User talk:Ytny/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tagging untagged images

A quick reminder: When tagging images for speedy deletion with {{nsd}}, {{nld}} or similar, please remember to remove the {{untagged}} template from the image. It helps ensure an accurate record of how many images we've tagged. :) Kimchi.sg 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Granville Street Map.jpg

You have nominated this image for deletion and it got deleted even though I tried to change the copyright restrictions/origins for the image. Please tell me what caused the image's final deletion and why I cannot post illustrative modified screenshots of Google Maps if I claim the source? Google Maps itself allows its maps to be reproduced if the source and copyright statement is retained. I can't find any information on this image now. Please get back to me about this. Thanks.

P.S. I am currently living in Japan and for now have no access to the Internet at home, so there may be some delay in correspondence from me.

--NeoThe1 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please answer my question? NeoThe1 11:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg

Hello, Ytny. I see you have added {{wronglicense}} to Image:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg, saying it is not a screenshot of a Web page. I happen to have this image on my watchlist, and I seem to recall that exactly the same debate about this image happened less than a month ago (see [1]). I don't have a strong opinion on this image, but it did survive a dispute once. —Bkell (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it survived a PUI and I don't care if the image actually survives or not either, but the license is still incorrect. A {{web-screenshot}} has to be a screenshot of a web page, and it can't be a screenshot cropped down to show a single image and not the whole page. I don't know what the correct license would be, unless someone can come up with a faire use rationale, but I've replaced the image on the SkyspraperPage article with an image of the site's logo, which I believe is more appropriate for the article than a watermarked image taken from the site. Thanks. Ytny 07:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. I've cleaned out Category:Screenshots of web pages once myself. But I thought the result of the PUI debate was that this was to be considered a screenshot of a Web page, because it was illustrating an article about the page itself (and perhaps this particular feature of the page). Somewhere along the line I even got the impression that this was a screenshot of a Flash animation on the site, although that could just be my neurons firing badly. —Bkell (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So I read Image talk:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg and I have to say, I'm still a bit confused. I'm looking around and seeing how that image could be generated and this was as close as it got. I don't think it's a very good representation of SkyscraperPage (though a similar image might be good for the "diagrams" section) and it seems odd that a jscript-generated page would have a watermark over it. Ytny 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be frank, I'm not actually interested enough in this image to do as much research as you've done, so you know the situation better than I do. ;-) My original comment was mostly a suggestion that if questioning the {{web-screenshot}} tag didn't work the first time, it's unlikely to work now. Since you've replaced this image with a logo, and reworked the page, now this particular image is orphaned, so maybe you could just tag it with {{subst:orfud}}? —Bkell (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

KingPenguin Again

Okay, start me from square one, is there any feasible way to get a football picture of a single player that works with copyright? Promotional seems fine to me, they get sourced, there's no way the personal site would mind, and the license says it can be used in the absence of other copyright-verifiable images. These pictures seem to come from www.asromacalcio.it, I was not aware, I thought last time I checked these could not be found elsewhere. If asromacalcio.it uses them to illustrate their players, promoting their product, could that be used under that source verifiably under promotional, or do I need to do something completely different? Is there any other way than magazine covers, personally taken photos, or permission from someone who took the photo? Thank you for your help. -KingPenguin 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tim Duncan Magazine Cover

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that the magazine cover is NOT Fair Use on the Tim Duncan article. The issue and the cover were created to feature Tim Duncan himself, and not Sports Illustrated as an organization. That is how the magazine sells copies on the news stand. The words "Substance over Style" were meant to describe Duncan. It also shows how the media tends to view Duncan as a player, which in my mind plays a big part in telling the story of Tim Duncan, because he never gets the press and the publicity of Shaq, Kobe, or LeBron, yet he is a proven winner (3 titles and counting). That, in my mind, is reason enough to keep the magazine cover in the article. Dknights411 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to create a constructive critisism version later using Tim's 2003 Sportsman of the Year cover w/ David Robinson. That should work, right?Dknights411 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My photos

Why are they being considered for deletion? It is clearly stated that I took the photos. I am a photographer for Everton Football Club and own the copyrights. I would appreciate it if they were no longer being considered for deletion. Teamhero 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My photos again

Well I've updated the photos again. And thank you for pointing out where the photos can be found elsewhere. I am absolutely furious about this flagrant copyright violation and will be contacting my lawyers. Teamhero 09:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.soccer-europe.com

The fact that http://www.soccer-europe.com must be credited for an image does not mean that a link to http://www.soccer-europe.com must be present every time the image is used. The link put in the image page is sufficient.--Kwame Nkrumah 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest to remove those images. It is better not to have them than to put this link in every page they are used in. Afterall, it is not so important to have pictures of the footballers.--Kwame Nkrumah 00:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I plan to remove the images originating in this website, but I would do this with a bit of consensus, first of all, and of collaboration, secondary. Do you know where can I find both?--Kwame Nkrumah 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Hello. What other copywright information would I need to include? Perhaps you could help me or direct me to a page that can help. Regards. Mark272 19:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Sister

Hello, please help me address your concerns over at Talk:Big Sister (brothel). Cheers, AxelBoldt 23:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lower East Side "Commentary"

Hi - thanks for doing all the work you are doing. But can you support your contention that this is "Commentary" and not factual:

The names of places in New York City change, either due to the influence of land developers, the City government, or because a name no longer suits a neighborhood's character. A name never changes, though, unless the residents of the city collectively adopt it, which usually takes years and is an informal process whereby most people begin to refer to an area by its new name. A recent new name that took root is DUMBO in Brooklyn, whereas referring to Hell's Kitchen as "Clinton" has largely been eschewed. Similarly, New York residents rarely refer to Sixth Avenue as "Avenue of the Americas". A new neighborhood name may be controversial, as may be its perceived boundaries.

--DavidShankBone 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mihajlovic photo

You keep putting in the "no source" tag despite me providng the source. I took a screen shot myself using my TV Tuner PCI Capture Card and resized the resulting photo. How exactly do you fail to see a source there.User:Zvonko 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva Article

Thanks for your help on moving about the images on Gilberto Silva and deleting the image which violates copyright.

I have a small question regarding the link you removed (Gilberto Silva Website - Unofficial Fan Site) - I was just wondering how it isn't notable. It's true I'm the creator of the site, and if this type of link is somehow against the guidelines I'll totally understand - and I don't want to be accused of using Wikipedia to promote my site. However, I do strongly believe that the site is very useful to anybody wanting information on Gilberto Silva. Please let me know your thoughts on whether you'd considering re-adding the link after some consideration.

Thanks again, and all the best. -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Promotional

I read now your contribution on Template talk:Promotional, about what is not covered by that license. As I witness a lot of images uploaded with this template that do not fall under the license terms, I think it is urgent to add a text clearly excluding those images. Can you do something?--BaldClarke 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Football (soccer) barnstar
		I, Howcheng, award you this barnstar for all your excellent football (soccer) contributions, especially in helping clean up the Soccer-europe.com image mess. Thanks for all your hard work!

--howcheng {chat} 04:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Posters

Hey, I noticed that you deleted the Zola and Vialli image. It is a photo of a poster I own, I think that there is no copyright issue there, is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusty8 (talk • contribs)