User talk:ILikeUKLaw

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Mta.law


A tag has been placed on User:Mta.law, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mean as custard (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

 * Do you understand that accounts are for individuals only? You keep saying 'we'. I'm not too happy about 'legaltalkuk' as to me it suggests something of a business nature or something with a possibly official connection. Others might think differently, however. Peridon (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Mta.law (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)please let me know how to delete any links that you think were incorrect, we only wanted to up load legal articles and would not be using the articles to link to sites. we miss understood the the guidelines about outside links, we only linked to a resourse section of our site that has free downloadable legal guides that we thought would be useful. please advice as to what next steps would be. we can change user name if this was also wrong


 * You will not be permitted to place external links to your legal guides, organization websites, etc - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a how to guide. The other significant issue is that you continue to say "we" and "our".  As per the username policy that you contractually agreed to, a username may only represent one person.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

in response to BWilkins / Peridon
I fully understand all the points the editors have made on this page, and any articles that would be up-loaded are written by me, i just happen to work for a solicitors firm and this is why I can provide interesting information on certain areas of UK law and initially what I meant by we/our. But fully understand that this has to be an individual’s user account. As in my reply to early posts I have stated that these articles will not be used to link to a business, nor would any legal firms be mentioned in name. in my reply to peridion i reiterated what these articles would include. In searching other articles on WIKI, in areas of law there are pages that link to external sites that provide additional information, so why are these links allowed? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_contract In fact this links to a site that sells a service and I did not think that this was allowed? Would appreciate any further insight. can you confirm you are reading my responses?? Kind regards.Mta.law (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not typically a good argument - but thanks for bringing our attention to some other problematic articles. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

in reply to peridon on subject of blocked account
this is not meant for official use, and will not be used to mention any business. just to load articles regarding legal information, for expample variations of law in the UK. articles on employment law, commercial law new legislation on litigation laws in the uk. if the user name is still not complient with wikipedia ideals would something like lawuk be ok? any further input from yourselves would be much appreciated. Mta.law (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion, why not try "UKLawGuru" or "UKLawJunkie" or "ILikeUKLaw"? Something that doesn't appear to represent a group.--v/r - TP 13:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to BWilkins to a response to earlier query, I was not meaning to be pedantic so apologies if this came across this way. just wanted some clarification. in relation to new user name request as suggested by tparis - ilikelawuk - and in relations to my points in earlier responses, am i any warmer / colder in being allowed a user profile? kind regards Mta.law (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe this user can be required to submit all articles through the articles for creation process to be reviewed. I am not entirely sure how the process works, so if someone can explain it to him/her it would be great. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to go to WP:CHU and request a change of username. I'll give you 24 hours before the block will be reapplied.--v/r - TP 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)