User talk:Jimmyofire

Proposed deletion of Madden & Finucane Solicitors


The article Madden & Finucane Solicitors has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence that it meets Notability (organizations and companies). Only notable for being the former company of Pat Finucane, and he has his own article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rockpock e  t  06:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter Madden (Solicitor)


The article Peter Madden (Solicitor) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Crusio (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Madden (Solicitor)
A tag has been placed on Peter Madden (Solicitor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Crusio (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you create an inappropriate page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As you know, the article Peter Madden (solicitor) has been protected to prevent re-creation, since you repeatedly re-created it in defiance of an AfD discussion. You have then turned to creating Peter Madden (Solicitor) instead. This method of getting round community decisions is not acceptable. So far you have created this article seven times: please do not do so instead. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

After writing the above I have discovered that there are also other articles that you have re-created after deletion. It is clear that you are well aware of what you have been doing, and are already beyond the stage where a warning is necessary. You are unlikely to stop, so a block is already justified. In addition, there are also other problems with your editing, such as the fact that it appears to be entirely intended to promote a particular firm of solicitors. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Madden-Finucane.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Madden-Finucane.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ★ Bigr   Tex  22:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)