User talk:Magentabug

Cefntilla Court
Hi, I appreciate that you're new to Wikipedia, but your edits to the above, and to the article on the barony of Raglan, concern me. First, you have removed sourced information, apparently because you disagree with it. Secondly, you've added material that has no references. Thirdly, you have included your own Point of View (POV). Lastly,your user name may indicate a conflict of interest. If you are the individual you have mentioned in the article, I think you will find you are in breach of Wikipedia's COI policy.
 * I have reverted your edits, as they cannot stand as you wrote them. You are, of course, free to add material, but please ensure that it is sourced, that it does not present a personal point of view (NPOV) and be careful that any personal involvement you may have does not conflict with the neutrality of the article (COI).  Happy to advise if you want.

KJP1 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected sourced information. I have added correct material and listed all sources under references. I have extracted points of view from the press articles. My username does not indicate a conflict of interest and I am not the individual mentioned in the article. I would appreciate some guidance as I want to make sure the facts are straight. Please be mindful that some information that the press publish is not Fact. Thank you

Hi Magentabug

OK, here I go.

I have corrected sourced information.
 * Well, you've removed the reference to the valuation of the estate at £4.5 million. But that is sourced material, from the newspaper article, and you haven't been able to challenge it with other sourced material.  Now, I've no idea whether the estate is worth 4.5 million, but the house is up for sale for 2 million, the Raglan Collection has a guide of 700,000K, and the estate is for sixty odd acres, whereas the original article talks of an estate in excess of 300 acres.  So that leaves in excess around 250 acres not being sold which could be worth 1.3 million.  I won't re-instate the 4.5 million claim, but your removal is shaky.

I have added correct material and listed all sources under references.
 * This won't do. You need to cite your references.  Just listing various newspaper articles doesn't count as referencing.  Readers need to be able to source them.  So, if you want to quote from a newspaper, you need to cite the reference, such as

[http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/monmouth/2011/02/08/the-disinheritance-of-lord-raglan-s-nephew-and-future-title-holder-causes-split-in-family-91466-28131059/. Retrieved 2012-02-12.] You have to let the reader access the article, not merely state it. I have extracted points of view from the press articles.
 * Well, the articles don't have points of view, unless they are opinion pieces; rather they quote points of view. So "This sale has caused much controversy".. Says who?   Controversy amongst whom?  This needs to be made clear.

My username does not indicate a conflict of interest and I am not the individual mentioned in the article.
 * Assuming good faith, as Wikipedia requires, I accept what you say. But your abrupt name change is interesting.

I would appreciate some guidance as I want to make sure the facts are straight.
 * That's what I'm trying to do.

''Please be mindful that some information that the press publish is not Fact. Thank you''
 * A helpful reminder. Every one of the references you cite is a press article, so it's a salutary reminder to us both.

A last thought. Wikipedia is intended to be an on-line encyclopedia, providing neutral, verifiable, information. It is not the place to conduct a campaign. Are you sure it's the right forum for "Raglan Rescue"? KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)