User talk:Ksd306

Hello, Earthdress, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Aradhna, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dl2000 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie welcome[edit]

Thanks for your message - yes you are seeing Wikipedia's "email" system for editors and your reply made it to my talk page OK.

Your contributions and interest in accurate and neutral material are appreciated. However, Wikipedia does have policy on edits made by those close to the topic - please take some time to review the WP:COI document for a detailed explanation of this. Also when you have a chance, please take some time to review the other documents mentioned in the welcome message above (things like the "five pillars", tutorial, etc). That will help explain the Wikipedia culture.

The COI policy doesn't impose an absolute ban on your editing, but there are some "non-controversial" edits which you could make according to WP:COI - however, a high degree of caution is required. Also note that material added to Wikipedia should be "verifiable" - that is, some published references should be included to support the content. For example, in the Miranda Stone article, you should probably not have removed a few secondary references (e.g. Winchester Star article, Phantom Tollbooth review) since these help demonstrate Notability, another Wikipedia policy to keep in mind. Another possibility is to add a discussion on the article "talk page" of suggested changes.

Hope this helps clarify the above welcome message, and some of the issues you may encounter while editing. Dl2000 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though, Earthdress, I'm sorry but I have to block you. My blocking message will explain more details, but the key is that you cannot have a username that represents a company--all usernames need to be linked to a single individual, and company names sound like you are here editing on behalf of the company. The blocking message will contain instructions for you about how to choose a new username, after which you'll be unblocked. Note, though, that you'll still be required to follow all of our rules; the problem that most editors from companies have is that they naturally want to keep information that is positive about their company (or the singer your company has signed), while taking out negative information. In order to edit, you'll need to be extra careful to edit neutrally and by verifying everything you add with reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Possibly. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ksd306 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Your proposed new username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Your reason here

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking, using the instructions I've given below. -- Atama頭 08:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! My name is Miranda Stone. I'm not sure if i am suppose to be writing here or not. i've spent hours yesterday and today trying to understand what to do. This is an issue regarding live person biographical material. I believe i made a mistake without realizing what i was doing. I also feel that i have been blocked in bad faith, since i made changes that reflect the current situation of my career without undue promotion of myself, and in fact i would actually like to be removed from wiki altogether if possible, which i think could fall under the category of anti promotional. My company earthdress productions (an independent company run by myself and my husband) attempted to change the wiki post under my name, dealing with personal information at the site that we wanted removed. After reading what we needed to do, we attempted to become editors by registering as "earthdress" since we wanted to be transparent about where the changes were coming from, and that they were official changes and not from someone trying to vandalize the site. We would be happy to change the editor name if it pleases wikipedia, but it is quite confusing to have a rule that keeps the knowledgeable people from contributing and the others who have no knowledge as the contributors. I understand why wiki is taking this policy since they do not want undue promotion from companies littering wiki, but i really do need some compassionate help here since this is my name, and my life, and i would like to be removed from the public eye.

The explanations of our edits are this; there have been two editors in the past that have made contributions, and that is great that they did that, except that the citations they used were articles that they themselves had written. For example, the phantom tollbooth article by kloss, which he was using to prove my affiliation with a particular religion. This article which he wrote was part of an online artist review which is quite old in fact, i believe it was sometime prior to 2000. I would like to see some of these articles which have haunted me be left to die on their own rather than be brought up again and again because of their use on my wikipedia site. I would prefer that the music i write stands on it's own, rather than speculations about my religious views which i feel are personal. The other edit i made was to remove a reference to a play written by w. hobbs, who used one of my songs with my permission (which i now regret) since he continues to promote himself and this play by using it on my wiki link. It feels quite violating and i have had more than my far share of grief over this issue. I left the mike bullard link and any other that i felt was neutral. I feel that this is fair and consistant with the policies of wiki. I am no longer touring, nor are there any more new articles being written about me or my career, and so there is nothing to reference except old citations. The truth is that i am no longer doing music as a career, though i may consider it in the future. This information is clearly stated in the edits we made and i do not feel that this gives false or promotional information. I would really like my privacy respected as to my own personal beliefs, and actually, i would really prefer to not have a wiki page about me at all. I would actually like to disappear and have some privacy. I am hoping that you can understand this and help me because i have wanted to have this material edited for the last few years and only yesterday figured out how to become an editor. The fact is that i do not want to become an editor at wiki, and the whole process is so confusing that it has left me quite disappointed and helpless in regards to the bad faith that has been shown in simply banning a new member without looking into why they have done what they've done. I have left the earthdress email available to questions, and have tried to give explanations without hiding who we are. I did this in good faith and i sincerely hope that you will understand this problem. I do not know how to appeal, or even find my way through the maze that is wiki. the instructions given to me are so confusing that i feel hopeless. I just want my life back please. Thank you! Miranda Stone (Earthdress (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As far as i can see, the primary problem is that you have used the name of a company as your username, which is prohibited. I appreciate that you were trying to be transparent, but then we come up against conflict of interest guidelines. Your first step has to be to choose a username which is demonstrably wholly not related to your company name; use {{unblock-un}}. I am sorry that you have had a bad experience here so soon after starting to edit; I regret that our userneme policies are not negotiable. But with a different and non-promotional name you have no reason to expect difficulty, so long as you do not try to edit about yourself or your company. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I might make a suggestion, you can ask for a username that matches your real name, since you want to make it clear that you're representing yourself on Wikipedia. That's not against our policies at all, although if someone challenges your identity you may have to email proof to Wikipedia but I wouldn't worry about that at this point. The place to request a username change is WP:CHU/S, but you'd need to be unblocked first, so you should first post here to let us know what username you want to use so we can unblock you to allow for the request.

As to the conflict of interest, there is certainly one in this case but it shouldn't prevent you from having input on your biographical article. We welcome the input of an article's subject, just as long as you remember that you don't have sole control of the article, and that we need to be careful to keep the article neutral in tone and try to avoid any promotional language. Some good advice on how to avoid running into problems can be found at WP:BESTCOI and WP:PSCOI, both guides were written for people in your situation. Again, if you need help with any of this just post here, thank you. -- Atama頭 23:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Anthony and Atama! I really appreciate that you took the time to write here and give me more information. I would be more than happy to change my username, since the only reason i used "earthdress" as a name is because i thought that would be the right thing to do. The problem i'm facing right now is, because i am (seriously) computer challenged, i don't seem to be able to understand how to change my name. If you (both, or one of you) would be able to help me with this i would be really grateful. i had no idea i was getting into this. If you can change my name to "Ksd306" then i can let go of the "earthdress" one. will other people be able to use this then? and pretend they are me? this is a concern. Maybe you can tell me why the person who blocked me didn't at least go with the "good faith" policy that i'm now reading about (post block) and warn me instead, or give me a chance to find out how to deal with content about myself in a situation like this. i know that wiki is trying to be user friendly, but this action taken (shoot first, ask questions later) by the person who blocked me is quite discouraging. i would really like to ask that they might try and understand what it is like to have your own name on wiki, where anyone can say anything about you, including references that are dating back to the late 90's. People move on. If either one of you would be able to help me know what to do about this, i could leave wiki alone and get on with my life. i don't really want to be an editor of wiki, or spend time on the computer. It's not my thing. I would be happy to have either one of you look into what i edited/added, to see if it is somehow not neutral. The current wiki on me does not reflect anything current in the last 5 years, but there are few articles being written on my music so i don't know how i could find any citations. thoughts?

I'd like to address a number of points one at a time, so please bear with me.

Changing a username is a procedure that can only be done by a bureaucrat. I'm an administrator, and have a number of tools I can use (including the tool to unblock you) but I can't change your username. I can definitely help you make the request. You can't make the request yet, but as soon as I unblock you, you'll be able to.
Usernames have to abide by the policy at WP:UNP, which is our username policy, and must be unique (a username can't be in use by another person already). In some cases, a username can be "usurped" if it has fallen into disuse, but that's far from a guarantee. In your case, the username "Ksd306" does not violate our username policy, nor is it being used by anyone else, so I expect there won't be a problem with it.
People who use Wikipedia are expected to "assume good faith", certainly. Since we are, for the most part, anonymous people using pseudonyms to communicate with one another using faceless text, it is difficult to tell what a person's intent is. So our policy is simple, assume they are trying to do the right thing. That doesn't mean we maintain that assumption when a person clearly is no longer acting in good faith, of course.
Not every misstep that a person takes will lead to a warning. Most will, but there are some times when stronger action needs to be taken immediately. Everything a person does on Wikipedia is tracked and made available, tied to their username. That makes it easy to give credit (or blame) for contributions, and leads to a very transparent, open environment. It also means that a person who edits under a particular username has that username prominently displayed in a variety of locations, and it's not something that is easily or quickly erased (if it ever is). So often the reaction to a username violation is to immediately stop a person from editing to prevent that problem from spreading. People aren't blocked to punish them, but to prevent further harm to Wikipedia.
When a person is blocked for a username violation, it is either done temporarily (to stop them from editing under that username) or indefinitely (to stop them from editing completely). The first kind of block is called a "soft block", and a person blocked in that way is actually free to create a brand new account with a new name to continue editing, or to simply ask on their user page for a new name. That block is done when a person has a bad username but is otherwise not doing anything wrong. The second kind of block is a "hard block" and is done when a person's actions are harmful as well as their username. That second block is what happened to you.
I do think that the block on you was appropriate at the time, however, I also believe that you are sincere and you are not attempting to simply promote yourself or your work. Your original actions did give that impression. Those edits, combined with the username that matches the Earthdress Productions name gave the impression that you were here solely for promotion. Wikipedia, as an open and free encyclopedia, has to stay vigilant against such actions, because a free and open place that is viewed by so many people is a paradise for self-promoters. So I'm sorry you got caught up in this.
I'll be happy to review your edits and discuss them here, but first I'd like to unblock you and get your username resolved. So please click this link and fill out the form, for the reason you can say something along the lines of "My username matches the Earthdress company and I was asked by an admin to change it":

=>Change Username Request<=

Your current username, Earthdress, will still be reserved. I used to have a slightly different username, Atamasama, and I later asked for it to be changed to something shorter and simpler. Now anyone who visits the "Atamasama" username page gets redirected to my current one. They stay tied together. That's done specifically so that people can't do what you're worried about; take your username and impersonate you.
We can talk about your next steps after your name change. I realize that your intention isn't to edit Wikipedia in the long term, but just to make some corrections and move on. I work with people all the time who have conflicts of interest and I hope that I can help you resolve these issues. Thank you. -- Atama頭 08:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Atama for explaining to me so clearly about how this all works! I feel a lot more relief, as this has been quite stressful. i followed your directions on asking for a user name change and found that what ever you set up for me in the link was fool proof and easy to understand. (i've now seen that the name change has taken effect?) i really appreciated the check list as well. Thank you also for giving me an example of your own name change issue. This was personable and helpful in way of explanation. I hope it is ok that i further explain this situation. I don't want to overdue this, but i do want it to be clear that this is a "biography of a live person" issue that took a clumsy turn due to ignorance on my part.

Please bear with me, because you have been very kind to help me and i'm not sure what to do about this situation. I have/had no intent on damaging wikipedia in any way. I have been on retreat for many years, and as it has been just as long since i have owned a working computer, (i just got one last week, which is why i am now showing up on wiki) my last experience with wiki was probably about 5 or more years ago. At that time, any artist who was affected by wiki posts seemed to be able to edit their own wiki's under their name, with new information, as long as it was reasonable and not blatantly promotional. What i have wanted to see is neutral information that explains who i am and what i do (songwriting) and focuses on the music. So any edits made by myself were only as a result of shock, seeing a review of my work which dated back to the beginning of my career and my first album which only made reference to one part of the article that focuses on a religious question. Since i am a songwriter who writes folk-music that does not do music for religious reasons, this was offensive to me. I would like my work to be judged by the work itself, not anyone's bias regarding religion. The user/editor who edited the material, however long ago, used a quote which refers more to a religion rather than music, despite the fact that i have three albums to my name that are not handled by any religious company. What makes music religious is a person's own personal opinion, and being that i would like to have privacy about my religious views and not have them be used as promotion, i feel that this creates a bias in the wikipedia under my name. Since anyone can write anything they like about me on blogs or in a review without my knowledge, does that make their opinions true? I understand that wiki has a policy to be sensitive to individuals who are dealing with "living bio's" and it also appears that wikipedia would like to avoid the issue of "guilt by association." Since i have performed concerts in a wide range of venues, including those of different faiths, beliefs and opinions, regarding even such issues as sexual orientation, i feel it unfair that my music be labeled under any other heading than that of "folk-music." For example, i have performed in the past at an anarchist music club, but that doesn't mean that i prescribe to all their ideals. In the same way, i have also performed at gay clubs, but that doesn't prove that i am gay. Likewise, the show i had at a sufi venue does not prove that i am a sufi. If the wiki post would like to claim that i do "universalist music," would it make more sense? It is very likely that a one time public person who is on a spiritual journey over the course of 15 or more years hopes that their fans or reviewers could stop pigeon holing them to a particular belief and then cement them in place. This is why i am asking that wikipedia leave the religion issue out of this wiki.

One thing to note about my earlier post; I thought that the person writing the article in question was "I. Kloss," and i apologize for that mistake, since i now have a hardcopy of that review in my hand (on paper) and the writer of that review was "D. Landsel." I am sorry if i have offended anyone by this mistake.

There is another difficulty about citing information in regards to my career is that when the first album came out in 1997, so much of the promo and information was not even on line at that time.  That means that after 15 years of hard work as a songwriter, i have nothing to show for this on wiki except an outdated review and a mention that one of my songs was used in a local play that ran for (to the best of my knowledge) one or two nights, in my home town area.  Why this is mentioned is utterly baffling to me.

I have retrieved hardcopy reviews from my files (newspapers, paper etc.) which would actually show the last 15 years of my career and provide information to wikipedia if needed. I would be happy to scan that material and then post it up on my "news" area of my website so that at least information can be "cited." But i would need your advice on this. Really, as mentioned before, i have been more than happy to "disappear" from the web and have a clean start at some point down the road when my current projects are finished. Really, I would be just as happy to have wikipedia delete this wiki in my name due to lack of information; (there are other people with my name out there that are far more notable than me and i'm sure they don't care if they get more famous) scanning and adding old press clippings up to my website (which is currently not being updated in the last few years) would be a huge task for me during a time when the last thing i want to do is deal with a computer. My work right now is carpentry and making a japanese tea garden. I don't really want to be a wiki editor. I only wanted to update the information on my name and that is all. However, if you feel that the only way to prove my last edits are by having this information, (the hard-copies scanned and then put on line, then i would be willing to do the work or try and get some help to do this. Thank you for your patience on this! miranda stone (Earthdress (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Your username has definitely been changed. Your signature is still showing your old username, you should be able to fix that from this link. You can change what is written in the "signature" box, or click the link at the bottom that says "Restore all default settings".

Wikipedia takes biographies of living persons (BLPs) very seriously. Such articles have the greatest chance of simultaneously causing harm to people through misinformation (whether malicious or not) and often cause the most controversy for Wikipedia. So we try to get such articles to be as accurate as possible, though we don't always succeed. All of our information should be verified by a reliable source, which is especially true for a BLP. This is a double-edged sword in many cases, in your case, it means that your complaints about your article will be taken very seriously, but it also means that changes made to the article (including those proposed by yourself) will need that verification, so what is meant to protect you as the article subject can also work against your attempts to correct the article. We don't require that sources be available online, as long as they can be cited fully.

As to deleting your article, you're a victim of your own success here. We generally don't delete articles about any subject if they meet our inclusion criteria. For biographies of people who are marginally notable, if there is a formal deletion discussion, the subject's request for a deletion of the article is weighed among other factors and can be enough to convince an administrator to delete the article. But considering the coverage your work has received over the years, I think deleting the article would be difficult to do. You do have my sympathies, I don't think I'd want an article about me on Wikipedia for everyone to fiddle with.

I've looked at your edits to determine why they were objected to so strongly. I'll start with your edit to your biography, which was done here, and to start with, the addition of a certain piece of prose does look promotional:

As a songwriter, Miranda is known for her carefully crafted lyrics and music. Many of her songs can be described as being spiritual in nature, having a quality of an intimate soul search, yet retaining a dark or wry humor. This, combined with a powerful vocal delivery which she calls "folk in wolves clothing" and a down to earth availability after concerts, made for a small but dedicated following during her touring years in the folk, rock and singer-songwriter circuit.

I'm sure you didn't mean for it to come across that way, but it does read like an advertisement, or at least an opinion piece. If there was an independent review of your music that was saying something similar to what you wrote, then we could quote that without violating our policy on neutrality.

That brings me to another issue. The information you had added was almost totally unreferenced, except for Aradhna's web site. Wikipedia doesn't disallow self-published sources like a musical group's web site, but it does limit how that source is used. The edit you made also removed a few independent reliable sources. That raised red flags for anyone reviewing your edit (it even caused the Wikipedia software to automatically add a note to your edit in the article's history due to the removal of those sources).

You also edited Aradhna's article. These edits weren't commented on, and are actually still in place, but your removal of categories from that page led someone to add a template that listed the article as uncategorized, so while those edits were less controversial they may be challenged or undone at some point.

None of what I've said is meant as a criticism, I'm just trying to explain why they led to your block, in combination with your previous username. I don't expect anyone to hold those edits against you in the future, you didn't mean any harm. I also notified the administrator who had blocked you that I was going to unblock you and given your willingness to change your username and that your intent isn't self-promotion he didn't object to it. -- Atama頭 00:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Atama! I do welcome your criticism, and i also appreciate the thoughtfulness of how you are explaining the reasons for the block. The goal here is to get something on the page that is worthy of being mentioned. I do understand what you mean about the "tone" of prose. It can be supported entirely from the following sources below. I also have proofs regarding the current status of my career; though it is not mentioned here:

In 2003, at the release of the "7 Deadly sins" Album, there were reviews at "Umbrellamusic.com, "FoxyLady Magazine" (reviews by diane foy) and "sceneandheard.ca (review by Antoine Tedesco). I looked for all of these (including a toronto.com review by Geoffrey Hays) and most of these sites are either not working or no longer carry the articles. (I have in my possession the only hard copy printouts of all of these, and i do not know of anyone else who would have kept these on file.) There is also a featured song in the Air Canada magazine "enroute," May 2003) I've pulled out from the files a hard copy of the following: Songs from the Heart award, fall 2003 penguin eggs (folk music magazine), T.O Music notes, NOW magazine (spotlight with photo by Anne Levenston) feb. 1999, June 1999, "Out and about" Sun review, Calgary (newspaper) by Anna-Marie Ashton, Canadian songwriters festival review mention, The record, arts section, Kitchener, ON, Oct 2004. There is also a feature in the Arts and Entertainment section of "The Technician," a North Carolina state University newspaper (by Jerry Moore) April 2003, An article by Joel Martin, in "The Silhouette," the Macmaster Universtiy newspaper, (Hamilton, ON) January 2000. Exclaim! Magazine's Earshot radio report, in April 1998 (National top 50) The "brave" album came in at #46, A feature in the Arts and Entertainment section in "The Arthur," Trent University Newspaper, April 1999, written by Kim Villeneuve. Open hand Zac's house Newsprint Zin album review, Fall 2004. I attempted to locate any reviews connected with the Canadian company that was carrying my records (Maple music) but they only have the bio on their site, under my name, which you can see at www.maplemusic.com If you go to that bio, you will be able to see a list of the other musicians i have been associated with. Please look at the wikipedia pages of those artist. They are an example of the category i fit into. I can type up quotes from the above mentioned articles, and am willing to scan them as proof. Please advise on this.

I agree that poor research on a subject in wikipedia is not really acceptable, so it is important to note that there is no citation on the bill hobbs play on the Miranda Stone page. It is totally unreferenced. It would be similar to writing " Susan performed a play called "Summer in Toronto" in 1999, and played a track from Miranda's Cd." Wiki guidelines state "it is not enough to make vague claims" on a subject, so this must also hold weight here, especially for a living person bio. There are also mistakes concerning the other (quote?) which i attempted to remove. There is a citation, but it is wrong. Is says that Israel Kloss wrote the review that the quote is taken from, but actually, Israel did not write this review. He wrote a different review, and nothing is mentioned of that one. Why not use something from his actual review of the album?

What's the best way to approach this? I totally understand that the last thing needed is people writing about themselves on wikipedia. To be fair though, other artists who i have personal contact with, and are on wikipedia (some which are independent, and some with labels/companies behind them) have put info up themselves, especially in the years prior to wikipedia getting tough on folks doing this. They are lucky, since it appears no one challenges them. I personally do not appreciate flowery or overdone praise that is not due an artist, but if someone has written something that gives a real picture of what the art is about, i can respect that. What is less to respect is keeping something up on an artist simply because it has been there for a long time. It seems that it should be subject to an edit if it is poorly researched. Can we get something up which reflects the music and the life of what it is to be a Independent Canadian folksinger? There are fans out there that would be happy to do this, but because i have been trying to lay low, there hasn't been the desire to rally anyone (which is obviously why this has come up.) I would be happy to discuss the changes made in regards to aradhna; though i do not want to make this post too lengthy. What is the next step? Miranda Stone (Earthdress (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

My suggestion is to take it to the talk page of your biographical article. Obviously there is attention there, which is why your edits were reverted in the first place, so I think it should be possible to engage editors in discussion. I can put a watch on that page so that I can see the discussion and participate, so you don't have to feel like you're alone there. -- Atama頭 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thanks Atama! I appreciate that. (Earthdress (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Just out of curiosity, are you logging in as "Earthdress" still? You should be logging in as "Ksd306" now. I thought your signature was just not updating but you're showing up as Earthdress in page histories as well. -- Atama頭 20:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should i do? Have i missed something? (Earthdress (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

ok, i think it worked. i have forgotten to save changes. tell me if you can see the new name now. (Ksd306 21:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthdress (talk • contribs)

You're still showing up as Earthdress, try logging out with this link: Log Out

Then log back in with Ksd306 as your username. -- Atama頭 00:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i think it worked, my computer was automatically loading in the old user name, and i didn't clue in. Thanks for your patience on that. Again, thanks for taking the trouble to deal with this issue. (Ksd306 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

My pleasure, and yes that worked like a charm! -- Atama頭 01:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Ksd306. You have new messages at Argolin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Argolin (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you absolutely do not have to put your birthdate. How about your birth year? Wikipedia tries to respect the privacy of individuals. See WP:DOB and WP:NPF. If your birth year is ok, I'll put a note on the discussion page stating that per your request, we do not inculde your birthdate. So far as old newspaper articles, access can be obtained through all public libraries. I don't know what prublications you have to cite your article. Hope this helps. Argolin (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Argolin, I was born in 1974. I have about 20 surviving articles in hard copy (newspaper reviews of all three albums and general interviews and tour reviews) I would be happy to make them public. I'm not sure where to post them other than at www.mirandastone.com I'm open to suggestion. i have put a request on the talk pages for M. Stone to remove the banner that was put up there. There seems to be a pile of "headings" at the bottom which need review in light of this. (Ksd306 00:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthdress (talk • contribs)