User talk:Moggie2002

Hello, Moggie2002! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

PHP Discussion[edit]

Hey, I saw you reinstated the ternary operator "criticism" at the PHP page, asking to discuss on the talk page rather than delete. There is a huge dispute about unsourced criticisms and the criticisms section in general already the the talk page of PHP. Assuming you had read this, I deleted the paragraph you added as it did not provide any way of verifying it was really a real-world criticism (e.g. authors with authority on the subject, per WP:SPS), nor any source to verify whether whatever was stated in the paragraph was true. As in this state it read as a statement that there was a flaw in the language itself rather than a criticism (those are not the same!), I deleted it; so please either source the paragraph you added, or delete it. I'm posting this here as I'm essentially rehashing what has been said on the talk page already -- you're welcome to join in it there. -mrbartjens (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's fair to say that the original post was a valid criticism, and to avoid doubt, illustrated the point for anyone unfamiliar with the details. However I'm happy to have the cut down version, but do consider it valid to criticise a language feature that will lead to coding bugs not only by those familiar with the concept from other languages (which are many since 1966 when it first appeared), but also by new developers. A flaw is indeed not a criticism, however something that is flawed may justifiably garner public criticism at some point, and did so today.

On the issue of sourcing I agree in general, however as this is a factual issue and not merely someones view that, for example, PHP should have namespaces, an explanation should suffice. WP is after all a dictionary, and should not be deferring on every point to an external source to justify its inclusion. Furthermore, an illustration was included so that anyone could test if they so wished. IIRC I did point out the error some years ago in one of the php.net resources, and so it may be lingering somewhere, but citing this would be pointless.

With regards to authority and while not wishing to blow ones own proverbial trumpet, having been in the software industry for over 20 years, I feel that I can claim some authority of the subject matter. I actually churned out my first language and a compiler for it when I was 16, and developed various other languages and compilers since then. I've also been actively involved in the PHP arena over the last 7 or 8 years and been interviewed in relation to certain work in this area, so am not quite a PHP newbie :) If you feel strongly enough that a factual flaw does not merit criticism then by all means remove it again, but when put against some of the other entries in a section that is indeed bloated with some nonsense and baggage, it is probably one of the better points that does stand up and merit a mention.

Moggie2002 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting your authority, not at all; it is the authority of the sources that go along with all criticisms that I am concerned about. My point about sources is that the term "criticism" concerns a judgement, rather than a statement of fact; I'd say "PHP does not support namespaces" is not criticism, but "PHP sucks because it does not support namespaces" is (though it's poor criticism ;). The problem as I see it is that currently most paragraphs in the list are of the first kind, and the second kind requires sources, as it'd be POV to say "PHP sucks because..." in the article itself. I hope this clears things up. -mrbartjens (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, and frankly as far as namespaces goes, which was just a random example, I'd rather say "PHP does not support namespaces, get over it!" :) Some of the points in the section are just projections of peoples wishes for what they want the language to be; certain things may indeed be good ideas and their omission could be shortcomings, but even if backed up by cited articles from "experts" this does not mean that they merit inclusion in a criticisms list. If anything they should be in a wishlist, but there's no place for one of those in a dictionary. So like others, I think that the section should be pruned. I also edited the "criticism" of tempnam() to make that more palatable, but stopped short of removing it entirely although I may still do that if no one else does. Sure tempnam() changed behaviour, and there might be the odd script for which this caused a problem, but I changed the wording of "now tempnam()..." to point out that this change was 8 years ago and that it fixed a design flaw. I don't think that a fix and improvement nearly a decade ago can merit being in a criticism section, and yet there it is.

The ternary operator is more of a big deal in my view. When cascaded and used appropriately it gives neater and easier to read code than the use of alternatives (if/else or switch), as well as more maintainable code with the probability for fewer bugs from having only one variable to assign to as opposed to one for each case, and where the programmer might mistype one of the assignments or forget to edit an assignment if changing the name of the variable to assign. These are important considerations. Experienced programmers who are aware of the operator and the benefits to producing reliable code would use it in such cases and expect it to work in a certain way, yet ironically the expression would not evaluate correctly and the operator would be a cause of bugs. In another case, someone translating an example from a similar language into PHP where the operator was cascaded would also have a bug to find. With the purpose of a dictionary being to inform and educate, making a reader and potential user aware of a notable difference in behaviour from the norm is providing a positive benefit. However the operator is how it is, and even if crippled, maybe it indeed should not be in a criticism section but one for notable differences from similar languages. A reader quickly glancing through is far more likely to pick it out to read from such a section than a list of criticisms that they probably don't care to read.

Moggie2002 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building PHP into a Featured Article[edit]

I am currently trying to build PHP into a Featured Article, and I noticed that you have contributed a considerable amount of time to the PHP article. If you have time, could you please help out and improve the article, copyedit it, and peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to improve the article to featured status, and I believe it is ready for that. But, I already have one nomination right now, so I can't nominate another article. If you think you can donate some time to the article's nomination, then I would be more than willing to help out. Please let me know. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?:[edit]

Hey, I was clicking links all over the place and somehow ended up at ?:, the good 'ol ternary operator. When I saw that PHP didn't support it correctly, it made me curious enough to start up apache and take a look. Much to my surprise, the article was correct (?!), so I went looking a little bit to find out more. Eventually, on the php man page for switch, I found out that you have to enclose it with more parenthesis. I updated the article (though writing's not my strong point), used a nifty tool to find that it was you who added that in the first place, and thought I'd let you know! You seem to be pretty active on php stuff here, so I figured that knowing that you can actually use ternary if's in that way might be useful to you (though, of course with an abundance of parenthesis!). Cheers! Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 05:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From reading more of your talk page, it seems that you might be completely aware of this. However, I thought it a good idea to let people know that there is a way to make it work, rather than just mentioning that it doesn't work as expected. :)! Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 05:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, and parentheses can of course be used to alter the associativity just as they always can; for example, 2 + 3 * 4 that evaluates to 14 in most languages (although not with all pocket calculators) will evaluate to 20 if written as (2 + 3) * 4. This is basic stuff and shouldn't need to be stated as developers should be familiar with the use of ( ) to alter associativity. Unfortunately though, no developer familiar with ?: from other languages would expect PHP to behave differently, and this is the problem. The fact that it can be corrected is largely irrelevant as the developer will unexpectedly write faulty code initially and the damage is done. Where to put the parentheses when trying to fix the problem is also not obvious, and a developer will probably have a few attempts to get it right if they don't give up and fall back on a switch or if/then. This problem only applies when ?: is used more than once in an expression, and used singly there's no issue of course.

Moggie2002 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your previous comment on my talk page[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Btx40, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --72.252.194.115 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this, but thanks anyway :) Personally I prefer to click the four tildes link to sign but was distracted by a baby and questions of what to put on our DIY pizza this evening and the edit was done and dusted before the signing took place. Oh well.

Moggie2002 (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Zero Link on PHP article.[edit]

Hi, I saw that you removed the link from PHP to Project Zero. I saw the justification and I agree that the Project Zero page did not make it clear that it contains a new implementation of PHP written in Java. Thus it is a Peer of Quercus, Phalanger or Roadsend which are mentioned on the PHP page. I have replaced the link and worked on the Project Zero page to try to make this clear. Since the PHP implementation does not have life outside of Project Zero I have kept it as a section in the Project Zero article. If you feel it would be more appropriate I could create a separate article called something like "Project Zero PHP" but I think that would be confusing. Hope this all seems reasonable to you, if not please ping me on my talk page. Thanks. Nicholsr (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Project Zero has a unique implementation of PHP in its own right then that's definitely fair enough. Moggie2002 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of IDR Solutions[edit]

Hello, Moggie2002. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, IDR Solutions, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpb^talk 21:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of IDR Solutions[edit]

Hello Moggie2002,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged IDR Solutions for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpb^talk 21:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very similar to Idrsolutions which was speedily deleted exactly a month ago. The creator of that page was blatantly advertising and expressed some resent that Wikipedia had articles covering his competitors. Given the similar nature of the articles and the short time interval between them I feel bound to ask if you have some connection to Markee174 or to IDR Solutions. Bazj (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine an article about egotism from two separate people would be very similar too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swpb#Removal_of_IDR_Solutions_page for the rationale and origin of my contribution. Moggie2002 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come for a visit at the Teahouse!!![edit]

Hello! Moggie2002, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

IDR Solutions[edit]

This company may well be notable and a valid topic for an article as you say, but the deleted page gave no indication of that. Wikipedia considers reliable sources to be absolutely vital to establishing notability. That means significant coverage in independent sources with editorial oversight, that show the importance of the company — obviously, we can't just take the word of a stranger on the internet that the article they're writing about is noteworthy. If you can provide those kind of sources, and avoid any promotional language, you should be fine. —Swpb^talk 14:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you should be fine - not when people such as yourself are so quick to mark articles for deletion without giving contributors a chance to enhance content, with such actions actively discouraging contributions to the wiki in the first place. While editing WP is all that fills some people's days, it doesn't for me, and I have to consciously put some other tasks to one side to make time to do so; I'll think twice now about giving my time to researching and contributing an article on any other company or topic even though it may benefit others.

No one is above anyone else when it comes to WP. A new article gets marked for peer review, and unless it's blatant spam, constructive comments if considered necessary should then be sought to allow improvement of the article before its finally accepted or rejected. The submission was carefully crafted, and being already written with a completely neutral stance, there was nothing to correct there. That they are a software company in the UK should not need verifying, but a link to the company listing in companies house could always be included. Importance is subjective, and as WP guidelines say, bias should not be given to larger companies over smaller ones, that will by their nature be referenced less than larger ones. I did a quick search for PDF to HTML5 conversion on Quora, and the first result was for IDR. http://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-find-software-to-convert-PDF-to-HTML5 There are no doubt others. PDF conversion isn't remotely interesting or useful to me or my organsation, but it is evidently something that is important for many organsations. Being a niche market and with not many solutions available, providers of such facility are immediately important by association. I won't be giving up my time to create the article again and will leave that to someone else in the future; when they do, and for all new articles that you choose to augment with your opinions, consider whether you might be making WP better by giving the creator and others a chance to improve the article rather than securing its vaporisation into the ether, quite possibly forever. Moggie2002 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this article is updated on my talk page. It's reasonable to mark spam pages for speedy deletion, but doing so for articles that are fundamentally sound albeit for possibly some minor enhancements is being trigger happy. Looking further, IDR is a NetBeans partner (https://netbeans.org/community/partners/) and the founder is a member of the NetBeans Dream team (https://netbeans.org/community/contribute/dreamteam.html). They're also members of the PDF association [1], they regularly contribute at conferences including PDF Days Europe[2], iText Summit[3], JavaOne[4], Business of Software[5] and Devfest Istanbul[6], where they are also a partner[7].

[1] http://www.pdfa.org/organization/idrsolutions

[2] http://www.pdfa.org/news/what-are-all-these-pdf-companies-doing-at-a-java-show/

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iCln0doF88

[4] http://www.pdfa.org/news/what-are-all-these-pdf-companies-doing-at-a-java-show/

[5] http://lanyrd.com/2009/business-of-software/scxdz/

[6] http://devfesttr.com/speakers/

[7] http://devfesttr.com/#partners

Their involvement in the software community raises them above others that don't in terms of contribution, and makes them important and notable for those reasons. Moggie2002 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've found some independent references. You've obviously spent some time locating them, and you obviously still care. You could ask User talk:Jimfbleak to restore IDR Solutions to your user area for you to add the references to it, and then publish it again. At least that would save your efforts from being wasted. (Much as it pains me for Markee to get what he views as HIS article.) I'll keep it on my watchlist for a couple of days and promise to challenge any CSDs PRODs or AfDs I see if it's independently sourced. Regards, Bazj (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll start the ball rolling. Moggie2002 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore here shortly. For the article to survive

you need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Note that social media, Youtube and the like are not acceptable as references
the original was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Your text just said what you sold, and promote the CEO as a speaker
it's all about what the company sells, little about the company itself other than its location. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors? As it stands, there is nothing to indicate that the company meets our notability criteria. If you cannot show that it does, you may be wasting your time salvaging this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There was apparently an entry a few weeks back that was purportedly promotional, however the one I authored was purely factual and non-promotional, unless saying what a company does is considered promotional, in which case all entries would fall foul of that one. As I don't work for the company I cannot say how many employees there are, and as an article should not be authored about one's own entity, there's an obvious catch 22 there. The company seems notable in its field, but like all fledgling articles in WP, it will inevitably be incomplete and a subset of what the article can ultimately become; like a sapling it needs nurturing to evolve (which ironically the sapling entry in WP needs to do as a sapling also means a greyhound in its first year). Other contributors will be required to flesh it out, with contributions from persons who do work for the company being useful so that they can add authoritative information and probably contribute interesting information that I would not know personally.

Working by example is always useful Jim, and you mentioned citing competitors; one seems to be Datalogics. Their entry similarly has no mention of revenue, employee count etc. and is also rather product centric, but despite this, is their entry a good one to use an example for a small company? If it is can you say why, and if it isn't, can you say what is wrong in their entry so I know what to avoid, and can you then give a better example for a small company such as IDR? This would be very helpful and constructive. Moggie2002 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Datalogics, as you say, is product-centric, although not overtly promotional. However, it also has some history and is well referenced (the nice formatting of the refs helps too). I'm not sure what their claim for notability is, but the link with Adobe helps. It's not brilliant, but it's unlikely to be deleted as either spam or non-notable.

You can't rely on what other people might add, articles are judged on what is there at the time. As it is, you have one sentence saying what the company sells and another saying what the CEO does, apparently as a sideline. You need more content, which doesn't have to include the items I listed, but you do need to indicate how this company meets the notability criteria as linked (if it does), and to make it more than a just "company X sells Y". As it stands, it will be deleted on one or both of the two criteria as soon as it goes to article space Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Moggie2002. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Moggie2002. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Moggie2002. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in PHP, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects : ‘If the article has no "External links" section, then place sister links at the top of the last section in the article.’ Peaceray (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further revision and comments Raymond. The primary change was to remove the Curlie entry as it does not appear to usefully augment the article; the result was then an empty external links section, and as its existence has the potential for abuse (as evidenced by the addition of spam a short while earlier), the section was removed as part of the same edit. Two edits would have captured the intention better and probably not led to the confusion with this. The topic of sister links is noted and already understood, but moot as there were no sister links to have a new home after the edit. So does the DMOZ/Curlie link add value to the article after all? I'm not sure it does so stand by the original edit, but I'm happy to accept the different POV on that :) Moggie2002 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several items to which to respond:

My user name & nickname is Peaceray. Please do not use any other name to refer to me.
The {{Curlie}} template is for "Listen to this article" & is essentially a Wikilink to play File:En-PHP.ogg. I do not understand how an audio version of an article fails to add value. Please discuss on the talk page to get concensus before trying to remove the Curlie template from this or any other article.
As all four sister links in the template are live & valid, the statement that "there were no sister links" is simply untrue.
You probably were unaware of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects guideline at the time of your edit. Please do not remove sister projects in the future & take care to accomodate them in another section should the External links section become otherwise empty.

Peaceray (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaneeza Ahmad[edit]

Hi - its a long time since I lived in Kent. I don't think the linking of common occupations is very important but I would suggest putting a note on the article talk page to start a discussion.— Rod ^talk 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]