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]

• User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan (now permanently blocked)
• User:Slp1
• User:Truesayer and his many socks See: [2] (now permanently blocked)
• User:Delicious carbuncle

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.

Archives

1, 2

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)[reply]

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

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= http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thought you were implying that there was some connection between the two women. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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:

http://www.blacklawrence.com/rigger-death-and-hoist-another/ http://syracuseuniversitypress.syr.edu/fall-2013/room-and-the-world.html http://alicejamesbooks.org/ajb-titles/panic/ http://www.blacklawrence.com/speech-acts/ http://www.ugapress.org/index.php/books/index/sense_of_regard

Reviews or comments on my work:

http://www.wordforword.info/vol18/Pollard.html http://thelinebreak.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/laura-mcculloughs-speech-acts/ http://thepotomacjournal.com/issue9/laura_mccullough.html http://contrarymagazine.com/2011/laura-mccullough-speech-acts/ http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/laura_mccullough_reading_recom/

Interviews of me or by me:

http://nanofiction.org/weekly-feature/interviews/2013/10/five-questions-with-laura-mccullough http://tcjww.org/2014/02/10/interview-laura-mccullough/ http://www.poetsandartists.com/laura-mccullough/ http://realitysandwich.com/389/what_men_want_interview_laura_mccullough/ http://poems.com/special_features/prose/essay_hicok2.php http://poetsonadoption.blogspot.com/2011/04/laura-mccullough.html

Radio or Videos of me or me interviewing other writers:

http://www.leahbrowning.net/Apple/Fall_2009/Laura_McCullough.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LAYKLSZVWo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfTrWCIJ8_4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15sRlWAN2fU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP0hTQee-9w

Examples of poems online:

http://goodmenproject.com/author/laura-mccullough/ http://www.tupeloquarterly.com/everywhere-i-havent-been-anywhere-by-laura-mccullough/ http://solsticelitmag.org/author/laura-mccullough/ http://www.leahbrowning.net/Apple/Fall_2009/Laura_McCullough.html http://www.versedaily.org/2014/aboutlauramccullough.shtml https://www.aprweb.org/poem/speaking-malagasy-isle-vanilla http://www.anomalouspress.org/8/26.mccullough.bowie.php http://www.diodepoetry.com/v4n2/content/mccullough_l.html http://www.drunkenboat.com/db18/laura-mccullough http://www.fishousepoems.org/?artist=mccullough-laura http://referentialmagazine.com/contributors/m-o/laura-mccullough/ http://www.connotationpress.com/a-poetry-congeries-with-john-hoppenthaler/2010/february-2010/307-laura-mccullough-poetry http://anti-poetry.com/anti/mcculloughla/ http://www.pebblelakereview.com/archive/2009_v6_1_health_wellness/poem_SweetSick.html

http://www.2river.org/2RView/11_4/poems/mccullough.html http://www.wordriot.org/template.php?ID=743 http://baltimorereview.org/index.php/fall_2013/contributor/laura-mccullough http://www.tarpaulinsky.com/Summer03/LMCunt.htm

http://www.madhattersreview.com/issue13/fiction_mccullough.shtml

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

http://www.sierranevada.edu/academics/humanities-social-sciences/creative-writing-mfa/mfa-faculty/ http://wintergetaway.com/poetry-faculty.html

Other things I have written that appear on Web:

http://www.blacklawrence.com/title-as-invitation-poetry-contests-as-dinner-party-by-laura-mccullough/

http://www.cortlandreview.com/features/14/spring/mccullough.php

http://hub.gmnews.com/news/2006-04-06/Front_page/028.html http://hub.gmnews.com/news/2006-04-06/Front_page/028.html

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Walkwounded|multiple sockpuppets. Twobells (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Souad Faress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West London. 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) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shakehandsman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your update at Murder of Joey Fischer! I hope you enjoy the virtual cookie. MX (✉ • ✎) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create duplicate categories with different capitalization like this. There should only be a single category for any given scope. Other spellings, capitalizations, etc., should be redirected to the in-use category if necessary. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I initially got the capitalisation wrong and then couldn't figure out how to delete the category.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alison Saunders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leyland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 you created a redirect, at Kamel Bourgass. We don't create a standalone article on every murderer, only on murderers who are genuinely notable; measure up ot the GNG...

I wonder whether Bourgass measures up to the GNG? He has had ongoing press coverage, for a long period of time, and that press coverage has covered more aspects of his life than his alleged commission of murder, and his trial.

As the person who created the redirect, do you care to weigh in, at Talk:Murder of Stephen Oake?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Graham Berkeley. Since you had some involvement with the Graham Berkeley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jane Beatty. Since you had some involvement with the Jane Beatty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oliver Bennett. Since you had some involvement with the Oliver Bennett redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michele Beale. Since you had some involvement with the Michele Beale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dinah Webster. Since you had some involvement with the Dinah Webster redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neil Cudmore. Since you had some involvement with the Neil Cudmore redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gavin Cushny. Since you had some involvement with the Gavin Cushny redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the WP:RCAT you were kind enough to send me, but I couldn't find a contradiction to the WP policy link I sent you that was pointed out to me by a different admin. Enlighten me please? StonyBrook (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain on your talk page rather than here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the misunderstanding has been cleared up now. I am wary though of future problems arising due to the discussion matter not receiving clear mention over at WP:RCAT. I think more clarity, with a few examples, would help some. StonyBrook (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree 100% that the text and examples could be clearer. Anyway I've reverted your edits and therefore restored the cats to the appropriate places.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Toddst1. Your recent edit to the page July 18 appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Murderer? Really? Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really. She just recently lost her appeal against her conviction. It's all in the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not aware but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. The article about the person you added to February 3 did not have any source that I could add to this page to back up your addition so this change has been undone. If you restore it, please provide a direct reliable source. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fixed it now. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohammed Sajid 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/Mohammed Sajid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Sheldybett (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, though I just created the page as a redirect, not as an article so I have no real view on the issue. That said, it's useful to know that someone took over the redirect for a completely different individual without making a replacement, so I'll try to fix that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updated ref 36, this is much clearer than the previous one. I will rejig the other ref to distinguish between the one that mentions her Christianity and the one that states which church she attends. Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1950 in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Co-operative Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake in your edit there. Your source for Smollett's date of birth is an article about the shooting of Ronald Reagan. Vcuttolo (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, it lists birthdays on that article too. The article is basically about the 21st of June. Thanks for the message though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Straight Statistics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; all I can find is directory-tier entries such as Companies House and Statistician Association, which all companies and statisticians will have.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SITH (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tend not to be allocated to the 'history ' of states - the murder/crime category trees are sufficient. By precedence the history categories of each state would be too full of everything if they were to include murders - whereas crime and murder are categories to carry that. JarrahTree 05:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't understand your point here, I categorised two events as part of the history of Perth (a city), not as part of the history of any state. You're absolute correct that they're not typically included as part of the history of the state, however I haven't done that and it is appropriate to add them as part of the history of the specific town/city location. Ultimately, both articles need to be in one Perth-related category at the very least and that was a problem I fixed.Shakehandsman (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your 3 edits as the source does not appear to support that he was at Lancaster University nor that he is a criminal. --Bduke (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancaster University ref is page 24.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olivia Jade 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/Olivia Jade until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Isingness (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but FYI I didn't actually create that article. I just made the redirect before the article even existed.Shakehandsman (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paramus Catholic High School alumni, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James Silcox. Since you had some involvement with the James Silcox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification.Shakehandsman (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to refer you to my remarks on Talk:Diane Pappas. I believe your conclusion that those are good sources is incorrect. The sources are conservative publications disguised as newspapers as demonstrated in the Chicago Tribune's April 6, 2018 article Conservative Illinois publications blur lines between journalism, politics and the Chicago Reader's March 29, 2017 editorial If your community news is slanted, Dan Proft may be to blame. I think those sources (and really the section as a whole) should be reconsidered.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and for the notification, I've posted a reply in the discussion on the article talk page (and made a few further improvements to the article too).Shakehandsman (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort to find a response from a Democrat, but I think you may have missed my major point. Those sources (including the added Peoria Standard) are not newspapers. They are perpetual 24/7 negative advertisements. To cite them at all IMHO is wrong. The other changes to the article are great. Thank you.--Mpen320 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Angela Allen (paedophile). Since you had some involvement with the Angela Allen (paedophile) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shakehandsman,

In an administrator's discussion about banning a user, this was written about you:

If Tots is sanctioned for their edits, the the edits of any editor particularly active in that area should also be examined. Looking at those articles, it appears that Shakehandsman fits the bill.

As a member of the Wikipedia community, you are entitled and encouraged to share your views in this discussion. MamaLioness (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]