User talk:Leonard9ca

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Radio with Pictures system for use with DVB was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! - Happysailor 20:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Welsh1974.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radio with Pictures system for use with DVB 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/Radio with Pictures system for use with DVB until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

PepperBeast (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately your recent contributions to Wilfrid Brambell have been reverted. Even though I’m sure these edits were made in good faith, directly linking to external pages is not allowed in the body of articles; there were grammar issues; it included your opinion.

A copy of your edit is available on the article’s edit history. For more general advice on editing see the Contributing to Wikipedia page.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 12:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Stopatum Station. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and in particular at least two and preferably three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject that actually refer to the training facility as "Stopatum". There's useful information about how to choose good sources and avoid bad sources here. I love the story, so I hope you have sources that will back it up. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Leonard9ca. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stopatum Station, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Car radio demo early 1920s.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I am added source information. Please can you let me know if it is acceptable.

Also I have been working hard to deal with the message on a reference

"Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined" but I cannot identify the reason for this message. Can you help me understand the problem. Leonard9ca (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The above also applies to File:Marconi and Isaacs.jpg, File:Godfrey Issacs with Dane Nellie Melba and Mrs Lea Constance Isaacs.jpg and File:Marconi and Isaacs.jpg. These images had to come from somewhere and information about their respective provenances is needed in order to properly assess their copyright status. Moreover, with photographs and other copyrighted works, it's the date of first publication not the date of creation that typically matters most when assessing copyright status. Under the copyright laws of most countries, the person taking a photo is considered to be its copyright holder, and the length of copyright protection is calculated starting the year after the photographer has died (post mortem auctoris. So, it's not totally out of the realm of possibilty from a photo taken in 1910 to be not yet within the public domain depending on when the photographer died. Finally, some of these appear to have been colorized. If that's how they were originally taken, then fine; however, if they were colorized after the fact, then it would be much better from an encyclopedic standpoint and file licensing standpoint to use the original non-clorized versions instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I will put the source web site in all the descriptions. The dates of publication are not known but were probably by Marconi Wireless and certainly more than 100 years ago. I didn't colourise the photos and they appear that way in many other places. Leonard9ca (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that those photos sourced to the BBC were originally taken by the BBC. So, unless you're able to figure out where they originally came from, it's going to be very hard for Wikipedia to keep them regardless of how many times and by how many websites they might be being used by: those websites most likely aren't claiming copyright ownership of the photos or claiming they're within the public domain, which is what you've done by uploading them to Wikipedia. For reference, under US copyright law, a photo with an unknown author and an unknown first publication date is eligible for copyright protection for at least 120 years afte creation. So, the more information you can find out about these photos, the easier it will be to assess their copyright status. Furthermore, things can get even more complicated for photos taken/published outside the US because the copyright laws of the country where the photo was taken also need to be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Shoenberg-display-Ally-Pally.jpeg. 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 {{permission 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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

If you did not create this poster yourself (which includes being the person who took the photo used in it), then it's not your WP:Own work and you can't upload it as such. You seem to be misunderstanding some important things about image licensing and what kinds of things you can upload to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. It might be a good idea for you to ask for help at WP:HD, WP:TEA or WP:MCQ before uploading anymore files. It's easy to make mistakes and its OK when you do it once or twice; however, making too many mistakes (particularly related to copyright stuff), could lead to a Wikipedia administrator stepping in and taking some sort of action against your account. In the case of photos of 2D works like this, there's typically no new copyright established for the photo as explained in c:COM:2D copyright because the photo is not considered creative enough to warrant its own copyright protection separate from the photographed work. So, the only things that matter here are the copyright statuses of the poster and the photo used in the poster; unless it can be clearly shown that both aren't protected by copyright, a photo of the poster can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Alexandra palace mast.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you take this photo of Alexandra Palace yourself? If you didn't take it but found it somewhere online, then it's not your photo, and you can't upload it to Wikipedia as such. The photo is fairly low resolution and looks more like something found online than newly taken by the types of cameras most people use these days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Godfrey-isaacs.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Leonard9ca. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Stopatum Station".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)