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

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)[reply]

Hi Skinnylizzy

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

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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)[reply]

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 red^propaganda_deeds 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi , thanks, the oxfam ref is great. 

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

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

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 red^propaganda_deeds 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]