User talk:Shakehandsman/Archive 2

Redirects proposed for deletion
I've proposed the redirects Ross Parker, Sarfraz Ali, Ahmed Ali Awan and Shaied Nazir for deletion. You may wish to join the discussion at RFD. Kanguole 12:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chessmaster
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Murder of Ross Parker, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for this advice. I was wrongly led to believe that references were only required to validate that which is not already well publicized and is consequently potentially controversial. In addition as my correction was small and easily verifiable I had hoped that references would not be deemed necessary. I have included references as recommended. Thank you, ChessMaster2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMaster2011 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you appreciate the advice and have started using sources. However you really do need to please also take the comments of User:Exok onboard in relation to your breaches of WP:IRRELEVANT. None of the sources you used make any mention of or comparison with Ross Parker whatsoever making them completely inappropriate for that article. Also it would be better if you had formatted the above information as a quote so it doesn't appear the advice is directed at me. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Again thank you for your advice. I disagree with your interpretation of the relevance of the information I have provided. The report section already begins with comparisons with the Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker murder criticizing the level of publicity these murders received relative to the Ross Parker Murder. The article then fails to address why these murders received such high publicity and is therefore not objective. It is also inadvertently or deliberately misleading the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMaster2011 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this issue to the talk page of the article so that other users can help explain things to you and so a wider set of editors can discuss the matter.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Helen Clark (UK politician)
When adding references, please use citation templates. Bare URLs look ugly and are prone to WP:LINKROT.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I normally use Reflinks when writing articles. However, many contributions to the Helen Clark article tend to be removed without good reason, so therefore there's very little point in formatting material there properly at present when the chances are that someone is just going to carry out a wholesale deletion as if they own the article. Perhaps you'd have better luck in restoring some of the edits, I'd certainly appreciate a third party taking a look, even the name of her ex-husband gets removed! Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Helen Clark (UK politician).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sarfraz Ali.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sarfraz Ali.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yasmin Qureshi
I've rolled Yasmin Qureshi back to a non-copyvio version; apologies if any of your intermediate edits are caught up in that; please feel free to re-add them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I did deal with all the most blatant violations myself and I issued relevant warnings to User:Accuracy4parliament. I'll perhaps try to remove a few more though didn't want to appear that I was removing everything the user in question had added. What sort of length of text constitutes a violation here? I just used the duplication detector report and removed all the really obvious examples. I think perhaps as big an issue is the source as much as the violation, it's hardly neutral to have Qureshi's website as such a prominent source for information about her and I suppose multiple violations all from one source also makes matters worse.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, policy is to remove all edits by an editor, where some are known to be copyvio and the status of the rest can't be determined. And yes, there are BLP & RS issues, also. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
I will try to get the deleted material restored. I agree with the statement at the top of the page about openness on the talk pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome. I thought it would be good if something positive came out of this mess and I'm glad you appreciate it. I perhaps wouldn't have awarded it if you were an involved party, but taking such a stand even when you have no strong view on the material shows a highly commendable approach to editing. For me, the key issue is not so much the material in itself, but the ethics of what occurred and the lack of openness. Getting the material restored is secondary really, the key goal should be to try to make sure that editors do not engage in such behaviour in future and not stifle discussions when they are within BLP rules. Anyway thanks once again, I hope you stick around for the discussion as the discussion in question really need the input of neutral editors, it appears that no one on the page is willing to compromise in the slightest other than me.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support but no go
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harriet_Harman#Archiving_this_page.

Thanks for your heads up but it didn't work and it is getting rather heated, entire tracks of talk history are being deleted and I have been threatened with blocking, it seems that one editor is saying factual information is a 'slur' and can be deleted at will. Twobells (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you wanted to dedicate a whole section to the issue than that would be undue though even then still not really even a slur, I don't believe you're trying to do that, although editors are within their rights to insist the issue is settled in the talk page (though of course you've also been denied that opportunity now). I hope you manage to resolve the issue, just be sure to keep any suggestions concise and fully inline with the sources and you should be fine. Also whilst I realise you've been treated rather badly at times, don't react against this by becoming too rigid in your views, sometimes we have to compromise, and if you were to put forward a broader summary of her work at NCCL then you'll probably gain further support. Finally do bear in mind that talk page comments are subject to BLP rules and your language needs to be just as robust and well sourced as your actual article edits, please don't let the frustrations caused by other editors get to you and reduce the quality or precision of your contributions. Anyway the best of luck to you, if you're passionate about this issue be sure to keep an eye on the NCCL article also as there have been suspicious edits there also (though by entirely different parties at least).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All I wanted to do was put it into the main body of the article after coming to a sort of consensus last year on approach, anyway thanks very much for your advice, best wishes.Twobells (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. By the way if you're looking to make complaints about people derailing and stifling discussion then you (and every recent poster) has missed this diff which is pretty bad also and makes your case significantly stronger. Of course it could easily be a mistake rather than anything deliberate but still shows poor judgement and/or a lack of understanding of Wikipedia rules and User:Rrius deserves some credit for his rubuttal.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I just don't know enough about the policies to counter flagrant abuse, I will try to gen up on what's acceptable and what's not when it comes to what I consider npov censorship as well as research the complaints procedure and perhaps even start looking at IP sources as I am starting to get the feeling that there may be vested interests here. Twobells (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Edit warning"
Hi, I noticed that you gave me an edit warning recently with regards to minor edits. I have been on Wikipedia for several years now and I do know what minor edits are (I do have rollback rights and frequently delete vandalism). I don't appreciate being treated like a novice editor and likewise I'm sure you won't either. So please next time, try to avoid being patronising. If you want to discuss my recent changes all you had to do was ask. Not one of your sources described them as being "Muslim", only one professor gave his opinion on the matter (the journalist placed his words in quotation marks as opposed to referring them as Muslim), and almost all British articles call the murderers an Asian Gang, not a Muslim gang. In so far, there is no solid proof they are Muslims from the articles I've read. Their religion has nothing to do with the crime, only their ethnicity. You'll have to provide a solid source (unbiased and neutral) to confirm whether their crime was religious motivated. Otherwise its just WP:SYNTHESIS and crystalballing. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but if you're going to make controversial changes to a page and provide the edit summary you did then people are more than likely to assume you aren't an especially experienced editor and therefore issue warnings. Before you left this message I also updated the warning to mention your more recent undocumented deletion of a reference also which is also quite a basic mistake. I'm sure you editing elsewhere has been of a high standard and I'm sorry if you've taken offence but your pattern of editing on that particular article suggested there were a number of rules your were not familiar with and also a lack of attention when reading sources. Anyway I'm glad you've at least now finally agreed to leave the attackers ethnic origin in place. i think a lot of this dispute actually comes down to a quite understandable confusion of Wikipedia rules regarding lead sections of articles. Each individual aspect of the lead doesn't actually need to have the source given after it - the sources can be anywhere in the article, though I'll move a few around adn du[plicate them to avoid confusion. I'll discuss the remaining issues in the article's talk page. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The attackers ethnic origin is not being disputed (the sources do say they are Pakistani and that is a fact) but none of them mention them being Muslim in particular (except when asking people who seem to assume they are Muslim). Even the journalists have taken this into account by placing it in quotation marks as its not a proven fact. I'm going by what the articles say (British Asian gang of Pakistani descent not simply a Pakistani gang - they are not foreigners, from what it seems they were born there). Some 94% of Pakistanis are Muslims, and the rest other. While it is likely they are Muslim we cannot assume they are. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also I did check your sources. You seem to be assuming they are Muslim quite a lot when the sources you provide do not have the word Muslim in it. A simple Control + F action and searching for the word Muslim on the page proves my point. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you even removed the "Pakistani" aspect in your earlier edits therefore meaning that was in dispute by you at one stage. Anyway please discuss the other issue on the article talk page, I have started topic there and I think it's a simple misunderstanding. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was only going by what the sources said. They said "Asian Gang" as opposed to "Pakistani gang" - you'll notice that I added in the part where it says they are of "Pakistani descent". Their ethnicity is not being disputed. It was a race hate murder after all. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough but you really need to be aware that content in the lead can be from any source anywhere in the article. There doesn't have to necessarily be a single ref in an article lead just as long as they are in the body of the article somewhere.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree to an extent, but it can't be undue weight (see WP:UNDUE). The policy clearly states minority opinion shouldn't be included in the lead (or anywhere), especially if it is in a tiny proportion compared to other sources. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing facts and opinions here. Facts about people don't need large numbers of reliable sources to be admissible.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please refrain from deleting my edits without explanations as you did here, because opinionated pieces are not allowed to be stated as fact. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a further ref therefore solving the problem of sourcing (something I explained). I'll remove the Brown piece from one place of you like, its probably not needed given the new source, though I can't see any possible reason for your removal of her standard piece from the second paragraph of the lead. Didn't see any explanation of your last edit btw.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we're on the same level now. In the article Murder of Ross Parker, you've provided a good source to state they were Muslim. However I've yet to see anything on the Murder of Kriss Donald article. A British source is better than a third party source. The Brown piece shouldn't be in the lead for the Ross Parker article, since its opinionated (you have to at least state the author saying it). It's why I removed it and placed it in the reporting section where her name actually goes with her quotes. I reverted your edits because they were unexplained. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't discriminate by country when selecting sources, they just have to reliable rather than from a specific location. In fact if anything Wikipedia tends to be rather too Anglo centric so a more global view is a positive thing, especially as this is an international story part of which played out on the Indian subcontinent. The Brown source is specifically being used to support a phrase about the views/admission of journalists, therefore it's acceptable. I haven't named her as it's the lead and therefore simply a summary, all the detail (including the actual quotes in question) is in the body of the article. I suppose technically we don't have to keep in in the lead but it really does help to avoid confusion when dealing with less experienced editors.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Flood
Dear Shakehandsman

I am unfamiliar with this process however it is important, in my view, that the Michael Flood page be scrutinised carefully. On behalf of all Australian fathers we appreciate the work you have done already there.

Flood has a long history of serial dishonesty in the name of advocacy, exploiting "victim" women and profiting from the misery & hatred he creates in the misandry industry. His propaganda has gone so far as to be incorporated into the current Australian Senate Report. This recommends in effect the evisceration of the presumption of innocence for Men and repeal of all penalties for knowingly false allegations supposedly to protect women. The committee accepts at 3.179 "we accept the findings of Dr Flood that false allegations in Family Court are rare"

This Pravda like propaganda which flies in the face of facts was submitted by a women's legal advocacy group after the committee had adjourned. It is neither journal published nor peer reviewed but simply googled from Flood's personal blog. This "Hate Men" nonsense is accepted without testimony or cross-examination as the basis for Australia's social policy. It will be a major embarrassment for the Govt & Flood.

Flood is now scrambling to protect himself. His "sock puppet" tampering with his self-authored wikipedia page, with the extract of his "How to sabotage Mens rights" speech & some other appallingly unethical behaviour is being exposed in newspapers and media. Flood refers to this in "Talk:Michael Flood" as "it[the wiki page] is being used in a campaign against him"

I have noticed significant activity on Flood's page, including almost daily talk contributions from Flood himself, since reference to his wiki page appeared in Punch magazine 9 September 2011. I note that the article has changed.

It is important that the Flood wiki page not change. This is a powerful piece of evidence to have the Senate committee recommendations thrown out, with the vote likely within weeks, and hopefully purge this pseudo-science parasite, Flood. Thanks HB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.9.62 (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the kind comments and the Barnstar. Regrettably my contributions to the article in question are far less significant than you suggest (though not really by choice) and perhaps undeserving of such an accolade (though I'll still more than happily accept it). I did try my best but my impact and additions were relatively minor and I no longer edit the page due to the poor conduct of pro-Flood editors there and elsewhere on Wikipedia. I would say in fairness to Mr Flood that I didn't any evidence of sockpuppetry on his part and in fact his behaviour at Wikipedia back when I was editing the article was mostly non-problematic. Whilst it's true that Mr Flood does appear to have multiple accounts he hasn't been using these simultaneously or in an underhand way and he has at least been honest about who he is, therefore there are no breaches of Wikipedia sockpuppetry rules as far as I can tell. You'll actually find it is more established editors who are plastering Flood's work all over articles inappropriately and generally being uncivil and unreasonable in their actions in relation to such edits. Also please bear in mind that although people such as Mr Flood will of course provoke strong reactions as a result of his work, we don't use Wikipedia to discuss our own views of such people. Therefore no matter how objectionable you feel a person to be, you should only use criticism from reliable sources such as newspaper or books. The way you've quoted material above is excellent but I strongly suggest you remove some of the stronger terms from the post that are you own words or provide sources for them. Wikipedia has strict policies about making such comments about living persons, and no doubt due to present obvious Wikipedia biases such policies would be even more strictly enforced than usual for making comments about a living feminist.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF
Please read WP:AGF and remove this from your talk page intro. KillerChihuahua ?!? 08:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for the message I'm fully aware of AGF. The definition of gender feminism is actually relatively wide and as per the gender feminism article this term not only includes simply misandrists but also the following:

''In current usage, "gender feminism" may also describe feminism which seeks to use legal means to give preference to women in such areas as domestic violence, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity. Sommers argues that gender feminism characterizes most of the body of modern feminist theory, and is the prevailing ideology in academia. She argues that while the feminists she designates as gender feminists advocate preferential treatment and portraying "all women as victims", equity feminism provides a viable alternative form of feminism to those who object to elements of gender feminist ideology.''

I don't see any AGF breaches at all, I've simply taken an academic definition and asked those who meet it not to post here. If anything I've narrowed down the definition from what Sommers uses therefore more than keeping within AGF. The evidence strongly suggests gender studies has an inherent bias and that's just as evident in the context of Wikipedia as anywhere else. It's my right to seek to avoid unwanted attention and it's with extreme regret that I bar anyone from here as I'm extremely pro freedom of speech. However I've been here long enough to be fully aware of the problems with the lack of neutrality in gender related affairs at Wikipedia and I really want as little contact as possible with those people responsible and this is one of many positive steps I've taken to try to avoid problems and conflict and to protect myself from harassment. Needless to say I can assure you that if those of the background in question display civility, impartiality, avoid canvassing and have a pro-equality approach to editing (or even something approaching a neutral one for that matter) which is compatible with the goals of Wikipedia, I will welcome them here with open arms and give them the benefit of the doubt in uncertain cases. I will activity update the content on my talk page as and when Wikipedia and the gender studies movement evolve and address the issues in question and I am tweaking the intro in an attempt to make it even fairer and even more precise. Anyway thanks for the feedback.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you've stated clearly that everyone is "guilty until proven innocent", and that's not even close to acceptable. KillerChihuahua ?!? 01:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where on earth does it say that please? Which phrase is problematic? I really can't see anything wrong at all with the present version. Can you be more specific or maybe just check the text again? I've simply asked those who's views I find offensive not to post here so I can avoid harassment and conflict.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's not especially related to your comment but just to let you know I have now added some explanation to my talk page policy.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of a reply I will assume your last comment was a mistake on your part. A retraction would have been nice but no offence taken. Thanks for your previous help in improving the text and apologies if the initial version wasn't sufficiently precise.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, sorry about that, my pc died. Just got back on a couple of days ago, and hadn't tracked back all the old discussions. I do not think I made any error; if you state "If you are studying A, I will assume you are B" where B is a value intended to be a negative, you are indeed failing AGF. If B is not intended to be a negative, then you are merely being ignorant unless B is a clear subset of A, and is so acknowledged. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand much of the above. I most certainly haven't assumed anything about anyone based on their studying choices and nor would I do so. There are just two very simple requests of types of people not welcome on my talk page. A number of others have totally misrepresented the text so please don't be influenced by that. Earlier I tweaked it slightly more to avoid confusion. If you do still have any concerns please be more specific and quote any words in question as we don't appear to be communicating very well. Once again thanks for your previous advice.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having given it more thought I suppose I could flip the sentence around therefore making it more positive, leading with as to the type of people who are welcome, then people might not misinterpret it so easily? I certainly want to resolve it as it is detracting from vastly more important issues.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I've flipped the sentence around therefore making it more positive. I don't think anyone can misread it now and it seems more friendly too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's better. Perhaps if you change "gender feminist" to "misandrist". Not everyone subscribes to the position of, or is aware of, the misandrist component of gender feminism. I could be wrong, but IMO most people will read that as "feminism" and since by definition a feminist is anyone who supports equality for women, that will be viewed as hostile to all readers except for misogynists. I realize you have the phrase linked, but I don't really see a point in using a confusing and possibly divisive terms when a non-charged word is readily available. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive feedback and the ideas, I think gender feminism is more encompassing and less strident so I may stick with that, if people still aren't getting the point I'll even add the definition later should it be needed. I really hope people can tackle the real issues next.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but I think you are making an error. Gender feminism is an obscure term, recently coined and not everyone even agrees if the term has valid meaning, let alone agrees on what that meaning is. You are running the risk of insulting the vast majority of editors here, and I cannot see why you want to do that. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I appreciate your advice but also feel the gender feminism term is essential so I guess I'll use both.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: why is gender feminism important to you (to leave in your notice)? KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Many people tend to have inaccurate opinions about themselves and their beliefs, and almost everyone is likely to ignore terms like "racist", "misandrist", "sexist" etc as they are such strong, terms which few would ever admit to, either publicly or even in their own minds. Gender feminism is a softer and more encompassing term, one that makes people think. To me, the fact that it is less black and white can be a positive. A lot of people are in their own bubbles and obvious to their biases and mistakes. To make them consider their background and belief system in such a way will make them more aware of their POV and be more respectful or aware of others with differing perspectives. They may come to realise that they have slight gender feminist tendencies or have been previously exposed to such influences and therefore try to keep such tendencies at bay. Both words is the perfect solution because it has both the boldness and clarity of the first term and the more thoughtful and encompassing qualities of the second--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) This makes considerably more sense to me now, thanks. I now have another suggestion: reconsider whether you want that notice at all. It does state you are excluding an entire set of people with whom you happen to disagree on an issue from your talk page. This is not he same as saying "I will remove all personal attacks" etc; this is walling off people you simply don't agree with. This is contrary to how Wikipedia works. One must be able to discuss civilly and rationally with those who hold widely divergent views from oneself, and often this includes on your talk page. However, if you feel you must keep it, write a note on a subpage with the above explanation and link to it. Perhaps from the word "Why" right after the request, at User talk:Shakehandsman/Why. And change "respectfully asked not to post here please" to something which flows better. "I respectfully ask that you please refrain from posting" might work. But IMHO this is all doomed; you simply cannot shut out other editors simply because you disagree with them on an issue. I predict that this will remain front and center with your relations with a lot of editors until you learn to "play well with others" and remove it and cease excluding discussion with other editors who happen to hold different views. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well some of the "why" is already in place, though as of Jan/Feb the statement became far less necessary anyhow as the underlying issues finally came to ahead and a number of editors began to realise what was occurring, so it's certainly nothing like as important as it previously was. My "ability to play well" has never been in question, far from it, it's something I'm known for and it's obvious the statement would never had been put in place were others able to do that. I agree "one must be able to discuss civilly and rationally with those who hold widely divergent views from oneself" but I'm not sure "divergent" should extend to hateful views, particularly when considering the power-dynamics involved too. The obvious alternative to the message is for people to start to tackle the actual issues which necessitated it, as it implies, were those to be resolved I'd remove it in an instant.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2006 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Pakistani


 * Bellahouston Academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Pakistani

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else has kindly fixed these already.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not link dates
as you did in the Robin van Persie article. Also, respect the established date format, which in that article is d Month YYYY. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the text was based on a previous version of the article (someone else had linked the dates and I forgot to remove that part). I don't see how you can claim the text isn't an improvement - you've restored a version that uses both unsourced weasel words and totally inappropriate sources. Having The Sun as a ref is bad at the best of times, but in relation to a rape case is terrible.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See MOS:UNLINKDATES. Feel free to improve the copy without restoring the linked (and improperly formatted) dates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware not to link dates, as I said it was just because the content was based on a old version of the article and I hadn't noticed what they had done. My priority was in trying to get all the refs right and remove all the problematic content that was previously in place.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Leicester City 6–6 Arsenal (21 April 1930), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Halliday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Murder of Ross Parker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fingerprints (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

MoRP-GA
Congratulations on getting the article Murder of Ross Parker elevated to GA-class. Well done! Boneyard90 (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's the first time I've achieved that and it took rather a lot of effort, but it's something I thought i should do once at least. Thanks for your advice also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that didn't take long, looks like people are already trying to use all my hard work in that article against me.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha! It happens. Look on the bright side: your article is drawing more attention. Weather the storm, try and use what you can to improve the article. The harsher criticism will die down in a bit. One of the articles I wrote was vandalized a few times after it went DYK, but the trolls eventually lose interest. Keep up the good fight. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not even criticising the article itself but using the very fact I wrote it as some sort of point against me in an entirely unrelated discussion, I have to say the timing is rather impressive to say the least. Previous vandalism of the Parker article probably prompted me to bring it up to such a high standard, as did such attitudes highlighted above so I certainly share your views there, though that's not to say they're a good thing or of any help. --Shakehandsman (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rekha Kumari-Baker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rekha Kumari-Baker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rekha Kumari-Baker 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. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for letting me know but surely this content has to be kept on Wikipedia in some form?--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The result was keep (unanimous).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mark Thompson
My apologies, I misread the quoting in the source. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but there's far more serious things than that you need to be apologising for.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None that I am aware of. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well thanks to administrator User:postdlf, at least you are now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've had over a month to apologise now and the subsequent RFC/U really was the final straw. You are are therefore politely asked to refrain from posting on my talk page in future. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema 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. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This has to be some sort of a joke, how the hell is that not notable? Your pattern of following me round Wikipedia, nominating my notable work for deletion, making insinuations, and deleting sourced content is not at all appreciated.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people murdered in the UK every year. Unless there is some significant lasting effect on policy, law, etc as a result of any one of those, there is no need to record each one in Wikipedia. Having seen your work on Yasmin Qureshi, I am taking a look at articles you have created for similar issues. While you may not appreciate my efforts, I am sure that others will. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As explained previously, aside from one heading, the Qureshi article was no different to any other article about any other politician. You were right to bee critical of the heading and I accept it needed improving but that wasn't actually my creation.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Requests_for_comment/Shakehandsman. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good luck with that. You please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I'm always reluctant to use such a notcieboard, but your ridiculous RFC has finally forced me into action.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The result was keep (unanimous).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility barnstar

 * Thanks, I'm more than used to this sort of nonsense by now, but it's still very unpleasant and dealing with it is stopping me from getting more articles up to decent standards. Anyway thanks for trying to turn something so negative into something positive, that's something I also aspire to.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again Shakehandsman. Reading through your RfC I can't help feeling some anxiety at the level of dismay you could be feeling at having your contributions sniffed over while the wider community seemingly does very little to defend the incredible amount of content you've added to Wikipedia. Hopefully you'll take the apparent lack of interest as an indication of the damp squib this drama-mongering represents, rather than feeling slighted. I'm away from home this weekend so I can't add the balance I'd like until tomorrow. All I can do to for now is leave you this message of continuing support and anger on your behalf while wishing you the best. Exok (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just rather disappointed more than anything really. TBH I'd happily have my contributions examined by the "wider-community" were it necessary and if it was done a neutral and legitimate fashion. But there's nothing at all neutral going on and as you go on to say the community has ignored it. On the plus side I now know my previous concerns to be even more accurate than i could ever have imagined, and as well as seeing the very worst sides of some editors, I've also had the the pleasure of seeing total strangers taking the time and effort to try to stop these abuses.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies for such a sudden departure but it was all getting to be a too much for me really and there wasn't any point in me staying here when there was so much hostility and harassment. I think your post probably made me take stock of things and inadvertently led me to make my decision so it was very valuable input. There have been so many positive developments in my absence and it's great to see some of our concerns finally getting some much needed attention so I'm happy to return.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you didn't abandon Wikipedia, Shakehandsman and I'm relieved to hear you are feeling optimistic. I hope you don't ever have to face that kind of distraction again. Exok (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I think it was rather more than a distraction. I'm not especially optimistic but there have at least been clear improvements. I image there's going to be more issues to deal with in the short term and i see you're already doing a sterling job helping me out. I really wish we could just write content instead of all this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the case is finally closed at last as "No consensus/lack of interest". In some ways it's a bit of a shame - a bit of intelligent scrutiny would surely have resulted in some action taken against those bringing the case (something you previously noted yourself). On the plus side it's good to have everything out in the open and those involved at least they know their conduct there can be used as evidence in future, hopefully their behavior will improve as a result. Anyway thanks for your efforts and please keep up your much needed work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rosss Parker photo (cropped).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Rosss Parker photo (cropped).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ahmed Ali Awan.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ahmed Ali Awan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:I intprod1-8000based 73075a(scaled).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:I intprod1-8000based 73075a(scaled).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sarfraz Ali.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sarfraz Ali.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People educated at Bretton Woods Community School
Category:People educated at Bretton Woods Community School, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Youreallycan (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, the category is now re-created under the title Category:People educated at The Voyager School. The simultaneous attempt to delete Category:Old Deaconians also failed unanimously and was simply renamed as Category:People educated at Deacon's School --Shakehandsman (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous statement of ceasing editing
 With regret I am ceasing editing Wikipedia due to recent unresolved issues here. I don't have any interest in contributing to a project where harassment and incivility is tolerated, particularly when multiple parties target the same victim simultaneously. I came here to create high quality content and I'm not at all comfortable editing in the climate I'm faced with at present.

I'm not against scrutiny of my work and if i were then I wouldn't submit it to independent review. I dealt with all the "evidence" that was in the RFC and I'm not willing to correspond further in an environment where there are such persistent AGF breaches. Should there be an opportunity for issues to be discussed in a mature, sensible and civil manner then I'd be happy to engage with that.

A person's interests, principles and areas of expertise should not be regarded as legitimate grounds for attacks, false accusations, smears and harassment. Nor should such a tiny number of people be able to ruin someone's experience here so easily.

I've met some wonderful editors on Wikipedia, especially in the last few months, and I thank all those kind enough to offer me their words of support, or tried in any way to tackle the problems. I wish all those people the very best of luck in their future editing. '''I don't intend checking back here anytime soon as I find it far too upsetting visiting at present. I will still be contactable via email so feel free to message me there if you need to''' (the link is on the far left hand side of the window). I will try to to return next month and finalise my decision. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to notify me should the situation improve before then.

My apologies for the sudden nature of this announcement, but everyone has their breaking point and it people seem to forget that Wikipedia editors are living persons too. I hope no one feels let down by my decision.

Goodbye.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC) '''
 * Well it's February so I figured I'd check back as promised and it seems things are on the up. Firstly it's very pleasing to see the activities of the two of my most vocal critics coming under some much needed scrutiny and in one case action. Funnily enough, one of them has been subjecting others to exactly the same type of treatment as I complained about. I've also taken a look at all the ridiculous attempts at deletions of my work (which included personal attacks) and both cases failed with unanimous opposition in each. I see there has been a very predictable addition to the list of those certifying the harassing RFC, a quick look at the ideologies and editing patterns of some of those involved says it all really. Anyway I'm encouraged by the developments that have occurred in my absence and it's nice to be vindicated so overwhelmingly I suppose, though I'd rather just get back to writing high quality articles. Many thanks to those who have written such kind messages and to anyone attempting to deal with harassment on Wikipedia. As I stated previously I'm not against the scrutiny of my work and should anyone actually wish to discuss anything with me in a mature, sensible and civil manner the I'd be happy to do so. The only per-requsit I'd make for such a conversation would be to exclude anyone who has made personal attacks on me in the past, anyone with a long block record or anyone with blatantly biased and non neutral conduct in regard to gender related articles.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A sad day
I have been out of the country for some time and unable to do much on Wikipedia. I am saddened to see that you have left the project or, more accurately, been driven from it. Anyone who writes on Wikipedia with a sympathy for boys, men and fathers and a critical view of the many excesses of the feminist movement invites the collective backlash of editors on the "Feminist Task Force," many of them admins, with a deep knowledge of WP policy and wikilawyering to push their agenda (sometimes even in good faith.) In my short time editing WP I cannot count the number of editors that are driven from this project by their inability to put in things that they passionately (and accurately) believe to be true but can't get past the politically correct, misandrous filter of these editors in any way shape or form. In the few interactions we had I found you to be a remarkably patient editor who kept his cool and remained civil in situations where I know I would have struggled to do so (if not been completely unable to.) I hope that you will return to WP and that, at that time, I will still be an editor able to comment on the specious RFC that was brought against you.--Cybermud (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Cybermud, thanks for such a kind message. It means a lot to have the support of such a hugely knowledgeable, determined and courageous editor. Although I wouldn't disagree with any of your comments, and although you haven't stated as such, it's important to emphasise that not all the issues apply to my case (and even where they do there are many others at play as well). I was driven from editing some of the articles I would have liked to edit long ago, but TBH I had accepted such a state of affairs and become used to it and was fairly happy to contribute in other ways. I don't really write with any sympathy for anyone, nor do I reserve criticism for any particular people, I just write much needed notable content that it missing and add much needed balance. It's not especially important, but you may not be aware that the amount of harassment and bad faith I was subject to had become intolerable for me even before the likes of Cailil joined in and I had actually left before then. Arguably the two worst offenders in my case are Delicious Carbuncle and Off2riorob/Youreallycan, neither of whom show as blatant biases with regards to gender issues as others. Anyway, I'd certainly appreciate any support, although I'm sure I don't' have to remind you that your comments will be scrutinised for the tiniest error by certain editors here and be held to a different standard to those attacking me. Therefore, no matter how much people try to provoke you, and no matter how outrageous the RFC/U "evidence" is, please don't be too passionate and most of all please don't stoop to their level - in other words actually base things on facts rather than making accusations unsupported by any evidence. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a bit sudden, I don't believe we ever even conversed about anything in all my 5 years here. How about dropping a note here first next time rather than going straight to the noticeboards, that's surely the proper way to do things? Anyway thanks for informing me. Out of interest, how did you come across my talk page given that the RFC/U was long since closed at the time of your post?--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You really should be continuing any conversations here and not on that noticeboard. Anyway the section was too long so I've merged the two paragraphs, I think it read better with the two cases combined anyway.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see the discussion closed so promptly. Many thanks to whoever did so.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Mary Richardson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Response
Ok. Thank you!.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valuable tips!--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD: Men and feminism
FYI, I've nominated the article "Men and feminism" for deletion. You were active on its talk page, so I thought I'd let you know.

The delete discussion is here: Articles_for_deletion/Men_and_feminism_(2nd_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equaaldoors (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's a blast from the past. Seems nothing much has improved in the couple of years since I suggested it would be better off deleted. Thanks for letting me know.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Roshonara Choudhry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Burleigh Secondary Modern School
Hi there. I notice you added Burleigh Secondary Modern School to the Non-selective secondary schools section of the List of schools in Plymouth. Please note that the school should only be added to this list if it is a currently active and open school with pupils on the roll. If the school has closed then it shouldn't be added to this list. Many thanks, Bleaney (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have reverted it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Lorraine Davidson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MEP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Huw Edwards (journalist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Conservative Party


 * Lorraine Davidson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to STV

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both fixed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ADVICE
I am genuinely grateful for the advice on content and editing. I am also aware of the dangers of contributing on matters close to home. But balance, accuracy and proportionality are vital to Wikipedia's credibility. Thanks. Huw Edwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chastelaine (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Best stick to minor edits if you really must contribute to those article, adding refs would probably be ok too and is much needed (though take care when adding BBC links).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
—Tom Morris (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of serial killers by country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Irish


 * New Statesman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Circulation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both fixed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

 * Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Roshonara Choudhry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roshonara Choudhry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Roshonara Choudhry 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 high-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.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, "She hides like a child, but she's always a woman to me" is a line from a song by Billy Joel: Prioryman (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was actually aware of that. My query concerned the relevance it had to the discussion or the edit in question. The AFD discussion doesn't really discuss the subject's gender and I already told him I wasn't female and didn't appreciate being referred to as such but then he still carries on with the same nonsense. It is very strange behaviour at the very least, though not nearly as strange as the nomination for deletion itself, nor anything like as bad as his personal attack on me. Hopefully he will heed the advice of User:TJRC--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've awarded the creator of the article a Barnstar to acknowledge that his high quality work really is appreciated and try to make something positive come out of the situation.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The result was keep (unanimous) - I could be wrong but I think there's a pattern here somewhere!.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification

 * User:Black_Kite & reply at User_talk:Cailil.  I would be interested in your rationale for such an "interaction ban". Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Calabe1992 00:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.


 * Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited Heysel Stadium disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Nicola Foot listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nicola Foot. Since you had some involvement with the Nicola Foot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). You really  can  15:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct name for the article is "Nicola Toms".--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey user - fyi - (defamatory material removed)
Hey user - fyi - see (defamatory link removed) -  You  really  can  07:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to come on this talk page and promote lies and nonsense about me, then I've a good mind to hold you to account as if you had actually written that pile of crap, note the Wikipedia harassment page states "Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia.". Your conduct here has clear further aggravating factors in that you've explicitly being asked to stay way from this page due to your behaviour towards me, and I've even provided a prominent reminder of this request at the top of this very page. There's absolutely no excuse for what you've done, so either apologise and retract your post or I will take this matter further (and what's with the "hey user" crap?, you follow me around Wikipedia enough, so you clearly know my username by now).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update, I see the above user has already been permanently blocked from Wikipedia for sending harassing emails amongst other things. That's certainly a very welcome development, though it's a shame such a course of action took so long.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of massive deletion of terrorist articles?
I think I need somebody else to help out with something I've found. One particular editor User:Transcendence has been very busy on these articles of shootings and murders that look like terrorist attacks even though authorities have made no connection to terrorism. It's almost as if somebody knew they were somehow connected, and wanted to remove them so that no one would be able to find any information on these incidents. Most are quickly saved because of massive local, national and international news coverage which supersedes one event and not news. Redhanker (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Murder of Timothy Brenton
 * Articles for deletion/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty
 * Articles for deletion/Murder of Andre Marshall
 * Articles for deletion/Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Cupertino quarry shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Frankstown Township shooting
 * Articles for deletion/2012 Azana Spa shootings
 * Articles for deletion/Tacoma Mall shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Heritage High School shooting
 * Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson
 * Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi‎


 * Apologies but i don't really have any knowledge of any of those topics so i can't really comment much. If someone does display a pattern of inappropriately submitting articles for deletion then that would be of real concern. However, glancing at one or two of those links does show a variety of opinions about one case, and another which was successfully deleted, so its not as if they're simply being disruptive. I''ve actually been on the receiving end of genuine AFD abuse so I know such a case when i see one.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Shami Chakrabarti - marital status
Hi Shakehandsman,

I'm just getting in touch about Shami Chakrabarti's marital status - sadly she is no longer with her partner, which is why we updated this two years ago to reflect the change in her personal situation. I understand why you have changed it back, but is there perhaps a compromise here? She is no longer in that relationship and her page should reflect that. Let me know your thoughts.

kind regards, Liberty-human-rights (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Liberty-human-rights
 * Do you have a reliable source for this claim? We can't just change articles based on the claims of some random Wikipedia editor. Furthermore, it was 13 months ago that you made the change, not two years. Even in August 2012 you were editing the article and left the martial information untouched. You should also note that the way you keep deleting the entire "personal life" section really isn't appropriate - even if these completely unverified claims are true, then there's still no reason to repeatedly remove all that sourced information - when a couple separate it doesn't erase the fact that they were married for 18 years.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response (even if it was a little brusque!). I'm afraid the only source I have is the woman herself as she is the director of our organisation. She has not talked about it in any interviews that can be cited because, as you can imagine, it has been a painful process for her, so it is all very difficult. Thank you for your help and understanding with this matter. kind regards Liberty-human-rights (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)liberty-human-rights
 * Well as I said before, we can't based articles on the claims of random unknown editors and the content suggesting she has separated will be removed if no source is found soon. --Shakehandsman (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No source has been provided so I'll be removing it now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(note this section appears to have been inspired by a vile off-site attack and campaign against me)
My attention has been drawn to your pattern of editing since you returned from your wikibreak last month.

Your recent editing has focused heavily on articles concerning murders and other gravely serious crimes. I have surveyed the articles that you have recently edited, categorized, and/or redirect-created. Troublingly, in virtually every one of these articles, the murderer or other criminal is either female, or a member of an ethnic minority group in the country where the crime took place (the UK or US).

This pattern of article selection, which parallels issues with your editing that were identified before your wikibreak and discussed in Requests for comment/Shakehandsman in 2012, is obviously not random. Your editing appears to be deliberately, consistently, and disproportionately weighted toward giving negative attention to women and minority group members. By doing so, you seem to be pursuing an agenda inconsistent with the principles unanimously adopted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. (By way of disclosure, I wrote the decision in that case, although I am not posting here as an arbitrator and have not discussed this matter with any other arbitrator.) Compare, also, this discussion.

I would appreciate your commenting so that I can decide whether I should take any action as an administrator and/or refer this matter to the appropriate noticeboard for discussion. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, First of all there are no "issues" with my editing and I don't appreciate that assertion. I disproved virtually every single allegation in the RFC hands-down bar one minuscule genuine mistake I made in about 2006, and its clear that most of what was written was completely ridiculous and even malicious. it is improper of an admin to come onto my talk page and assert that any "issues" exist as if it is fact - all that exists are allegations by harassers and by editors who have since been banned for harassment. I have an absolutely impeccable record here, I'm completely block free despite previously contributing to contentious topics, and as can be seen on this talk page, my conduct here is as open and honest as it gets, going well above and beyond anything required. Some people have alleged that I left wikipedia to avoid the RFC, again this is a lie and I did in fact return upon which point the RFC was reopened and then finally closed down for the nonsense that it was. The RFC was brought about by editors who were quite clearly harassing me, something I highlighted at the time. The fact that one of those has since been banned for harassment doesn't half vindicate my position.


 * I realise it is standard terminology, and i don't wish to appear pedantic, but I also reject the use of the term "wikibreak" here as it suggests something pleasant and perhaps voluntary. Lets please be absolutely clear about this matter - I was driven from this project due to harassment and wikihounding, and Wikipedia admins utterly failed to even acknowledge my concerns nevermind take action against those targeting me. I did not choose to leave - simply the situation was so bad that I was unable to contribute even the most unambiguous content to the project without facing harassment, sexism or wikihounding of some kind . If those in charge had listened too me at the time and showed the slightest concern for me, then perhaps others could have been spared the same experiences I've suffered here and the project wouldn't have lost so many good editors over the last few years. So just to emphasise once again - i did not take a "break" I was in effect unofficially suspended from the project through harassment.


 * My recent editing is exactly that - recent, and to take a tiny snapshot of my work services no real purpose, particularly when said work is relatively trivial. Categorisation of articles is something I only really moved to after been hounded out of almost all other editing - categorisation was simply my attempt to engage in work as uncontroversial as possible in order to avoid conflict and bullying (though even that failed eventually). If you've really looked into my editing I'm sure you know all about this, but if not then you can see a spell where a gang of editors targeted my contributions for deletion - thankfully they didn't have any real success, but it was still a deeply unpleasant experience seeing what they were trying to do and caused me a great deal of stress.


 * I should correct a further mistake in your description of the chronology of events - i have had not one spell away from Wikipedia but two - firstly for a one month trial, and then after the problems continues I left for over two years. It is important to understand the events that occurred as they still directly impact on my editing today.  I am looking to get back into more in depth editing and maybe even one day actually return to my number one topics of interest and real expertise, but after my previous treatment I still don't feel completely comfortable here yet and so I'm proceeding one step at a time and staying away from articles which are the mostly likely to result in me being targeted again.


 * My editing in no way targets any particular group, I certainly have taken the time to populate and even create neglected categories such as "British Politicians convicted of crimes", "murdered English children" etc though all these have mostly been through categorising existing articles rather than actually creating and significant number of additions. If people have a problem with me populating neglected categories then they're clearly opposed to having balance at Wikipedia. The vast majority of people in that first category are middle aged white British males, and virtually all the work in that category is down to me, but strangely I don't see any smears from anyone raising concerns about an "agenda" there. As for for US edits, well I barely ever edit articles concerning the US and I simply don't have the expertise to make significant contributions there either, so to even mention that country is meaningless and must be about 0.00001% of my work here. If you actually view my edits, you'll see an interest in a wide range of issues such as media biases, censorship, sexism, racism, false accusations, crimes against children and injustices such as sentencing disparities. So, really the only murder cases where I make significant contributions are ones covered up, marginalised or downplayed either by the media, or by the police or others (yet still notable of course). If you actually look properly though my work you'll see recent contributions concerning Stephen Lawrence, Stuart Hall, Tom O'Carroll, Geoffrey Prime and the Soham murders, not to mention the recent help I gave at the Murder of Joanna Yeates article and I've often just been fixing link and articles with the wrong titles. I have recently fixed EVERY single title in the various Uk murder categories (i.e. where the "murder of" title was categorised as a person)- if that meant a particular focus on any groups, well that would simply mean such a group happened to be titled incorrectly more often - I've also reverted mistakes made in categorising articles by particular editors - again its not my fault they made so many more mistakes on articles with particular demographics and it's quite clear that I went through and reverted every mistake they made regardless of the content. If people are making inappropriate edits to articles all with the same demographic or submitting such articles for deletion (and getting unanimously rejected every time) then it can only be they that have the "agenda". Similarly, if crimes covered-up typically involve parties are more likely to have particular demographics, then that's simply a problem in society and clearly not the fault of the Wikipedia editor - surely well sourced and balance contributions by editors that document such discrimination should be commended. In my experience, anyone with an "agenda" like the one you seem to be describing would be looking to delete articles such as Joanna Yeates, yet my input there surely helped save the article's FA status and improved it immeasurably! Furthermore, any accusations of racism are laughable if you actually give proper consider my areas of interest  - issues such a false allegations, not to mention fatherlessness, homelessness, and prostate cancer disproportionately impact on some ethnic minority groups, and thus adding high quality content on such topics surely disproportionately benefits said groups if anything. It's pretty clear that my world-view is about as pro-equality as it gets and is far ahead of quite a number of editors here.


 * It's true that editors with agendas creating real problems on Wikipedia do kneed exist and I can certainly think of a coupe who'd match your concerns and even spelled out their agenda for all to see and/or made some incredibly sexist or racist edits, often in areas subject to probation. No doubt though, as with those who harassed me, and as with all other similar instances, absolutely no action will be taken against them and Wikipedia will continue to be all the worse for it. Anyway, I do intend to progress away from fixing categories and miscategorissation over the next week or two and get back into more real editing, hopefully improving article ratings and focusing somewhat towards articles I have some expertise with. Then again, depending on who's behind this, maybe that won't be possible. I'd appreciate it if you could let me know if the "complaint" comes from one of my harassers (or one of those who joined in) - if that particular episode is still ongoing then obviosuly it's clearly going to be of a great deal of concern to me. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update Well I finally got round to viewing some of the links you provided, and this conversation is even more pointless than I had imagined. Nothing in that first link bares any resemblance to my contributions, I find it very misleading that you implied otherwise - any attempt to associate my editing with anything in that case constitutes a smear and I'm really not very happy about that. My record here is absolutely impeccable. In your defence, there are people out there lying about my contributions here and I can only assume you've been taken in by this to some extent. I've previously sought assistance in dealing with this issue and it would be helpful if Wikipedia admins would take the problem seriously and do what they can to help. As for your second link, I haven't read it all, but all the best arguments blew your ideas out of the water IMO. My view echoes the position of all those people, and find your stance to be completely at odds with a great many of the ideals and objectives of Wikipedia.  I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with a project that adopted the ideas you propose, and clearly a great many others would feel exactly the same way. --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above developments do further raise concerns about whoever might be behind this. I'm hoping its all an honest mistake by an innocent party, but if there's something more sinister still going on then i do surely have the right to know.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The bullying i was subject to last week now make all my concerns above more serious still. I'm really not happy about what's going on. Anyway, I'll take the total lack of a reply to be an acceptance of my arguments and concerns.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You may draw no such conclusion, but I hope your editing will be problem-free in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for finally replying, would have been nice if you'd addressed or even acknowledged even a single one of my concerns, even a word or two acknowledging the abuses i have suffered here would have meant something, but never mind. My editing will indeed be "problem-free" in the future - just as it is at present and just as it was in the past as is proven by my impeccable record. Since you've moved the discussion onto our hopes for the future, well, amongst other things, I hope you reconsider some of your terribly ill-thought out arguments in the link you provided, while I'm sure there might be good intentions behind them, they really are absolutely terrible ideas with so many flaws. As for users with problematic editing patterns displaying agendas, well there was one here right under your nose that matched exactly what you were looking for and was as blatant as it gets, though I've attempted to resolve it myself since no admins cared to bother with it (and rather worryingly, some were actually supportive of it!).--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Having given the matter some more thought, it seems I'm going to have to start taking a more pro-active stance against false allegations around here, not to mention abuse.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I should probably close this discussion with an easier to understand statement for the benefit of the average or casual reader. Quite simply, Wikipedia staff and admins have no right to dictate to respected and perfectly well behaved editors what their topics of study can or cannot be. Should anyone be successful in imposing such "creepy" restrictions on any such editor here, then the project is completely dead as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the above poster made misleading comments above and ignored all my concerns speaks volumes about the validity of his position.-Shakehandsman (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update 2, Well I've done some digging and I note that timing of this discussion fits perfectly with some similarly ridiculous material I've found elsewhere. The content in question was riddled with smears, lies and insults dirticted at myself and other editors of equally good standing. Previously I was curious as to who was behind this attack and now I've found out, I can certainly see why my query about the source for these "concerns" was met with such deafening silence, after all the source wasn't exactly a reputable or very pleasant one! I strongly suggest editors be more careful about the sites they use for getting such "information" and be rather more cautious as to exactly who they align themselves with.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Hello, please read WP:NPA concerning some of your edits about me on the following talk page. I know it is a clear topic of interest for you and your talk page suggests that you believe certain articles contain feminist bias but it is unhelpful to the discussions at hand and distracts the discussion from the article at hand, which you have made very few to no strong arguments for. Remember, comment on the content, not on the contributor. Okay? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about here, but I've already warned you about making false allegations and now you come up with this just hours later. I'm finding your editing here to be highly disruptive and tiresome, and having examined some of your comments and previous userpage links I have major concerns about your ability to edit certain topics from a NPOV perspective, particularly when considering your contribution history right from the start. Linking to and appearing to endorse such offensive content really is not appropriate, and its made all the more serious by you then echoing some of the disgusting assertions of the articles in at least one subsequent comment. Therefore I've started a section over at ANI concerning your conduct.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean the reverse sexism or reverse racism articles right? That I had on my page when I joined the website and removed after a day? I don't think the idea is disgusting, if anything it is there to prevent the appropriation of the concepts of sexism or racism by persons who do benefit from the systematical oppression of women or persons of colour. Either way, the articles are not on my page, and were not on for long --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite this, I apologise for the offense that I caused by the articles --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about that first post, but the second one is more like it, not hard to apologise. Apology accepted. I think things would have been rather worse for you were the content still in place now, so i commend you on removing the content yourself. Still, you do need to be less combative and open to suggestions from more experienced editors. Articles are not "yours" (or "mine") and you really get that idea out of your thought process if you're going to continue editing here. No doubt you'll continue to make some mistakes and that's ok, you just need to be receptive to people's concerns. A useful feature here that i'd encourage people to use is the strike text feature. If you mess up and make false statements, or even just change your mind, then you can just strike a comment, so people can understand what happened, like this Its good to see you're starting to edit a wider variety of topics here of late, even experienced editors take breaks from editing contentious topics, myself included, so as other have suggested it would be a good idea for you to do the same--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that I should have apologised. I would have preferred it if you had talked to me directly about it in the first place but I understand that after some of your harassment you may be wary of entering into a debate with an editor with views different to your own. Thank you for the strike feature, I hadn't heard of that. Anyway, thank you for your civility, I hope I have returned it Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's certainly true that the harassment I've faced makes me very wary, though my main concern was that others had already raised concerns and your receptiveness to such comments had been quite varied. Anyway, it's good to see you are building bridges with those editors now. There's still one last thing you're going to want to do - simply try re-reading your NPA message at the start of this section. Now you've calmed down a bit, you might be able to see the huge problem with it (hint - look at the "evidence" you provided).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh my god it is from 2012, I am so sorry. Have people really been trying to remove it for that long? I feel so terrible, you did not deserve that at all --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes, I think you've learned from this, so a good outcome eventually. My talk page often contains little else then other people making errors so you're far from the first. Anyway, I'm happy for the ANI to be closed now and have requested as such.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, I really am sorry, I hope I didn't cause much offense. Thank you, and again, I apologise profusely for this Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be the moment
Rather than say you're happy to apologize, I'd just do it. Think of your actions, how they may have been a bit premature in bringing a case to ANI, and make an earnest apology. Forgiveness is sometimes the best medicine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes that's what i meant, it's rather ambiguous though so I'll clarify it further. Thanks for the heads-up. I'd have probably just thrown the towel in by now were it not for you support, this place really is toxic thanks to a small minority of editors. I'd defend you against the horrible false accusations and generally nonsense you're suffering with at the moment if I felt able, but from experience I'm know it would almost certainly only result in even more bullying, harassment or general drama for me.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Really sick of the way certain people having been conducting themselves and how it wastes everyone's time, it's just incessant. I need to take a break for a few days, the atmosphere here is just not healthy. A real shame, as things really improved so much yesterday. Thanks once agin for your help--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope the ANI didn't cause you any stress. If you ever need somebody to talk to, I'm here Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more demoralising than anything. I just can't stand how some of the worst behaved people here are the ones in the most privileged positions. Were the issues not so serious/offensive and the personalities involved powerless, then the way they had dug themselves into such a hole would probably have been quite amusing. Anyway, the discussion is closed now which is at least somewhat reassuring, though it should have happened far sooner (and that would have been far more to their benefit than mine).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=607943461 your edit] to 1989 in England may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * * 26 May - Arsenal defeat Liverpool 2-0 at Anfield  to win the First Division title in most [[Liverpool F.C. 0–2 Arsenal F.C. (26 May 1989)|dramatic
 * Fixed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:People educated at Grimsby Institute of Further &#38; Higher Education
Category:People educated at Grimsby Institute of Further &, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Seeing as its only a rename proposal and not one of the previous attempts to delete such categories then I'll pass on participating (I'm happy with either title, just as long as the category exists).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Earlier indiscretions"
I actually feel I should respond to this part. Those accusations made on ANI by you were almost entirely argued against by the community and almost resulted in WP:BOOMERANG against yourself. The mistake I made was a talk page post and has no bearing on my other editing. Definitely not "earlier indiscretions" either way. For the record, I wasn't following you around, they were edits connected to two specific articles and both cases were in my watchlist. After the first edit, I looked for the rest. In other words, it isn't about you, but edits that you made relating to two specific articles. There's no need to be paranoid --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no paranoia on my part, and I don't appreciate such a suggestion. You seem to be displaying an unhealthy interest in my work, the evidence is clear. Even putting aside the following around aspect for a second, todays examples were still particularly problematic as there were BLP violations added on top of the deletion of important content. Had i done such a thing I'd have apologised immediately, instead you just delete the comment from your talk page and make unhelpful remarks which really isn't a good way to handle such matters. Quite frankly, I fail to see how you could arrive at a single one of those articles via your watchlist, none of the nine pages in question would show there. No one had touched the Lee Rigby article for several days, the talk page hadn't been touched all month and I hadn't edited there since April either, therefore all today's first 3 problematic edits  can only have resulted from you following me around. The fourth edit you made today was to the Northampton Crown Court article, an article of which I was the sole editor all this year and it's nor related to Rigby anyhow, again indicating yet more following. Also, for the record, the articles I have concerns about related to at least three separate topics, not two, i.e. Lee Rigby, Kriss Donald and Ross Parker). As for Boomeranging, my risk of being hit by those was minuscule compared to a certain Kevin Gorman who probably had several heading his way by the end of things  (and who doesn't constitute a "community" either). I came out very much on top by the end of proceedings and with my reputation completely intact and possibly enhanced (as indeed did you at the time in all fairness). Anyway, you do indeed have a number of earlier indiscretions, and you've apologised for them and deleted the problematic content voluntarily so they're not too relevant in themselves, but they would be relevant evidence if there are concerns about possible wikihounding. As far as I'm concerned your inexperience appears to be the only valid defence for what has happened but it's a defence I'd be more than happy to accept if you promise to stop and acknowledge what has happened. If on the other hand you do have a more credible and accurate explanation for the editing pattern in question then I'd be more than happy to hear that as an alternative. Much of the defence above just just doesn't stack up, and if anything that's just making things worse. Anyway, thanks for finally deciding to engage in a discussion about this matter, that at least is a good improvement on simply deleting the material from your talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest I deleted it at first because I find you largely intimidating. I felt I should reply though as I accept parts of your message and reject others outright. That's the nature of debates though. Murder of Ross Parker was edited on the 16th. That was only a few days ago and I have around one thousand articles on my watchlist. I tend to just go through the ones of interest first. I did follow the rest of the page edits by you after that though, I figured it was largely acceptable if the edits were linked and I've experienced users following multiple page changes by myself before and reverting them. I suppose my main issue is I was a little confused as to why you felt the killers needed to be added to the surname and forename list pages as the case, whilst notable, doesn't mean they are significant as killers themselves, and none of them have their own Wikipedia articles. I felt that, rather than having every person who looks up that name see "racist killer" or "Islamist murderer", it might be better to use less charged terminology. It's also incorrect to equate Islamist to Radical Islamist. The other articles have been changed to say "racially motivated" rather than racist which to be honest is the correct terminology. In fact, as I stand all of those edits did need tweaking. The only one that was a mistake was the one regarding the attacks. For the record I didn't touch the article itself. My point was I don't have "earlier indiscretions", you just didn't like my edits and went to ANI based on them. Is this precedent as I don't see it on other names? Do we just list the victims of murders perpetuated by Muslims? Or is it an area that needs more work? They would certainly be notable if they had articles but it seems a bit much to do it for every person involved. Are we set to start adding information for every murder case to every list of names? I don't understand how that fits with your many edits like these / that have articles. It was eleven years ago and the killers were caught. It was a big story at the time but I don't know if it's defining for the first name Awan. For the record, I do apologise for the edits, mostly because they weren't as well thought out as they could be. I don't think your edits were perfect either. That said, I do think they read better now, and this is not about you, you oughtn't flatter yourself. If you make edits to the website, then other people can change, and if I did have an unhealthy interested in your edits, I wouldn't spend so much time editing in other areas. The list of people called Awan is not your talk page or sandbox. You have done a lot of work in the area and I appreciate that, but it is not yours, it belongs to the community --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there was nothing wrong with the term "racist". Multiple reliable sources used it to describe the events in question in those terms as did even the judge in at least one case and without it the content loses important context. "Racially motivated" is a slight improvement that I introduced, but it does have the disadvantage of being less concise which is an important factor in this particular context. Including neither is the worst case scenario by far because it removed key sourced content. I think the Awan page is still perhaps problematic as you've caused it to effectively link to the article twice now and that's not within policy and seems undue too. Generally, as you seem to indicate, we try not to focus too much on the persons involved, as in most of these cases its the event itself that is most notable. Therefore, where possible, the person's name doesn't usually become a wikilink itself and instead the text afterwards about the event itself does (this has the added benefit of making the entry less prominent). A lot of the pages in question are actually indexes or disambiguation pages, so what we're doing is simply helping people to find out about the crime based on them knowing the name of the perpetrator. In contrast, that first example you compare these edits to is an article about an actual town, it's not any sort of index or list by any stretch of the imagination. Important articles about places, institutions etc tend to only include people with full BLPs (in many such cases you'll see a helpful warning message saying "no redirects" when you attempt to make an edit, therefore meaning absolutely no "murder of" type links). Your second link is a more interesting comparison because it concerns a list and is therefore at least a little more of a borderline scenario. However, seeing as the person's disappearance did not occur in the location the list is concerned with, then the case for including the content is quite weak, hence my edit (though there could be other lists relating to other crimes where one might be able to make a case for inclusion). While I've got your attention i really must debunk your "it was eleven years ago" comment above. This argument is completely meaningless and suggests you don't fully understand notability yet. Either an event is notable or it is not - how recently it occurred is of zero relevance, if something meets GNG then its likely to be here forever. There's actually a real problem on Wikipedia with recentism, we have far too much irrelevant and non-notable material here from the present day, whilst a real lack of information from event even 15 or 20 years ago. People get caught up in current events and completely lose historical perspective and this is something i really try to avoid as much as possible and even try to combat. Your "killers were caught" moment also makes no sense - were they not caught and convicted then it would be a major BLP violation to list them in any of the locations in question. Anyway, I'm glad you've admitted to following me around and I'm happy to accept it as the mistake of a relatively new editor and appreciate your apology. Without going into any detail I should probably disclose that I am actually fully aware of other events apparently involving yourself that occurred at around the same time, so the "unhealthy interest" claim does seem to stand up. I should point out that a defence of doing other work here would not really have a great deal of bearing in possible Wikihouding cases. Similarly, if other people have done the same to you then that's no real excuse either, though you need to bear in mind that following someone around in itself doesn't constitute Wikihounding and their behaviour may well be perfectly OK if they're being civilised and behaving themselves, even if they're reverting you. Wikihounding only comes into play when you follow someone AND make problematic edits or disrupt their experience here in some way, with those BLP violations being a clear case in point. I'd honestly advise you not to follow editors around too much unless they're causing problems, generally its best to disengage where possible. As you allude to above, there's so much to do here and this sort of thing can be a real waste of everyone's time (yours included). If you really must follow people around from place to place, AND you start altering significant numbers of edits they've made in various different articles, then you're basically walking a tightrope and you're obliged to try to ensure you get things right - you certainly shouldn't be introducing significant BLP violations and making articles worse, and the lack of edit summaries just compounded maters further still. Use the talk page in a similar situation in future. You say you find me "intimidating", but I've already received thanks from other editors for the content of that message I sent to you which would indicate it was civil and quite well written (and it's not from persons I've even had any contact with before or even anyone you've been in dispute with as far as I can tell). Perhaps try to put yourself in the shoes of other editors - imagine if an editor went round following you and adding BLP violations whilst removing key parts of your work and then made unhelpful comments to you after you asked them to stop. That's intimidating - an appropriate talk page message and people putting right blatant BLP violations is not.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just writing this to note that I did see the message and I accept what was said. I don't know if it was you or not but it left its impact - I was careless about using my name and have requested oversight. Either way, you won't have to worry about me again --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't participate much at all previously, but its nice to get to have a say now, I hope we can actually get some of these BLPs to their correct titles. Thanks for the notification.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2001 in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keystone State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)