wikipedia is not a dictionary - an article along the lines of "An exception handler is a code that handles exceptions" would be exactly that. Besides, you can see that the name is not Exception handler but Exception handling, an encyclopedic topic which is covered from many angles, including what is handled and with what.

I noticed your also working at general-purpose programming language. In my opinion you should merge that to domain-specific language, as that's the complementary, interesting topic and there also exists a general article at [programming language]]. I hope you see what I mean, there's another example at WP:MM that instead of Flammable and Non-flammable there should be one article flammability. --TuukkaH 18:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: programming language. At one level any language could be a programming language. I wanted to capture the various ways that people have used to define such a concept. The style of writing I used to capture this could be a lot better. The various paragraphs could almost be bullet points. I'm sure that there are people who think of at least one language, that is not Turing complete, as being a programming language (I was expecting this to be point you took issue with). Perhaps there several possible definitions of a programming language should be listed.

I tried to discuss the several possible definitions, but perhaps my writing was bad too then.

Re: Exceptions. We agreed on a merge. I would have put the main text with the primary topic (ie, exceptions). I don't think the age of an article should play a part in the choice of where to put the text. The current wording reads as if exception handler is the main topic, where as it is a subtopic of exceptions.

That is your point of view, I don't agree. The title and topic is Exception handling. If people want to rename the article, we can do it. But I don't see them wanting to. If you want, you can even arrange a vote I think.

Re: general-purpose programming languages. I have previously been moaned at for merging articles and redirecting, which is why I have stopped doing it. I agree that general-purpose is a subset of domain-specific (I essentially said as much in my reworking).

Ok, I suggested a merger and if no-one disagrees it can be done. --TuukkaH 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Derek farn 19:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

List comprehension

Nice work on improving the article :) Dysprosia 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sparring :-) I can't understand all of your edits though, the two latest: "avoid an inline see-also by placing a clear link" when I would say the explicit section link was in place and more clear. I redirected generator expression to list comprehension as it's notable and in context there. However, Python discusses them for some reason, so I thought an explicit pointer there was in place. Isn't complex markup (one link with some parts bold) difficult for readers too? Would you be ok with the following template use:

Further information: [[:Python programming language#Generator expressions|Python programming language § Generator expressions]]

It looked kinda ugly having an inline see-also in the article. What we could do is devote a section to a cursory examination of generators, and use a "Main article" thing. That could work. Dysprosia

"make a little more precise in intro" makes the intro longer again by duplicating more information from the already linked set-builder notation. Besides, I think the example is enough and readers who're unfamiliar with it and don't want to check it are given a way to read the list comprehension notation anyway.

The article earlier stated that set comprehension was only the notation that S was that particular set (where it isn't, it's only a particular case); I've just made it clear that this is only a particular case. Dysprosia

If we want to discuss the relation between list comprehension and set-builder notation more, a section on their problems might be in place. That is, in the mathematical notation you sometimes leave the base sets out and meet Russel's paradox, in programming you always need the list to base on, you can handle finite and countably infinite sets but you can't use the notation to filter an infinite set into a finite set. --TuukkaH 13:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would really be necessary, though it wouldn't detract from the article. Dysprosia 23:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the page after my comments. Nice work! 203.52.70.253 03:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)LeonB (http://secretGeek.net)

linguistics: writing systems

Hey, thanks for your comment (regarding the Prescription and description article). I've replied on my talk page --Torgo 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied again on my talk page. Thanks, --Torgo 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ZigZag

Perhaps, but to my understanding we don't "award" undisambiguated article status to one entity or the other when there are two viable articles with the same title. Neither are exactly household words. Jgm 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If one is secondary then the other must be primary. This kind of "award" is explained in the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic: The topic needn't be household, but it needs to have majority of wikilinks and editor consensus. There was a consensus at least until ZigZag (magazine) was created ;-) and I haven't heard from its editor(s). --TuukkaH 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Computer science

Hi! Just wanted to welcome you to WikiProject Computer science. I've seen your name pop up in the histories of various articles that I've looked at and/or edited, and I've been wondering when you would get around to joining the CS project :-) Glad to have you onboard. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! While there are a lot of contributors on computer science articles, they come from widely different fields and I concluded the WikiProject is the best way to work for coherent collaboration. I'm looking forward to this. --TuukkaH 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The pseudo-TTYs

1. Let me apologize for misspelling pseudo, as I'm sure I will do throughout this response.
2. There are a number of different ways pseudo-TTYs are used. The one you referenced is the traditional BSD method. There are UNIX98 psuedo-TTYs, which are used by at least Linux. There are also the virtual consoles—which are only available on systems with a text display mode (like the IBM PC) or a graphical frame-buffer (most modern systems). There are pseudo-TTYs allocated by the rlogin and ssh daemons for their clients. There are hard TTYs, which correspond to physical devices. The problem is that, for every platform, there is a different naming scheme for all of these devices. The /dev/ttyN and /dev/pty/... methods are used on Linux, but the latter only if UNIX98 pty support is included in the kernel.
3. This is perhaps the most important point. /dev/null, /dev/random, and /dev/zero—in addition to being implemented with the same names on every Unix-like system—don't actually correspond to anything. The pseudo-TTYs on the other hand do correspond to something—they take input from an application, display it, and return output back, and display that. They are not true TTYs, hence the name pseudo-TTY, but they are not exactly pseudo-devices, either. Their inclusion complicates the simple definition—it would be more prudent to create a whole new section for psuedo-TTYs (instead of lumping them together with psuedo-devices), however they may simply be beyond the scope of the article altogether.

Hope that explains my reasoning, flawed or otherwise.—Kbolino 23:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we can find a solution. I don't know if there's a good definition of pseudo-device, I assumed the one given in our article. Googling for pseudodevice or pseudo-device returns sources that define it either as a device that isn't associated with hardware or one that doesn't communicate with hardware directly. Pseudo-terminals are widely used as an example of pseudo-device. If you think about it, even /dev/null and /dev/random correspond to physical hardware somehow. We could define that "pseudo-devices are not directly associated with a physical device".

I think we should include pseudo-terminals in the article. The naming issue can be approached in several ways: We can use the original or most common names, and trust that readers are able to take them as examples and find the actual names on their systems. We can talk about pseudo-terminals without giving the file names as their names are hardly important. If UNIX98 includes some names, I'd go with them. But if we leave pseudo-terminals out completely, we are giving degenerate examples. --TuukkaH 10:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

While reading your response, a couple things came into my mind. The first is that /dev/random is often implemented using a hardware PRNG, or is taken from an entropy pool composed of electronic noise produced by hardware. The bit bucket is sometimes implemented at the hardware level (though this is uncommon nowadays). So the current definition of pseudo-devices is inadequate and possibly inaccurate (considering your points and this). I do feel, however, that /dev/null, /dev/random, and /dev/zero are distinctly different from the psuedo TTYs and should be treated as such. I will try to come up with an updated definition—any help is more than appreciated.—Kbolino 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would love to, but I don't think I've understood your concerns yet. Basicly, pseudo-device isn't a well-defined concept but a fuzzy one? I don't think you can implement /dev/null in hardware really :-) But /dev/random I can understand. One nice thing in Wikipedia is that we don't need to give a universal definition, we are instead expected to account for any significant points-of-view. I can understand that hard TTYs don't belong here, but what was the problem with pseudo-TTYs? As far as I can tell, there's one definition (just with several file names), and it involves only software and no physical device at all. --TuukkaH 07:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Definite brainfart there. Yeah, /dev/null has never been implemented in hardware. I was confusing it with the loopback interface. I don't know how to convey my reasoning on this (which is, I admit, the archetypical sign that I'm wrong), but I just feel that the pseudo-ttys are different from the other pseudo-devices. You're right, they are implemented largely in software, but to some extent so are block devices (with buffered and scheduled I/O). They're also not something you'd normally pipe data into/out of (you could redirect the error stream to a separate terminal if you had two open, for example). They just don't function in the same way. Data written to and from them goes somewhere—whether it's the VGA text-mode console or a remotely-connected telnet/rlogin/ssh terminal. It is rendered and printed on a screen. The standard pseudo-devices just don't do that—there's no processing other than I/O. I don't know; if I still haven't made a valid point, just go ahead and put them in the article.—Kbolino 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Need help

Thanks buddy...for ur prompt response. Sorry i forgot to mention i need help on refining the atricle Atmospheric water generator so that it can meet wiki standards. All the work is done just help me refine the language so tht it doesnt appear as an advertisement...atleast tht is said by George.

Regards, Ashvidia 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not actually that simple to make a proper Wikipedia article. You should find proper references in books and scientific journals etc., be neutral and include all significant points-of-view, and use the typical encyclopedic article structure. This would be difficult for me as I know little about atmospheric water generators, the situations where they are used, the physics of their operation. I'm sure you have what is needed on that side. I went over the article quickly and tried to make it look more like other Wikipedia articles in structure: short introduction which tells everything important, and then neutral sections that tell more and contain links to even further information. You should also get images from the competing manufacturers. Hope this helps! --TuukkaH 06:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the underlining of links.

--The Mad Bomber 20:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, it was very easy to help this time when I'd personally had the same problem. --TuukkaH 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Madduck

I have nominated Madduck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A common problem

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, jolla is not a lifeboat

Thanks for your correction. This is not important part of story. Jolla has become a company name after Steven Elop has caused situation when memo saying "Symbian is the burning platform only" has become publicly known. So "Jolla" is a kind of metaphore of escape from "the burning platform", here is about burning oil&gas platform on the sea. That was the context I was meaning. There was a source of this (Jolla) but I've asssumed this is not anything important and haven't noted. Thank you for your correction. Ocexyz (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not. I made the correction in the introduction as Jolla have been making the same correction themselves.[1] [2] [3] Perhaps the longer explanation of the name in relation to the "burning platform" could go in a new subsection Name under History? Anyway, thanks for starting and building the Jolla article, and hope to keep collaborating! --TuukkaH (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Important remark about not precise quotation

In the discussion you filled: "Secondary sources and Jolla itself say "Jolla OS is based on MeeGo". Jolla itself also says "Jolla OS is based on Mer". " - but his is not true, Jolla itself says it is "MeeGo based and using Mer core" what is quite important as Mer is not a Linux distro but a core distro - and among other details it is meritum of this discussion. See here for confirmation http://merproject.org/, "MeeGo based" is in enough many sources I think. Jolla has never declared "Mer based" only use or base with "Mer core" what normally would be totally unimportant but here makes huuuge difference. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocexyz (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello, TuukkaH. You have new messages at WP:DRN.
Message added 01:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

selfedit in DRN Jolla talk

Selfedit: I am sorry I have written For me it is OK. thx and night, will be put into article by Monday night, but not tomorrow. It was great pleasure to meet you! :) Ocexyz (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC) but that was the mistake as I was quite tired already after several hours. This part is for me OK: >>>Jolla Oy (commonly called Jolla Mobile) is an independent Finland-based smartphone manufacturer start-up continuing the development of the Linux-based mobile operating system previously known as MeeGo. Jolla intends to announce its first smartphone product, equipped with Mer project's <<< But in fact can't agree with last words, because, the Mer is not an operating system now yet, this is not the full Linux distribution what your proposal suggest - this is against WP:V and WP:SOURCES. Also there is no customer user interface by the Mer WP:SOURCES at all. Only the MeeGo UI/UX fork described for easier understanding as Jolla's own UI. There is no source which would state this way - "operating system" used here is ambiguous and suggesting to reader something what does not exist. I also have mentioned above already that the Mer this is not any Linux distribution so far. However the goal of the project is being MeeGo 2.0, but now only "the core distribution" is what is (1) confirmed by the Mer site and several loud and clear statements of them (2) declared by Jolla with "using the Mer core" or "based on the merproject" (3) clear and not ambiguous. The Mer in this Jolla context mentioned as "operating system" is strong belief and strongly supported of Dark Almöhi and Bahaltener but it is only the opinion not the fact. We are obligated for WP:NPOV Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. The article can't be biased to promote the Mer project as the full operating system when in fact and by confirmed sources it is not WP:SOURCES. Also WP:VALID While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There is no any hidden secret the Mer Linux as full linux ditribution with complete UI, only the Mer core, which is more Linux kernel with some basic libraries. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. Also I have decided to say this as in consequence in future edits it could happen that wherever MeeGo would appear it would be long discussion "but we have agreed this in fact is the Mer operating system". But this is the Mer core WP:SOURCES. Dark Almöhi claims the Mer has the text console so this is Linux operating system full distribution. But no normal customer would be able to make any single call or SMS check having only Linux text console with prompt, so s/he would have to call libraries one by one and define a phone number as a parameter for libraries, etc. etc. So we can assume we have agreed the first part but the last part have not been solved. Sorry, but I see no other solution, to avoid future problems. Ocexyz (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Ocexyz (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Jolla OS

Thanks for creating Jolla OS, TuukkaH!

Wikipedia editor Nittmann has tagged the page as having some issues to fix. In addition, they wrote this note for you:

example: "... the core of system from ..." needs some grammar and probably wording work-over in my opinion. instead of a tweet, e.g., do we have a press release (... Marc Dillon tweeted that they had reached ...)

The tags on the page can be removed by you or another editor when the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on Nittmann's talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the the Teahouse.

Learn more about page curation.

Proposed deletion of Jolla OS

The article Jolla OS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks independent reliable sources for a product still under development with no anticipated release date

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NtheP (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jolla OS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2012 (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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helsinki City Bikes has been accepted

Helsinki City Bikes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TuukkaH. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TuukkaH. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Taboo slang listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Taboo slang. Since you had some involvement with the Taboo slang redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)