Wikipedia

Talk:Christopher Snowden

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Heliotom in topic Deletion request
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image File:Surrey University arms (new).png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Christopher Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion request

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

this page was originally created as a biography of a living person. However for the last 6 months has been a target for wholesale vandalism (since rolled back) and direct criticism of the subject in a way which is relevant to an institution but not the person.

most recent edits which are salacious and untrue include a fictitious £70,000 pay rise and a highly misleading claim about an £400,000 expense claim which was in fact attributable to a far larger group of senior manages (14 or more) over 2 years.

As these edits are being made by named editors simply locking the page is no longer felt to be sufficient and so speedy deletion of this page is in line with the criteria for pages which are being used primarily for attack purposes as the page is being used to disparage its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonkw100 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC) eReply

’’’Oppose’’’ disagreements over content do not warrant the deletion of a page that has been in existence for a decade about a clearly notable figure.
If you want to remove content at least explain why in the edit summaryHeliotom (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have given multiple reasons for rollbacks in previous edit summaries, however this page is now suffering serial malicious edits including by yourself and so is being used to harass which according to the wikipedia rules for biographies of living persons means it is approproaite to ask for deletion. Jonkw100 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply


I am not being malicious. I have no interest in propagating false information. I’ve previously cleaned a significant amount of content That unfairly criticized Snowden. But you are removing well sourced information, and not adding any counter sources for your edits. Your edits amount to original research without sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have re-written the section to reference the information without repeating mistaken information simply because it is in a quote or the headline of an outdated newspaper article. hopefully this will be more acceptable. Jonkw100 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Jonkw100Reply

You cannot simply remove the telegraph source and add an unattributed explanation for the increased figure Heliotom (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you read the telegraph article you are protesting the removal of you will see the University clarify that the pay rise was 1.1% which is clearly not £70,000. Can i politely suggest you read the sources you are referencing past the headline.The explanation given is backed up by the Universities financial statements, I will add a reference to theseJonkw100 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply


1. Please review WP:BRD. Your bold changes were reverted, it's incumbent on you to discuss them before re-reverting.
2. You cannot simply removes sources that do not fit your narrative. The Telegraph article is a reliable source and the fact that Snowden's salary received specific from Johnson criticism is explicit and reflected across several sources. This is not POV/neutrality issue.
3. I've not readded the 70,000 figure, as it's clear that this is the discrepancy in earnings between a 10 month and 12 month salary as you point out from the financial statements.Heliotom (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Snowden&oldid=1205343258"