User talk:Shakehandsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whilst I try to get along with everyone here, I politely request those operating the following accounts no longer post on this is page due to their conduct towards me and others and I'd ask that other be aware of their behaviour towards me [1]

Please bear in mind that I really don't appreciate sexism or those with a record of anti-gender equality contributions (particularly if working together in organised groups). Regrettably, due to the present biases on Wikipedia, anyone with a misandrist or gender feminist outlook or background is respectfully asked not to post here please. For the avoidance of doubt anyone involved in gender studies is welcome so long as they can edit neutrally or reject any prevailing sexist gender studies ideologies.

Tyler Clementi as a notable in Ridgewood, New Jersey[edit]

Your recent edit to the article for Ridgewood, New Jersey removed Tyler Clementi as a notable resident, with an edit summary of "remove Clementi, case is notable, person is not (no redirects)". However, as I read WP:LISTPEOPLE, Clementi would be exactly the case of where an "exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event". Can you point to any "no redirects" policy as specified in your edit summary or do you see why an entry for Clementi wouldn't be appropriate based on this guideline? Feel free to respond on my talk page. Alansohn (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied on talk page as requested.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murder of Anthony Walker may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Questions of murder | date=1 December 2005|accessdate=29 July 2011}}</ref><ref name=BBCcomplaint>{{Cite web|last= The BBC Trust | url=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fran Unsworth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West 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) 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Helen Boaden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Scarborough and Tony Hall
Fran Unsworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Newswatch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Shawnee Mission West[edit]

So, I'm new to doing editing things on Wikipedia, but I go to Shawnee Mission West High School. I saw that you took down Kelsey Smith on the notable alumni section. You said that the event is notable, but not her. First of all it's disrespectful to her memory, and because of her there was a law created to prevent an event like that happening again. Plus there is a foundation (The Kelsey Smith Foundation) that does a lot of charity work in honor of her. She is also notable to the west family, and to all the people who support the Kelsey Smith Foundation. I respectfully ask that you put her back in the notable alumni section.Macqumc (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ross Parker[edit]

Shakehandsman it has been a long time since I have edited Wikipedia and things have obviously changed. If the Ross Parker who was a murder victim is your relative I am sorry. I mean no disrespect. Bwaybaby77 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message, no offence taken. More coverage of either ones of the Parkers has to be a good thing.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shakehandsman. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 06:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Just wanted to thank you for your comments on the recent attempt at the AN to topic ban me on men's rights related articles. It was disconcerting to see Sonicyouth86 attempt to sling mud at you there -- sorry for that.

Looking over your Talk page, I see you have endured similar experiences as a target of wikilawyering by gender feminists. No fun.

Again, thanks. Memills (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a small number of feminist activist editors on Wikipedia who hold a lot of power here and will attempt to silence any opposition to their POV pushing. They will look for any excuse to ban their opponents so they can dominate gender related articles, and they'll even invent such an excuse should none exist. Many outstanding editors have been driven from the project due to such intimidation and harassment and my track record here is as good as almost anyone, yet even I got to be on the receiving end. Regrettably, there are totally different standards that apply to the warning/blocking of editors depending on their stance on gender issues and you really need to ensure you don't allow yourself to be baited or to snap as a result of the harassment you receive, you're playing right into their hands when you do this. I suggest you try to stay out of the drama that certain people round here are so fond of creating and while you should ignore any comments from obviously biased editors trying to bait you, you really do need to start listening to any advice and guidance when it comes from politically neutral editors, the following is a particularly good example of you failing to do so [3] Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, ironically, even my comment thanking you above was used in just the fashion you describe[4].
Fortunately, you and others are noticing the pattern (see this and this by Cybermud (talk).
Lesson learned: controversial articles on WP can be "sanitized" and commandeered. One way that is being done is to control the reference sources (e.g., disallow non-feminist sources as "not-RS"). One commenter at the AN was even transparent enough to state that they thought it was inappropriate to include sources by men's rights authors(!) Some believe just providing accurate information about the MRM at WP is 'promoting their agenda' or 'giving them a platform.' With that kind of thinking "Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought."[5]
Perhaps the truth eventually will trump attempts to suppress free expression at WP. It did in this case. But it is a sad statement about WP that it took so much virtual ink and effort. Memills (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Davidson[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP trumps your somewhat shrill cry for community consensus on such a contentious matter. You may have noticed that the category is discussed for deletion: if you cannot guess from that very fact, and from the overwhelming majority favoring deletion, that this is a contentious paragraph, then you probably shouldn't be editing BLPs. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a lovely message and my apologies for following the rules. I suggest maybe you ought to try to learn a little more about the 88 as I find your remarks about the issue quite insensitive and ill-informed --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Which "following the rules"? Drmies (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
We've already been through that. Anyway, I see you've completely ignored my main concerns above, which is disappointing but not exactly surprising I suppose but makes any conversation here a complete waste of time. I'm about as open to sensible discussion as anyone, in fact I don't think I've ever had to close a conversation here in my 7 years on Wikipedia, but I guess there's a first time for everything.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

::*If your main concern is my supposed insensitivity and lack of knowledge, yeah, I chose to ignore that low blow. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fighting for my Wikipedia life[edit]

This is what I feel like right now. A proposal to ban my completely from both BLPs and Categories has received support from about 4 editors. This is extremely disturbing. I am not even sure what to do. I am just frustrated by how often such things occur. It is almost as bad as when there was an attempted BLP ban on my for a complex edit, which was more over what was "pornographic" than anything else. This whole thing is frustrating and I have yet to see any defense, or even recognition that I have shown a willingness to compromise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there are a few editors who are out to get you, I don't really know the history or the full story but even to an outsider such as myself I can see there's a witch-hunt going on. However, as others have indicated, you really shouldn't give them any ammunition. People are obviously seeking to hold you to a higher standard than most other editors and they'll be busy inventing supposed ammunition anyway. Anyway, by all means continue to ignore any "advice" of the less helpful editors around here, but there are actually some of us who are here to help the project. Therefore when a respected and genuinely neutral editor such as Obi has some advice for you then most of the time it's going to be in your interest to actually take notice. Also I think another mistake you make is to assume that other are equally as informed about a topic as you are - Wikipedia editors can be remarkable ignorant about some topics, the Duke Lacrosse case being a painfully obvious example of this--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between Lynn Turner and Stacey Castor?[edit]

I see that you have added Lynn Turner (murderer) as a "see also" to Stacey Castor (and vice versa) but it isn't clear how the two articles are related. What is the relationship between the two cases? Nigel Pap (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

When two murderers have a similar profile, an identical and quite unusual method of killing, the same type of victim, live in the same country, operate around approximately the same time period as each other, and both gain from life insurance payouts as a result of the death of their victims then the similarly between the two really couldn't be much stronger or clearer. They're just about the most justifiable/obvious "see alsos" on any Wikipedia crime article I can think of! To be honest, your query comes across as a little strange, perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of such sections?--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought you were implying that there was some connection between the two women. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Well there is one connection in that one case suggested the victim and been inspired by the other. However, this isn't necessary for a "see also", though obviously is helpful that sources often mention both cases together. Wikipedia is an academic resource, the main topic in question is anti-freeze poisoning, and readers viewing one case and will also wish to know about one that's so remarkably similar.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Ross Parker[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I have left some comments for you about Murder of Ross Parker and possible changes needed before it is approved for featured article status. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification but you don't need to message me about such things as I've got that page on my watch list, I'm participating regularly there and I'm fully aware of you following me around Wikipedia anyhow.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Your lack of response to my comments made me assume that you hadn't seen them. Are you ignoring my comments or do you intend to address them? Nigel Pap (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I prioritised answering the comments which made valid points and clearly required action or where there was at least some uncertainty that required further discussion. For example there was the excellent suggestion of submitting the article to the guild of copy editors which I had to deal with. My time is limited and therefore educating users about basic policy and replying to obvious non-issues is less of a priority. Anyway. I've replied now, but there doesn't seem to be a thing you've raised that requires any attention. While we're on the topic of educating users, perhaps you'd like to read up on our Wikihounding polices. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as the Wikihounding policy is rather well written and I didn't actually provide this link WP:HOUND previously, then perhaps I had better be a bit more thorough and quote the relevant parts: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Now i note you don't deny following me from place to place all around Wikipedia, and you have followed me to topics completely unrelated to each other, whilst contributing little else to the project, furthermore, you start following me around right from your first edit (with a small break from doing so a while ago). Your repeated denials of the blatant conflicts of interest of IP editors at the Cathy Davidson article are remarkably non-neutral, and reverts of my work such as this one [[6]] are most unhelpful too. You've left quite bizarre messages on this very page querying the most innocuous edits of mine, and surely any reasonable editor can surely see that a "see also" is more than valid for two poisoners, both from the same country, of similar ages, both killing their husbands, in the same era, for the same reason and both using anti-freeze as poison. too! In the FA discussion, all other commenters have made well argued points, the vast majority of which resulted in improvements to the article, thus helping it move closer to FA status. In your case, your arrival at the FA page is the very first time you've participated in any type of article review or assessment, with many of your "points" adding nothing to the discussion, often showing a complete failure to understand basic policy. You then complain about the fact that I prioritised addressing and resolving what are clearly valid concerns which helped improve the article, ahead of your comments. Now, aside from regularly misquoting me, you've remained quite polite throughout all of the above and there's no single incident that would in itself be of the concern to anyone. However, if we look at the pattern of what's going on then it's a completely different story.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Following the Category:Group of 88 episode, I took an interest in your other edits and the edits of the other editors involved. You nominated an article for featured article status and asked for comments. I gave you comments. Please try to read and respond to those comments as you would from any other editor. We obviously disagree on interpretation of Wikipedia policy, but I hope we can agree to disagree and allow other editor's to form a consensus. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Other editors would have received exactly the same replies to comments in question and many of my responses are quite lengthy, they are based upon sources and policy and go into significant detail. There are some 4.5 million articles on Wikipedia which I don't edit, perhaps you could help improve some of those? And while feedback in a FA discussion is welcome (as I already indicated), it would help if you familiarised yourself with at least a few more of our basic policies, that way you won't end up posting lengthy lists on non-issues which fail to help improve Wikipedia.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to your comments[edit]

Please take another look at Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. and reconsider your decision. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why?--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Verification, creds, links[edit]

I have several books including two anthologies I edited, won two NJ State Arts Council Fellowships, one in prose and one in poetry, won the Kinereath Genseler Award for my book Panic (also a BOTYA finalist) with Alice James Books, and there are a ton of links to my work on line. A quick search pulls these up. If they need to be linked on the page, then that would be great, but calling the page into question is inappropriate as my creds are in line with many other poets' pages:

some Books and anthologies I have written or edited:

Reviews or comments on my work:

Interviews of me or by me:

Radio or Videos of me or me interviewing other writers:

Examples of poems online:

I teach in these two writing venues, one an annual conference, the other an MFA program:

Other things I have written that appear on Web:

How does this get resolved? Lmccullough (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, though as the page stands I'm not going to be changing my mind. FYI people tend not to be too fond of editors spamming such lengthy and identical content on the talk page of every single user who voted delete and it would have been much more appropriate to post the material to the AFD discussion. I see others have alleged that your publisher has been spamming Wikipedia too and these things really aren't helpful. On top of this you appear to have attacked at least one person who voted delete, you also deny the existence of the most blatant COI issues and fail to understand our polices in this area and to top it all off you then play the sexism card based upon zero evidence. Take as a whole, this comes across as bullying, which is something a lot of people here detest. If you really want the article to be kept then work on finding better sources (and get rid of all the inappropriate ones), seek assistance in making improvements and learn about our conflict of interest policies and agree to accept them.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr.[edit]

Hi, Just letting you know that I’ve added a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. I tried pinging you, but that doesn’t seem to work. Thanks  NQ  talk 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work, your level of patience is quite commendable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOCE request of Murder of Ross Parker[edit]

Hi, I've completed my copy edit of the article. You'll note that I didn't do much editing in the latter parts of the article as I found them on the whole to be well written. Blackmane (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for you work, I guess my standard of writing must have improved as I went along. I've reverted one small change you made as it was part of a quote, therefore even though the grammar wasn't ideal, we don't really get to change that. In the FA review there's some concern with the wording to the sentence in the lede (the one dealing with redefining racism). Some suggest its awkwardly worded so perhaps you could take another look at that, or alternatively confirm you think it's ok? Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing question[edit]

I have asked for someone to identify the source of a statement in the lede of Murder of Ross Parker ("a gang of up to ten Muslim youths of Pakistani background"). You are probably best able to answer that question. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Times of London reported: "Muslims have offered a reward of £1,000 after a white youth was killed by a gang of Asians. Asian community leaders and representatives from mosques in Peterborough offered the money after the fatal stabbing of Ross Parker, 17... After the fatal attack in Peterborough, Muslim leaders placed flowers and offered sympathy to the teenager's friends at a spot close to the cycle path where about ten Asian youths ambushed and killed him." (Kennedy, Dominic (24 September 2001). "Muslims offer reward to find Asian gang behind white youth's death". The Times (London). p. 3. ) Keri (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Keith Allan[edit]

You've made several edits on lists claiming the murdered solicitor is not notable. He was a very important figure in Victorian harness racing, and founded the Victorian Standardbred Owners Association with football great Jack Collins. A number of references were made to his activities in harness racing after his death in the Victorian media. He also represented several criminals in his legal practice who have had considerable notoriety.Perhaps some reference ought to be made with approprate sources given, on the relevant page. I know that in the UK, where I come from and I suspect you do too, harness racing is not a very important sport and most people have never heard of it, but in France, the United States, Australia and New Zealsnd it is a big sport. I do not believe that he is not a notable figure and consideration ought to be given to a reversal.Noreen45 (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:People educated at Great Sankey High School[edit]

Category:People educated at Great Sankey High School, 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. SFB 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Liberty Article[edit]

Did you realise that the PIE section on the Liberty article had been hidden in the long grass? Also, the editor who repeatedly deleted the PIE info and merged it is a well-known abuser of Wikipedia employing sockpuppets. Twobells (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)