User talk:Shakehandsman/Archive 1

Bid.tv
I don't mind your restoration of the shipping and handling and telephone line stuff - although they definitely should be cited from somewhere reliable - but when I rewrite and reformat the section on the ASA ruling, it's kind of annoying to see you change it back to an inferior version. --Gwern (contribs) 01:09 6 December 2006 (GMT)


 * Hi, I am currently researching improvements to the Bid-Tv article. My revert was more aimed at changes by the Bid-tv employee rather than any criticism of your work. I'm glad you agree about the postage charges, though it is hard to source those as Bid-tv like to mention them as little as possible.


 * I've also informed the Bid-tv employee of Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not surprised, but I can tell you from my experience here: if you get into conflicts about information one party or the other sees as non-neutral, the best thing to do is buckle down and source it really well, with a minimum of analysis and editorializing - both of which I tried to remove from that section. If you can do it solely by using quotes from unimpeachable sources, that's even better; for example, did you notice how I quoted the ASA decision in the paragraph, and so corrected a misleading sentence? --Gwern (contribs) 01:37 6 December 2006 (GMT)

Please can people keep it NEUTRAL when talking about P&P, terms like "rather steep" are emotive and CONJECTURE. by all means write about about but do as Gwern says and keep a minimum of anaylis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.241.185 (talk • contribs)


 * That's a bit rich coming from a Bid TV employee who constantly deletes anything remotely critical about the company even when thoroughly sourced. --Shakehandsman 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

NTL
Generally, links to dedicated criticism sites don't go on the subject's own page. If there is a separate criticism article (e.g., Criticism of Microsoft), then it would go there. Veinor (talk to me) 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Neville brothers
Please stop adding superfluous comments about what Jaap Stam thinks of the Neville brothers. It is out of place in their biography pages & serves no actual purpose. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have already explained very clearly they are not his opinions, Stam is merely reporting facts from the Manchester United dressing room, you clearly know this by now and you should not go on pretending otherwise. Also you are wrong to suggest the comments belong in the Jaap Stam article as the facts concern the Neville brothers, not Stam at all. Please do not misquote people - Stam never actually stated whether or not he shared the opinions of his Manchester United colleagues. I think you'd be better off spending your time removing the many unsourced nonsensical opinions from the Gary Neville article rather than such significant, relevant and well sourced facts.


 * "significant, relevant and well sourced facts"? Hearsay from an embittered ex-player? What does that possibly add to the player's biographies? I know you think the Nevilles are a "strange family" and that Ryan Giggs is "something of a rogue" but is this really what Wikipedia is here for? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinions do not matter in the slightest - and i think you'll find your are misquoting once again. Facts are all that matter and anything I have added to any article is 100% factual and very well sourced. It is actually the Gary Neville article which contains the most unsourced nonsence currently as the worst stuff has been sorted out in the Phil Neville one (edit - my mistake some of it is still there), though you have edited Gary's article as well so my point still stands. You'll also find that Stam still has a huge amount of respect for Manchester United - is it really such a suprise to you that many Manchester United players happen to hold similar opinions to much of the uk population as a whole? Incidently, do you still hold the incredible opinion that it is mainly bitter Liverpool fans who dislike him? Maybe we should include a quote in the article from some sort of former team mate with no connection to Liverpool to ensure that people with such a misguided view can apreciate the true situation? Any ideas?


 * "do you still hold the incredible opinion that it is mainly bitter Liverpool fans who dislike him?" Eh? That's not what I said at all...I hold the opinion that YOU don't like the Nevilles (and Utd in general) but that's irrelevant. Biogs are not there to be clogged with fatuous little negativities. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So you don't like article to have "little negativities" yet totally unsourced over the top praise is perfectly acceptable and in fact preferable? That's clearly where you and I differ - I'm happy for Wikipedia to contain anything as long as it is well sourced, relevant and factual - whether it happens to be positive or negative does not and should not matter in the slightest. If you remove all the truthful "negativity" from Wikipedia no articles will have an balance whatsoever (incidently the comments I was referring to regarding Liverpool fans were made by you on Feb 8th).


 * "yet totally unsourced over the top praise is perfectly acceptable and in fact preferable" again you misread me, I think your removal of nonsense like "Gary Neville's hard graft has made him a United legend blah blah blah" is just as valid as my removal of your Stam thing. I'm not really sure which comments on Liverpool fans you are talking about. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it do you? My removal of those parts of the Gary Neville aritcles is not equally as valid as you editing - it is in fact much much more valid. The Stam quotes are very well known and very well sourced and back up points made in the article - whereas the data I removed is just random nonsense. They are completely different things.


 * I think you are taking it all a bit personally...it's only the Neville brothers. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you weren't taking it personally you wouldn't have kept undoing my edits and you wouldn't keep posting in my talk page. Only one of us has Phil Neville as the captain of their favourite football club and thus only they can be really seen to have some sort of connection to him. For me the subject here is irrelevant and not any part of my life I was just adding some well known and relevant information to an article. I won't be responding to anything else you write here as you just ignore the most important points I make half the time or you misquote me (and Jaap for that matter).

Gerald Ashby
Hi. Thanks for correcting the Liverpool-Arsenal score in the article! The article was in need of some pepping up, and I hadn't realised that Ashby was the ref in that match, so well done. Thanks again. Ref (chew) (do) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Davies Height
Can I refer you to Template:Infobox_football_biography/doc. Even today, the height for English footballers who play in England is generally given in imperial units. You can also check this at Davies' soccerbase entry. Cheers Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On top of this, I am unfortunately unable to find any source which claims his height to be 1.84 metres. I have found at least one source claiming that his height is 6'1" (or 1.85 metres), here, and at least one claiming that his height is 6'0" (or 1.83 metres).


 * If you are able to point out to me somewhere that his height is listed as 1.84 metres, please do so, but a brief Google search is fruitless. Bobo. 12:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The most appropriate units for use in the UK are metric units, just as imperial is mostly used in America. However if the source is imperial perhaps we will have to manage with that. Perhaps you could clarify your edits in future to state you are correcting the height, your summary suggested you were merely changing the units rather than fixing a problem.

February 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Jacqui Smith has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.d ela noy gabs adds 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry i was tired and forgot the edit summary.
 * Just to clarify there wasn't anything remotely unconstructive about it, have now restored the content.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin Taylor
Hi, I've undone your change to Martin Taylor, and added another reference from The Times which says "As far as I remember, Martin Taylor has still not been to see me, but I was under sedation so who knows". Thought I ought to explain why.

I've seen two reports of the Croatian TV interview, one on arseblog which says "Before the interview, the reporter had to agree not to ask anything about Martin Taylor. The only thing Dudu said was that Taylor did not visit him in the hospital to offer an apology, like some papers reported (note - this is what the TV anchor said despite Eduardo’s wishes that no questions about Taylor be asked).", and this one on javno.com which doesn't mention Taylor not visiting. Until/unless more reliable reports come out, I don't think the arseblog report can in its current form be considered as a reliable source for what Eduardo (as opposed to the TV anchor) said.

Also, you'd think that Arsenal would have refuted the widespread reports of Taylor's visit, if it really hadn't happened. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok sounds fair enough for now, don't really think we can trust the English or Croatian media on this issue as both seem to report the issue in opposite but equally biased ways. Don't agree with your last sentence though - if Arsenal went around refuting every single piece of nonsense printed in the press they'd have little time left to concentrate on football.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WomensAid-help for men.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:WomensAid-help for men.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Women's Aid
Scottish Women's Aid has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real organization (band, club, company, etc.) but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.-Andrew c [talk] 15:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to add another note, looking through some of your other contributions. I'd advise you to please read up a bit on some core wikipedia guidelines and policies. For example, WP:RS talks about how blogs and other self-published sources generally should not be used. WP:NPOV talks about how we should deal with multiple points of view, and discusses weight and fringe issues. Criticism is a good read regarding criticism sections and criticism in general. If you have any questions about how wikipedia works, feel free to ask. And you are always welcome to make proposals and discuss changes and disputes on article's talk pages. For example, if an edit of yours gets reverted, you can start a new topic on the talk page and explain why you disagree with the revert, and why you feel your edit was helpful and within guidelines. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 15:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok maybe I shouldn't have used a blog as a reference though I was merely trying to find a source for content added by someone else. TBH you shouldn't really be deleting/ watering down well sourced criticism from articles either so perhaps you could read up on the guidelines too? Additionally that Scottish Women's Aid article took me ages to write and now I've got to redo the whole thing - it is pretty obvious it is notable enough to be in wikipedia
 * '''Note- the article is now back up and running.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

'''

British Airways discrimination against male passengers
Hi, last month you contributed to a discussion in the British Airways talk pages regarding BA refusing to seat children next to men "because of the dangers of peadophiles". A few other people have also been kind enough to revert changes each time this content has been deleted.

Unfortunately it the content has now been relegated to it's own article, merely because Qantas/Air NZ have a similar policy, whereas I would have thought it was of such significance it still need to be covered briefly on the main page, at least briefly. Given the close relationship between BA and Qantas it is pretty obvious that they are likely to have similar attitudes to such issues.

Anyway, I basically just wondered what your thoughts were on the matter? Also, I wanted to say thanks for contributing to the discussion last month as it was rather frustrating being faced with people who couldn't (or didn't want to) appreciate why the material was so important and were so keen to get rid of it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look into this, but do not have time to do so immediately. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Minister for Women and Equality
Hi, I've reverted an edit you made to the Minister for Women and Equality page,where you added 'affecting females' to the line "The position has responsibility for addressing all forms of discrimination, but with particular emphasis on gender inequality affecting females."

I've added a note to the talk page Talk:Minister for Women and Equality explaining why. I think it is a factual issue, based on the legal responsibilities of the position. Hope it's clear on the page. Flapscat (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Airline sex discrimination policy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Airline sex discrimination policy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Airline sex discrimination policy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Soman (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "The result of the discussion was keep" (and quite right too - in the news a lot these days).--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WomensAid logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:WomensAid logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:ScottishWomensAid.gif)
You've uploaded File:ScottishWomensAid.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All Women Shortlists
Shakehandsman

All users are asked to comply with some others rules too that you simply cannot sitck to. As wikipedia states on living persons biographies -

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

By suggesting that all women shortlists are still illegal on living person's sites you imply wrong doing. In fact the short ban was overturned, as noted in the Queen's Speech of 2001 and on the AWS page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-women_shortlists). It is legalised until 2015.

Here are some of the sources: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/15/women.gender http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1721937.stm

The band was overturned as you see here 'Women shortlist ban to end' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1398729.stm

Please stick to the facts in a neutral way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookingapples (talk • contribs) 09:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you are talking total nonsense. No ruling were overturned it is wrong to suggest this - the law was merely changed in 2002 to allow sex discrimiantion against male candidates.

There was nothing retrospective about the law and no pardons were made for past offences comitted. You're quite correct to state that my edits "imply wrong doing" - all those selected from all women shortlists in the 1997 election was of course selected totally illegally. Breaching sex discrimination laws like this as part of the political process most certainly is incredibly serious wrong doing indeed. If we legalised cannabis tomorrow it doesn't mean that someone who was got caught importing it 5 years ago suddenly becomes innocent. The law is the law at the time. If you modify it at a later date this doesn't negate offences committed before the change does it? It only impacts on acts committed from when the law is in place.


 * You seem very keen on editing Miss Johnson's wikipedia entry - what exactly is your connection to her please? --Shakehandsman (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And the article has been reverted back to the censored version again. I find the editing patterns of Cookingapples and ARFCRFarfcrf to be sufficiently similar to suspect sockpuppetry here. It's not just the editing patterns, they also make similar spelling and grammar errors (which is rather funny actually, since they chastise others for bad spelling). --Crusio (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly their conduct is unacceptable even if no sockpuppetry is involved --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that both Shakehandsman and Crusio have been repeatedly editing Biographies of living persons incorrectly. Please be careful with the sources you reference. It is not beneficial to use inaccurate sources or to attempt to bias Biographies of living persons for personal gain. I see that both you and Crusio use the same referencing, perhaps there is sockpuppetry on your part but I do not partake in such activities. ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At least ARFCRFarfcrf has some sense of humor. You and I being sockpuppets, indeed! :-D Comment to ARFCRFarfcrf: please, go ahead and file a complaint about my behavior. You can do that here, here, and here. And teaming up with User:Mihai cartoaje‎ is really going to help your case. --Crusio (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the number of different people who keep reverting your censorship of articles, I/Crusio must have at least 3 sockpuppets each. Please stop this nonsense it is getting silly now. --Shakehandsman (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the good news is that User:Cookingapples and their sockpuppets such as ARFCRFarfcrf have now been banned indefinitely --Shakehandsman (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Anne Moffat
Please cite the material that you are adding to the Anne Moffat article. Since it is negative and controversial, Wikipedia policy states it must be cited. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did cite it. Seems things got moved around a bit, so have added the source a second time. Sorry for any confusion. --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Parity (charity)
This really needs verifiable reliable sources demonstrating notability or it's liable to be nominated for deletion. Exxolon (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - google under the original name "Campaign for Equal State Pension Ages" - I have found at least one BBC source - . Exxolon (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Murray Edwards College, Cambridge
Hi Shakehandsman. I've reverted your most recent change and explained why on the Murray Edwards talk page. If you still want to argue for your change please can we talk it through there? I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I've found a much better source - details in the article's talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Ross Parker
I have nominated Murder of Ross Parker, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Murder of Ross Parker. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was keepThanks for the advice, good to see the article looking so complete and rounded now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

re:Diane Abbot
No, problem, I indef-blocked both accounts. When he does come back (which I'm sure he will), just let me know. If the disruption does continue, we'll probably have to go over to WP:SSI to get the underlying IP blocked. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just blocked the third account and filed a checkuser request here. Feel free to comment there if you like. This should take care of the problem, at least for a while. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied on my talk page about the thread below. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Butler
Hi. I see that you have been trying to deal with the spin that some editors are doing with this article. However, I feel that your edits are taking it too far the other way, making it appear that you have your own agenda with this subject. It doesn't need to include every negative article that mentions her, just as it doesn't need every positive one. This is especially the case when she is just one of lots of MPs mentioned. The expenses stuff is obviously an exception here. We all know that this is a controversial article, what with the bitter campaign with Sarah Teather. Please try to keep it neutral. --ascorbic (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right that it is important ot keep this page neutral - so can someone please explain why every positive story is deleted and more negative stories are put in? --Fleur24 (talk)

Maybe Fleur24 should explain her connection to Dawn Butler given she's edited the above comment from a Houses of Parliament IP address?--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikilove


Gaia Octavia Agrippa has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk |Sign 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

All-women shortlists
Do you have references for two of the phrases you added to All-women shortlists?
 * "The first candidate to be selected from an All Women Shortlist was Candy Atherton."

and
 * "The most high profile MP to be selected using the procedure was Jacqui Smith who served as Home Secretary."

Thanks! Bsimmons 666  (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot about this. Have found the source now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

principal/principle
I'm not going to bother correcting it again, but you're wrong about this.

The Parity page talks about "its [principal/principle] aim"; the word here is an adjective (describing the noun, the aim), and so the word is "principal" (the adjective), not "principle" (a noun meaning belief, etc.).

The Oxford page you linked correctly explains this as follows:

''The words principal and principle are pronounced in the same way but they do not have the same meaning. Principal is normally an adjective meaning 'main or most important', whereas principle is normally used as a noun meaning 'a basis of a system of thought or belief'.''

Danio (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Harmen
Hi, I see you have reverted some or most of my changes to the Harmen article. did you see the talk page where my comments were left? As I spent quite a few hours attempting to improve the article I would appreciate a discussion with you about your reverts. I am out now but I will comment there later. Regards. 09:56, 8 August 2009 Just to get us started the comment about the sister, it is unexplained and I could find no more citations to explain it, what happened? can you find me another citation that supports and expands the daily mail citation? [] Her sister Sarah was a lawyer and part-time judge. She resigned having been caught passing confidential papers to Harriet Harman, then Solicitor General. Sarah Harman was found guilty of contempt of court and "conduct unbefitting a solicitor". She was ordered to pay £25,000 costs.

As this is a very controversial comment about a living person, If you want to insert it, could you please explain and support it with a another citation.

this is all there is in the mail citation....Her sister Sarah was a top lawyer and a part-time judge until a bizarre case when she wrongly passed confidential papers to then Solicitor General, er, Harriet Harman. Sarah Harman was found guilty of contempt, "conduct unbefitting a solicitor", was ordered to pay £25,000 costs and stepped down as a judge.

That citation is in fact a bit of an attack piece, also there is nothing in the citation to support the fact that Harman has three sisters or that the other two are soliciters.

You would perhaps feel better to move this to the Harmen talk page, regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Did you see this? I have moved it the the Harman talk page and would appreciate a discussion with you over your recent reverts to my edits.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Especially this edit, if there is no support for this comment and it is left unexplained, I would like to remove is for protection of living person BLP, and when you come back we can discuss it. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Vera Baird
I have commented out your section regarding the dog fouling incident on this article, for reasons explained at Talk:Vera Baird. If you disagree, please reply there. Thanks, Computerjoe 's talk 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to keep.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again
Unless you can show a clear connection between Hewitt and this Pedo group then it should not be added to her bio, its totally excessive, there is nothing to assert she supported them or anything at all your addition was totally excessive, if you want to add it, rather than discuss it, I suggest you take it straight to the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * it isn't my addition - I was just restoring someone else's content. You had deleted it due to a lack of a source and I merely added thee source as you had requested.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it, you inserted it, we are all responsible for content that we insert into articles, you added it, in that way you are responsible for it as the inserter to the article, I removed it and I am responsible for that, please understand your editing responsibilities. I removed it twice actually.Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the edit summaries for you to look at...

it was inserted..and I removed it
 * (cur) (prev) 21:02, 27 February 2010 Off2riorob  (talk | contribs) (32,210 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by DerbyBob; Cited? please explain and discuss on the talkpage.

you inserted it, without any discussion as I had commented, it's an insertion, it wasn't in the article and you inserted it.
 * (cur) (prev) 23:58, 27 February 2010 Shakehandsman  (talk | contribs) (32,917 bytes) (Undid revision 346748569 by Off2riorob (talk) restore previous edit, this time with source) (undo)

I had to remove it again, this time with a stronger comment.
 * (cur) (prev) 08:30, 28 February 2010 Off2riorob  (talk | contribs) (32,210 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Shakehandsman; Blp, coatracking pedoflila, no assertion this was anything to do with Hewitt at all.. (TW)) (undo)


 * Yes I know I re-inserted it, but you asked for the citation and I found it just as you had requested. After that you came up with additional reasons you didn't like the content, your only complaint previously was the lack of citation - an issue which I solved 100%. I suggest that if you have multiple concerns with content you should express them simultaneously. Also if something isn't concise enough then please just edit it t a mroe acceptable form rather than just removing it outright. It's pretty obvious that this content needs to be mentioned in her article, we've already had two separate authors writing about the issue on different articles this week alone! I'm sure we can come up with an appropriate version via the talk pages.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

edit - seem Harman has stronger links to the issue than Hewitt so maybe best deal with her involvement first.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't insert such defamatory content I won't have to even join in the discussion. Please consider the pillars of the wiki and objectives of the project, all editors should be able to stand up and say out loud how their edit patterns are beneficial to the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Defamatory? Sorry but that's utter nonsense - it's fair enough for you to question an issue's relevance and/or delete material with insufficient media coverage, but there's nothing remotely defamatory about that content whatsoever and it's quite ridiculous for you to suggest that's the case here. I'm perfectly happy to have a rational discussion of the issues, but I really don't appreciate you throwing around such false allegations regarding my editing.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For reference, the content is now part of the Liberty article instead.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dromey
Hi, I see you have made a fair lot of alterations to the Dromney article...could I at least ask you to format your citations correctly, you have added multiple citations there that all need formating correctly. Let me know if you want to do the work to bring them up to good standards and if uou need help to do it I will show you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Harmen
Your addition is a BLP violation against a living person, please do not replace again. If you want to add it then please open a thread at the BLPN and ask for other opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Harriet_Harman

Really it would be better if you stuck to editing football articles, your contributions to articles about female labour politicians are all problematic and attacking. Please consider a voluntary topic ban of yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All my contributions about female Labour politicians are problematic? I've edited hundred of articles of politicians and I'm extremely proud of my contributions. No one else seems to have a problem with 99.9% of my contributions and I spend a great deal of time removing genuinely problematic material. Quite frankly your the last person who should be recommending bans for others given how many you've had yourself. These attacks on me really are not appreciated, especially given that you've now also suggested I'd engage in sockpuppetry. I actually uncovered a sockpuppet yesterday and really can't stand such people. Also you've previously accused me of adding "defamatory" material, I'm fed up with all this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It would also be good if you could also spell her surname properly, I'm quite tolerant of spelling mistakes but there's only six characters to learn in this instance.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to say that given your conduct on this matter I'd really prefer it if you didn't post on this talk page any more. I wasn't going to add this, I can take the insults, accusations, assumptions of sockpuppetry with no evidence and I understand we all make mistakes and this might somehow be part of your style. However, the way you've acted through the whole episode is what really troubles me more than anything and your latest piece of hypocrisy really leave me with little other option. Should an apology or even a retraction be forthcoming then I'd obviously review my stance.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to your original point, and for the benefit of others reading this, as you already knew I was enforcing the consensus amongst editors at the time (something you totally neglected to mention on the BLP noticeboard).--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Did you inform offtoriorob about this? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And also of the fact the discussion was moved elsewhere although has hasn't retracted his comments yet unfortunately as was suggested in the discussion and he hasn't apologised either. Anyway, just check his talk page if you don't believe me.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * update - seems it isn't on his talk page now, I'm 100% sure I added it. I presume he's deleted it? Rather strange. Shame as it would have been nice to get this resolved--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your additions to Blears
Please stop adding that undue content to Blears. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked you not to post here until you apologise for your previous behaviour and start behaving in a civil manner towards me. It's highly unlikely that you missed my request given the evidence listed above, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for one final time. If you do have a problem with my edits please use the talk page for the article - I really don't appreciate you communicating with me here due to your hostility towards me and would prefer it took place in a more visible place so others can witness it and so you might moderate your tone. I've gone out of my way to stay off your talk page in the hope it might reduce your hostility towards me and it's s ahem this hasn't worked. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish you had considered my request to stop editing the BLP articles of women politicians that you have a huge conflict of interest against. You are repeatedly reverted at multiple BLP articles of women and you are repeatedly attempting to add the same negative type issues content to those women, please consider not editing the female political BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd considered my request to be more civil in your editing on Wikipedia. You've come extremely close to being banned and people really don't appreciate your hostility. Now you're falsely alleging I have a "huge conflict of interest", a very serious allegation yet you provide no evidence whatsoever. Either provide proof now or apologise and retract the false allegation by striking through it. That's the second false allegations you've directed towards me and it's now getting ridiculous particularly as you haven't apologised for the first one yet. As for your request - many thanks for the input, I did consider it fully but I totally reject the suggestions not only due to the glaring factual innaccracies but also out of principle given its hostile and offensive tone, not to mention your subsequent conduct towards me. --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * - In a discussion on my talkpage I have retracted and apologized for my comments regarding WP:COI and I have fully accepted Shakehandsman's comment that he edits from only this account and retract and am sorry he was upset about that.. I am also apologizing for my undue comments here as well so as to clarify and close the issue. I hope that going forward when we meet on articles we both edit that we are able to work together better with discussion and to seek outside opinions for any disagreements regarding content, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Robb, much appreciated.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Macshane and Joan
Seems to be a bit of an issue, can you move to discussion, additions that bring the subject of a BLP to revert are clearly controversial. Feel free to discuss on the talkpage or on the WP:BLPN. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't at all agree with the last part of your sentence, I find quite a few CoI editors on Wikipedia removing highly notable material. Anyway I had already addressed the only legitimate concern they had in the latest revision so I don't see any issue now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also why have you reverted to Joan Smith's preferred version? It's one thing to remove supposedly controversial material but you've left in place her additions which clearly have severe CoI issues.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have replied to Mr Off2riorob's message on my talk page. Straw Cat (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Nice to have someone else posting here for a change. Hope you can sort out the issues with the Joan Smith article as I agree with your comments on that also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Fathers' rights movement
Sorry, in my edits I neglected to replace the NPOV. It is appropriate for it to be on the page, I will not be removing it until the dispute has been settled. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok, we all make mistakes, thanks for explaining the situation. Much appreciated.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had put it in previously but forgot to in my latest round. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud letting evidence of his misconduct disappear
Hello. I just thought you should know that your comments on Cybermud's talk page was deleted by said user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=391910091&oldid=391909125. Thank you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but users are actually perfectly entitled to edit their own talk pages and delete any comments there. My message will still be there permanently in the history of the talk page and there is no rule breach there. TBH I'm far more concerned about your comments suggesting bias on my part in relation to dealings with Cybermud, particularly when considered in the context of the other false allegations you've directed at me. As you've discovered I've given both yourself and Cybermud warnings for your indiscretions and it seems very strange for you to imply bias one moment and then start citing a warning I've given to said person the next. I do suggest you put a stop to this unhealthy interest in Cybermud and instead make an effort to change your own behaviour here on Wikipedia instead please, the best way to start would be to retract some of your more objectionable comments using strikethrough text. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I said users could edit their own talk pages I wasn't suggesting it would be appropriate to alter other people's edits by adding insulting titles to them.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Sands
O Fenian (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, wasn't aware of the 1RR but can't be bothered with that article anymore so no danger of breaching it anyway. The editor who reverted my changes has certainly broken the rule though. Any chance of using a different heading for such messages? - that title might be seen to imply some sort of restriction applying to my editing--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Change the heading if you wish. The other editor did make a second revert, but self-reverted it anyway, so a report on them would not be actionable. O Fenian (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the update. I don't usually edit comments here as I try to be as open and transparent as possible so having your agreement beforehand is much appreciated. Have to say the other editor also leaves a lot to be desired in terms of civility, I've never come across him before so there's no history, perhaps 1RR articles just have more problems in that regard--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realise you are free to remove this entire, or any other, section from your talk page I assume? O Fenian (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - I just try not to remove anything and prefer to debunk/disprove any criticism rather than censor it. I know of several editors who remove controversy/warnings and details of blocks from their talk page to leave a sanitisied version. This can make it harder to understand an editor's history and some people might feel they have something to hide. I've decided to take the opposite approach. I'm not necessarily opposed to the rule allowing people to delete items from their talk page but I do think it should be discouraged somewhat.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MacShane again
I noticed the changes but you got there before me - well done. Possible sockpuppetry? On the Joan Smith issue, I foresaw an edit war with her, wondered whether to refer it up, but thought that my own edits might not be seen as entirely free of POV (My POV is I am allergic to hypocrisy!). Apparently on his tweets Mr MacShane has been brazenly unrepentant and has also been using his numerous pals in the media as apologists. His article is on my watchlist, needless to say ... Straw Cat (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if the person simply just forgot to login before then it might not strictly be sockpuppetry, but it clearly is the same editor. I'm pleased you're watching the page too, lets hope they don't keep coming back. Busy at the moment but later on I'll do some more work MacShane as I've contributed a fair amount to the article previously and therefore gained a lot of knowledge in the process or reading up on him. It would be great if you could work on the Joan Smith piece like you suggest as I don't have as much knowledge of her. I don't really see any edit war problems, just be sure to cite plenty of sources for all the content you add. (BTW if you look at MacShane's Twitter he's even still listing himself as a Labour MP!)--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Describing her as a feminist writer is opinionated and undue. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly, it's extremely useful to establish the type of writing she specialises in. On the other hand you are correct to say the point was unreferenced so I've added a couple of supporting sources to solve the problem.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, it doesn't say in the lede that she is a feminist writer, that is what you have chosen to focus on, add it to the lede, so and so is a primarily feminist writer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Having trouble understanding your writing today Rob, not sure what you're trying to say really. Could you maybe re-write the above so it is less confusing please?--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of others reading this I do seem to remember you managed to somehow prevent everyone from so much as mentioning that Harriet Harman herself was a feminist anywhere in her article, (and that problem persisted for a good few months) so I'll have to take any views on this particular matter with a pinch of salt.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, uncited claim, just deal with the actual issues, I am not interested, your contributions are to multiple involved anti feminist edits. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant discussion of the Harman issue to jog your memory: . There's nothing anti-feminist about adding balance to an article. As for me, my edits are actually very pro-equality and that's something of which I'm very proud.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Parity
I've tidied up several grammatical and composition errors in Parity, although there are still some more left, but of a less pungent nature. I did not do it under my Wiki log-in identity, unlike this note. The corrections were quite necessary, because basic English errors detract strongly from the impact of any serious article and lead to such an article not being taken seriously enough. JHB (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, as you can see I've put quite a lot of work into that article and despite the lack of activity on that article there have alrady been non-constructive edits for me to fix . It can be difficult to get things right when trying to combine material from so many sources and when starting from scratch, although I wouldn't exactly describe the mistakes as especially "basic". Anyway thanks once again, (btw I've changed the heading of this section so it is more specific).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you ...
... a fan of Boys from the Blackstuff? Just wondering :) - A l is o n  ❤ 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only seen the first episode so can't really say. I'm a fan of people catching sockpuppets though. Keep up the good work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh - thanks :) Everyone remembers Yozzer Hughes from that series. I saw it as a kid first time round and remember the 'shake hands' guy in the pub; ''"Shake 'ands, man, or am ah talkin' to mahself". Yeek! - A l is o n  ❤ 05:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but my name is actually inspired by Mr. Shake Hands Man--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL!! Oh my goodness, then you really need to check out the other guy! You'll be shocked! watch this! - A l is o n  ❤ 05:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Per my note a few hours ago on Talk:Feminism I have notified an uninvolved admin to review this situation.-- Cailil  talk 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you set me a 12 hour deadline hidden on a talk page I'm not even watching and then message me here some five hours into it to let me know about it, therefore making it a 7 hour deadline?? That's really nice of you, thanks..--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Feminism. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See discussion  Sandstein   19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the Kimmel content is so problematic (I don't' believe it is) people should first remove it from the person's Wikipedia article where it will be seen by thousands instead of picking on me for repeating it? Just a thought, though whatever the case I certainly don't like being singled out like this. No doubt the Michael Flood article might actually contain some criticism too if it wasn't operating in some parallel Wikipedia world where no criticism is allowed. Anyway I'll find some more sources to keep everyone happy and I'll try to sort out the Flood article to avoid future problems, though given that it appears there are a number of feminists opposing balance on feminism issues and who admit to watching related articles I'm not hopeful, especially given that some are in fact admins --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just examined the Kimmel source again, seems highly reliable to me. Perhaps you missed the content, you have to click through to page two. I'm well within my rights to repeat any sourced content that already exists elsewhere on Wikipedia and I will continue to do so for as long as I'm editing here--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know
Hey SHM, I'm sorry that you feel frustrated by all of the current things going on at Feminism. I just wanted to let you know that I've been finding the debate we're all having there really interesting and I appreciate your input and interest in the article. Thanks for your edit here in particular. Anyway I'm sure the BLP stuff will get worked out soon. I don't know if you want my advice, but I would just get rid of all of the stuff about Kimmel and Flood for now, I think your point is pretty clear without it. I was sincere when I said that I think you should discuss some of that stuff at Talk:Antifeminism, although I would be careful to tone some of the language down. Also, I don't know if you saw Cybermud's ANI discussion, but I thought there was a lot of good advice there. --Aronoel (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I was getting frustrated and I appreciate the advice and your input/edits. I don't actually have nearly as short a fuse as you might think and I've actually been here for quite a long time. The thing is that a couple of months back there was a similar (albeit much worse) issue on a different equality related article. What frustrated me in the previous case was that an admin was actively encouraging blatant COI feminist editors to contribute and they were also adding ridiculous unsourced material themselves, it really makes me worry about Wikipedia when things like that happen. It's certainly nice to find someone such as yourself who has differing views yet is clearly here to help the project and support others, I don't know what we'd do if you didn't re-add the material Cybermud seems to be banned from adding. The advice for Cybermud isn't really relevant to me I don't think, he's a quite brilliant editor and is more knowledgeable than me, but really takes on the major and prominent cases of bias and understandably things can get quite heated as a result. I basically gave up long ago in editing these important controversial articles and generally stick to the talk pages if that. I like to avoid all the hassle, attacks, bias and lack of progress so don't be offended if I don't take up your excellent suggestion regarding antifeminism. I will try to add some balance to the Michael Flood article though, that way other people may at least see the problem for themselves one day and people will actually be able to criticise him without getting into trouble and without constantly having to rediscover all his more controversial work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Kerry McCarthy
Hello! I saw you reverted my edit to the Kerry McCarthy article. The BBC article says "Police have confirmed that they have cautioned a man and a woman, both from Bristol, following an investigation into alleged election fraud earlier this year under the Representation of the People Act 1983". This does not say 'she was cautioned for election fraud' and, indeed, 'fraud' surely requires an element of deception, which was not the case here. RPA 1983 uses the word 'fraud' many times but not in S.66, which are the secrecy requirements which she broke. I'm not quite sure what the answer is when there are news sources using 'electoral fraud' as a sort of shorthand description for her offense, but when it is a description which does not match up to what in my view is the ultimate source, the Act itself. Help? :) 92.235.145.96 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for messaging me regarding this, apologies for the delay but I have been busy dealing with other things. I'm not sure how to proceed here, and will do some more reading on the story. I've added an additional source to improve things slightly for now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your post on Michael Flood
I'm asking you to stay away from my talkpage please until you retract your comments. I want as little contact with you as possible in future given you attitude towards me at present. Please acknowledge that you understand my request, you will of course be welcome there should any false comments here be retracted. Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I cannot promise to stay away from your talkpage or from interaction with you if your edits continue to violate policy and guidelines. It's in your hands. As I have also explained in detail to you another time you raised similar issues, I also cannot and will not retract comments about editing I find genuinely problematic. Most concerning, obviously, is your editing of BLP articles and about BLP subjects, in particular female politicians.  The Kathryn Smith article you created a few days ago is a perfect example.  A female Labour politician who likely does not meet WP:POLITICIAN (now Prodded in fact) including negative information about a recent drink driving charge that is either unsourced, sourced to The Sun(!!!) or a local newspaper, and with the information presented in a highly negative fashion. I note that it has been suggested that you should refrain from editing these articles because of the multiple BLP issues found with your edits . I strongly advise that you follow this advice.--Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? I ask you not to post here until you retract false comments and then you immediately do so? I've even added a list of people who aren't welcome here just in case you were to forget in future. Again I see you've misquoted me on top of that. I haven't asked you to avoid interacting with me, I'm just suggesting we should try to avoid each other where possible given you attitude and one good method of that is to avoid each others talk pages. I completely refrained from posting only your talk page after you asked me to stop posting there in September (despite since noticing multiple violations) and that was a good idea given your hostility towards me. I now ask for nothing more than for you to do the same here and you manage it for all of ten minutes and then come out with a refusal. One rule for you and one rule for me, just as I thought.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way thanks for that previous list of "concerns" about my editing. I went through it recently and it was an excellent method of identifying COI editors and other problematic users and I went to the trouble of issuing appropriate warnings. Can I also ask you also not to reference false offensive comments directed at me that have since been retracted with a full apology, this is a very serious breach of Wikipedia rules and I don't expect Off2riorob appreciates you digging up material he no longer stands by and presenting it as current/factual either. Myself and Off2riorob have got on much better during the last couple of months thanks to his retraction retraction and his editing is improving considerably (though still has a fair way to go). In fact he also fully retracted all the previous comments that resulted in me seeking admin intervention and eventually led to my interaction with you on your talk page, it took a while but in the end his conduct was highly commendable. Also I'd caution against referencing comments by banned editors as well as the previous COI editors as evidence - it hugely weakens your case and very much vindicates the position that my contributions significant asset to Wikiepdia.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's curious that you feel that you can identify a COI simply by looking at a list of editors who have commented on or revert your edits, and that it is okay to describe them as COI editors when you object so strongly when others suggest the same about you.. I don't think others looking will necessarily agree that many or any of those who have commented on your edits are either banned or COI editors. In fact one has recently been elected to ArbCom, I believe.   As you have requested, I've removed one of the two Off2riorob diffs, since one was later withdrawn. I however note that Rob has drawn attention to problematic edits since then. But anyway, I'm happy to avoid your talkpage as much as possible. Edit within policy, and there should never be a need for me to post again. --Slp1 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for removing the retracted comments, I appreciate you made a mistake and have added more information to the top of this page explaining more about my talk page philosophy. You are again misquoting me here. I'm not implying that anything like all those in your list of concerns were poor editors, but very significant proportion of the examples you cited were of editors either with many bans or a COI and I recall you citing permanently banned editors in previous discussions we've had. I do get a fair few attacks and criticisms from COI editors as I'm rather good at uncovering them (you'll see a few on this page as I don't censor it). If you think any COI warnings I issued were inappropriate you're more than welcome to delete them if you can disprove the evidence (or I'd be happy to do so too as your quite right to point out that false COI allegations are something I also hate) though I don't believe I've made a mistake in this area once in my 4+ years here. Also thank you for eventually respecting my request to stay away from this page as much as possible though I do find the double standard you still want to operate very concerning. Should your attitude towards me change and more retractions be forthcoming you will be welcome back of course as occurred with Off2riorob. Also I note how you used the election to measure the quality of a Wikipedia editor's judgement (a rather good idea in the majority of cases), and I see you've neglected to mention who performed especially poorly. I'd also add received bans to that list of criteria, therefore making countless examples you've cited in this discussion and previous ones a vindication of my editing and making a strong case that I should get back to editing the articles you wrongly suggest I should avoid. Many thanks for this also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - note - as I have been mentioned here quite a bit I will comment - I have attempted to get on with user shakehandsman and keep away from them as is recommended in situations where editors have major disagreements, but I still have the same worries and objections to user shakehandsmans contributions in regards to BLP issues, especially in regards to female all women shortlist candidates and female labour party politicians in general and a focus on his adding what can be described as negative attacking content inflated beyond its actual NPOV importance and I actually agree with user Sips comments here completely. Off2riorob (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commentating Rob. Just for the benefit of others reading and to bring this to a close I too have several worries about certain editors on Wikipedia, most of which are far more serious than what's suggested here but I don't' keep going on and on and on about them constantly and repeating the same points again and again and instead I try to assume good faith. In fact I've very much tempered all my concerns in an attempt to avoid attacks/conflict particularly where those concerns apply to people with more power here than myself and I think my conduct in this regard contrasts hugely with others. I would say that any editor spending large amounts of time finding people saying unpleasant (and often untrue) things about others, or pointing out the tiniest mistakes/misunderstandings from years ago is behaving in quite a bizarre way really, even more so when so many examples are COI editors or those with multiple bans and it could be interpreted as a breach of several rules here. My honesty, openness and track record here speaks for itself as does the fact I get on so well with so many people here. I will long continue to add balance to articles where my contribution is so clearly needed and it's quite clear that many of my best contributions are to BLP articles.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed your contribution to the discussion regarding Tony Page deletion. Twisting the truth so severely like that and turning reality on it's head in relation to my editing really is not appreciated and that's exactly the sort of reason why I take any advice from you with such an enormous pinch of salt.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Linda Calvey


The article Linda Calvey has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guoguo12 --Talk--  15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for messaging me regarding tagging the Linda Calvey article (really wish everyone would do that). Not sure about your reasoning though, she's known not just for the murder but for her previous criminal activities and is clearly notable for the amount of time spent in prison also. On top of that there's her nickname and her partners are somewhat notable also. There certainly isn't any lack of coverage of her, and she's mentioned in a good few books with one of them solely about her. Admittedly it's not the most extensive article yet but I thought there was enough content there for it to be a valid article. Anyway I've added a bit more, hope this explanation helps and would appreciate any comments. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's not really "one event" now with what was added, and WP:GNG applies, I suppose. Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying with courtesy, by the way. Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem I genuinely appreciate people informing me of such proposed deletions and giving people a chance to tweak articles rather than just trying to get it deleted as quickly as possible. You've been more than courteous in your conduct and it's always nice to correspond with people who are here to help the project.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Kathryn Smith for deletion
The article Kathryn Smith is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kathryn Smith until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well at least someone informed me this time. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony Page
As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Tony Page. Robofish (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I was just trying to add some balance and sources to it and don't really have any strong feelings about the article either way really.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by The IP editor of Shahid Malik article
I've been reading your editing and I think it is bizarre to suggest as you have that "No one else seems to have a problem with 99.9%...." I think there is a consensus that you have a less than healthy obsession with Labour politicians, especially women and minorities! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.45.128 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet another Orange IP, how many addresses do you have? I've uncovered four of your sockpuppet account so far and they've all been banned now so you've resorted to IP vandalism and personal attacks on me. I haven't actually asked yet so I might as well, who are you anyway and what is your connection to Shahid Malik? BTW you do realise that I regard attacks on Wikipedia editors by sockpupetteers as a huge compliment, even more so when it's by a serial sockpupetteer going back such a long time. FYI one of my main editing interests at the moment concerns the expenses scandal and yes it's certainly true that there were a disproportionate number of Labour MPs involved in the worst cases uncovered so far so I will inevitably have edited more Labour articles than Tory ones. However if you actually read my editing history properly I've actually created the category on British Politicians convicted of crimes and I've add every single case I can find from every single party you could think of (going back hundreds of years in the case of Liberals and Conservatives)). --Shakehandsman (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you're now messaging the only two people who I've had issues with in my entire time here. Very classy. If you really have an genuine issue with my edits or conduct than I suggest you start a Wikiquette alert. You can even write all about me "hating Jews" again if you want but i don't think you'll get very far especially given the edits I've made in the past highlighting antisemitism by Liberal Democrat MPs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

manipulating contributors to work around wiki rules
You wrote: " Thanks for helping with this. In case you aren't aware the problematic editing of this artice goes back a long way and I've uncovered numerous sockpuppets. It seems they've resorted to IP editing now so I've requested page protection as the editor making these edits is clearly very determined indeed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Looks like they're back again. Can you deal with this please as I don't want to have any 3RR issues. Thanks."

This is a very clear attempt by you to use other contributors as sockpuppets to avoid falling foul of wiki rules and then you lecture others - I think that is called hypocrisy!

I can't speak for other contributors but I've been looking through your editorial squabbles and your editing and it represents clear circumstantial evidence of a rather unhealthy and perhaps sinister obsession. The more people that are aware of your antics the less credibility you will have. If you had been fair then there would be no problem but time and again, especially on Labour women issues but also minorities you have attempted to present the least attractive and least favourable slant. These are real people like you and me and they have feelings and they deserve fairness as do you and I. Wiki is supposed to be about balance and fairness and not power that one person is attempting to exert over another to get their outcome and possibly malign at the same time. As for jews, and I am one, we are normally always concerned when someone writes protests in the way that you have about not being someone who "hates Jews' - I didn't raise it and under such circumstances one tends to think that perhaps 'he protests too much'. As for trying to justify not being anti-semtic by stating that you edited wikis of 'ant-semtic lib-dem MPs' is like saying I can't be racist I have black friends. Play fair and you will receive fairness is my motto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.45.128 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok lets see whether you are Truesayer/David or not with yet anothrr SPI and therefore see if you falsely accused me of "hating Jews" (in relation to an article of someone who wasn't even Jewish btw!). I'm losing count by now, how many SPIs are we up to now David? No doubt you'll deny socking even if the result comes back positive again. Also what exactly is your reason for deleting all examples of expenses wrongdoing by Mr Malik so many times using so many different accounts over the last year?.-Shakehandsman (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice you other IP account has now messaged a banned sockpuppeteer I uncovered from 2009 seeking support. Good luck with that!--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Having quickly read through the issues I edited your contribution. The main two charges against Malik that hit the headlines are rightly included - these issues were reported on every TV channel and every newspaper at the time. The issue you focus on was minor and not worthy of the weight you attach. It was never on the TV, it involves £140 odd pounds and according to the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner it is clear that he did not think it was even worthy of taking to the Parliamentary Committee. I will look into this further. Im no wiki expert but ordinary readers would think it very strange that there is no analaysis of his defeat. He's only on wiki because he became an MP and how he lost is obviously relevant. I would rather be interested genuinely in why you persist in the way you do - surely you can see, as stated by others, that on occasions there is no balance in your work. I hope this is helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.71.167 (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi David!--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to list of David's various socks Sockpuppet_investigations/Truesayer--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Shahid Malik, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Rich (MTCD) Talk Page 11:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I've no idea why you've posted this message here. As far as I'm aware I've sourced everything on the Malik article though there has been an incredible amount of sockpuppet vandalism so I suppose a source might have accidentally been deleted whilst dealing with that? Also there's no need to "welcome" me to Wikipedia, I've been here for four years. Anyway can you be more specific please as I've made countless edits to the article in the process of dealing with all the issues. Thanks. I ceritnaly appreciate the need to make the article even more watertight as that might reduce the vandalism and sockpuppetry at least a little.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of a reply I'll have to assume the above was a mistake. Anyway no offence taken, though it really is dissapointing that absolutely no one else is addressing the actual problem edits on the article and no one even messaged the vandal/sock despite the issue going back well over a year now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as an additional note, have you been noticing the discussions around that the Daily Mail is in general not to be used for any kind of controversial claim? Off2riorob (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No and you'll need to provide links supporting such a claim if you want to convince anyone. BTW how did you stumble across this conversation? Are you watching my talk page?--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not looking to convince anyone, just passing on updates that I think affect you, as I see you use the Daily Mail a lot. As for diffs, I will look and post some later but there was a lot on Jimbo Wales talkpage. I did not stumble on this conversation I am watching Shahid Maliks article. You are also on my watchlist as are all the users I have ever posted on. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I appreciate any genuine information but it's not the best idea to dismiss a particular source whilst failing to provide any source whatsoever for your statement.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the Malik history you couldn't have possibly arrived here via the Malik article as you suggest, Rich (MTCD) did not edit the page in question whatsoever and neither did I during the time frame in question.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a further point I'm clearly going to be hugely skeptical about taking unsourced advice on the Daily Mail from someone who insists on deliberately making false claims that the newspaper is a red-top, particularly after they've been informed this is not the case.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)