User talk:NeonLego

Yarm School re-edit

You have reinstated two sections on this page that have been included into an expanded history section, which retains all of the information but provides a smooth chronology. If you had read the updated sections, this would have been obvious. Why have you done this? The article no longer flows. Amspa (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Artworks2Screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Artworks2Screenshot.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:AllSaintsPrestonOnTees.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:AllSaintsPrestonOnTees.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Paul Middleton

I have nominated Paul Middleton, 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/Paul Middleton. 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. Andrew Duffell (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Always (Switchfoot song)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Always (Switchfoot song). I do not think that Always (Switchfoot song) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because the CSD criterion A9 does not apply to this case - it only is meant for an article about an album/song from an artist who's Wikipedia article is nonexistent. I request that you consider not re-tagging Always (Switchfoot song) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. JamieS93 00:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of All Saints' Church, Eaglescliffe

The article All Saints' Church, Eaglescliffe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a church noticeboard.

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. Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Size of Preston Park

In case you missed my entry on the talk page of Preston Park, I'm putting this here to make sure that you know about my gripes.

Why tag the article and then utterly fail to explain the reasoning behind the tagging on the talk page? Five months later and still no pointers on why you tagged it? Come on, man.

Also, you reverted the size of the park to almost 600 acres. Although this is admittedly smaller than your previous estimate, in so doing you went against the consensus on the talk page and ignored and deleted a perfectly valid and reputable reference. Again, no explanation in the discussion. Why do you insist that the park is so big? Even basic and simplistic measures taken using Google Maps shows it's only around 0.5 square kilometres. 2.4 is a bizarre number that you've never explained. The local council says approximately 100 acres and that should be the end of it.

--SmartShark (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)