User talk:No Great Shaker/Archive 3

Precious
	<img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Cornflower_blue_Yogo_sapphire.jpg/40px-Cornflower_blue_Yogo_sapphire.jpg" decoding="async" width="40" height="48" class="mw-file-element" data-file-width="1490" data-file-height="1792">
One year!

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

ANI

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry to say, but I've mentioned you at ANI, regarding poor AFDs. (not yours of course!) See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nfitz Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, Nfitz. Hope all goes okay but I think the case against you is a storm in a teacup which should end up as a boomerang. All the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned. I love ANI ... as soon as your name pops up there, then everyone else comes along to add their own beefs. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Very true. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Great stuff

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Phenomenal work on the 1787 season. I felt as if I was back there, watching the players in that distant land. Beautiful writing. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, No Swan So Fine. I hope you're well. Thank you very much for your kind words but, as I said on the article's talk page, this was a collaborative effort by a few of us in the world of publishing. I had to rely on the others for the sources, apart from one book. I just looked at your pages and it's good to see you are reviving memories and keeping them alive. I admit I had forgotten Betty Carter, but I now recall how great she sounds. Best wishes. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Dundee in the 1922 general election

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I understand that Dundee in the 1922 general election was in a shocking state when you proposed it for deletion, but I think it's much improved now. It's not ready for GA status, but it certainly makes some good claims for notability - and it's linked to a number of articles specifically about it as well as newspaper articles including two full length academic articles devoted solely to the race 48 and 98 years after it happened. It still generates interest for the following reasons:

The reason the academic articles were written were for the same reason I thought the article should have been created:

1. It was crucial in the career of Churchill who was not only to become a massive international figure but was already a really important national figure and kept him out of Parliament for two years in what would normally have been the prime of his political life. He also left Dundee as a Liberal and came back to Parliament as a Conservative.

2. It was highly unusual in that it was the election when the only MP to be elected as a prohibitionist was elected

3. It was a showpiece of the decline of the Liberal Party in the 1920s. Not only nationally (Churchill went from the second best National Liberal vote in Scotland in 1918 to the second worst in 1922) but also locally as Dundee went from a very safe Liberal seat to one that would be controlled by Labour. There was no particular election in which Dundee went from Liberal to Labour between 1906 and 1931 - but this could be said to be the most dramatic and important election.

The only argument that really holds water would be that a race within a UK General Election cannot be notable. That's not the case for other general elections - specifically American ones. In the AfD I semi-randomly sampled West Virginia in 1960 and both the Senate race and the Presidential race have articles for what are far less consequential or even interesting races than Dundee in 1922. So either the argument is that individual races should be covered in the US but not the UK (and I don't think that is the argument that you are making) or that the bar should be considerably higher for UK races. Or perhaps that the original article was shocking and it's better now.

I hope that you can withdraw the nomination. I don't think that it will pass. I accept that the original article was not clear on the importance of the race, but I think that this has been established now.

JASpencer (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JASpencer. Sorry for the delay in replying but at present I'm only available occasionally. You've done some good work on the article since I first saw it. I think it now meets the required notability standards, especially with the Churchill connection. So, as requested, I'll withdraw the nomination. Well done. Thanks and all the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. This is what Jimmy Wales once called the best outcome of an AfD - an improved article. And I got that rocket to improve it. JASpencer (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's always to the good when articles are expanded and improved. All the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 11:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. No time for this at all per banner message above. Have removed my name from the list. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Shakes. I want to say thanks for all your work on WP - it really has made a difference. And thanks for voicing your support across various boards, including ANI. Sorry to see you've retired - hope it's just a temporay break just to get away from the noise. 72hrs will almost be over this time tomorrow. Hope to see you back. Take care. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Just saw your retirement message. Although I didn’t get to interact with you much, I have seen your work on Wikipedia and I would like to thank you for all the time you spent on the site. Hope you enjoy your time away from Wikipedia. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 17:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/No Great Shaker. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

No Great Shaker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is ridiculous and I strongly object to being called a liar. Your evidence is entirely circumstantial and fails completely because I have been continuously logged in since Saturday, while my son-in-law has been editing Sunday. He has provided a full explanation at his talk page about the 1886 article. Am I not allowed to help him, then? As for edition, you need to get that into perspective. Ask what you want and, within reason, I'll answer you. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As for his UBX, yes, he copied the layout from my page and then found or created boxes that reflect his views and experience. Nothing difficult about that, especially for someone with his education and skills. Where has he "claimed" to be my nephew? NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Quoting Circumstantial evidence: "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence". I kind of doubt that you're two different people. Compare, for example, the edit summaries in Special:Diff/1090952260 and Special:Diff/1085245252. It's difficult to convincingly change how you write. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You kind of doubt? For your information, circumstantial evidence is grounds for suspicion only and is inconclusive. As for a bit of this and a bit of the other, people use common phraseology all the time. That's why it's common. We've got two discussions going here so I'm going to step aside and let UD do this, but I'll stay logged in. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 08:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have you logging into this account within seconds of attempting to log-in to the other account. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, circumstantial. Please provide the times. Remember that my son-in-law is an inexperienced editor and I have been helping him. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 22:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't know what's gone here (I don't want to start digging TBH), but hopefully this can be resolved so the project doesn't lose another very productive editor. I'm not condoning any possible socking, but if there is another account or an account that someone could view as being related to another, then it's best not to use it. Fingers crossed for a positive resolution for all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuts, and thanks for your kind words in two posts. My son-in-law is accused of being my sockpuppet despite prior declaration of connection. He and our daughter live with us. And apparently the fact that we both use common English expressions confirms that we are both me. It's completely untrue and, for me, shows how bad this site has become. I think there's vindictiveness because I told one of them what I think of them but my son-in-law is in no way involved. It's what you get if you appoint unqualified people into positions of responsibility. I hope you're okay and that you come through the Arbcom thing all right. Best wishes. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 16:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Oh yeah, Arbcom. I knew there was something I had to look at. Thanks for the reminder! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)