User talk:Shakehandsman

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:

• User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan Evidence: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

• User:Slp1 Evidence: [[7]][[8]]
• User:Truesayer and his many socks See: [9]

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 gender feminist outlook or background is respectfully asked not to post here please. For the avoidance of doubt anyone involved in gender studies is included in this request unless there is evidence of neutral editing or they reject current prevailing gender studies ideologies.

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 Wikipedia:RFD#Ross Parker. 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 Wikipedia: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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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 Wikipedia: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 [10] 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[11].--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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I posted the Michael Flood alert before creating this account. thanks HB03 (talk) 06:44, 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)

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 [12], 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 Wikipedia: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)

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.[13]--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:59, 5 January 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shakehandsman. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good luck with that. You please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding.2C_attack_and_disruptive_editing_by_Delicious_carbuncle. 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)

Civility barnstar

		Civility Award
		Please accept this for the calm and reasonable way you respond to criticism, no matter how far fetched, barbed or obtuse that criticism may be. Exok (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 {{helpme}} 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 {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} 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 {{helpme}} 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 {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} 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 {{helpme}} 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 {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} 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 {{helpme}} 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 {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} 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)

Test

test

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)