User talk:Nnbhn

Noise Pop moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Noise Pop, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. New articles generally need at least two (but preferably more) references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss the subject with significant coverage (trivial mentions do not contribute to notability).(See Rule 42) Information that can't be referenced to reliable sources should be removed from the draft because verifiability is necessary for information added to Wikipedia. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of  before the article title) where you can work on the article with minimal disruption from other users while you improve it. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready to be published, you can move it back to the article space yourself. However, I recommend that instead of moving it yourself that you follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template that I have added to the page. This submits the article to be reviewed by experienced editors that specialize in helping new editors write their first articles. Edaham (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Noise Pop
Hi there - because I was checking the edit in which you added the sources in the page's history, I didn't see that you had submitted this page to AfC and moved it to main space when I checked back after reviewing it and found that it had been adequately sourced. Thanks for doing this work and apologies to the reviewer for jumping the gun. Please revert my actions if the result was that it needed more work, however after opening and checking the listed sources, I think that this is a suitable article for the main space. Apologies again. Edaham (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:NoisePopFestival.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NoisePopFestival.jpg, which you've attributed to Bailey Greenwood. 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 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)