User talk:No Great Shaker/Archive 2

DYK for Winston Churchill as painter
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, but to be fair I think it is Andrew Davidson who deserves the credit for this. Glad to see the piece has gone into DYK, though. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, No Great Shaker was included in the list of contributors to receive credit when I created the DYK nomination and that's what drives these notifications. There can be several credits and it's good to share.  The hook didn't do especially well (about 4K views) but that's perhaps because others changed the hook and deleted the picture.  So, no thanks to them :) Andrew🐉(talk) 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and DYK are not a zero sum game.
 * A pet peeve of mine has been that there are too many sticks and kicks — and not enough pats and attaboys in Wikipedia. It costs nothing to give praise or even a barnstar. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both :) No Great Shaker (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of ministers in the Churchill wartime government, 1940–1945


Hello, No Great Shaker. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of ministers in the Churchill wartime government".

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 and remove the, , or  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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I had completely forgotten that draft. The information is all in Churchill war ministry now and, in fact, I'm currently updating it. More than happy for the draft to be removed and sorry it slipped my mind. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Turkcebilgi.com
Hi. The site's "about us" section doesn't exist. It contains articles with grammatical errors and they are not written from a neutral point of view. It also cites Wikipedia as its source. ภץאคгöร 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . If it is citing WP then it's definitely out. I tried to get the About Us page up but something in Turkish appeared that wouldn't translate and I thought it might just be a connection issue. I think we'll agree to forget that site, then. Thanks very much for putting me right. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral notice
Hi. You may be interested in this AfD discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm sorry to see that you are having all these problems and I'm happy to give you some support as there is nothing at all wrong with those articles. Stubs are fine and these can be expanded. I've been busy in RL again today but hoping to find a bit of online time this afternoon. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks NGS. Yes, stubs are core to this whole project. See how it pans out, hopefully common-sense will prevail! Any help is more than appreicated. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHPLACE
I see you're not applying the approach of assuming good faith! Certainly not deliberate misuse, and I will go now to attempt to revive a consensus, because as you say there currently is one. Lack of consensus certainly doesn't mean you should get your own way. Vaze50 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was not accusing you of failure to exercise WP:AGF because I believe you are trying to improve the encyclopaedia but, by going against WP:CONSENSUS, you were deliberately misusing the guideline in the hope that others would just shrug and accept your changes. Failure to abide by consensus is not a good faith issue. It is a case of you being WP:BOLD and then encountering opposition to your initiative which takes is into WP:BRD and we are now at "D" in that process. I'm pleased to see that you are now seeking consensus and I'll think about your arguments before I respond at the guideline forum. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate that, and I apologise for not exercising good faith as much as I could have with you. Vaze50 (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Misunderstanding, that's all. I've joined the discussion at the guideline forum. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder...
I won't link them directly so as not to alert them, but User:No Men Are Allowed payed a random visit to Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya to vote delete. They're a brand new account (see here) who just so happened to come across a cricket AfD. On top of that, their userpage is musical in theme, bit like our friend VersaceSpace. What do you think, quacks like a duck right? StickyWicket (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . I think NMAA is definitely a sockpuppet but I'm a bit wary of accusing VS after the checkuser didn't find them out. NMAA has created two templates within an hour of joining and then gone to various deletion discussions same day. If you look at her defence of the two user templates at TFD she is using terms like Speedy Keep as if she's been here for years! While she has gone to a cricket AFD, she has also gone to a footy one where she says the guy clearly lacks notability, as if all newbies have a thorough understanding of GNG, NFOOTY, etc. I think we should get her checked out but I'm not sure how to do that without naming a specific master account. Do you know of a sysop who could discreetly help us?
 * Great work on the cricket project design, by the way, and please let me know if you think I could help. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I raised a query at the [|help desk] and the advice there is to wait and see what happens unless we are very sure of who the master account might be. I've had trouble with socks, especially one serial offender who was screaming at me last year, and I think they all give themselves away sooner or later. When I became a member, it was ages before I went near AFD and I only did so then because a sysop invited me – I had made a right cockup of a footy article and they needed me to come and explain myself! I just don't believe a newbie could know so much about the site and do so much first day. I suppose we had better watch and wait. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I might butt in here, my experience has been that socks like the one you describe are sometimes mastered by (recently) blocked users. One shuts down, and the new one pops up, if that gives you any clues.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite all right, . You're probably right but I can't think of one myself. The one I suspected and reported recently was checkuser negative. I'm not aware of any sockpuppet problems at WP:FOOTY of late; SW might know if WP:CRIC have had any. Thanks and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Morning. They're definitely overly familiar with protocols beyond what a newbie would know. While checkuser came back negative on VS, I wonder if an SPI could be opened using the blocked User:Billiekhalidfan as the master? Some socks really do make their actions easy to spot. I'll keep an eye on their edits, for now they appear to be harmless but if they attack Lugnuts again or vote on anymore cricket AfD's I'll open an SPI. We did have a problem many years ago with User:Richard Daft on the cricket project, over 9 years of attacking the project and its members he racked up 135 socks, which I think was a record!


 * Thanks, pleased you're liking the new design. I have a little bit more to do, mostly on contests and getting the announcement page to tally up with the AfD bot. I'm hoping to recruit some contest coordinators at some point, if that might interest you? StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably best not to get hung up on one individual suspect. There seem to have been quite a few "new" accounts heading almost immediately to AFD (largely with simple ATA !votes) and some have shown up on cricket subjects (likely because we have so many concurrently); a few were recently linked to User:SpareSeiko and others to different farms. Depending on the motives, the topic being discussed is often of little relevance. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, and. I really don't understand why they bother once they've been rumbled, unless they get some perverse kick from being caught over and over again. The one who attacked me last year was User:Marquis de la Eirron, another with a 100-plus farm, but that seems fixated by political articles, not sport. I see there is a SpareSeiko case at SPI now. SW, I'd be interested in anything you need help with although I'm essentially a football fan – that is, I know the offside law but lbw has me scratching my head sometimes! No Great Shaker (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi NGS - hope you are well. I have a feeling this user is a sock of a blocked account. I thought it was this guy, but the trial went dead. They made a couple of edits in January, before being more regular the next month. I'm pretty sure they've edited before based on their sudden discovery of wiki-knowledge and terms. The fact that within a few weeks of editing, they've created this AND nominated for a FL(!) ring some alarm bells. Do you have any thoughts or ideas on who it might be? If not, no worries, but I thought I'd raise it with you incase it raises any flags with yourself. Thanks!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm fine, thanks, and hope you are too. Sorry for not replying sooner but it's been one of those days. I think you are right that Prinon isn't a genuine newuser. It's like the other two I've seen recently: Verspace Space, also checkuser negative, and No Men Allowed which AssociateAffiliate is suspicious of (see above). But I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be any similarity of editing history between Prinon and those two and I really can't suggest anyone else. I'll keep my eyes open, though, and let you know if I spot anything that looks a likely suspect. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, all good here, thanks. One of those days indeed - I know what they're like! No worries, thought I'd ask incase anyone obvious springs to mind. Thanks for taking a look.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Prinon doesn't seem to be disruptive in their edits and all the time they're expanding coverage I'd let them be. I'm fairly lax on constructive SP's, hell there's several good editors blocked over the years for SP I'd welcome back with open arms, like BlackJack and IgnorantArmies. StickyWicket (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point that if they're constructive they are not doing any actual harm. I suppose it's a case of what they might do, that's the worry. Like you, I tend to think only in terms of disruptive edits. If an edit looks good, I think nothing of it and then I've been surprised many times to see the editor blocked soon afterwards. It's a difficult one. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Meghalayan edit
The supposedly "unreliable source" is an official statement by the International Union of Geological Sciences, the organization responsible for defining the start and end of geochronological units, among other things. Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be so but you cannot cite Twitter per WP:RS. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Rohit Sharma article
Hi No Great Shaker, Sanfranciscogiants17 started the GA Review of Rohit Sharma article. Let us address the issues @ Talk:Rohit Sharma/GA1. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . It finally made it up the queue, then. I'll be glad to take a look and we'll see what we can do. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure mate! -  MRRaja001  (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello,. I'm surprised but it looks as if the article has a very good chance of passing the review despite some horrendous edits in the last few weeks which I've had to remove. I've addressed all the points and left it with the reviewer so we'll see what he says. If it does pass, we should be ready to go with something for DYK and I think that has to be about Sharma's conservation activity. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Mate, Finally we made it. Rohit Sharma article have passed GA review. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Surprised, but pleased. Hope it gets into DYK too. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Rohit Sharma
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Much appreciated. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks again for your work in bringing this topic to our attention! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
I know you've been trying to keep Churchill's article above the fray of mudslinging about race – I've read the AfD you started on the racial views fork – but the wikilink is still contextually relevant to that section and needs to be added. I just wanted to give you a heads up and fuller explanation. Jr8825 •  Talk  20:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,. The link is relevant and using it is fine. Not a problem. Thanks very much for all your help with the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 Confusion
Hi, it's Xfhxzf. As of Friday, May 21, you left a message on my page about my disruptive editing and unproperly sourced content on DOTY articles, and how Twitter and Instagram were not reliable sources to be using (which I had replied to with an apology if you didn't notice). I'm sure you'll probably disagree with me about this, but I'd later see as confusing and somewhat ironic. Why you may ask? Well there were already a few tweets and Instagram posts used as citation's in a few articles. For example, here's a list of a few


 * January 15, (1996 – Dove Cameron, American actress and singer[36 ]) citation mark from Twitter.
 * Dove Cameron, the first three citation marks, [1 ], [2 ], and [3 ] (which is the same as the [36] above), Instagram and Twitter.
 * Jazz Jennings, citation [1 ], Instagram.
 * Casey Cott, citation [2 ], Twitter (a tweet that is deleted).
 * February 20, (2003 – Olivia Rodrigo, American actress and singer[27 ]) citation mark from Twitter.
 * Olivia Rodrigo, two of the citation marks, [3 ], and [4 ], Twitter.

And that was all I found at the moment, but there's more too come. I also noticed that you didn't revert all of my edits on DOTY articles, using Twitter and Instagram as a source. Is that because...
 * It's only acceptable with certain articles?
 * Or has there been a change?

Please reply if you may, Have a good day. Xfhxzf (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . December 13 is one of only four DOY articles I keep on my watchlist, which is how I spotted your edits there. I have no interest in searching for non-RS instances unless they occur in my watchlist, or I see them at WP:RSP or I happen to come across them during general reading or editing. In all of the examples you have listed above, the use of social media citations breaches WP:RS. The citations should be removed and, unless the content itself is also removed, citation needed tags should be placed. Please see WP:RSP, WP:INSTAGRAM and WP:TWITTER for more information about source reliability. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Blood Meridian
Hello No Great Shaker. In this edit to Talk:Blood Meridian you changed the importance assessment of the article in WikiProject Westerns from "high" to "low". Was that intentional? If so, was it discussed anywhere? If not, I'd like to discuss it further at either Talk:Blood Meridian or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Westerns. Rublov (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really intentional but the project is essentially about movies and this book has not yet been filmed. Change the rating back if you wish. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Since it's already rated "Top-importance" for WikiProject Novels, I don't object. Rublov (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jim Laker
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jim Laker 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 Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jim Laker
The article Jim Laker 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:Jim Laker for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jim Laker
The article Jim Laker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jim Laker 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 Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are quite right about matting. I have played on it many times and seen good spin come off it. All the best. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1744 English cricket season
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1744 English cricket season 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 The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1744 English cricket season
The article 1744 English cricket season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1744 English cricket season 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 The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned at the GA review, I think I will pass on DYK for this article. Not really hookable. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You've got 'til sundown to get your sorry ass outta town!
Hehe, always wanted to say that :D Great work with all the Western film project tagging, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, as John Wayne never actually said: "Geddon your horse!"
 * Yes, thanks, . I found the Westerns project by chance. A couple of guys were reviving it so I thought I'd help a bit and it's gone on from there. I'm very keen on old films anyway. I think it's great that Mitchell and Kenyon were the first to do an action western. I've seen lots of their work filmed around the northern towns and it's amazing to see how life really was. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Laker
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . Many thanks for this. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Signpost interview for days of the year
Hi No Great Shaker, hope that you're well. I was wondering if there's any way to convince you to participate in the interview at WP DOTY? (interview here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject days of the year interview draft - even a few questions would be most appreciated). It would be great to have a few more voices in the interview and I am enthusiastic about trying to have these interviews because it helps show editors how diverse in interests our movement is, reminds editors how we are all human and here in good faith, and continues to develop a sense of community :). Tom (LT) (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tom, and thanks for the invitation. However, I am no longer involved in the DOY project and so I must regretfully decline. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. You too, Tom (LT) (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Question
What are your thoughts on Category:Western (genre) action films by decade. Should this be deleted too? Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I certainly think so. Virtually all Westerns are action movies so, again, it's an unnecessary attempt at reclassification. I think Category:Western (genre) adventure films and Category:Western (genre) thriller films should go too for similar reasons. I've noticed that the editor concerned does not WP:ENGAGE so I'm really not sure what they're up to. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Southend Pier GA nomination
Hey! Following your exceptional peer review on Southend Pier you did late last year, I have finally managed to get the article to a stage where I feel it's ready to go through the GA process. It would be great if you wanted to consider doing the review for GA too, but please don't feel any obligation. Either way, your peer review helped immensely to get the article further on, even if it's taken me a lot longer to nominate it for GA than I'd have initially liked! Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . Hope you are okay. I enjoyed doing that PR and I'll be happy to pick up the GA review for you. Not sure about my availability this week with a lot of things going on but I'll do it as soon as I can. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's great! I would sooner you took your time than feel the need to review with haste, so at your convenience (within reason!) is absolutely fine. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Western (genre) staples and terminology has been nominated for conversion
Category:Western (genre) staples and terminology has been nominated for conversion. 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. SpinningSpark 07:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Sorry for not replying sooner but I've not been available recently. I have my own doubts about that category so I'm happy for it to be raised at CfD. I wanted to find something for categorising stock characters like outlaw, gunfighter, sheriff and so on but it sort of grew from that. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well at the moment, no one is agreeing with me at CfD so it looks like this one will be kept anyway (but it might get renamed). SpinningSpark 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Hello NGS. Thanks for your editing here at the 'pedia. Your edit summary here is a little confusing. It says you are adding the dmy template when you are actually adding the mdy one. I hasten to say the mdy template is the correct one for those articles :-) If, like I do, you are using the drop down edit summary function it is an easy mistake to make. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Sorry, I got the date format the wrong way around. The edit summary should say AE/mdy. I use BE/dmy for the British one but got them mixed up earlier today. I probably just need a glass of red wine and a good night's sleep. Thanks and all the best. Stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries NGS! A glass of red wine is a great choice and it often leads to a good night's sleep - for me anyway :-P Have a great week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Virat Kohli class rating
Hi. I think Virat Kohli would pass C rating. I see you've moved it to Start. Why would you say so? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it because of the low prose standards? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . That's precisely so. An article has to be reasonably well written to justify a rating above start and this one is well short. If you disagree, then by all means change it back to C. The problem is that it needs a lot of work before it can pass the GA review. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tempus fugit! Thank you, . Hope you are well. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm well and even singing in choirs again again, - details my talk, especially if you click on September songs there. How are you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . Sorry, I missed your reply. We're both fine, thanks, as well as can be expected. I'm glad you've been able to join the choir again and getting back to normal. It isn't good being prevented from doing something you really enjoy. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Request
I think you are the only person, to whom I make my request. Anyway, I am entering the matter without any type of further delay. According to an editor, the article Mohammed Shami is not written in a neutral point of view. I don't think he is quite wrong. I even agree to his point of view. But, the editor is continuously removing sections after sections in the article. As per latest updates, he has removed 9,703 (41,032 bytes) and 4,783 (36,348 bytes) in two edits. I can not totally disagree to him because some parts of his deletion is written in a fan point of view. But the problem is that, after removing sections after sections, he is not adding any single word. When I reverted his edit, he reverted mine saying --- " there is a discussion on the talk page - if you don't think there's irrelevance in the lead then I suggest you go and find some experienced editors to take a look at it." As I am novice to Wikipedia as a registered user, I am quiet puzzled and so, as per the editor's edit summary, I am writing to you (I think you are the only experienced friendly user whom I know). By the way, the editor have also posted a message in my talk page, saying--- "There is a discussion on the talk page. A number of them. At least two experienced editors have suggested that there is a massive amount of over-detail and recentism on the page and that there is a significant issue with the article essentially being written as a fan-blog. We can't, for example, have stuff written in the way it has been in the Punjab section - that's simply inappropriate for Wikipedia." I replied ,"Then the Punjab Kings section should be written in a neutral point of view and the whole removed section should be rewritten in that case. Otherwise, if the continuous removal of the article goes on without rephrasing it, then the article will become a nutshell. So I think, whenever a section is removed, it should be rewritten before deleting another section. Waiting for your reply." The editor has not responded till now. So, No Great Shaker, I want your help and advice in this matter. Please tell me what shall I do? I shall remain ever thankful to you if you please comply with my appeal. Kindly reply as soon as you see this message. Thank you. Soutut (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit: No Great Shaker, just after writing to you, I opened the revision history of the article Mohammed Shami. It shows that in the meantime, the editor has again removed a massive portion of the article. In my talk page he also has left a reply. It shows that--- "I'm current doing that. One section at a time because it's too big to deal with it all at once. The article was absolutely terrible by the way - hideous recentism and over-detail and the worst fan-boy cruft I've ever seen in any cricket article. Things like "taking to the twitters" and saying three times that his 100th wicket was Guptil are just horrible and show a lack of intention by many editors to actually read the article. I'm not done yet - I'll finish it later, but need to do something else in the meantime." Although he told that he would finish it later, but I still need your intervention in this matter. Looking forward to your reply, No Great Shaker. Thanks again.Soutut (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again, . Can I point out that I am not an administrator and, as you seem to have a grievance, you should really discuss the problems with an admin. You might be best advised to try the WP:TEAHOUSE as first port of call.
 * Although I'm doing the GA review for Virat Kohli, I'm first and foremost a football man and my interest in cricket is limited to test matches only. I have no interest at all in one-day cricket which, to me, is like playing football without goalkeepers – you'd get big kick merchants trying long-ball shots from their own goal-line all the time!
 * Having said that, I've read the article as it is now and as it was before the other four editors intervened. I'm afraid I am ruthless myself when I see unsourced content or anything that can only be considered trivia. As you already know from the Kohli review, I won't accept anything that's badly written. I would, therefore, have copyedited Shami's article in the same way that the other editors have done and I generally agree with the comments they have made on the talk page and in their edit summaries.
 * Taking some of the points on the talk page, there is no way that this article has ever been B-class or even C-class. It's actually better now, as a basis for development, than it has been before and it can only be rated a start-class now because of the maintenance banners and tags. The interest of WP:CRIMEPROJ is entirely justified – any project can register an interest in any subject no matter how slight or tenuous the connection. Unless there is consensus at the crime project to remove its banner, it must stay put. The controversy section is complex, as BST says, and it needs better sources but it certainly has a place in the article as the accusations against Shami are serious and, where explanation tags have been added to the section, we do require answers to the queries.
 * Some points I've picked up from the article history:
 * In any article the lead (introductory) section is the most important. Its purpose is to present a concise summary of the article and, therefore, it must not be over-burdened with unnecessary detail or trivia. It is governed by MOS:LEAD and you should study that guideline carefully. This edit by BST is fully in order and I would have done the same myself. The IP responded (subsequently reverted) by restoring the over-detailed lead with the comment that it "should not be removed without any proper reason". A proper reason had been given, though – BST said he was "cutting massive over-detail from the lead" and was right to do that per MOS:LEAD.
 * Per WP:NOTSOURCE, Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source. I think you need to study WP:V and WP:RS to understand what we mean by verification of content using reliable secondary sources. In this context, please also refer to WP:RSP where you can check if specific newspapers and other regular publications are reliable or not. For example, The Hindu in India is reliable whereas certain Tory propaganda rags in Britain are absolutely not.
 * Quality of written English is essential. Making this edit, BST complained about style. Picking one example, he needed to change "After Shami missed out on getting picked for the Uttar Pradesh Under-19 team" to "Shami was not selected for the Uttar Pradesh under-19 side" which is much better prose.
 * BST has said on the talk page that he will not oppose content being restored, providing it is properly written to reflect a reliable source. Here is a good example: "That spell of Shami will surely be vividly reminisced as one of the greatest super over spells in the history of Indian Premier League". The opinion may be verifiable but the cited source is a scorecard on the ESPN site which does not verify the statement. That means the sentence is WP:OR which is not allowed in any article. You need to study Core content policies which outlines the essential core policies as WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR – these are binding on all editors.
 * So, I'm sorry but I cannot intervene on your behalf. I would have to treat Shami's article the same way I would any other and that is by compliance with the site's policies and guidelines, as the other editors have done. If you study the pages I've highlighted and make use of them while editing, you will soon get used to them and that will increase your understanding of how the site works. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon (As per IST), at first thank you for replying me. In your reply, you told about taking help from the friendly editors in the Teahouse of Wikipedia. But, to be honest, I did n't think (still I don't) that they would have been more experienced and amiable than you. By the way, let me enter the main matter. Actually, I don't have any grievance against BST. I even agree to his point of view. But, BSK has removed more than the half part of the article without rewriting a single line. I don't have any problem with the removal and deletion, as the deleted part was partially 'hyperbole and fan-cruft'. However, the problem is that, after removal, BSK has not rewritten the article with a neutral point of view. It's true that rephrasing a whole article is not possible by a single editor. I think, just as a number of editors have been collaboratively improving and elaborating the article Virat Kohli, the same should be done in case of Mohammed Shami. Otherwise, the article would become wee. So, what is the meaning of deleting anything if it is not recasted later? No Great Shaker, I want to finish with a proverb in our mother tongue, which when loosely translated into English means--- “It is better to have a blind uncle than no uncle at all.” In this context, it means that it is better to have a flawed paragraph than nothing at all. Okay my dear, this is all for now. Reply soon. Have a great time.

P.S- If I find any difficulties while doing an editing in Wikipedia, regardless of the topic, can I ask for help and assistance from you? Thank you.Soutut (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can ask me anything,, and I'll at least try to help. Might be an idea to contact some of the other Indian editors – the ones who have contributed to Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, etc. – to see if they can assist with Shami. A collaborative effort can be productive. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.Soutut (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, I hope you are in the pink of your health and mind by the blessings of the almighty. You will be glad to know that I have personally contacted and messaged BST in his and my talk page. The problem is now partially resolved. By the way, today is the fourth day after creating my account. Now I am eligible to edit the semi-protected pages, like- Virat Kohli. I have already done three copy edits in this page. But all the credit goes to you, The Great Shaker. Anyway, I shall not be available in Wikipedia from tomorrow indefinitely, may be a week or a couple due to some personal problems. Ok, have a great day. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soutut (talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Soutut. Hope you soon resolve your problems. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Shakes - hope you are well! Just a question about this (and similar) edit(s). What's the rationale for it, as all it does is take a few spaces out of the "image" parameter in the infobox? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm fine, thanks (and just had my booster this morning!). Hope you are okay too. I'm afraid I've made a mistake with that image parameter alignment so I'll correct it. It's part of multiple changes I'm doing to try and standardise formats across the WP:Westerns project. This is the only one Man of Conquest picked up but it's wrong for that article. I'll scan the others I've changed today and make sure they're okay. Thanks for bringing this to my notice. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Good to hear! Should get my booster shortly too. No worries about the superfluous spaces, thought it might be something in your AWB edits. Thought I'd mention it just incase. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't have to wait long. I understand what's happened with the image parameters now. Some have embedded tabs in them instead of spaces and that throws out the alignment. I'll run through them again and make sure they're all right. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Suitable for GA?
Hi! I was wondering if you had considered nominating the article War cabinet crisis, May 1940 for a GA. I am not an expert in the era or British politics (I am more interested and knowledgeable in Hispanic conflicts and political crises), but thought the article quite a good read. I thought, then, to inquire as to whether you were planning to nominate it or if you think it still needs work. In any case, thank you for being the main author of a fantastic article on such a complex topic. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  21:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and thank you for your interest in the article. It has had a GA review but it failed because of the high number of primary source citations. It would need an extensive revision of sourcing before it could be nominated again. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. Good luck with your editing. Kind regards No Great Shaker (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Good luck to you too. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Reflection
Sad to see you go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Bit late, but ditto! Sometimes a wiki-break is all that is needed and you'll be back soon. Hope you are well.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hope you had a great Christmas and New Year. Take care.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello again, and . Thank you for your kind words and good wishes. We did enjoy Xmas/New Year despite the restrictions and I hope you did also. All the very best to you both. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good to see you back here in the madhouse! All the best for 2022.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Looks like it's as mad as ever, ha! Best wishes to you and yours for 2022 as well. Keep up your good work. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back
No Great Shaker, I'm glad to see that you're back in the Wikipedia fold. Your definitive departure would have been a loss. How are you?Venicescapes (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine, thanks,. Hope you are, too. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bolding on Bury F.C.
I don't really have an opinion, and you obviously know more about the subject than me, but when I read your user page, I had no idea who "The Shakers" were, whereas with bolding, I would have seen it in the article immediately (and presumably the same logic implies to the plethora of sources I presume use the nickname). See also the bolding at FC Barcelona. Per the above thread, glad you've returned to WP. Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and all the best to you, too. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Partygate
Hi! I haven't seen you edit the Partygate pge for some time. I'm sure you can make useful contributions. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm keeping an eye on it but currently working on other subjects. We may need to start Savilegate soon, ha! I'll be back when time allows. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Thanks for the kind words and support at ANI - much appreciated. I guess this is all a net negative to some. Stick around, I think I'm being named as the gun-man on the grassy knoll next.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Sorry I haven't replied sooner but things have been hectic at home since I made that ANI post. I cannot believe you have been dragged to ANI again over something as trivial as a disagreement at AFD, a forum that is rife with disagreement. I really am sick and tired of attention seekers who come on here to make some stupid point instead of working to create, enhance and expand articles like you so obviously do. I will keep tabs on that ANI thread and will gladly weigh in if I think I can help. It's always the same clique that starts these things.
 * Funny you should mention the infamous grassy knoll because my missus and me were talking about it only the other day when KNOLL was the Wordle answer – she got it in three, too ( I just managed to get it in six! ).
 * Keep up the good work, mate. There are many, many more people who appreciate your efforts than don't. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you - that's nice to hear. If you have half a dozen sock accounts, add false info, and other unhelpful edits, you get a couple of warnings. Say a few things your thinking into a discussion, and it's a race to see who can get you to ANI first. I've got into the Wordle craze too, and got today's answer on my third guess. More luck, than skill I think, as it's been on guess 5 and 6 for the last few days. Take care!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Took me six again today. I got the right square / wrong square colours mixed up until I realised at line 5. Must have been blinded by the LIGHT, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thirteen and a half years ago, I think I tagged an edit as minor, when it wasn't. I'll take the indef block and the removal of my talkpage access as a man. In other news, Wordle took me four goes today!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll be all right, Lugnuts. And I hope NYT don't start charging us to play Wordle! No Great Shaker (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh and I forgot to say thanks for your comments at the recent ANI, despite taking the risk of putting your own head above the parapet! Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, . I stand by everything I said there. If you had been going around wrecking other people's good work or abusing people, there would have been a case to answer – but all you have done is expand coverage, defend your work at AfD and make improvements to markup. I would think that all of those activities strongly indicate WP:HERE. Keep up the good work and let me know if I can help in any way. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

 * Noted. That was very useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1772 English cricket season
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1772 English cricket season 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 Guettarda -- Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1772 English cricket season
The article 1772 English cricket season 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:1772 English cricket season for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Guettarda -- Guettarda (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1772 English cricket season
The article 1772 English cricket season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1772 English cricket season 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 Guettarda -- Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on getting this to GA! JH (talk page) 14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again,, and thank you. I had some great help and it got there in the end. I'm learning a lot from these articles. Will pick up some more before long. Hope you are well and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Prayer for Ukraine
I took this pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with this song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. - Thank you for the GA review for San Marco. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem re the San Marco review, Gerda. A very educational and well-written article.
 * It's very sad about the situation in Ukraine and it's causing real worries about where the world is going. As if the climate and Covid weren't enough. What makes it worse for us in Great Britain is that, at a time like this, we are lumbered with an appalling "prime minister" who is totally incompetent and cannot be trusted to tell the truth even if you ask him what day it is. Still, there's always Wikipedia to take our minds off things. Best wishes to you, Gerda. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gigg Lane
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gigg Lane 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gigg Lane
The article Gigg Lane 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:Gigg Lane for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your recent edit
On Rohit Sharma, you removed clarify tag without a proper reason and before the issue is solved. If Citations are not allowed in lead, Why Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards have so many. Your trying to mislead fellow editors by saying bla bla bla is rule but I don't thik so wo prohibite to add Citation in lead. You have to avoid this. That articles lead claim a big thing without a Citation, usually such claims need backing of 4 to 5 sources.Success think (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you visit the Teahouse and raise your questions there because I refuse to discuss this with you. I think you need to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc. because I am NOT misleading anyone. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse is not a place for discussion. You don't want to explain. Success think (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you like to tell me which userids you have operated in the past? You appear to consider yourself a very knowledgeable and experienced editor especially when, in only your second edit as a newbie, you can leave an edit summary that insists upon "wp norms". I think I had done umpteen thousand edits before I could start telling people what the site's norms are. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

By "norm" mean, I was talking about Cricket BLP related articles not all wp articles. I read in complainant that someone previously undid your edits and that's Why your suspecting me that individual but for your kind information I'm not that editor, I'm more reader of this site than editor. In past i used this site for my Zoology, Botany related study and for current happenings. I'm interested in editing articles about Asia, North America, Cricket & Science. Success think (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. The SPI was negative and I've apologised at your talk page. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

On Rohit Sharma, you removed clarify tag without a proper reason and before the issue is solved. If Citations are not allowed in lead, Why Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards have so many. Your trying to mislead fellow editors by saying bla bla bla is rule but I don't thik so wo prohibite to add Citation in lead. You have to avoid this. That articles lead claim a big thing without a Citation, usually such claims need backing of 4 to 5 sources.. (He do such things with me too) Ripomobo11 (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay,, but you will have to discuss it with Success think at his talk page or on the talk page of a relevant article. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay mate. Ripomobo11 (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello my friend
In article of rohit sharma, many of my friends who are engaged with me in cricket .For your information I am engaged for a long period of time. No-one in my team and even my coach Don't think he is an outstanding cricketer. Every have problem with the word outstanding. I am currently a part of star sport cricket panel of commentary. I take information from my experinced commentator, they have said rohit is very talented batsman, but it's too early to say outstanding, so if you wanted let have a talk on this topic. Ripomobo11 (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You can easily write he is one of the best white ball batsman. But outstanding is doubt able Ripomobo11 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . You will have to take your case to Talk:Rohit Sharma and open a discussion there. You will need to gain WP:CONSENSUS in favour of changing the article as you think. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you mate, I will definitely do so Ripomobo11 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gigg Lane
The article Gigg Lane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gigg Lane 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Really pleased about this one. Thank you for an excellently thorough review. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Classical Hollywood cinema
i really don't understand what you mean?, but if we are talking about classic films, Gone with the Wind would most definatley be at number 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.134.216 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC) I was. not disputing that Casablanca was not a classic film, because obvious it was, but it never reached the same cult status as Gone with the Wind or even The Wizard of Oz that was released that same year. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.134.216 (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Everything we do on Wikipedia is subject to WP:CONSENSUS which, if disagreement arises, is reached after discussion. The excessive lists were removed six months ago after an issue was raised and accepted at the article talk page; the lists were subjective with some highly contentious inclusions and omissions. As regards the photos, no problem with any in the narrative part of the article (subject to licence, etc.) but the one in the infobox has been accepted and cannot be replaced without discussion. You need to raise your request for Gone With The Wind to replace Casablanca at the article talk page. If no one responds within, say, seven days then you can make the change. If people do respond, the consensus view prevails. Hope this helps. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Afternoon - hope you are well. Thanks once again for taking time to log the SPI and ANI threads. Apologies I've not had time to input to the latter just yet - busy day at work! Hopefully take a proper look at all the content later today and see how it pans out.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, . No rush. We're all okay, here, thanks. Hope you and yours are all well, too. Best wishes. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Glad to see you're OK following the ANI thread. It should be closed with a "no further action" comment (IMO). I have a gut feeling on who may (or may not} be the sockmaster in this case. Instead of going straight back to the SPI case, where no-doubt certain editors would say it's WP:POINTY or WP:DE, I'm gathering evidence, keeping that off-wiki for now, until I'm 100% sure! Good news about your GA nom, below, too. Take care.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Sorry for not replying sooner (RL kicked in). I think the post by was a brilliant assessment of the situation.
 * I'd be very happy to help with your investigation, as you must know, so please don't hesitate to ask if I can do anything. I've had a lot of experience of research and digging (sometimes I dig up an old boot, but never mind), so you've only to ask.
 * I'm absolutely delighted to get Gigg up to GA. It's like a second home for me and I really can't wait to see a match there again. I am a little worried about COI where the Gigg and Shaker articles go, though, because I'm in the fans' group, but I'm trying to be as objective and impartial as I can (gulp!). Anyway, you take care, too. Good luck and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, No Great Shaker; this has been through two SPI's and ANI. I would ask that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and retract the above WP:ASPERSION that I am a sock, or open the SPI now. BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "or open the SPI now" - no, I'll wait until I have the evidence. Duh.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

. I have said a few times now that I will not visit either ANI or SPI again on my own initiative but, if someone invites me there or if someone says something there that I must answer, then I will provide what help or opposition I can. So, no, I will not raise another ANI or SPI against you but if I get an invitation to have my say, then I will do that (unless I refuse the invitation). I will not even go to SPI if (or, more likely, when) I encounter one of the HarveyCarter manifestations again – I will simply alert one of the sysops whom I know to be interested in that particular species.

I think the person who needs to drop the stick is DItheW, who has been dragging things on over the last 48 hours while Lugnuts and I have been trying to get on with improving the encyclopaedia, which is what we are both here for. As for aspersions – although, to be fair, this doesn't concern you personally – I am sick and tired of your three or four chums casting bad faith aspersions around because I have used the ANI and SPI processes in the way they are intended. So, I got a yellow card for overuse (I should have let someone else do the IceWhiz one), which is fair enough, but that is in no way comparable with the breaches of WP:AGF that I have seen from at least three people who seem to be associates of yours. I did NOT start those investigations because of anything said or done re NSPORTS which, tbh, I'd completely forgotten about. My concern was your flood of AfDs which reminded me of Störm (and, for a while there, I couldn't remember his name and had to search for him). All right? I suggest you contact your associates (you know who they are) and spell that out to them. They are the ones who should be dropping sticks and keeping their aspersions to themselves.

I did point out at the end of the ANI (you may not have seen this) that I have been taking part in AfD and CfD for a quite a long time and I do not pick out specific OPs – usually, I don't even notice who the OP is. I follow the sport-related discussions, especially football, although I've just created the Olympics one too. In recent times, the majority of cases I've joined appear to have been raised by Lambert but there have been many by other editors too. I do not vote against you or Lambert but for or against the case presented. If either of you nominated an article about a Northern Counties footballer, I would support you and vote delete.

Okay, it has been suggested that there should be an IBAN between us, but I have no objection to you contacting me as long as you do so politely, as you have done on this occasion. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the comment regarding your AFD contributions at ANI now, and looking at your contributions backs it up; I hope you can understand why I didn't initially see that aspect as a coincidence, but I believe it is now. And thank you for creating the Olympics discussion page.
 * Regarding the IBAN, I agree; I believe the only discussions we have had prior to this were at the NSPORTs RFC, and while we had some significant differences of opinion, I believe the discussions were polite and hopefully beneficial to the broader discussion; I hope we can return to that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I had accepted the NSPORT consensus and forgotten it, but we have to wait for new SNGs, it seems. Thanks for reviewing the AfD matter. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Classic Hollywood Cinema
I would like to make a point to you in saying that the issue to remove the listing was discussed between around 2 or 3 people, I don’t believe that 2-3 peoples opinion is enough to form a consensus on what the whole world thinks should be on said Wikipedia page, 3 people should not be able to decide what is on that Wikipedia page, which is why I reverted back to including what is an important part of classic Hollywood Cinema history, that should be on the page. Also, the information that was removed from a previous page you mentioned was a completely different Wikipedia article not the one in question which is why the new information has been re-again to this one again. Bradonwiki (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , see the discussion here which is on the talk page of that article – I think you're referring to the list articles which were later deleted after AfD. See also WP:CONSENSUS. If only 2/3 people take part in a discussion and are in agreement, that is a consensus for WP purposes. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that’s is ridiculous. To remove that sheer amount of important information because two people think it shouldn’t be there. Wikipedia’s rules need to be updated and reassessed if that is the case. Bradonwiki (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't important information because it was completely subjective and in breach of WP:NOR, which is one of the site's core policies, and it was the sort of massive wall of names that readers do not want or need. You are free to raise a WP:RFC if you feel strongly about it. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And it is worth noting.. the discussion you linked me to is in relation to a different list that was poorly written and looked extremely messy AND was on a different Wikipedia page. The one you removed from ‘Classic Hollywood Cinema’ was one that I personally rewrote after doing hours of research on top of my already extensive knowledge on the subject. I had made references and links to other Wikipedia articles as to why many of the actors should be included so why did you feel the need to delete it when said discussion (the one you linked me to above) is not in reference to that. It’s a completely different list on a completely different article that was removed at the time. Bradonwiki (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's the principle that counts. The objection was to subjective lists of performers, directors, films, etc. We deleted the one that was already there and the ruling applies equally to any such lists created in future. As I've already said above, you are free to raise an RfC if you wish to contest it. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs
Congratulations! Today: Bach's No. 1. - Sad record: I brought three articles to the Recent deaths section, - not at the same time today but still ... - two of them from Ukraine, the third a Russian who left Moscow in 1990, and then went on to conduct the orchestra where my brother plays. - Thank you for the DYK review, will supply a qpq soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice photo, . We've had some crocuses in bloom and, in the fine weather this week, just got our first daffodils. My wife has got blue grape hyacinths in a planter with a few daffodils and so, as it turns out, they are our tribute to Ukraine and we've given that planter pride of place in the garden. Thanks again for the qpq. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! - On the bike, I thought of planting blue and yellow pantsies, believe it or not ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very kind thoughts, Gerda. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I just realised what the flowers are. We've got some in a small cluster. I'm told they're called Celadine in English. Very pretty. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note
As you add categories to articles please be aware of WP:CATVER and check that the article has referenced info in the article to justify adding the category. You also need to take a look at WP:CATDEF and make sure the cat is a defining characteristic of the subject of the article. Much of what you are doing might work as a list article but categories have these specific guidelines that need to be met. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost by definition, the Spaghetti Westerns were revisionist. The only real differences between Leone and Peckinpah were geography and nationality. I've added some stuff by Frayling and others to confirm the film's revisionism. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy April 1




Check it!
 * LOL! Thank you, . All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

JT Edson - Sons
Hey Roy. In short I am trying to find any living sons of JT Edson. My father in law was JT Edson's neighbour - the son of Daphne and Harry Chamberlain (as annotated in The Bloody Border). I’m trying to get an original 1969 copy of the book signed for my father in law as his retirement present. I am hoping that at least one of his sons still lives somewhere near Melton Mowbray.

Any help would be appreciated.

My email is james3533@hotmail.com. 31.205.46.121 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello there, James (I assume you're called James – sorry if not). Thank you for the enquiry. I'm afraid I can't offer any immediate help but, although I'm retired myself (well, semi-retired – semi-self-employed, now), I still have a host of contacts in the publishing world so I'll pass the word and see if anyone can come up with anything. JT was a really good storyteller and I think an original would be a very nice present to give. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You are not crazy
It is insane what some users are allowed to get away with. Have faith that reason will prevail. I am certainly having a hard time seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Wish admins & experienced users would comply with the WP:BENICE policy more than anyone else. Non-admins certainly love to speak like admins on WP:ANI and it doesn't help. Thank you and good luck editing!
 * Thank you, . Much appreciated. The site has its issues but the biggest problem is resolving them. I've actually decided to stay away from ANI because, with all the WP:WL there, it's a waste of any productive editor's time. All the best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 13:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Gigg Lane
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thank you very much. This means a lot because we're hoping to reopen Gigg for matches in August. I see you are fond of cats and we used to have a lovely tabby who (like yourself, I presume – sorry if I'm wrong) was called Albert. Thanks again and all the very best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 12:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

But what is the cause?
Per this edit summary, you want me to deal with the cause of you calling a fellow editor "a spoiled brat", and characterizing their arguments as "bleating", rather than with the effect. But I'm not sure what the cause is — bile? If so, I'm afraid there's little I can do to extract it from your disposition. As an administrator, I'll just have to try to deal with the effects. If you attack somebody in such a way again, I will block you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC).
 * You need to consider the ongoing attitude and behaviour of the other party. I have been subjected to their badgering and harassment, though not to the extent Lugnuts has. If you read the comments by Jayron, who is also an administrator and with whom I was agreeing, you may better understand where I was coming from. RC simply will not accept that other people have views which may not comply with their own and they invariably respond, in an extremely pointed way, to any comment which even slightly disagrees with theirs. They do not drop the stick (see Lugnuts' talk page). As Jayron said, this means people do not like interacting with them.
 * By the way, I have had long experience of management in the real world of publishing and I know when people like Jayron, Lugnuts and myself are sick and tired of something being done by a colleague who is out of order. I've seen it often and I know how to deal with the cause by sitting the agent provocateur down and giving them a good talking to. Hopefully, RC will take notice of the feedback they have received, especially as Jayron is an administrator who has seen the effect of RC's activity.
 * Although it's splitting hairs, I said behaving like a spoiled brat – not the same thing as directly calling them one. Anyway, you're right that I should have moderated my tone even though I do fully agree with Jayron's comments and I'm thoroughly fed up of RC's unreasonable attitude. I will bear your comments in mind but the cause was provocation, not bile, and the effect was retaliation.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 11:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

blue and yellow
Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. In case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Hope you are well. Lovely flowers. I've heard a rendition of the Ode to Joy using Freiheit but can't remember the details. I've got all Beethoven's symphonies on CD – genius. All the best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Leonard Bernstein was first, and if you listen to the Frankfurt concert on YouTube, you hear the same (and the refs explain even.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll find it and listen. Bernstein wrote some great music himself. Thanks, Gerda.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 19:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * easy finding: you click on "Ukraine day", and then search for "listen" (or look in the bass' article for the last line), and then follow the navigation to Beethoven. - I wrote articles about several Bernstein pieces, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, it's there. I should have time to listen to it tomorrow, actually. Thanks very much, Gerda.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 20:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * you are welcome, and the whole thing is tough, - nice about yt is that you can break it up - several said that they couldn't listen to the sirens in the Korsun piece --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

next offer: now you can listen to what I heard live yesterday, (that's 25 April in Dresden, a different violinist, but the same program) - ours pictured here - dove sono as encore --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. That's great. I've not been able to listen to the whole of the Frankfurt one yet but I've enjoyed it so far. All the best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 21:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Shakes - hope you are well. Just a quick note to say thank you for your comments on my talkpage yesterday. And thanks for keeping an eye on the County Championship. Good to see it back in full swing. Take care.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, Lugnuts. We're all fine here, thanks, and hope the same for you and yours. All the best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 12:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)