User talk:RAD4292

Hi

Many thanks for your constructive feedback. John and I are extremely grateful. We will endeavour to obtain the information you have requested and submit the points we wish you to add in due course in line with Wikipedia policies.

Once again thank you.

(RAD4292 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

The Velours
I'm grateful for your comments on my talk page. I suggest that the best way forward would be for you to explain here, on the article talk page, the points that you think need to be added or corrected in the article, together with any sources you can find that substantiate your information - and then I (or another editor) will make whatever changes we think can be supported by Wikipedia policies. Thank you again for your constructive approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your response.

John and i strongly disagree that the information that was provided to "The Velours" John Cheatdom files, was to use your words " Wholly unsourced, largely unnecessary and the comment that we take great offence to " partly untrue ".

We are very new to Wikipedia and would like to pursue the addition to " The Velours " as made on the 1st April. Quite clearly we have not followed the right process and i humbly request your kind assistance in this matter.

John Cheatdom was the founder of " The Velours " and the update to the "The Velours" was sourced from the John himself ( Do i need to provide proof - if so what would you require ). Can you advise as to what you feel we can include and what you feel we must take out. We will be happy to review and make the amendments as requested.

In no way have we gone out to mislead anyone. John has seen some inaccuracies within the original Wikipedia article and was seeking to edit whilst at the same time adding some additional information which he thought would be useful.

Once again the last thing John and I wish to do is engage in any unnecessary, unproductive and non - constructive comments. We are sincere in only wanting to do the right thing. By the tone of your comments quite clearly you feel otherwise and therefore i would ask that you support and help us to get this right.

( RAD4292 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC))


 * Just some quick initial thoughts. Firstly. I suggest you read through the guidance I attached above (apologies for initially placing it on the wrong page) - in particular, the guidance that says that we report what has already been published in reputable independent sources, not what people believe to be true; and, secondly, that writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged.  The material I removed was "unsourced" in that you did not provide any links to any independently published reliable sources, where it can be verified by others.  It was "unnecessary" in the sense that it presented a one-sided view of Mr Cheatdom's recent activities, and was somewhat promotional, which is not appropriate in a balanced and factual article about a vocal group which had a career lasting over 50 years.  I said that it was "wrong" only in the senses that "Can I Come Over Tonight" was not a major hit (it reached #83, so was a minor hit only), and the group was not "shot to international fame" when it performed in Ireland.  That is hyperbole, not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Having said all that, it is of course right for us to make sure, especially in biographies of living people, that information is correct and accurate.  If you are happy simply to provide factual information, and not in any way to act in a promotional capacity, of course I will help correct and update the material, if you explain on the article talk page what changes you would like to see and give links to published sources that support those changes.  But, the article does not, in any sense "belong" to you or Mr Cheatdom, as you both have clear conflicts of interest, and I must very strongly suggest to you that you should not try to edit the article yourselves.   I'm sorry if that appears harsh, but we endeavour to be an encyclopedia of record, and promotional material is rapidly removed from articles here.  I hope that helps explain the position.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)