Open main menu

Welcome!Edit

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)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Edit

Hello, No Great Shaker. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Jordan ArcherEdit

No need to apologise, I should have double checked myself! GiantSnowman 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)

Pending changes reviewer grantedEdit

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:

~ Amory (utc) 13:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dougie NyaupembeEdit

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)

Dealing with unsourced materialEdit

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)

McIlwraithEdit

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)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pagesEdit

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)

Rollback grantedEdit

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)

Your GA nomination of Bury F.C.Edit

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)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  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)


Your GA nomination of Bury F.C.Edit

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)

Your GA nomination of 10th millennium BCEdit

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)

UAE archaeologyEdit

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)

Your GA nomination of 10th millennium BCEdit

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)

A Barnstar for you!Edit

  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)

DYK for 10th millennium BCEdit

 On 8 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 10th millennium BC, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the earliest evidence of sheep herding has been found in northern Iraq, dated before 9000 BC? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/10th millennium BC. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 10th millennium BC), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

DYK nomination of Bury F.C.Edit

  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)

DYK for Bury F.C.Edit

 On 16 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bury F.C., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2001, Bury Football Club's first mascot, "Robbie the Bobby", was sent off three times by referees for bad behaviour? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bury F.C.. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bury F.C.), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

Cricket ArchiveEdit

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)

St. Peter's ChurchEdit

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)

Your GA nomination of 9th millennium BCEdit

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)

Your GA nomination of 9th millennium BCEdit

The article 9th millennium BC you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:9th millennium BC for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Norway DebateEdit

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)

Your GA nomination of Norway DebateEdit

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)

Your GA nomination of Norway DebateEdit

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)

Your draft article, Draft:Scott MoloneyEdit

 

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)

Your GA nomination of Coronation of Queen VictoriaEdit

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)

Your GA nomination of Coronation of Queen VictoriaEdit

The article Coronation of Queen Victoria you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Coronation of Queen Victoria for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "No Great Shaker".