User talk:Ae871

Can I ask why you keep insisting on adding the Slums of Toronto link to the Toronto article? It has nothing to do with tourism and is about disgruntled tenants. Go ahead and create an article on the PTA, perhaps it deserves one, but it doesn't deserve to have a link from the Toronto page, most definitely not under the Tourism section. Ben W Bell 14:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's to ask? He's obviously miffed about Parkdale. A classic case of POV-pushing, not acceptable on Wikipedia at least not for the Toronto article. Maybe some form of it is useful in the Parkdale article, otherwise revert at will.Jok2000 15:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the new agency, Slum Tourism Toronto, created by the Parkdale Tenants Association, is geared directly to tourists and will be offering a free "Slums Unlimited" bus tour of several Toronto slum neighbourhoods to show tourists another, less glossy, side of Toronto starting February 2, as featured on their website. Don't you think tourists should see the true character of a city, warts and all? The Parkdale Tenants Association, which has been around more than 30 years, and is quite well respected, obviously feels that by showing tourists a different side of Toronto than what they usually see on a traditional tour, the City and the Province will improve conditions and make Toronto a better city for everybody, one that all Torontonians will be proud to call home, not just those who can afford decent accomodations. I'm not sure why you consider this a less worthy tourist site than any other. Their upcoming bus tour has received widespread international attention and has been featured in literally thousands of articles as far away as India, Australia and Italy as well as on ABC News and MSNBC. Hope that clears it up. I believe this falls under the guidelines of Wikipedia and is in the appropriate category. It is not POV-pushing. There is no editorial comment about these issues on the Toronto page. It is simply listed as an external tourism website, which is exactly what it is, even if some people don't approve of this particular style of tourism.

Why haven't you created an article on the PTA? It isn't tourism and should not pretend to be. However, if you create an article on Parkdale Tenants Association you could make it a "see also" on the Toronto article. - Tεx τ urε 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have said they will be providing proper tourist tours of the Toronto slums. In that case you are promoting a single business or agency which is against the Wikipedia policies. Ben W Bell 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm glad we've come to a compromise on Toronto. You should still consider creating a new article on Parkdale Tenants Association and maybe even Slum tourism. It is an encyclopedic topic and could give more visibility to your cause. - Tεx τ urε 18:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see the bottom of the page suggestion at the Talk:Toronto page. I hope we can work this problem out and spare everyone the effort of revert-revert-revert. Cheers, Madmagic 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:LOTS mockup.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:LOTS mockup.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne and Max Bailey Centre moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Anne and Max Bailey Centre, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. — Za wl 15:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anne and Max Bailey Centre has been accepted

Anne and Max Bailey Centre, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anne and Max Bailey Centre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anne and Max Bailey Centre 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/Anne and Max Bailey Centre 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 notice from the top of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to David Leeson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Switching from an IP account to your personal account will not enable you to continue removing sourced content. Please provide a source, or discuss this on the article's talk page. PureRED | talk to me | 22:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]