User talk:ESkog: Difference between revisions

Hello.
I just noticed that your unblock decline reason was, "I'm also not convinced you really understand what 'clear and obvious vandalism' is."
He put up another unblock template in hope that it would catch your attention, but I figured it'd be easier to simply add it here: "If I do revert anything (besides clear vandalism, such as adding expletives to articles), then I get blocked for a week." (Yes, I know, obvious question: why didn't he remember to put that in the unblock request?)
Anyways, just putting it here for the sake of having all information. (What you choose to do with it is your business, not mine) Bladestorm 19:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your edits to various Cleveland Browns and New England Patriots season pages. The logo you removed from the Patriots' season page was Image:Pats 1971-1992 logo.PNG, which does indeed have a fair use rationale. Pats1 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no standard way to provide a rationale for every use. The rationale is contained within the file itself, and would conceivably apply to every use that falls within the guidelines prescribed. The logos are not merely decorating the season articles; the logo is being used to identify the team's season being analyzed. Pats1 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image's page itself. Would you want the rationale provided somehow on each article it is being used? Or do you want the image's page to have rationale listed for each article it's being used in? Pats1 03:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see 1990 New York Giants season, which passed GA, logo and all. Pats1 03:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around Wikipedia for awhile, and I've yet to see an image with rationale listed for every use. Can you please show me one? This includes every NFL helmet and logo. Pats1 03:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, do you want me to just copy the same rationale that's already there and add 40-something article titles to it? That's just being difficult. You have yet to show me an image page with rationales listed for each article use. Pats1 04:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per what? This obviously isn't common opinion, as shown by 1990 New York Giants season passing GA. Again, it's not decorative. The logos, especially the older ones which aren't contained in the main team articles, identify the team (season) in question. Pats1 04:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see an example. I will be reverting your edits if I do not see some precedent set. Pats1 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it interesting that you've bypassed the uniforms on the season pages without any problems. They're just for decoration, right? No? That's right; they're part of the team's identity for the given year. Pats1 14:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. Instead of being the fair use police, removing the logos from hundreds of pages, and then running, why don't you help add the rationales and then revert all of your edits? Pats1 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Why don't you discuss some of this at WP:NFL instead of making more than 100 AWB edits and leaving the dirty work to someone else? And why the first person? Stop acting like you "are" Wikipedia. Pats1 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the fair use images and I hope you'll re-review the FA candidacy of the article. CLA 03:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a short time ago you tagged an image I uploaded stating that it didn't have a fair use rationale other than using one of the big plate templates. I only recently discovered that a detailed rationale was required so I've starting adding detailed rationales to the images I've uploaded - but I was wondering, could you do me a favour and check one of the images that I've added to (such as this one) to make sure I'm leaving an adequate rationale? I'd really appreciate it. EvilRedEye 11:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted those couple I did after I had added a fair use rationale to the images. I just used rollback since it was quicker than adding it back in. Wizardman 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This problem looks bigger than I thought; look over on Image:NYJ 3567.gif where users claim that these uniform designs are things they could release into the public domain. I'm also about to be bold and remove the logo parameter from the NFL season template so it will be discouraged. — Moe ε 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already taken care of some of them Images. Like the one abvoe, I retagged as a {{sports uniform}} and tagged as no rationale. — Moe ε 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of violations just went bye-bye — Moe ε 23:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished removing the image parameter all together from the template transclusions. — Moe ε 03:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When you do changes like this, would you mind not removing the "| Cover =" line entirely, instead just removing the image from the line. Per WP:ALBUM#Code empty fields should not be removed, as keeping them makes it easier to add the information in the future, and keeps the formatting consistent. Thanks in advance. --PEJL 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't know if you meant to, but you reverted my addition of archival code on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion earlier today. I don't think it was intentional, because your edit summary didn't mention it, and you also added a comment do the page - perhaps an edit conflict? I've added the archival code again, I just wanted to make sure you didn't mean to revert that. Have a good day, --ST47Talk 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note images of book covers are allowed in an article about the book in question to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. Stop deleting the book cover images at The Godmother: The True Story of the Hunt for the Most Bloodthirsty Female Criminal in Our Time, Griselda Blanco.

Please read the licensing:

{{Non-free book cover}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PianoKeys (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ESkog, I was wondering if you would be so kind to help me with a page I'm working on. I added an Album Infobox at Home (This World Fair album) following guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums but for some reason the infobox is not appearing on the page. Can you please fix that so that the infobox appears? If not, can you please let me know what I can do to fix it? Thanks ManbirS 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)ManbirS[reply]

Hey again, thanks for checking up what can be done to get that infobox working. I'll be waiting for a response back as soon as you think you might be able to figure out a solution. ManbirS 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)ManbirS[reply]

Thanks for fixing the infobox for Home (This World Fair album) but now for some reason the same thing is happening again when I tried to edit TWF's 2nd album So Is Death & Love. Am I doing something wrong or is there something messed up with the code? If you could fix that too or let me know what to do, that'd be great. I'd still like to add infoboxes for another two of their albums so I don't want to keep running into these problems. Get back to me as soon as you can. Thanks!ManbirS 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)ManbirS[reply]

Thanks again for all the help.ManbirS 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)ManbirS[reply]

Hello,

About a year ago, you nominated Yogani for deletion, and the result was the move of the article to user space.

About a month later, the article was restored, and it has been there ever since. What do you suggest as an appropriate course of action here? --Aarktica 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshots are allowed at Wikipedia please read the licensing and rationale before you place over zealous +tags on images:

This media is a booking photo, more commonly known as a mug shot, normally produced in the regular operations of a law enforcement agency or correctional facility. Some booking photos (such as those produced by the FBI) are in the public domain, while others may be copyrighted. Laws concerning disclosure of information, data protection and privacy may be applicable, especially as part of a publicly or widely distributed document. In particular, US courts have ruled that the public may not have the right to obtain a copy of a mugshot from the government, but that if obtained, may be published. This template is not a valid license tag alone. Please accompany it with an appropriate license.

• Rationale:

  1. to illustrate the person in question, Griselda Blanco.
  2. where no free alternative exists or could be created,