| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Hi Tkelsey1
I have re-added the News International section as what counts for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Therefore this is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia. If the article is inaccurate, you should ask the Sunday Mirror to remove it. If they do that, you can then reasonably remove the reference here too.
I've also re-added the criticism of the Dr Foster deal which you removed.
Please note that editing your own Wikipedia page is strongly discouraged.
Lauralee99 (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Tkelsey1
Sorry, I've removed your latest edits as no verifiable sources provided - as previously noted, all Wikipedia contributions should be verifiable.
Lauralee99 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Notability:
Why is this person in Wikipedia? He has clearly written his lengthy entry himself. He has done nothing of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavies32 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Repeatedly deleted content
I've re-added the sections on the criticism of the Dr Foster deal, as they have mysteriously disappeared... again. If you have any concerns about the verifiability or notability of the content, please raise your concerns here and I'll be happy to address them.
It is remarkable that the Wikipedia page for the "UK government's senior adviser on transparency" has repeatedly had facts that are in the public record removed wholesale - first by the user himself, then by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauralee99 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Lauralee99 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Hulyaonal30, I'm concerned that you keep deleting well-referenced content without any explanation. Please could you explain your reasons here?