Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:10, 5 November 2011

Whilst I try to get along with everyone here, I politely request the following no longer post on this is page until their conduct towards me improves please:

• User:Off2riorob
• User:Slp1

Also please bear in mind that I really don't appreciate sexism or those with a record of sexist contributions (particularly if working together in organised groups). In particular anyone with a gender feminist outlook or background is asked not to post here please. For the avoidance of doubt and in light of recent events on Misplaced Pages, anyone involved in gender studies is assumed to be a gender feminist unless I am aware of clear evidence to the contrary.

Users should please be aware that I'm subject to a Wikihounding campaign by the banned editor User:Truesayer and his many socks. The relevant SPI can be found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truesayer. Any help reporting further socks and IPs is encouraged and much appreciated.

Archives

/Archive 1

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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♦ 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♦ 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages: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/Talk:Harriet_Harman#Archiving_this_page.

Thanks for your heads up but it didn't work and it is getting rather heated, entire tracks of talk history are being deleted and I have been threatened with blocking, it seems that one editor is saying factual information is a 'slur' and can be deleted at will. Twobells (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well if you wanted to dedicate a whole section to the issue than that would be undue though even then still not really even a slur, I don't believe you're trying to do that, although editors are within their rights to insist the issue is settled in the talk page (though of course you've also been denied that opportunity now). I hope you manage to resolve the issue, just be sure to keep any suggestions concise and fully inline with the sources and you should be fine. Also whilst I realise you've been treated rather badly at times, don't react against this by becoming too rigid in your views, sometimes we have to compromise, and if you were to put forward a broader summary of her work at NCCL then you'll probably gain further support. Finally do bear in mind that talk page comments are subject to BLP rules and your language needs to be just as robust and well sourced as your actual article edits, please don't let the frustrations caused by other editors get to you and reduce the quality or precision of your contributions. Anyway the best of luck to you, if you're passionate about this issue be sure to keep an eye on the NCCL article also as there have been suspicious edits there also (though by entirely different parties at least).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was put it into the main body of the article after coming to a sort of consensus last year on approach, anyway thanks very much for your advice, best wishes.Twobells (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. By the way if you're looking to make complaints about people derailing and stifling discussion then you (and every recent poster) has missed this diff which is pretty bad also and makes your case significantly stronger. Of course it could easily be a mistake rather than anything deliberate but still shows poor judgement and/or a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages rules and User:Rrius deserves some credit for his rubuttal.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I just don't know enough about the policies to counter flagrant abuse, I will try to gen up on what's acceptable and what's not when it comes to what I consider npov censorship as well as research the complaints procedure and perhaps even start looking at IP sources as I am starting to get the feeling that there may be vested interests here. Twobells (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Edit warning"

Hi, I noticed that you gave me an edit warning recently with regards to minor edits. I have been on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages has strict policies about making such comments about living persons, and no doubt due to present obvious Misplaced Pages 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)