Talk:Alexandra Botez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger w proposal[edit]

I propose merging Andrea Botez into Alexandra Botez and moving it to Botez sisters. I think the content in [Andrea Botez] can easily be explained in the context of [Alexandra Botez], and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in [Alexandra Botez]. Also, I think they're notable enough to merge into the [Botez sisters] article. L33tm4n (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this was not done is because the consensus is clearly heading in the opposite direction. Andrea started out as a mere mention on this page, but now she clearly merits her own article. The two sisters will likely keep their respective page, with Botez sisters just disambiguating between the two. CapnZapp (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023[edit]

Hergo38 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change the main photo with Alexandra Botez 2.jpg.

 Not done: No, that image is a copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)  Not done I find the licensing on that image very dubious. It is uploaded by a User:FuntMasterGames, purporting to be Botez herself, but with no other evidence attached that the uploader has the right to use that photo, or even a date attached to it. It seems like the current 2010 image may be the only one we have available at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish and @Amakuru In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcjDINI_GAE&t=23s) Alexandra is asked what photo she would like to be used on her Wikipedia page and she says "I would love the same photo I have on Instagram and Twitter". Isn't this enough permission? Hergo38 (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hergo38: if Botez owns the copyright to the image (which is probably the case, although technically that depends on her who the photographer is and what the circumstances of the photo were), then she should send an email to the c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team and verify to them that she has authorized publication of this file on Commons, under the licence in question. It's not enough to rely on a throwaway comment on a YouTube video, we actually need proof that the copyright holder has authorized it.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add - this legal rigamarole is because the photo already exists on the internet. Adding a brand new photo of Alex would be much easier; the user simply takes the pic, asserts their copyright, and we can use it. Of course, regular editors don't have celebrities on beck and call, but that does not stop the celebrities themselves from becoming Wikipedia users and improving their own articles. CapnZapp (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

See this Youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcjDINI_GAE&t=23s) and previous talk sections.

The easiest solution is for Alexandra (or one of her friends) to take a new pic, create an account, upload it, assert he or she took it themselves, and boom, we can use it.

The reason our article is currently using a crappy photo is because it needs to be free of copyright. We cannot and will not accept a photo from a social media site such as Instagram. That does not mean it is hard for someone with an article to get a great photo. It just needs to be uploaded here (or to their personal Flickr account etc), and not picked from existing social media. CapnZapp (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone's Flickr be better than someone's Instagram? Warren Dew (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it has to be this photo from when she was a kid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:5F32:2400:E15A:B93B:F2FA:9FCD (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously recent photos are preferable but it comes down to licensing and copyright. I don't understand this very well but you can't just use any old image from the internet, it has to be cleared. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Include Recent Poker Livestream Statistics for Alexandra Botez[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have gathered recent statistics on Alexandra Botez's poker livestream performances. This data was collected from Highroll Poker and includes Botez's performances on platforms like "Hustler Casino Live" and "WPT Cash".

The statistics give details about net winnings, VPIP (%), PFR (%), hours played, hourly earnings, and BB/Hour for each platform.

https://highrollpoker.com/tracker/players/1483

Here's the breakdown of the data:

- "Hustler Casino Live": $500,310 in net winnings over 47 hours, with a VPIP of 40%, a PFR of 17%, an hourly rate of $10,644.89, and 74.85 BB per hour.

- "WPT Cash": -$10,000 in net losses over 5 hours, with an hourly rate of -$2,000 and -40 BB per hour.

Overall, Botez has net winnings of $490,310 across all platforms over 52 hours of play. Her average VPIP is 40%, average PFR is 17%, average hourly earnings are $9,429.04, and average BB/Hour is 63.37.

This data is accurate as of July 2023.

I believe that including these recent statistics on Alexandra Botez's Wikipedia page would provide a more comprehensive understanding of her recent poker performances for the readers. However, as I am associated with Highroll Poker, I am seeking the community's input and review to ensure transparency and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Best, Michael Hygnn1 (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexandra_Botez&oldid=1182464149"