User talk:Skinnylizzy

Hi. On your edits to Sandi Thom. Please don't remove requests for references. All our statements have to comply with Attribution and Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Secretlondon 14:34, 5 April 2007 (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. Kyle1278 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sandi Thom
Hi Skinnylizzy

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

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandi Thom
Re: This, no problem! Hopefully Daschund will start discussing more, though, but right now I think you're doing absolutely the right thing.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

hi, thanks, the oxfam ref is great.

Daschund (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: sandi thom
Hi Skinnylizzy

I don't have time today; I'm logging on briefly to check a few things but then I need to go offline again. I'll take a close look on Monday.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandi Thom rewrite
I see that you've done a lot of work on the Sandi Thom page - I have added a section to the article talk page outlining proposals to slim it down and make it less spiky - your commnts there would be welcome. Martinlc (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems relating to this page is the Detractors who edit with such derision on the subject. These are counter-acted By fans of Thom who go the other way and remove anything what they see as criticism of her while placing obvious promotional articles about her in the piece. Ive tried in all honesty to keep it level. Leaving in some justifiable criticism that is easily verified while removing the nasty stuff. Thus keeping both sides happy. The nastiness, and its defence seems to have largely died down but does  flares up  now and again. Funny thing is, i have no feelings one way or the other about Sand Thom. I think the weasel pieces are awful and just dont need to be here and so ive kept an eye on anything that has been added. The promotional stuff which appeared were  coming quite blatantly from  companies associated with Thom who she used for PR. Ive tried to edit or scale back on both extremes.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)