User talk:Richardkeysoriginal

Richard Keys
Do you have a connection with the subject of this article? Your user name suggests you do, and are therefore not best qualified to decide what is biased. If any part of the original article is incorrect then it would be best if you did not remove it yourself, but discussed your concerns on the article talk page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not associated with him, however I was annoyed to see that a person who has such a long career as a presenter and has presented more live television shows than anyone else in Britain is being portrayed on Wikipedia solely on a news story which was clearly taken out of proportion. Richardkeysoriginal (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your user name still suggests you have a connection. I suggest you demoonstrate your good faith by making edits to a nuumber of unrelated articles, otherwise you may be considered as a single purpose account, and your edits scrutinised accordingly. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I created this account, to make this amendment hence the name. I did not know that a single purpose account was against the rules. If thats the case, I will be happy to make amendments in other profiles as well.Richardkeysoriginal (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I must contribute in multiple profiles, then I should create a new account that does not tie me up with the subject of this page.Richardkeysoriginal (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Website
The "Richard Keys official website" says it is down for maintenance. Is this just a temporary state of affairs? Looking at news articles about Keys suggests the "controversies" section of the article should definitely be reinstated, as it forms a large part of what he is most famous for, and its removal could be considered as sanitisation. What do you think? . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw a post on his Facebook profile in regards to this website hence I included it. I have seen it live once, probably down for maintenance now. I could easily remove it for now. The section about controversies dominated his Wikipedia page which was quite unfair and think should not be included because after all he was not laid off or punished for any action. He resigned his post and the media for obvious reasons. He most definitely is not famous for the daily mail articles but is famous for his roles as a presenter. Richardkeysoriginal (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just the Daily Mail. The controversy has been covered by the Guardian, Telegraph and Mirror to name but three, so is clearly notable, and removing the section completely is not acceptable. I will replace it unless you feel you can rewrite it from a neutral point of view. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me work on that and I will get back to you.Richardkeysoriginal (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)