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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Firstly, please preview your changes before clicking "Save page" - it'll help you check that you're not breaking anything ;-)
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 red^propaganda_deeds 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 red^propaganda_deeds 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 red^propaganda_deeds 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sandi Thom#Recent edits

Hi Daschund

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

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

Hi Daschund!

Don't worry if you can't "do" references, there are a few alternatives and I'll give a basic guide below as well.

Alternatives to "proper" references
- Put the web address ("URL") in your edit summary;
- Put the URL beside the new text;
- Put the URL beside the new text enclosed in square brackets.
"Easy" references
- Do it like this: <ref>[http://www.example.org/page.html Any text you want that describes the reference]</ref>

That last way is ideal: it'll add a ^[number] after the new text, and Any text you want that describes the reference will be shown in the references section at the bottom of the page.

Hope that helps! If you can't manage the last way, don't worry - someone else can fix it up for you.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have cited a page for glasgow appeal let me know if its ok to use that one. Skinnylizzy (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem restoring page to make sense of homecoming section. the link you cited does not have any information on the conversation between Nitin and thom only that they had spoken and nowhere does it state that he accepted a mistake had been made. Thom only apologises for being misunderstood in the article in fact on another article Nitins spokesperson is quoted as saying he did not wish to comment on statement. This is what is meant by embroidering statements to promote subject. i know you are new to this but please if you are going to make changes make sure they match up to your edit.Skinnylizzy (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi skinny lizzy

comment noted on link.

in a section enititled homecoming, i find it strange to have a random comment about nitin sawney , again this goes to show the negative portratyal of the subject, i was trying to at least show that this incident was totally inane and provide a reference to what really happened.

like i say im new tho this game, i appreciate you and your fellow editors guidaance and advice onhow to use wiki properly .

cheers

Daschund (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident happened at that time you cant just "Try" to show somethinmg, stick to the facts, yes sandi thom does say that her 2nd album got into the top 20 click on the link and there it is in black and white, in her own words, i didnt originally put that link up but someone did and its correct and so it stays and saying its a conspiracy will only antoagonise editors when they know full well the facts are there. it really doesnt matter if we like things one way or the other if a fact is stated and its verified then you have to accpet it and not start name calling. i can see where your trying to add to sections and thats ok but you are embellishing the same information that is already on page without it adding to article so ive tidied up for you, its still ok though. plus its proper syntax to eith use subjects full name or surname......the use of first name isnt appropriate so Thom or Sandi Thom is better use. I cut down some of your use of publicity lines in article...ie "scotland welcomes its lost sons and doaughters" as this is directly using prompotional jargon when it woulddnt be used in everyday use. Skinnylizzy (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi skinny lizzy

i just posted a new version of the homecoming section, sorry, i didnt see your comments above until now or realise you had altered the last version of this section.

comment about promo jargon noted.

same goes for novelo award, i removed but also removed section in bio about poitics, play nice! Skinnylizzy (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt re=post the novello award. but it is a fact, why remove it? believe me, im trying to play nice. why dont you go on paul mccartneys page and remove mention of his many grammy awards from the intro and see what happnes. either there is one rule for all or not at all.

can i draw your attention to the following -

Ticket sales overall for the tour were not good considering how small the capacity of many of the venues played were and how many failed to sell out. Only two out of the ten Scottish shows on the tour were advertised as sold out, one of these being the second night at the 250 capacity Fife Lodge hotel which had been heavily promoted as the venue where the duet with the First Minister was to take place,The first night at the Fife Lodge Hotel did not sell out. The other venue advertised as sold out was the Carnegie hall in Dunfermline which was the second date of the tour and accepting tickets from the cancelled Edinburgh show and which advertised Children from Edinburgh Schools as being the special guests ensuring a larger audience as friends and family of the children attended the concert.

please explain to me why this is info is ok ? there is no references to back it up at all, if it is fact, where is the evidence? some info about the fife lodge appearance is duplicated, having already been mentioned earlier in the section, it is one persons opinion, his interpretation of events, similarly, the section on her appearance at SXSW, the author states that she hopes to further her career, how does he know what her motives are? she might be going to visit relatives and happen to play a gig while shes there. it is opinion , not fact.

do you agree?

Daschund (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) No i dont agree. citations show that Sandi thom is playing at sxsw which is a festival for predominantly proffesionals in the music industry and artists to meet in one place and so that artists can SHOWCASE their work to create interest in territories they arent well represented in which is exactly what sandi thom is doing at her performance, its a showcase performance she is giving not a concert. Thom applied to appear at SXSW (check her info online) she was not invited but this is not mentioned on article as it would seem detrimental and petty to add. Your saying that she may going for other reasons when evidence is supplied by citation just goes further to prove your impartiality over subject. your changes to page have been in the whole accepted with some editing as is eveyone elses. Your statement that you know the truth and claims of conspiracy by others on the edit page does not do you any favours. the page is watched and changes that are deemed POV or vandalism or unessercary will ber edited on detection. Skinnylizzy (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive Just had a look on Subjects page re SXSW and she does say it has helped career of others add to this the very public statements about her wanting/ predicting her third album cracking america which i havent linked to because this is specualtion on Thoms part makes the wording fine,and it actually improves perception of subject re her american career which up to this point is not as big as her britsh career and article reads like she is improving on situation in the USA and so you see again you are determined to change something that can be verified i will put the link up...PLEASE check for information on the internet where statements have been made and a lot of the time you will find the info PS why is further her career a put down? it nothing of the sort, its just a fact

The link has for some reason gone on the sold out/not sold out dates but that was verified because although i didnt put it up i did look and it was a myspace (subjects) page with the dates on it and it clearly showed which concerts had sold out. Ive no idea why you feel this whole article and page is a downer on Thom, its not. What seems to happening here is a case of putting Spin on anything regarding subject and a campaign to remove anything bad by an uber-fan. Skinnylizzy (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject removed tour dates fron myspace page which is why link no longer working/there . have replaced with official homecoming 2009 tour dates with venue info. Please do not vandalise section or replace with POV Thanks, Skinnylizzy (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperating with User:Skinnylizzy on Sandi Thom to achieve consensus, making the article stronger and better than ever. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 08:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]