User talk:Bradford4life

Welcome!

 * Thanks GiantSnowman, my edit about Motherwell fc's strip reads far better this morning lol and if you sorted out my mistake with the new city strip on the bcfc page, thanks once again.Bradford4life (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, nice to see somebody else contributing positively to City's page! GiantSnowman 08:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Frederick W eurich.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Frederick W eurich.jpg, which you've sourced to Leeds.ac.uk. 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 , 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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 created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bradford do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sir William Rothenstein.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sir William Rothenstein.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The file is already on wikipedia, here... William Rothenstein   Bradford4life (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The file has been on the William Rothenstein wikipedia page for at least two years. Bradford4life (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Chantel McGregor
Hi, sorry I couldn't help in time, was away over the weekend, but glad somebody else fixed it. And yes, great result on Saturday. GiantSnowman 09:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman. Bradford4life (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Bradford
Hello, I have removed your addition about being a powerhouse. I am dubious whether the claim is true (unfortunately I see Leeds being much more dynamic than Bradford), but even if it is, any evaluative claim like this ranks as original research, and is therefore forbidden, unless it is directly backed up by a reference to a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Hi There, Bradford has a much larger manufacturing base than Leeds, Leeds obviously has a large financial base. I'll see if i can reference the Bradford manufacturing claim.Bradford4life (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Colin, I've reworded the insert to make sense of the reference i've used. Leeds City Region Bradford4life (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, but I've removed it again. Calling something a "powerhouse" is peacock language, and is not acceptable unless the term is used in a reliable and independent source: the MIPIM document you have cited is reliable, no doubt, but it is obviously not independent, and so should be used only to support uncontroversial factual data. (I'll be delighted to see work really start on the Westfield site this year, but I'm not holding my breath). --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, obviously with an economy of 8.3 billion approx Bradford is a powerhouse of the LCR as it is of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Obviously a manufacturing powerhouse just as Leeds if i remember correctly is described on it's wiki page as a financial powerhouse. I'm adding it again. Yes i'm hopeful that Westfield will get started this year but holding your breath regarding this wish would be inadvisable.Bradford4life (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just noticed that "power house" is indeed in the brochure you cited - I hadn't found it because I searched for "powerhouse". I still feel that the word is evaluative and promotional, not neutral (which is why I cited WP:PEACOCK and mentioned the non-independence of the source), and so does not belong in the article; but following procedure I'm discussing it rather than reverting you again. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I didn't realise you hadn't noticed the description in the Leeds City Region piece, sorry about that, i should have specified the paragraph, i'd have directed you to it if i'd have known. Maybe get a few other wiki people who haven't got a view to have a look at it as i don't see a problem with the description. I'll leave it with you as i'm not connected with the site other than making edits. I wonder if you could help me regarding a picture or montage being placed in the Bradford box at the top right of the page, i noticed when looking at the Leeds page today that they have a fantastic montage of pictures in the same box at the top right of the Leeds page, was thinking that something similar would look great on the Bradford page, in fact there was a Bradford montage, but it disappeared for some reason. Although i know how to put pictures on the actual Bradford page, the placing of one in the box seems different, if you can help please let me know.Bradford4life (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry B4l but I do not think the phrase "power house" is encyclopedic language. It does not have any precise meaning in relation to the size of the economy and is peacock/promotional and sourced only from a partisan publication. We should stick to facts and statistics. I propose that it be removed.--Charles (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Charles, can we have one or two other wiki editors giving an opinion, would also like to put a montage of Bradford pictures into the Bradford description box, any ideas as the wiki instructions seem unclear to me, the one inserted earlier, not by me... seems to have gone, leaving a sad looking map of West Yorkshire.Bradford4life (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The montage seems to have been deleted because its creator User:Jonfarman neglected to add a copyright status. I do not know how to make them. I have replaced the city hall photo for now.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for the town hall picture, the montage i talked about disappeared but seemed to be using all photos actually used presently by wiki, it seemed very odd as the copyright status must have been correctly applied originally for wiki to be using them now. Is that something you could look at? Regarding the word 'powerhouse'... is it possible to get a couple more wiki editors views? If that isn't possible, no worries.Bradford4life (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, B4l. You now have two editors who think "powerhouse" inappropriate. If you want further comment, you can go to WP:RFC. I'm afraid I have no expertise with images. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the montage, that will have been created in the editor's own software and uploaded. Even if it is composed from free images the resulting new image will be the intellectual property of its creator and will need to be released into the public domain. You could try contacting that editor and asking if it can be uploaded again.--Charles (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Charles, i'll do that regarding the montage upload editor. I think i'm happy with the consensus regarding power house, thanks to both of you for your imput.Bradford4life (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rodney Friend
Put simply if a page is not in the mainspace (i.e. it is in the userspace) then you cannot link to it: it is passing userpages off as articles despite them not being held to any editorial standards - please do not restore the links again. Besides, that userpage was blatantly promotional anyway, as such I have deleted it-- Jac 16888 Talk 10:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Rodney Friend
Hi, I'm Kudpung. Bradford4life, thanks for creating Rodney Friend!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article needs independent 3rd party  sources. Please see WP:RS and WP:BIO for more information on how to  complete this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, i'll get on it over the weekend, thanks for your interest.Bradford4life (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Justify your deletions
You deleted without reason pictures of Bradford Cathedral and Synagogue. Why? Are you trying to Islamify Wikipedia? Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC) There must be be better pictures.Bradford4life (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pfff yeah, really. Is that taqiyya for you want mosques, mosques and more mosques? Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm Besieged. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Bradford, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. be siege d talk 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bradford. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. be siege d talk 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hello, Bradford4life. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Bradford, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. be siege d talk 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Bradford. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. be siege d talk 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. be siege d talk 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bradford Reform Synagogue from balcony.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bradford Reform Synagogue from balcony.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File 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 created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ProFriederich Wilheim Eurich bacteriologist.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ProFriederich Wilheim Eurich bacteriologist.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sir Jacob Behrens.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sir Jacob Behrens.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Interior of Bradford Reform Synagogue.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Interior of Bradford Reform Synagogue.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I took the photo on the 23 October this year, I got permission from the Synagogue to do the photo shoot. Let me know what you need and I'll supply itBradford4life (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC).


 * If you look at the page File:Interior of Bradford Reform Synagogue.jpg there is a notice explaining that your email to OTRS was not sufficient. It says " However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this page/file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published." I am not in the OTRS group, so I have not seen the mail and can't tell you what was unsatisfactory about it; but if you talked about permission from the Synagogue, that is irrelevant. It requires that you believably assert that you are the holder of the copyright (as you probably are, if you took the photo) and that you released it under an appropriate licence. If it is still not clear, I suggest you ask at the OTRS noticeboard. Incidentally, if you are releasing the picture under an appropriate licence, it would be better on Wikimedia commons, so that all Wikimedia projects can use it: if you put it on English Wikipedia, then only English Wikipedia can use it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I never sent an e-mail regarding this picture, that e-mail was regarding a previous picture upload by me but taken by someone else. When I realised I couldn't get the information needed from the photographer in question i arranged a shoot at the Bradford Reform Synagogue, the picture in question being one of numerous that I took. This does seem to be a muddle.14:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Bradford4life (talk)

July 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Bradford, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Bradford. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dr. Friederich Eurich bacteriologist.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dr. Friederich Eurich bacteriologist.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Stefan2, can you help me as I'm not sure what I need to do to stop the Friederich Eurich file being deleted. Bradford4life (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Rudi Leavor
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rudi Leavor, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJj74iprpB0.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Your addition to Rudi Leavor has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bradford, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Accent, Next and Kiko. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wilhelm Norbert Pollack


A tag has been placed on Wilhelm Norbert Pollack requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:The threads that bind us, David Hockney.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The threads that bind us, David Hockney.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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

NFCC violations on Bradford
Stop repeatedly violating WP:NFCCE, WP:NFCC, and WP:NFCC on Bradford. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am. Bradford4life (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You definitely are. If you don't stop, I will request that you are blocked. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 14:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fair use. I'm also going to add a Railway Children poster shortly. Bradford4life (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Louisa Frances Pesel


The page Louisa Frances Pesel has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://trc-leiden.nl/trc-needles/people-and-functions/authors-scholars-and-activists/pesel-louisa-1870-1947. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. signed,Rosguill talk 05:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All this having been said, Louisa Frances Pesel does appear to be notable, and you are very much encouraged to write a copyright-compliant version of the article. signed,Rosguill talk 05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford, you may be blocked from editing. ''It has been made clear that opinion is irrelevant. We go by the reliable sources which state that the building is a landmark. Buildings can be a landmark even for negative characteristics. An article is not all about the positive features of a town, and a building that is notable for its article is going to be relevant for the parent town article.'' Koncorde (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

the new Bradford montage
Hello, I'm looking for opinions on the new Bradford montage I put together. You have already seen it but I've added a link below so you can view it again. Thanks

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bradford_montage_2022.jpg      Beautifulscarlet (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)