User talk:Daschund

Welcome!
Welcome...

Hello, Daschund, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Sandi Thom
Hi Daschund!

I've reverted your recent changes to Sandi Thom - sorry! The reason I did that is that you removed a lot of cited text, and also the "References" section (where references are displayed).

Could I make a couple of suggestions?
 * 1) Firstly, please preview your changes before clicking "Save page" - it'll help you check that you're not breaking anything ;-)
 * 2) Secondly, leave an edit summary explaining why you're making the change.

On that second point, many editors will see a removal of text as vandalism and revert it (and warn or even block the editor who removed the text). I assumed from your first edit that you were trying to improve the article, so I didn't feel you were a vandal.

Hope this helps, and if you need to discuss the article or any aspect of editing on Wikipedia do please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Sandi Thom has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Versus22 talk 23:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: sandi thom
Hi Daschund!

Apart from a few reservations, your work on this article seems fine to me. I don't work for Wikipedia; I'm just another editor like yourself. I do have Sandi Thom on my watchlist, but mostly to watch for vandalism - I don't know nearly enough about the subject to comment on or revert good faith edits.

I mentioned some reservations - my main one is that Wikipedia articles have to be neutral; they should be written from the point of view of a completely neutral commentator - not from either a fan or a critic. This doesn't mean that we can't write about good and bad stuff - indeed, we should - just that the overall tone should be neutral. Read the neutral point of view policy page for more information.

Another reservation is that you seem to be assuming that the article is critical and that it was written by critics. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know if that's a fair viewpoint or not, but you should be careful about what you say in your edit summaries - criticising other editors who have worked on the article is probably not a good idea. Just because the article contains critical comments doesn't mean that the editors who added them are necessarily being critical - the article should provide an accurate and balanced picture of the subject. Like I said, I don't know enough about the subject to know if that's the case or not - but do please assume good faith about other editors. A number of editors have worked on the article and to be honest I'd be surprised if the article was overly critical.

That's the reservations out of the way! Now for a few points that should help you work effectively on this and other articles.
 * Use the article's talk page (in this case it's here, and you can also click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the article). Post messages on the talk page to raise concerns, ask for advice, and generally discuss the article and how it can be improved.
 * Use the article's history to see who else has worked on the article (in this case it's here, and you can also click on the "history" tab).
 * Use other editors' talk pages to raise concerns, ask for advice and discuss anything related to Wikipedia. Most editors will have a signature with a link to their user page and also their talk page - you can see my signature says "propaganda" which should link to my talk page, although I've just noticed it's broken ;-) Several editors have edited the article recently: Skinnylizzy, EdBever, Versus22 and Doc Tropics for example (all those links are direct links to their talk pages).

It looks to me like one or more of these editors has taken issue with some of your changes for whatever reason. My advice would be to post a message on the article's talk page explaining what you were doing and why, and asking (politely!) why your changes were reverted. Wikipedia works by consensus, so other editors should be happy to explain any problems and work with you to fix them. It might be that they simply didn't understand what you were doing, and assumed it was vandalism, in which case a message from you on the talk page should be enough to gather their support. Alternatively, they may have deeper issues with your edits, and should then work with you to reach a consensus. Either way, start a discussion and work from there. If that doesn't work (and I'm sure it will) there are other ways to resolve problems, but let me know first and I'll point you in the right direction if necessary.

Finally - I won't revert your edits unless you're removing large parts of text without an explanation, but since you seem comfortable explainign your edits in edit summaries I doubt that'll be the case. However, that's largely because I simply don't know enough about the subject - I'm neither a fan nor a critic.

Oh, and best of luck!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. I notice that your edits to both Smile... It Confuses People and The Pink & The Lily haven't been reverted, so you're clearly doing something right ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sandi Thom
Hi Daschund

I've started a new section on the talk page (Talk:Sandi Thom). Can I ask that you start discussing your changes there before things get out of hand?

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Theree is no reason to remove whole sections of text you do not agree with that have been verified. Sandi Thom has officially left (or been dropped from) SONY/RCA  this section has been verified! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylizzy (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

verified by who ? has it been verified as 'dropped or left', which is it ? please explain why all the info on this page has been allowed to be posted, it is all lies, untruths, absolute crap, i dont understand why i am being hounded for wanting to present the truth. i am trying to update this page with the truth and you two seem intent on stopping me. i know more than anyone else every thing about sandi thom and her career.

why dont you allow me to finish, then if you still take umbrage, do something.

why are you so willing to believe whats already on the page and not what i have to say.

i seriously dont understand how anything gets done on here, and yet there is a wealth of info on wikipedia to access, or does it simply change every minute dependent on who is writing, who is watching, who is deleting ?

its crazy, i cant trust this site anymore for real, truthful, factual info is this is what everyone has to go throo when they wish to present info, i have completely lost all faith in this site, i can only conclude that you wish sandi thoms page to be as negative as possible, you obviously have a problem with her, which is why you have a hard on for this site and anyone who dare alter its web of lies.

i give up, i totally give up this is driving me nuts,

Daschund (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No dont do that!! dont give up, you have valid point to make and even though it may not seem so i am prepared to listen to what you say and altho it may seem harsh that i delete things (along with other members  ) it  is sometimes because it looks as if you are directly promoting sandi thom as in the same way a record company or employeee would do, this is how your changes sometimes read but please continue to have dialogue at least with me! you are obviously a big fan of hers, i certainly appreaciate that but yes things have happened since the release of her last album that have not shown her in a favourable light and if im honest with you Sandi Thom seems to have been quite adept at dropping herself in it in interviews with contradictory quotes. This not a presonal vendetta against either you or Thom, remember that! Skinnylizzy (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, i have read your comments on Subjects discussion page and you seem to think im some sort of "Hater" of Thom. Far from it, but i can see we are not going to agree on certain aspects. i did not realise that you are such a huge "Fan" of Thoms but you state on your comments that this is the case. and it seems you want your view to prevail above others because you know the truth. Im sorry to say that i will not agree with you and any statements or comments you make about the subjects career that you cannot verify with a citation or printed article will  be removed from the page until you provide the verification. Many of the sub sections you question were not in fact placed by me but as i say you seem determined to re-write newspaper articles that have been verified already and expose them as untrue. Im wondering what information and where you get this information could actually come from? particulaly as you must provide the citations because as i say the articles must be verified to be on the page. Im really sorry we dont see eye to eye on this but by the way you put your argument across it is obvious you are not being objective about this whole issue. Skinnylizzy (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

skinnylizzy, im totally new to this game, i dont know how to cite references.

i just added a section about oxfam. google it for yourself just as i did, the facts are there. but i dont know how to reference them on the subjects page.

i dont understand how the info that is there has been allowed to exist, if this is a standard unbiased screening process, there are plenty sections free from citations and references, that very matter of factly state in accurate information.

please, as i said before, allow me some latitude.

Daschund (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)