User talk:OhDidgeridoo

Hello, it is Alan Mak who is a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury.

"Alan Mak MP was appointed as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury) on 21 April 2021."

Scott Mann is an Assistant Whip

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

Kind regards

Condo951795 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The entry I made was based off on the 11 March Commission – which appointed Scott Mann as a Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury and not Alan Mak. As there has been a more recent change to who is and who isn't a government whip and, subsequently, a Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury, there will be a new Commission (not sure when it will be Gazetted). The edit I made is accurate for the 11 March 2021 Commission. OhDidgeridoo (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me show you again. Alan Mak on gov.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/people/alan-mak "Alan Mak MP was appointed as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury) on 21 April 2021. Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury." I do not believe it is not a reputable source. Also https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2021-05-24b.1.6 " have been delighted to welcome to the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend Leo Docherty as our Veterans Minister and my hon. Friend Alan Mak as our Defence Whip." I note Mak is not on the Gazette but that does not disi-nclude him as a ord Commissioner of HM Treasury. Scott Mann - https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers Is listed an "Assistant Whip(s)" while Mak is higher as "Junior Lords of the Treasury". But if you click on Mann's profile, it says "Scott Mann MP was appointed Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury) on 22 January 2021." which totally negates your evidence of 11 March but yes seemingly a Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury but listed as an Assistant Whip, junior to Junior Lords of the Treasury. I will restore my reference of Mak which was reverted.

@Sdrqaz: I see you are a editor of British ministers - can you help?

Condo951795 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Alan Mak was not included on the 11 March Commission, Scott Mann was. So Alan Mak could not have been a Lord Commissioner at the time of the 11 March Commission. Whilst new government whips are appointed, they are not automatically a Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury.

Secondly, April comes after March so I fail to see how Mak being appointed a government whip on 21 April 2021 would change the composition of Lord Commissioners.

Furthermore, my evidence of 11 March is not negated by the fact that Scott Mann was appointed a government whip in January – but I'd like to hear why you think it is.

Whilst gov.uk may claim that a whip is a Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury, they are not an actual Lord Commissioner until a new Commission has been issued. That is why Alan Mak is disincluded as a Lord Commissioner for the 11 March Commission.

Including Alan Mak on the 11 March list is completely inaccurate and just plain wrong.

OhDidgeridoo (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have added a new list, which I have to disagree with. The list of the Commissioners are sorted into their respective Commissioners. We don't know if a Commission has been issued in April, and it is not safe to assume that once has been. OhDidgeridoo (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you but you are simply saying gov.uk is not trustworthy. Will not pursue matter anymore. Also learn how to paragraph. Condo951795 (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as we're exchanging advice, learn how Treasury Commissioners work before editing wiki articles about them. OhDidgeridoo (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I have arrived at this conversation too late. Given that the situation is now resolved, please stop taking these little jabs at each other: neither of you come out of this situation looking great. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Condo951795: The new Commission has been published (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3816473). Alan Mak is included and Scott Mann has been demoted.

ACHTUNG

Keep up the good work :D

notadev (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Jeremy Pocklington

Hello, OhDidgeridoo,

Thank you for creating Jeremy Pocklington.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

References supplied do not satisfy WP:BASIC nor Biography of living persons. What is needed are references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS; that is your guide. You may also read WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources. A more comprehensive guide is WP:SOURCES ... Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion. Kindly do the needful. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Jeremy Pocklington

Hello, OhDidgeridoo, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Meena, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jeremy Pocklington, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Pocklington.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meena}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

– Meena • 21:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]