This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No need to apologise, I should have double checked myself! Giant Snowman 09:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but I will try to be more careful. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You recently created the article Dougie Nyaupembe. I want to draw your attention to the fact that we already have an article on Douglas Nyaupembe who seems to be the same person. Therefore I think that both articles should be merged. -- Proofreader ( talk) 17:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Proofreader: He is the same person. He is commonly known as Dougie so I think the old article should be merged into the new one. Two of the sources in the old article are very useful so I think it should be a merge rather than a simple redirect. The old article is Dougie's career to May 2018 but much has happened since then.

I'm not sure how we will deal with his nationality as the Bury club site confirms that he is English as in qualified to play for England. I've heard, as a Bury supporter, that he was born in England of Zimbabwean parents but there is no certainty of that. Knowing and sourcing are two different things. Ha!

I'm happy to do the merge, if you wish. I'm not sure if we should use WP:MERGE or just do it. What do you think? Thanks very much. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that I am not an expert in the field and just stumbled across it while doing some maintenance on the categories where I found two people with basically the same name born on the same day. The main author of the other article, User:Cttam123, is blocked, so I doubt that there is any other user with the same expertise on this as you. So I think you can feel free to do the merger yourself without much official procedure. If the sources say that he is better known as Dougie than that should be the title of the final article. Just include the infos from the Douglas-article that you find useful into the Dougie-article and then turn the Douglas-article into a redirect as some people might search the person under the other name. -- Proofreader ( talk) 20:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Proofreader: Will do. Leave it with me. Thank again and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi No Great Shaker, I noticed that you reverted someone's edit to the tzatziki article, where you had said "source needed". I was able to find many reliable sources for the information with a simple Google books search, so I undid your revert and added a citation.

I see on your user page that you consider that the quality of Wikipedia articles is often brought down by editors who add content that is out of scope, or unverified, or badly written. You are completely correct about that! However, the question becomes how to deal with it. You noted "whenever I find anything at all questionable in terms of scope, verification or bad English, it gets the chop. Immediately." Please consider that in many cases, material that has been added without a corresponding reliable source is still valuable, if a source can be found. Information should only be removed if it's likely to be unverifiable, not only unverified by a citation. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM describes some approaches to dealing with problematic content. For unsourced material, it suggests instead of removing content from an article, "doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself". This is part of Wikipedia's editing policy, which all editors should normally follow. Thanks for your understanding... -- IamNotU ( talk) 14:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was dealing with a lengthy list of pending changes and did not have time to search for sources especially as this one seemed very dubious. The editor says: "Ash-e-doogh is a soup, mastokhiar is closer to Tsatsiki". In fact, tzatziki is a soup and that would suggest the existing information is correct if, as he says, ash-e-doogh is a soup. I noticed this at the time and decided that replacement of bona fide information by something that appears to be dubious needs an immediate citation. Removing information is not the same thing as restoring information, which is what my pending change revert achieved. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Shakers fan, I see. Any idea what happened to Jimmy McIlwraith? I'm going back a bit - used to watch him at Gigg in the 70s. We don't seem to have an article for him. - Sitush ( talk) 20:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not at all sure but I've an idea he went to Halifax Town, who were a league club at the time. We got him from one of the Scottish clubs. Could have been Partick Thistle as I seem to remember him having some connection with Alan Hansen, who definitely did play for Partick. It would have been late seventies, I think, when he moved on. Leave it with me and I'll see if I can find anything. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Sitush:. Got him. It was Motherwell, not Partick, and he had a year at Portsmouth that I don't remember at all, between two spells with us. Played for us from 1975 for three years, then a year at Portsmouth, back to us in 1979–80 and finally to Halifax for two seasons. He was a great competitor, like so many Scots. I found some data about him here and here. He deserves an article, certainly. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have seen him in the 1975-78 period and, as you say, he was a great competitor. I've still got a cloth Bury FC badge knocking around somewhere from that time. My abiding memory was the cup match vs Nottingham, not so much because the place was full and the game ok than because some idiot further up the stands lobbed a tater pie and muggins here copped it all over his head. - Sitush ( talk) 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's what happened to my pie! Oops. Would that be the nil-seven nightmare that still haunts me sometimes? It'd be interesting to know where Jimmy is now. Went back to Scotland, maybe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha!

I'll do some digging for post-football career info but am not hopeful. I vaguely recall looking in the past. He's 64/65 now, so probably creaking towards retirement on dodgy knees. - Sitush ( talk) 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline and the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Toddst1: That to me is good news. I fully support the initiative as I would ideally like to see everything in these pages sourced. The additions often come up at pending changes review. They are hardly ever sourced and many are about subjects that don't even have articles. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bury F.C. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber ( talk) 05:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The article Bury F.C. you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bury F.C. for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber ( talk) 20:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again, Casliber. I've not done anything on Did You Know yet so I'll pursue that option. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking something funny about the mascot for DYK...that's a rather funny story Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 10th millennium BC you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 10:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hiya

Thanks for that. :)

Best

Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Alexandermcnabb: No problem. Good luck. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The article 10th millennium BC you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:10th millennium BC for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 12:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 14:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass ( talk) 00:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Bury F.C. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 22:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

valereee ( talk) 00:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my understanding is that this is a perfectly reputable source. It is used by the majority of professional statisticians, and communicates directly with the ICC to clarify scorecards and classifications of matches. I can't speak for who runs it these days (it used to be part of the publishing house behind The Cricketer magazine, but I think they split again), but I have no qualms about it being used as a source. That is unrelated to the problem of permastubs, however. Harrias ^talk 19:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Harrias: Thank you for the explanation. I was not told of ICC involvement. I had consulted a friend who is into cricket history and he has doubts about the authenticity of the site because he's heard that it contains some horrendous errors. Although things might have changed, as you say, he thought it was run by a group called the Association of Cricket Statisticians, a private society based in Cardiff. If you are sure it is okay as a source I'll accept that. I suppose the problem is its usage on this site because, from what I've seen, it is the sole source given, even as an external link, for most of those short articles (I like your term "permastub") that are being pushed for deletion. Thank you again. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland). I have taken your advice (and that of Acroterian) and changed the very last citation from a web page (with the scroll down advice) to a book. The old web citation is still there, but commented out. The "trouble-maker" citation in the Info box is still there—hopefully that problem will be fixed everywhere soon, and I want to be consistent with other pages that discuss something in the National Register of Historic Places. The trouble with the National Register link is why I used the Maryland Historical Trust (the second citation) to link to a copy of the National Register Nomination Form. The church and its history was fun to work on—a nice break from my usual American Civil War or glass making. It is the second church Wikipedia article for me, and I have two more that I plan to do. Your time was appreciated. TwoScars ( talk) 20:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@ TwoScars: No problem at all. As I said, if the citation issues can be sorted I think this article would be a walk-in at GA. It's very well written and is in scope using a summary style with some really good images (I'd like to come over there and see for myself!). Given no disputes or OR, it's a GA for certain. Well done. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 9th millennium BC you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber ( talk) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn because of my availability problems. Still very interested in this article and will revisit. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Norway Debate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Femkemilene -- Femkemilene ( talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Norway Debate you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Norway Debate for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Femkemilene -- Femkemilene ( talk) 09:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Norway Debate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Norway Debate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Femkemilene -- Femkemilene ( talk) 18:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, No Great Shaker. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Scott Moloney".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've heard that he has quit football altogether! Pity, as he was reportedly a good prospect. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coronation of Queen Victoria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 21:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

See my assessment of Coronation_of_Queen_Victoria#Queen_Victoria's_account. Amitchell125 ( talk) 15:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination was withdrawn because of controversy about copyright in the article's older content. I will not be revisiting this article in the near future. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 8th millennium BC, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pepper and Cocoa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Chili pepper and cocoa bean substituted. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Populated places established in the 10th millennium BC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, List of ministers in the Churchill wartime government, 1940–1945, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. b uidh e 15:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This was a good idea. Replied to Buidhe at their talk page. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What made you think Solo diving was written in American English using mdy dates? The text uses "programmes" in the first paragraph. A quick check shows "organisations" "pressurises", "categorise" and other anglicised spellings throughout, and obviously isn't en-us. Similarly almost every date in the wikitext is in dmy style. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, RexxS, I copied the wrong pair. I have a TextPad workshop file for storing all sorts of useful tags, categories and what have you. Thanks for correcting it. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Peter. I enjoyed it and the article is very interesting. I don't think I'll go for a dive myself, though. Splashing about in a pool when I go on holiday is enough for me, I think . All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you undid my revision for the retirement section of Winston Churchill because of an error I committed while trying to close the footnote. Since all edits I have made seem to be ineffective in getting rid of the error, would you be able to fix it yourself? I am not experienced with these kinds of things, so it would be helpful for someone with better experience to do the job. Thanks. User:Anderswarr, 01:00 PST January 12, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Anderswarr: it's okay, the problem has been resolved now. Sfn notation links to the bibliography entry and doesn't need ref tags. I made the initial error by inadvertently leaving an obsolete ref tag in place. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Lovely, agreed, thanks. Giant Snowman 14:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi No Great Shaker! You created a thread called Incorrect image at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{ nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you assessed the John Charles Thring article as "Start quality". This means that the article needs:

• "references to reliable sources"

• "substantial improvement in content and organisation"

• "improve[ment of] the grammar, spelling, writing style"

Would you be able to give examples of parts of the article that are currently lacking in reliable sources, poorly organized, or contain grammatical / spelling mistakes, etc.? That will help improve the quality of the article.

Thanks! Grover cleveland ( talk) 03:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ Grover cleveland: I think you have misunderstood the purpose of my edit to the article's talk page. I was only adding the project banners, not actually assessing the quality. Class=start is a default for quality (assuming the article is more than a stub), pending a review. You can do a B-class or C-class review yourself if you want to, even though you are the main editor. GA of course is a formal review process. For what it's worth, I think the article is strong on content and sources. It did need a measure of copyediting but that's been done now and so it might have C-class potential subject to meeting enough of the criteria. It might be worth asking at WT:FOOTY to get a view from there. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah -- I misunderstood. Thanks! Grover cleveland ( talk) 02:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		For taking on, and then providing a high-quality and detailed review of Albert Kesselring, a contentious article of late, I award you this Premium Reviewer Barnstar. Keep up the great work. Harrias talk 12:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Harrias. That is a surprise. It was certainly a contentious article and I thought I should try and be as thorough as possible. Even though I felt like packing it in halfway through, ha! All the best and take good care. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Re this change: What benefit does this confer? Do you intend to review the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have placed it in the correct GAN category for the benefit of those editors who are participating in the GAN backlog drive and, no, I am not going to review it. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Noticed you got rid of the empty section regarding the new "LiveWire" model on the Harley-Davidson article. I kinda hit a bit of a wall with getting that section written up, and I could use a hand. Darwulf ( talk) 22:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Darwulf, no problem. I won't do much because I know very little about the subject but I've borrowed a piece from the main article for use as a short intro. That is sufficient to remove the empty section tag. Hope it helps. Good luck and take care. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi No Great Shaker, I'm trying to make the Burnley F.C. article into a featured one, and therefore I've requested a peer review. There are still flaws, but I believe it has the potential. I noticed your work on different football articles and I was wondering if you would like to improve the Burnley article as well. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WA8MTWAYC, I'll be glad to. It is of course a GA already so it's going to be largely a case of fine-tuning. Leave it with me for now. All the best and take care. No Great Shaker ( talk) 04:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you No Great Shaker. Take care. WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 07:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You might consider using this: The Churchill Project (April 1, 2016) Were “Soft Underbelly” and “Fortress Europe” Churchill Phrases? Hillsdale College Cheers. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 7&6=thirteen, and thank you. This is certainly useful. All the best and take good care. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Early life of Winston Churchill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://monovisions.com/vintage-young-winston-churchill-1884-1904/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Less Unless ( talk) 17:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello No Great Shaker. I've decided to write you here directly as I'm concerned about the Early life of Winston Churchill article that you have written. The article is very good, however what concerns me is that a big chunk of info is copied from the monovisions.com. I wanted to ask you if you are the author of the text there and have the rights for it, cause the webpage doesn't seem to be public domain. I have nominated it as copyright violations are handled seriously here, but if you can check the fair use of the text, the article can be saved (which I really hope for). Best, Less Unless ( talk) 17:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, see the contest deletion at Talk:Early life of Winston Churchill. You have raised the CSD without first ensuring that the source of the alleged violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror site. It is an obvious mirror and, furthermore, Early life of Winston Churchill is fully sourced. The citations did not come from the mirror site – they came from Winston Churchill#Early life. This needs to be sorted out quickly. No Great Shaker ( talk) 04:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker I agree that my nomination was rather hasty as I believe copyright violations are very serious. I've checked the list of mirror sites Wikipedia mirror site, but the journal the copyvio detector showed wasn't there. So for me it wasn't obvious the site was a mirror. Now I see my mistake - I haven't checked the original Winston Churchill article. Well, we learn from mistakes. Gladly here they are not fatal. Thank you for the explanation. I'm sure the article will be safe. Best, Less Unless ( talk) 17:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, you're okay, no harm done. I should have completed the attribution straightaway instead of thinking I'll do it later. It's a faff looking up diff numbers and I was probably too busy just then. These sites that copy WP are not only lazy, they risk discrediting themselves completely because WP isn't always accurate so they might copy something which is nonsense and in due course is deleted from WP. I found a recent case of that myself involving one of the major British newspapers. Anyway, all the best and take good care. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look here;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/south-africa-returns-to-the-commonwealth-fold-1419686.html - ( 124.197.55.28 ( talk) 09:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC))

Okay, that's done. It needed to be formatted into citation style as we can't use bare URLs. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why did you undo my update? I updated to 2019 squad the clubs with most players appeared in UEFA Team of the Year. It was updated to 2018. Alessandraronaldo ( talk) 12:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Which edit do you mean? Please provide a diff because I can't see an edit by you at UEFA Team of the Year. Have you quoted the correct article name? Or are you using more than one account? No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did it without logging in so it seems to be done by another user. I updated to 2019 the clubs with most players appearances. It was updated to 2018. Could you add 5 players to Liverpool, 2 for Juventus, Barcelona and Ajax and 1 to Man City and Bayern Munich? Please Alessandraronaldo ( talk) 14:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Alessandraronaldo. Okay, I understand what you are doing now and I've restored your edit. Thanks for making it clear. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You’ve removed edits twice. Why? The Source was added. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. International Agreements. Agreement on the abolition of visas between Andorra and Russia. Isn’t that enough? 83.220.236.9 ( talk) 13:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were unsatisfactory and do not meet the requirements of the WP:RPC review. You removed other content in order to incorporate Andorra. See how other countries have been represented and sourced in the article and do not remove anything like Cape Verde without good reason. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Cabo Verde. You’re right. I deleted Cabo Verde. Why? Because this information does not correspond to reality. Visa waiver agreement between Cabo Verde and Russia is in force from July 2020. It is a fact. The map did not correspond to the changed realities. A phrase was added. “The map does not include Cabo Verde”. On 27 August 2020, the map was edited. Cabo Verde was added. The phrase has become irrelevant. Do you agree? Today I deleted it and added a new one “The map does not include Andorra”. This is an actual true edit. 83.220.236.9 ( talk) 13:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you've explained it sufficiently now and, given the complexity of the article layout, I think your edit should be restored so I've just done that. Thanks very much for the explanation and I'll send you a formal welcome notice. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your decision. Have a nice day! 83.220.236.9 ( talk) 13:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

And you. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, No Great Shaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~ Amory ( u • t • c) 13:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi No Great Shaker. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@ DeltaQuad: Thank you again, Amanda, for doing this. I fully understand that it is to be used for vandalism only and will continue to simply undo genuine mistakes done in good faith. I think it will be very useful given some of the more extreme vandalism cases I've encountered, including one last night who "declared war" on me after I warned him! I'll let you know if I should have any problems but, per the final criterion above, it is all a matter of common sense and so it should not present any non-technical problems. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 05:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, no worries, this is just a standard template that gets added, I'm not worried about your edits specifically. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a few references to Addison 1980 without a full citation, would you mind adding it? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Headbomb, well spotted. I missed his journal piece. Have included it now. All the best and take good care. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you install Svick's script per these instructions, you'll automatically be notified of these omissions. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, I've done that and thank you again. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia pages but if I understand correctly you have rejected my revision of the Rolling Stones page concerning when the band started using Toronto for tour rehearsals. I was the monitor engineer for the band from 1989 - 2003. The Steel Wheels tour rehearsals were in Connecticut and New York not Toronto. Voodoo Lounge tour rehearsals were in Toronto. I realise that working for the Rolling Stones for so long may have affected my memory but I think this is correct. Thanks Chris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwadeevans ( talk • contribs) 11:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chris. I'm afraid the rules are that a reliable secondary source must be cited per WP:V and WP:CITE. This is, however, a minor point and I'll accept it on the basis of your explanation. Thanks and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will try and learn how to cite secondary sources properly. Also is this the correct way to reply? By editing? Cwadeevans ( talk) 11:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's right, Chris. As you've done here, just add a reply at the bottom of the discussion. You'll soon get used to to it. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

		The Multiple Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thank you for completing 25 reviews in the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 60%. Regards, Harrias talk 08:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Harrias. Thank you very much. That's a nice surprise – must admit I'd forgotten all about the backlog drive. I'm glad to see that the effort resulted in a 60% reduction. That's a big step forward and will hopefully make the process more manageable now. Well done for organising it and I think it will certainly be worth a repeat sometime. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this edit. If you make a similar contribution in the future there is a custom template for linking to EB1911 articles on Wikisource which fills out most of the fields for you called {{ cite EB1911}} (see this edit). The template also places the Wikipedia article into some trace and maintain categories which helps editors who monitor for such links.

There is a custom template called {{ cite ODNB}} which does something similar for links to the website of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (see this edit). On Wikisource there is also a complete version of the older Dictionary of National Biography for which there is also a customised template: {{ cite DNB}}.

-- PBS ( talk) 15:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, PBS, that's very useful to know as I'll be doing a lot more sourcing for the DOY articles. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Glad the information is old help. Another useful source PD on Wikisource for which there is a complete version is the Catholic Encyclopedia for which there is a custom template {{ cite CE1913}}.

There are many more PD dictionaries and encyclopaedias on Wikisource. Some more complete that others, and for which there are usually customised templates. I keep a rough (very rough) list at User:PBS/Notes#List of PD Templates. -- PBS ( talk) 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is really useful, PBS. Thank you again. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The role of Peter Ustinov in this film is certainly not "prominent" - a 90 second appearance looking barely recognisable as himself-- Stephencdickson ( talk) 10:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Stephencdickson, I think you may have confused him with someone else in the film. He was young then, remember, but instantly recognisable. He is the bistro owner in Tunisia and is very prominent indeed through most of the second half, even helping the British soldiers to repel the German attack. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying he is not recognisable... he is very distinctive... but recognising someone is linguistically not the same as a "prominent role" it is definitely a supporting role-- Stephencdickson ( talk) 14:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed it to "one of his earliest roles". It was a supporting role, true, but a very significant one in several scenes and certainly much longer than a mere 90 seconds. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

	An epic barnstar for you!
	Awarded for bringing the 10th and 9th Millennium BC articles up to good article status. These were well researched and very interesting to read. Thanks a lot for your hard work. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, Spirit of Eagle. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the two articles. Eventually, I'd like to try and do the same at 8th millennium BC, where I made a start some time ago, and then perhaps through the other millennia. The problem is having so much else to do, more so in real life than on here, but we shall see. Anyway, the barnstar is much appreciated. All the best and keep yourself safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sheffield Rules, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Eddie. I've commented at the GAR. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Winston Churchill you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi -- Pi ( talk) 22:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Churchill caretaker ministry you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The article Churchill caretaker ministry you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Churchill caretaker ministry for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The article Winston Churchill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Winston Churchill for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi -- Pi ( talk) 19:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Winston Churchill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Further to this, any reason why you didn't use one of the many free images to include in a hook of one of the greatest Britons in history? This is a golden opportunity that only comes around once (I know i'd prefer a hook based upon his successes during the War), it seems a shame not to have one. The Royal C ( talk) 13:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, The Royal C. Yes, you're right. I've added the famous Roaring Lion one taken in December 1941 at the height of the war, just after Pearl Harbor. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Churchill caretaker ministry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarah Churchill.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, of course. I believe Winston's daughter was actually named after John Duke's missus. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 06:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The article Churchill caretaker ministry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Churchill caretaker ministry for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1903 FA Cup Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm ( talk) 17:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The article 1903 FA Cup Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1903 FA Cup Final for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm ( talk) 18:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The article 1903 FA Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1903 FA Cup Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm ( talk) 16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 —  Amakuru ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Amakuru. Glad it's been of use. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 —  Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again, Amakuru. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your contributions to improving the encyclopedia!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You are recipient no. 2446 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda, and thank you ever so much. This is a cup of cheer because I'm dealing with a lot of problems in real life at present, hence the unavailable notices. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel (hopefully not the train) and I should be back to normal before long. Thank you again and make sure you keep safe. All the very best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am happy that you saw it as cheer as meant, and see that you and your wife could use a lot of it. Music works best for me, - take what you like. I know that bringing an established article to GA quality is extra hard ( Clara Schumann, Jessye Norman). Thanks for doing such things, - nice to meet you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda. I'm sorry to tell you that I have decided to quit the site. I am struggling to find time for it anyway but I've become completely disillusioned and can do without it. I'd like to thank you personally for your kindness, help and friendship. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 05:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Roy, I am sorry to hear that. I thought this sounded promising. I came to celebrate an anniversary today, and now have to deal with another disappointment, and another helper lost. Isn't it enough that dear people die? ... and good people die? Yesterday; I met someone who was away for three years. We'll see. I decided against quitting in 2012, DYK? - I know the feeling, but stubbornly stay. I'll give you Die Fliege (look below the beeches) for your time away. Best wishes for private happiness, and read In loving memory, please. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

from my talk page -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Regret. Grimes2 ( talk) 10:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I saw this having just looked at Piccadilly line's GA review. I've taken several sabbaticals and breaks, but eventually I find there's an article that needs some work, so I come back and do that. So have a break and see how you feel in a while. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Likewise. We had a very good interaction on the Churchill caretaker ministry review. I was pinged on the GAR that just happened and I was surprised to see what went on – the other two parties were not without fault, but you let your emotions and stress levels get the better of you. Alas it's happened to all of us, myself most definitely included. If you do decide to come back at some point, remember that at the end of the day this is a volunteer activity and it's fine to just do what you want to do, when you are able to, and ignore everything else. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this, NGS, but sometimes walking away is the only sensible thing to do in here. I do hope you will come back. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

See you soon. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 16:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a good one! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

		The Multiple Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thank you for conducting 24 reviews in the October 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 48%. Sorry to see that you've retired. A sincere thank you for all the work you've done-- it is much appreciated. Hopefully we will see you again at some point. All the best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November

... for your way -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven in 1803

The birthday display! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again, Gerda. I've always been a huge fan of Ludwig Van, especially his Pastoral and Choral symphonies which I think are masterpieces. Best wishes and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi I was just wondering if you’re able to create player pages Amarifootball123 ( talk) 23:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Amarifootball123, I certainly can create pages, and so can you as with 20-plus edits you must have WP:AUTOCONFIRM status. It would be best to have a go at it yourself, but let me know the title of the article and I'll be happy to review it for you. There are certain rules to be aware of which you can read at WP:Notability, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. If you see the standard welcome template I've posted to you, that provides some good advice for getting started. I presume your subject is a footballer and so he must comply with the conditions of WP:NFOOTY. I know you're interested in Bury A.F.C. but the only one of our players who currently meets NFOOTY is Aidan Chippendale because he has played in the EFL. I hope that's useful but let me know if I can help with anything else. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 04:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I was going to try but I’m really not very techy however I was wondering why abidan Edwards does not have a page as he was at a premier league club and efl club ? Amarifootball123 ( talk) 11:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I see he was on the books of both West Brom and Birmingham but he didn't play in the EFL, or FA Cup or League Cup for them, so I'm afraid he doesn't qualify for an article as yet. NFOOTY is limited to players who have actually played in a competitive game between two teams from a fully professional league. Even being on the bench is no good unless they get onto the field. Sorry, but perhaps his time will come. He might gain some good experience at Bury and then move on up. Maybe Bury will take him up – top of the NWCFL North now! No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your excellent pier review of Southend Pier. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if these are still as "fashionable" as they once were, but I wanted to acknowledge the work you went to in the PR. Although the PR has now been closed, I still have some aspects of the article improve, though have mostly worked through your suggestions and hope to take it to GA in the near future! Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 12:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Bungle. Very kind of you. I'm glad the PR has been useful. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL, I just noticed "pier" review. Very good. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1901 FA Cup Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber ( talk) 03:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear....saw the message. Hope everything is okay. happy to leave this open for a while if/when you return. Just ping me. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cas Liber. Thanks for picking up this review. For now, I should be able to spend a bit of time here each day for keeping up to date. Will be glad to help you in any way I can. All the best for 2021 (hopefully a mudh better year for all of us) and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, MRRaja001, and all the best to you and yours too. Hopefully a much better year than the last one. Stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks mate!!! - MRRaja001 ^{( talk)} 10:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Participants in the Norway Debate has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RevelationDirect. I was offline for the whole Xmas/NY period so I completely missed this discussion. I thought when I created the category that it might prove useful for readers to navigate from the article. My thinking that to include all those names in an embedded list would have been too much. I had no problem either way with the category being kept or removed, but I think some good points were made in the discussion and it's probably best removed. Still, however, I don't think a long list of participants should be created, though perhaps additional "rebels" might be mentioned as I only named the better known ones like Macmillan, Hogg, Profumo and the like. All the best for 2021 and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion I started on the talk page, another editor suggested a collapsible list which might be a compromise since, I agree with you, long lists can be intrusive in an article. If a stand-alone list would meet WP:LISTN, I've seen some really great sortable list articles like List of tallest buildings in Melbourne that go well beyond a bulleted list. Either way, thank you for your contributions and Happy New Year! - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I stepped away from the Winston Churchill article many years ago (some 13 in fact) after getting it to GA but just took a look now for the first time in years. I notice it has finally got its GA status back and see that it was in a large part down to your efforts. I know how difficult this task must have been. Please accept this barnstar. Well done. LordHarris 00:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to Winston Churchill and getting it to GA LordHarris 00:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, LordHarris, and good to meet you at last. I was already aware of the work you did on Churchill from studying past contributions so, somewhat belatedly, thank you for your efforts in establishing what remains a solid foundation providing all the essentials. I was pleased to get the article back to GA but it has been difficult because of its size and the various points of view being expressed about the subject. I've always tried to accommodate different viewpoints where I can but sometimes you just have to draw the line and invoke consensus or undue weight or both. I've been offline over Xmas/NY and I see in my watchlist that the article has had yet more problems in the meantime. Thanks very much for the barnstar. All the best for 2021 and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, good to make your introduction too. As one of the top articles on Wikipedia it is a mammoth task and while at many times, it is a thankless and difficult task, its also immensely rewarding to realise you've brought good knowledge to lots of readers and managed to successfully build a consensus on such a huge biography, so thank you. All the best for 2021. Cheers, LordHarris 23:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The article 1901 FA Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1901 FA Cup Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber ( talk) 00:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings and happy 2021. I hope that all is well.

I wanted to draw your attention to a GA and TFA nomination which probably needs some diplomatic involvement. A user nominated the article Invisible disability for GA and is himself/herself reviewing the same article ( here). The user also nominated the article for TFA ( here), even though it's not even GA. Venicescapes ( talk) 16:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Venicescapes, and I hope you and yours are all well. I've removed both of those nominations which were invalid. A new user whose enthusiasm has run away with them, I think. All the best for 2021 and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. I'm sure that he/she is good-intentioned. Best wishes, and stay safe. Venicescapes ( talk) 13:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi No Great Shaker and Venicescapes! I just wanted to thank you for dealing with issue above. I just spotted it on the Good Article Nominations page, which I'm sure will auto-update soon. Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm continuing my efforts to remove dross. If I take a lot of entries out of a particular Year/Date article, it could unbalance the sections you've created. Would you like me to amend them myself, or would you prefer me to leave it to you to decide whether/when it needs to be done? Deb ( talk) 11:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Deb. I'm more than happy for you to amend them as you see fit. I only ever intended them to be a temporary aid while I upgrade the articles. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive starts on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month.

( t · c) buidhe 04:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but my time here is limited now and I am making occasional visits only. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)