User talk:Beingthreatened

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! RadioFan (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Tilly bailey irvine
A tag has been placed on Tilly bailey irvine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi Beingthreatened; I removed the page for the reason given above; plus the fact that we don't allow pages here that attack a person or entity without evidence from published sources. While you did include references to two sources in the article, neither of these even mentioned the firm that was the subject of your article. This topic would indeed be suitable for Wikipedia, but you would need to be able to back it up with references from newspapers, magazines, or corporate or government websites. If you need any help working out what's required, please leave a note. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You say that this particular firm has been mentioned in connection with this issue on television and in the House of Lords. Please provide references. Like I said above, with suitable references, this would be an entirely reasonable article. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's not really in Wikipedia's best interests to publish material that attacks a law firm unless we have evidence from published sources to back it up. As I keep saying, if you have evidence, you need to provide it. There's nothing wrong with this article in principle. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK so how does one reference the fact that Lord Lucas said in the Lords that this firm had "Entered the Hall of Infamy"? It's on YouTube but I know that is not a RS for some strange reason (odd that, a video of the person saying it is not reliable whereas something like the Daily Mirror is). As I said on your talk page, I am getting increasingly sick of Wikipedia and am going to avoid it. It used to have value but now it is run by a bunch of Wikigeeks.

Please usefy the page or send it to me.


 * YouTube can indeed be a Reliable Source; it just depends on what is being referenced (there are also large problems with copyright infringement on the site). But surely a remark made by Lord Lucas in the House of Lords will have been recorded or reported elsewhere. When did he make the remark? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Without references to significant coverage for this material, it cant be shown to be anything but your opinion. This whole subject seems a bit to soapbox'y for Wikipedia. If you are looking to publicize this information, a blog would be a much better place than Wikipedia. --RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So a practice that is being discussed in the House of Lords is not worthy of note on Wikipedia? Significant: Which? magazine, Numerous blogs, House of Lords, BBC Watchdog.

I would call that significant.

See entry for Davenport Lyons then? For RL, the date was 3rd March for Lord Clement Jones, 1st March for Lord Lucas.


 * Thanks Beingthreatened, I'm following it up. FWIW, it's not coverage of the practice that's the issue here; it's accusing a law firm of indulging in it without any evidence to back up that accusation. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to the YouTube video that you mentioned earlier? If we can get Lord Lucas' exact words, we should be able to find the remark in Hansard. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkPHV-U3kMQ and it is Lord Clement-Jones that mentions them.


 * Great -- so here's the mention in Hansard -- http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100301-0011.htm
 * You also mentioned Lord Lucas earlier. Was this just a mistake? Or has he mentioned this firm in relation to this practice too? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant Lord Clement-Jones - simple mistake. Lord Lucas has spoken widely on the matter.


 * No problem; I'm rounding up some references and should be able to restore the article shortly. Any other reliable sources that you have on this particular firm would be helpful. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/03/file-sharing-accusations-from-tilly-bailey-irvine-205193 http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/03/05/sra-refers-law-firm-to-disciplinary-tribunal-over-illegal-p2p-isp-threat-letters.html


 * Thanks Beingthreatened; I've restored the article and installed some citations for the recent allegations, including the Which? piece that you've linked above. ISPReview doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source (in other words, one that is fact-checked by professional editors). Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (yeah, ISPReview is strictly an amateur project -- "Due to being a privately run project, you will not find a public address or phone number here. Please contact us only via e-mail, we all have real lives and work during the day." http://www.ispreview.co.uk/contact.shtml ).

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)