| Revision as of 09:45, 22 November 2008 editALR (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,239 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:00, 22 November 2008 edit undoDes James (talk | contribs)13 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ] (]) 09:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 09:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Dear Sir/madam, | |||
| I assure you that what I have added has been 'adequately and reliably sourced', it is emphatically not an opinion, although to be frank you seem rather keen to make that assumption. Another assumption you use is that the deaths were suicides? | |||
| There should not be any conflict of interest in the record of my daughter's death. I have lived this situation for 13 years and I have always chosen to speak the truth, as well as being careful not to embellish what facts we have. | |||
| I am not sure who you are, or with what authority you enter into this discussion, as I am not entirely familiar with the way that Wikepedia operates. The section I have edited is however is about my daughter's death not the barracks. I am more than happy for it to be removed, as I was not consulted before it was published anyway, but if there is to be such a record then it should reflect accurately the truth and not just the MOD or Goverment version. | |||
| I have no interst in anonymity, please feel free to call me on 01691 839941 if you so wish. --] (]) 10:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:00, 22 November 2008
I have been editing the article on the death of my daughter Cheryl, at Deepcut barracks, to reflect accurately the facts as they stand.
I have no issue with anyone who wishes to add to the article, but please lets not assume the Blake Review as the ultimate authority on the subject. I can assure you it is not.
In fact it may help if we all consider why the Government has not allowed ANY inquiry into the Deepcut deaths.--Des James (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Your edits
Dear Mr James
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for your loss, any contributions you make should be adequately and reliably sourced in accordance with the content policies in wikipedia; Reliable, Verifiable, balanced and not your own opinion. It is also the case that you have a conflict of interest in this instance.
I would add that the article is about the barracks, not the suicides. If you wish to create an article about your daughter then you are free to do so, however it should continue to comply with the above points.
ALR (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir/madam, I assure you that what I have added has been 'adequately and reliably sourced', it is emphatically not an opinion, although to be frank you seem rather keen to make that assumption. Another assumption you use is that the deaths were suicides?
There should not be any conflict of interest in the record of my daughter's death. I have lived this situation for 13 years and I have always chosen to speak the truth, as well as being careful not to embellish what facts we have.
I am not sure who you are, or with what authority you enter into this discussion, as I am not entirely familiar with the way that Wikepedia operates. The section I have edited is however is about my daughter's death not the barracks. I am more than happy for it to be removed, as I was not consulted before it was published anyway, but if there is to be such a record then it should reflect accurately the truth and not just the MOD or Goverment version.
I have no interst in anonymity, please feel free to call me on 01691 839941 if you so wish. --Des James (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)