Alex900000

Your submission at Articles for creation: Actress Universe (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AssumeGoodWraith was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Actress Universe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Actress Universe, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alex900000! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Actress Universe (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Actress Universe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Actress Universe, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leonid Khromov (January 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leonid Khromov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Leonid Khromov, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leonid Khromov (March 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leonid Khromov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Leonid Khromov, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Actress Universe

Hello, Alex900000. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Actress Universe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 01:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Leonid Khromov

Hello, Alex900000. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Leonid Khromov, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 13:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leonid Khromov (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by UtherSRG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leonid Khromov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Leonid Khromov

Hello, Alex900000. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Leonid Khromov".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:RituArya-Sundance.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:RituArya-Sundance.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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 deleted 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Alex900000. Just to clarify the above, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy pretty much never allows non-free images of still living persons to be uploaded and added to articles (except under certain limited conditions) per WP:NFCC#1 because it's almost always considered reasonable for a free equivalent image to either be newly taken or otherwise created and then licensed under one of the free copyright licenses that Wikipedia accepts per WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI; furthermore, the default is never to use a non-free image simply until such a free equivalent image can be found. In addition, non-free images sourced to photo or news agencies (e.g. Getty Images) are pretty much considered to be automatic violations of WP:NFCC#2 per WP:F7 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI unless the image itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary, and such images are subject to immediate speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly! This photo is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license. Alex900000 (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If you check the file's page, you'll see that it's licensed as non-free content attributed to Getty Images. If that license is incorrect, please click on the blue "Contest this Speedy Deletion" button and provide some information (ideally a link) which clearly shows it has been licensed as you're claiming. Please note that the source provided for the image (m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNTZiM2YyNmItNTQ1Ny00YmU4LWFhNjUtZjg1YTQ2OWU2NGJlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMTg2ODkz._V1_.jpg) is a direct link to the image and doesn't specify a copyright license; so, the assumption is going to be that the image is copyrighted and not released under an acceptable free license until shown otherwise. When providing links for images, it's generally helpful to provide a link that shows the image, the copyright holder's information and a copyright license as explained in WP:NFC#Sourcing because it aids in assessing the images copyright status. Please also note that often copyrighted images are used online by third-parties under a claim of fair use, fair dealing or because the user has entered an agreement to use the image from the original copyright holder. Whatever agreement the source website has with the copyright holder is almost certainly just between those two parties and doesn't extend to others like Wikipedia. So, even if the source website states its content has been released under an acceptable CC license, it doesn't matter to Wikipedia unless the source website is also the original copright holder of the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The file has already been deleted by a Wikipedia administrator named Explicit per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but it can be easily restored if you're able to clearly show it has been released under an acceptable free license as you claim above. If you would like Explicit to do this, please post a message at User talk:Explicit and provide the information (again ideally a link) that shows the original copyright holder of the image did indeed release it under such a license. Explicit is quite experienced when it comes to file licensing and he will have no problem restoring the image if things check out. If it does turn out the file is licensed as you're claiming and it's restored, you should ask Explicit to move it to Wikimedia Commons because there's no reason for such a file to be hosted locally on (English) Wikipedia. Files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons can be used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects, whereas files uploaded locally to (English) Wikipedia can only be used by English Wikipedia. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, but I'm not a Wikipedia administrator and can't restore the file myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for information Alex900000 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I make a screenshot of a video interview with this actress and post this screenshot as my own work? Alex900000 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you probably should read c:COM:Own work and c:COM:Screenshot before doing any such thing. A screenshot of copyrighted content created by other parties will almost certainly require the WP:CONSENT of the original copyright holder in order for it to be uploaded as anything other than non-free content. The expression "own work" has a particular meaning when it comes to copyright law: it usually means you're the original creator of something complex enough to be considered eligible for copyright protection; it doesn't mean you "reproduce" someone else's creative copyright content in some other format. If the original video interview has been released under an acceptable free license by the content's creator, then a screenshot of it can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia under the terms of the license chosen by the copyright holder. Such a screenshot, however, would just simply a slavish reproduction and not sufficiently creative enough to generate a new copyright that you can claim as your "own work". Think of it as if you go to the library, pull a book off the shelf, and photocopy some pages for whatever reason. Even though you're physically making the copies yourself (even perhaps paying for them), you're not really doing anything creative enough to establish a new claim of copyright ownership over those copies; moreover, even if you did, your claim of copyright would not cancel out the claims of the original copyright holder and that person's consent would still be needed for the screenshot to be OK to upload to Wikipedia as anything other than non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks Alex900000 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If you check your Commons user talk page, you should see notification for speedy deletion related to the screenshot you've uploaded that was taken from a YouTube interview given by Arya. Even though Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects with many similarities when it comes to the way they operate, they still each have their own respectful policies, guidelines and communities. The file you've uploaded has been tagged for speedy deletion because there's no way to verify that it has been released under the license you uploaded it under. Generally, when uploading any kind of copyrighted content, it's best to provide an actual link to the source of the file to aid it the verification process. Files uploaded to Commons without such information can quickly be marked for speedy deletion for when there's a reasonable doubt to the file's provenance and copyright status. A Commons's editor was able to use the information you provided to find the YouTube interview and added a source to the file's description, but they weren't able to verify the file's licensing. You need to be careful when it comes to uploading content from WP:YOUTUBE and make sure that (1) the content provider is the original copyright holder and (2) the content provider has released their content under an acceptable license for Wikipedia/Commons. It looks like in this case (1) checked out, but (2) didn't. YouTube does give content providers the option of releasing their content under a standard YouTube license (which is too restrictive for Wikipedia/Commons) or a less restrictive Creative Commons license (which is OK), but the content provider needs to explicitly make that clear on the file's page and it shouldn't be assumed otherwise if they don't. If you feel a mistake has been made with respect to the tagging of the file, you still have time to explain how. Just reply to the notification that was left on your Commons user talk page and explain why. You should provide a link clearly showing the file's been licensed as you're claiming to aid in the verification process. If this is not the case (i.e. you just made a mistake), just do nothing and the file will be deleted in a few days. It's OK to make a mistake like this and many do; just try not to keeping making the same mistake over and over again because that's how accounts end up being blocked on Commons. If have questions specific to the Commons file you uploaded, it's better to ask them at Commons. You can try asking the user who tagged the file for speedy deletion or try asking at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)