Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! I'm not sure what specifically the warning you got was, but I didn't see any real problems with your addition. Here are some possibilities though... (none of these apply here, as far as I can tell)

- "Routable features" like foot paths, roads, etc. should generally be connected to one another to be useful. That means a "floating" feature or group of features isn't very useful for routing.
- If features overlap or cross: They should either be connected in real life like a crossing across a road, or they should be tagged as tunnel/bridge etc. as appropriate.

Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great to me, except the house=* tag. In this case, instead of adding the unconventional value converted_church_and_add_on, that info is best for a description tag. (which you nicely added!)
A bit of a related side note, OpenStreetMap has a principle called "any tags you like", where technically you can make up any tag you want to describe a feature. But, general good practice is to use existing established conventions for describing things if at all possible. That's why in this case, in my opinion, that value for house= is not appropriate. I went ahead and removed it.

Let me know if you have any questions or objections, and thanks for your contributions!!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me, no issues! Thanks for your contributions.

Hello again! (I've been going through your changesets for which you requested review.) In this one, that "extra line" you removed was part of the administrative boundary [1] for Tanasbourne. Even if a feature has no tags, it might be part of a multipolygon or other relation. [2]
Fortunately, in this case it was easy to restore, which I just took care of. Arguably you were following the OSM good practice of "be bold". :)

Let me know if you have any questions about that, and thanks for your contributions!!

[1] More info on admin boundaries: osm.wiki/Tag%3aboundary=administrative

[2] More info on multipolygons: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks good to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me - no complaints! Thanks for your contribution to the map.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me, no complaints! Local knowledge/in-person observations are super valuable for situations like this.
Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no issues! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. There are some issues here - mainly descriptive names. That means we should only use the name tag for the official or common name of a feature. In this case, it looks like you're wanting to prevent people from accessing this area. My suggestion for that would be to use access tags to mark the roads as private. Looks like that's already done!
Let me know if you have any questions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me - no issues. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good to me - no complaints! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me - Thanks for your contribution!

Actually, looking at the website, it looks like this is maybe a game shop? Not sure. I'm wondering if a more specific shop tag could be applied.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your addition here. Looks great to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contribution.

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here - Looks great to me! Like you saw, it can be tricky to decide what info should go on buildings and what belongs on the outer area. In this case, since each building has a different house number address, I think what you did is perfect. Thanks for your contributions!

Howdy! Nice job on this switcheroo on the church grounds/buildings. In the past I've typically tried to put most everything on the grounds/landuse, leaving a generic building=church within, but I just had a skim of the wiki for amenity=place_of_worship and it looks like the way you've done it is the more accepted way. I'll try and remember this for when I next touch a church building/grounds. In the past my main goal has just been to avoid amenity appearing on multiple features which is a duplicate afaik.
TL;DR nice job. :)

Ah, gotcha! Sounds like you're more familiar with this than I am! Lol. Well thanks again for the info, and happy mapping!

Hi! Since you requested a review here, I looked over your changes. This is a simple one - no problems! Thanks for your contributions.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no issues! There are a number of other improvements to be made here too, like reclassifying this to a service road rather than a residential road, and a bunch of others (too many to list here, haha.) I made the improvements I could see in the area!

Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!