User talk:Dj paul84

Hi. Two things.

Firstly you were exceptionally naughty in (a) uploading Image:Greater mddlesbrough.jpg and (b) in claiming that it is public domain. This image is a copyright violation, not public domain, and I have tagged it as such. Please do not do this again.

Secondly, regarding the article Middlesbrough. It is important that the article retains a sense of proportion regarding Middlesbrough's size, and it is inappropriate for it to have paragraphs and paragraphs claiming that various areas that are part of the "Town of Middlesbrough" (whatever that is), yet not part of the "Borough of Middlesbrough". I am assuming you are the same person as User:82.4.107.152 here, based on your editing pattern. If I am incorrect, please disregard this.

Several particular points
 * claiming that because things were in the Middlesbrough Rural District, they should be counted as being in the town of Middlesbrough is absurd
 * I should like to see references for Greater Middlesbrough, its population, and also the claims that "Middlesbrough is also a Governmental and Parliamentary district", which seems nonsense to me.
 * the Parliamentary claims are also dubious. see list of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland
 * if you want a map of the old borough of Middlesbrough, prior to 1968, please see . You will note it excluded Eston, which remained an independent urban district outside Middlesbrough until it became part of Teesside in 1968.


 * Having looked at this matter more closely, I'm not actually sure that there is anywhere in Middlesbrough prior to 1968 which is presently outside the borough boundary.   Middlesbrough's area was 7,130 acres in 1961, which translated to 28.8 km².  The current area is 53.87km².


 * Indeed, Middlesbrough's boundaries are tightly drawn. However, the same applies to other towns, such as Nottingham, Reading and Blackpool.  Morwen - Talk 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Parliamentary distrit of Middlesbrough. This district is now defunct but what was called an Urban sanitary District which was used for local government, both Thornaby-on-tees and the Eston District were under the local government of the Middlesbrough Urban Sanitary and Rural District for the purpose of parliament —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj paul84 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1830_1930.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1830_1930.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

London population
Hi. I added a comment addressing some of your points on London talk page. The way this has been reported in the press is confusing, but the basic point is that there are not an additional 600,000 in the UK, let alone London, from the new EU states, because that figure was for arrivals and doesn't take account of the fact that some of those people will have since gone home. Plus, London isn't the main destination for EU migrants. Cordless Larry 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Mbro Sky.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Mbro Sky.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Edward 05:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greater Middlesbrough
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Greater Middlesbrough, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. — Snigbrook 18:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Greater Eston
I have nominated Greater Eston, 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 Articles for deletion/Greater Eston. 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. Computerjoe 's talk 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)