Talk:Robert Peston

message: Shouldn't there be some reference to this man's appalling delivery?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.20.130 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it's been said by someone in a verifiable, reliable source, and you can reference it specifically. Opinions are not appropriate for WP articles. 86.132.143.167 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery 

message: Shouldn't there be some reference to this man's appalling blog?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.160.130 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog 

message: Why was the information about him being the son of a Labour peer removed? Surely it is somewhat relevant?
Not only that, but it was replaced with a rediculous comment about him "chilling out". I propose the original Personal Life information be restored.
And... whoever deleted this conversation page as being "a troll", please don't do it again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.160.130 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: I think someone should keep an eye on this article, considering that it seems like Robert Peston (User:RobertPeston) has been editing his page himself (without adding references), which may possibly cause a conflict of interest. --TubularWorld (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now removed the COI notice because Peston's contributions have been largely minor, uncontroversial and verifiable, and he hasn't edited for months.--94.197.145.118 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest? 

message: There is a section entitled Possible Serious Fraud Office probe. What actually happened? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Serious Fraud Office probe 

message: There's a paragraph that begins "While no impropriety on the part of Peston was implied..." under Peston's career. If there's no impropriety, why include it? If there is an impropriety, it would be relevant only if substantiated. Rob Burbidge (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career / "While no impropriety on the part of Peston was implied..." 

message: Peston mentioned an inaccuracy on BBC Radio 4 this morning. See User talk:86.25.245.254. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of prank information

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Peston. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717044738/http://www.theworkfoundation.com/pressmedia/news/newsarticle.aspx?oItemId=53 to http://www.theworkfoundation.com/pressmedia/news/newsarticle.aspx?oItemId=53
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509070609/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/p/26244/Robert%20James%20Kenneth+PESTON.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/p/26244/Robert%20James%20Kenneth+PESTON.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified