User talk:Mmitchell10

Hello, Mmitchell10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Ocean acidification. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Cupco 13:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mmitchell10! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leading-order, 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 are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cerebellum (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the new article to Leading-order term, because Wikipedia policy discourages article titles from being adjectives or adjective phrases. Links to leading-order or leading order will automatically forward the reader to the new article location.--Srleffler (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, thanks for letting me know Mmitchell10 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you gave no reason for this edit. Care to fill me in? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Maths is classified as a scientific field. Universities tend to place maths within their science faculties. Of course, it's also much more than merely science, but the page on complex numbers is not the place for making this point. Also, why leave economics in the list? Also, when this change has been made before on this very page, other editors have undone the edit, eg on 19 May. Feel free to come back at me... Mmitchell10 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that "this change has been made before on this very page". I do see that mathematics and statistics have been removed, which is a very different matter from what I did, which was singling out mathematics for a different kind of mention. Complex numbers are a part of mathematics, and I do feel that use of such a mathematical concept in other fields is a different matter from internal use within the subject. I don't actually think that the use of the words "scientific" and "engineering" is really the point, particularly since, as you rightly point out, it is questionable whether economics falls under that description. To me, the essential point of the sentence is that complex numbers have applications in a number of real-life fields, and are not restricted to pure mathematics. Of course complex numbers appear in pure mathematics: that is almost an empty statement, whereas saying that they have applications to other fields is a significant statement.

What would you say to the following suggestion? As I said above, as I see it the essential point is that complex numbers are not just an abstract part of pure mathematics, but have applications. Removing statistics, as an earlier editor tried to do, is certainly unhelpful. I also see no reason why pure mathematics should not get a mention, though I do feel, as i said above, that it has a different status than the others. Specifying "scientific and engineering" is perhaps unhelpful, both because it might be considered debatable whether economics fits under that description, and because it is redundant: anyone looking at the list can see that it includes scientific and engineering fields. (Also, I am not sure that "many engineering fields" is true: complex numbers certainly have a good deal of use in electrical engineering, but no engineer in any other branch of engineering that I have ever asked has said that complex numbers have any use in their field. We have "electrical engineering in the list, so do we need to have "engineering" in the preamble to the list too?) I would suggest something like "As well as their use within mathematics, complex numbers have practical applications in many fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, economics, electrical engineering, and statistics." Any opinion? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree, and I think that's an excellent suggestion which will make the article better than it was 24 hrs ago. Please go ahead and make that change, thanks for taking the time over this. Mmitchell10 (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! I have red about "Goal average" now. Preaviously I just noticed the bold line. "Goal Average" immediately suggested to me avergage number of goals scored per game of some kind, as I wrote, I didn't study the full text. If You are quite sure that Goal ratio and Goal average is the the same, then my question is - is "Goal average" well-known and the commonly used word in Britain (or was when it was in use, rather)? I'm not native in English. What now ?, to do with the articles ? Goal average isnt the same as goal difference. And I just wrote a Goal ratio article today. (not easy to cope that average could mean ratio, if You see my point.) Could we possible 1. re-name "Goal ratio" article to "Goal average" and 2. make a link from the Goal difference article to the new "Goal average" article. And 3. shorten down the part of goal average in "goal difference article" a tiny bit ? I used a pedagogical example of the difference (atleast I think so). We could also perhaps merge the goal difference article a bit. But since they are not the same I would prefer two separate articles linking each other. Boeing720 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your message. Yes, goal ratio and goal average are the same thing. I agree that "Goal average" could be quite a misleading name, and "ratio" would probably have been better, but unfortunately Average seems to be what they called it in England right from the start in the 1888 season, and also what they called it in the World Cups, eg. 1962. I've included "or goal ratio" on the Goal Difference page which should help. I was going to agree re-naming your Goal ratio article to Goal average, but I see someone else has deleted what you wrote and instead put in a re-direct to the Goal difference page. I think it's not clear whether Goal average should have its own article − it is a different concept to Goal difference, but one was brought in directly to replace the other, so it's good to have both together, and anyway there's not a great deal to say about either, so it would be two quite short articles. I think the historical use section you started would be very useful to have, so I would suggest you include it somewhere on the Goal Difference page, and then in the future people can see how large that section becomes and decide if Goal Average needs its own page. Mmitchell10 (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes as two separated articles atleast the leads wuld be rather short, I have to agree. But here is an example of how seaprated articles could be helpful. And this example is true. "In the Swedish Allsvenskan, Landskrona BoIS lost the Big silver (2nd) to their worst rivals Helsingborg IF by a less goal average of 0.005, in the 1937/38 season. If goal difference had been the tiebreaker in those days, Landskrona would have became runners up instead" It's my team's (Landskrona BoIS) best achievement ever, by the way. But I suppose a link to goal average may be called for also elsewhere.

Boeing720 (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a separate article would be best then go for it. I think I would probably agree. I suggest you do it by editing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goal_average&redirect=no , and replacing the re-direct on that page with your article. If you want to include examples like the one you mention, are you able to link to a wikipedia page with the league table, or if not then reference an external webpage with the league table? Mmitchell10 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nicky Bailey, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mmitchell10

Back in January you added the ICC Test, ODI and T20I Championship ranking tables to the articles on the teams that play any, or all, of these formats.

No doubt you had your heart in the right place when you made these additions. However, three months later, calls are being made for these tables to be removed - and, unfortunately, the users making these calls do make some good points on the WikiProject Cricket talk page.

Therefore, I think your opinion would be welcomed and valued. Please don't feel, however, that your additions were wrong and that you have to remove the tables.

Thanks and regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmitchell10. 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]

Hello, Mmitchell10. 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]

Template:Fb cl header H&A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb cl team H&A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb cl team H&A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb cl header H&A has been nominated for merging with Template:Module:Sports table/WDL. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Hhkohh (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmitchell10. 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]

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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going through all of these. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem, thank you. Mmitchell10 (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just about to post the same thing! Thanks for your hard work with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your edit here. You may want to read this essay here. Most date templates use the Age module, which calculates ages according to the date when the web page is delivered to your web browser, not when it is edited or saved on Wikipedia.

Any caching or delay in refreshing dates you personally are seeing may be being performed by your own web browser. Try pressing Crtl F5 to force your browser to re-fetch the page from Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit: Thanks for taking the time to message, I appreciate it. However, I've looked into date formats quite a lot, and I believe you (and the essay you link to) are incorrect. This is easily determined, as in order to experiment I put the same 'date last updated' caveat on a couple of other similar articles. Therefore, please click on Ministry of Defence (Belgium). You should see, right at the bottom, the date the table was last updated is 9 Nov, even though today is 20 Nov. Presuming you've never been to the article before, that can't be a version cached on your own computer that you're retrieving, but you're retrieving what Wikipedia actually holds. Therefore ages are not calculated according to the date the page was delivered to your browser - this cannot be the case, as Wikipedia isn't going to convert the saved wikitext into HTML every time the article is called, that would be crazy. Instead Wikipedia itself uses caches. So whenever an editor changes the wikitext for an article, the article is converted to HTML, and a copy of the HTML is retained by Wikipedia, at which point the date difference is fixed until the next re-cache. This cached copy is what is sent whenever the article is called. The cached copies are also refreshed every now and then, without being prompted by an article edit, but when and if that happens is a matter of chance, it certainly doesn't happen every day. I'm not going to start an edit war on the Prime Minister page, so I'm not going to put it back in, but the person reverting me has mixed up automatic updating (which is true) with being updated every day (which is not). Thanks. (Though if you tell me you see 20 Nov on that Belgium page I will take all this back and have to re-consider everything I know!!) Mmitchell10 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of investigating across a few articles, and indeed you do appear to be correct. This is a surprise to me, as I've always considered it to be rendered at time of viewing. I wonder if this is something new, or a bug, or has always been like this and I've never noticed? I don't think I've seen any notes like you've added before. So either it has always been like this, and no-one has considered it worth mentioning, or this is something new. The documentation I've read so far is not precise enough to explain how and when the calculation occurs. I'll investigate further. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Escape Orbit:. Yes, I was very disappointed when I (quite recently) found out they don't update every day. Maybe it's always been that way but before I came along no one else has been geeky enough to feel the need to check the tenure lengths from one day to the next! I've been inspired to create a meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2021 proposal to change it. Mmitchell10 (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one of your edits to Official state car. I had not realized that you moved the text there to a different article. I thought you were removing a large portion of text without consensus. My deepest apologies! Please forgive me. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PeterPrettyCool: That's no problem! Thanks for messaging. I see from your userpage that you're a new editor. Welcome! Thanks for joining. Mmitchell10 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mmitchell10:, I request you to join the discussion about changing the title of ICC Test Championship. Thank you. Selva15469 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you proposed a merger of British government frontbench and List of government ministers of the United Kingdom.

Official Opposition frontbench is the opposite or mirror of the former. Should they merge, what about this article? Further note - British government frontbench is not just about current ministers but also any new governments.

Just my input. Do reply here.

Thanks.

Condo951795 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your suggestion. While it could be useful to see the ministers and their shadows paired up, overall I would think that Official Opposition frontbench should not be merged in as well. Firstly because the set of government ministers is a significant group of people in their own right, as they are the executive, and so I think they deserve their own article. But also on a practical note it would make the article quite complicated. The role titles in the government and the opposition sometimes don't match exactly, so it could start to get messy quite quickly. The two articles are already quite long. However, I think a mention of the Opposition frontbench is definitely merited in the lead section of the Gov frontbench, so I've added in a sentence. What do you think about the merge? Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest a merge of opposition and current government frontbench. Both articles should be kept as they change as 'benchers' changes during by- and general elections. It is up to users to update. Mostly I see the Opposition article more regularly updated. Simultaneously, there are similar articles - Second Johnson ministry for instance which is far more accurate - it provides which ministers have changes per time period. The List of government ministers of the United Kingdom is fairly good but names are not included and there are missing appointments such as junior whips. So no merger of any article should be made. But is there 'time and effort' to update all articles accurately? Condo951795 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for withdrawing the merger. Condo951795 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've also asked a separate, related question at Talk:List of government ministers of the United Kingdom, which you are welcome to contribute to. Mmitchell10 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Crown office list in case you are interested.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3816473

Condo951795 (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/10/suella-bravermans-return-maternity-forces-cabinet-mini-reshuffle/

"After a week of swirling rumours about a looming reshuffle, Boris Johnson finally conducted a shake-up of his front bench on Friday.

It was a modest change, however, that resulted from the return of Suella Braverman from maternity leave rather than the seismic restructuring of his top team that was widely anticipated.

The 41-year-old QC was reappointed Attorney General following six months off in the wake of the arrival of her second child.

She was the first Cabinet-level minister to take her entitlement to maternity leave, a move commended by equality campaigners. Previously only junior ministers, including Tracey Crouch and Kemi Badenoch, had taken time off after having children.

Mrs Braverman attended Cabinet earlier this week when the Prime Minister’s senior team met in person for the first time in 18 months, ending the era of video meetings that took place throughout the pandemic. She formally takes up her portfolio again next week.

Special legislation had to be passed by Parliament to enable her to take time off from her ministerial duties.

During her absence, she was designated Minister on Leave (Attorney General) while her deputy, Solicitor General Michael Ellis, served as Attorney General. His place was taken by Lucy Frazer, the prisons minister.

Number 10 confirmed on Friday that, as part of a mini-reshuffle, Mr Ellis and Ms Frazer would return to their previous roles."

FYI

Condo951795 (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Condo951795:, I wasn't aware this change was happening. Mmitchell10 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check if everything is in order?

British Government frontbench

See https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-facing-commons-grilling-amid-whispers-cabinet-reshuffle-is-about-to-begin-politics-latest-12408484

Condo951795 (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Condo951795: There are lots of changes that need to be made to British Government frontbench in the junior positions. (2021 British cabinet reshuffle lists them all). The Cabinet-level changes seem to be OK, except Nigel Adams doesn't appear in British Government frontbench. Mmitchell10 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

right will be busy might make changes later. Do you want to help change? Condo951795 (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated British Government frontbench. Can you check and labelled the MPs and Lords who are in the PC and paid and unpaid properly? Thanks.

See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointments-september-2021

Condo951795 (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all the unpaid ones (I think), and some other ones at random, and made some changes. I can't claim to have checked every single last one though... Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Condo951795 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they listed on Official Opposition frontbench but not on the other front bench teams?

Thoughts?

Condo951795 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Condo951795: While PPSs are not ministers, they are bound by some aspects of the ministerial code, such as having to resign to vote against the government, so I think they're kind of in between, neither part of the government nor not part of the government. The Parliamentary Private Secretary article repeatedly says they're not part of the government, taking the line of The IFG, however the 'about' hatnote at the top of the PPS article says 'This article is about a UK government office', which just illustrates the confusion. I guess it could be argued that they're not part of the government but are part of the opposition frontbench, and therefore should not be included in the British Government frontbench article, but should be included in the Official Opposition frontbench article, but it's quite a tortuous position to take. I'm not sure what the right way ahead is. Pinging @FollowTheTortoise: who was previously interested in this. Mmitchell10 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SNP and LibDem frontbench teams dont list them. The government and oppotion list dont mirror each other - the oppo shows PPS and revovling lists.Condo951795 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply: Clearly they do not sit on either frontbench - Not listed in this and this and as you stated, this is the role of a Parliamentary private secretary, they do not sit on either front bench. This line says it, "As they are not members of the government, PPSs are also barred from speaking or answering questions from the frontbench in parliament." There is also this. Condo951795 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Condo951795: If you would like to remove them from the Oppo front bench article, citing consistency with the Gov, LibDem and SNP front bench articles, and maybe also adding an explanation on the Oppo front bench's talk page, then personally I'd support that.Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I'm not an expert with tables. Have added a disclaimer on the oppo bench article.Condo951795 (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your editing and help. Merry Christmas. Condo951795 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Condo951795: Thank you so much, a great Christmas present! Mmitchell10 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmitchell10. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of government ministers of the United Kingdom, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmitchell10. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of government ministers of the United Kingdom".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmitchell10

Thank you for creating Shadow Minister without Portfolio (UK).

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Notes from preliminary review by New Page Patrol. My guess is that this looks like this would be a good topic for an article. But the sources and content are nothing about the position, merely people who occupied it. I did not tag or do any disposition of the article. My recommendation: add and use a source or two that covers the POSITION. Happy editing

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmitchell10

Thank you for creating Shadow Minister without Portfolio (UK).

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I looked at this about 4 times before deciding to review it. It is lacking sourcing and coverage on the topic of the article and instead is mostly a collection of primary sources (and facts derived from them) of instances of the persons holding the position. Nevertheless, IMO suitable broad-coverage-of-the-topic sources probably exist and this is an important-to-have enclyclopedic article and I marked it as reviewed. Thanks for your work and happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thanks for reviewing. I don't disagree with your comments, however, the comments apply equally to plenty of other similar articles. For example, Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, Permanent Under-Secretary of State of the Home Office, Minister for Children (United Kingdom). I think these articles are in an even worse state!, with fewer sources, or even no sources, and even less commentary about the position. No doubt they are all important articles, and will continue to evolve going forward. Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you work. My post was intended mostly as a "good start and thanks for your work" post. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you, I appreciate it :-) Mmitchell10 (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmitchell10

Thank you for creating Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. I marked as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Division by zero, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03:How is it original research to state that Brazil in the 1958 FIFA World Cup Group 4 had no Goal Ratio because they conceded zero goals, so GR can't be calculated? It's a well-established fact, as the table of Standings in the Wikipedia article about Group 4 makes clear. Mmitchell10 (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid WP:SYNTH, we will need a source which explicitly states that this calculation requires division by zero. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03:I accept that technically you might be correct, however I think it's an extremely harsh judgement, given that the contribution I added is not remotely controversial, and further, a far higher standard is being imposed on it than even the rest of the Division by zero article achieves. For example, there isn't a single reference in the 'Elementary arithmetic' section, and only 1 reference in the lengthy 'Computer arithmetic' section, so how come they survive? In comparison, the contribution I added is full of references to respected, reliable sources, even if, strictly speaking, they haven't fully joined every last dot of explicitly making the connection to the concept of division by zero. Mmitchell10 (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-cabinet-committees-system-and-list-of-cabinet-committees

FYI

TShape12 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mmitchell10 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legal position of secretaries of state has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]