Emerald ire
Nomination of Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
April 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sarah Carey with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Important explanation edit
Look, we can't have people using Wikipedia as a soapbox on which to make their grievances heard. If we let you, we'd have to let everyone, and then where would we be? We'd even have to give an equal chance to Lowry and O'Brien, and I don't think you want that.
We do have articles about scandals, yes, but we'll need a lot of independent third-party coverage of the facts of the scandal (and of the fact that the media is calling it a scandal). And so far, you haven't really included any of that.
Sorry. DS (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Err, the Moriarty Report runs to 2000 pages. How much more evidence do you need?
Additions about living people edit
Hi , I have reverted your addition that was supported by http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/digifone/ this is not a wikipedia reliable source for accusatory content against a living person. As you are a new user please take some time to read some of our WP:Policies and guidelines , in regard to living people especially WP:BLP , thanks, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The woman has admitted herself in the references to lying under oath. Also, one of the references supplied is an invalid link but you were not so zealous to remove it. Perhaps you have an interest in obscuring the truth?Emerald ire (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No I do not care, please read WP:TRUTH for some detail , also please use the article WP:talkpages to see if there is support for your desired additions, regards and remember - there is no deadline. WP:DEADLINE, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
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 halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Since you participated in this merge proposal which was put in an AfD, and therefore was procedurally closed, your input would be appreciated for an actual merge discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)