User talk:ESkog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I will respond on your talk page unless you request otherwise.
Start a new talk topic.

Index of Talk Page archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F May 19-December 22, 2010 - December 23, 2010 - November 10, 2011 - December 8, 2011 - October 8, 2012 - October 18, 2012 - May 27, 2013 - May 30, 2013 - March 26, 2014

Uploading IMAGES in the Article Miss Universe[edit]

Can you please help me out. All I need is a picture to show the new Miss Universe 2014. I keep uploading pictures and it keeps deleting them. Can any one from Wikipedia upload a picture for that

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socal78 (talkcontribs) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


I apologize my image may have issues. I assure it is free to use and want to help keep it any way I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talkcontribs) 21:44, 29 January 2015‎

February 2015[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Issa Hayatou. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Blind Unicorn Hunter (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: this warning was erroneous; we both must have clicked our vandal rollback around the same time. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)



I don't think that I made an unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. My intention was to improve the article, because as it is written, it is wrong. I am from Bulgaria and I think I know our history quite well. For example, there is no single evidence that Bulgars were Turkic people, as the very first sentence of the article states. This is misleading. Bulgarians were Huns indeed, and they could be trace through our ruling dynasty Uokil back to China and the Yuezhi people, who were European nomads (Tocharians) in northern China. The article in its present form is also misleading about our language and religion. Why are you doing this?

Pavel Staykov — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 03:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi again,

I saw just now what was the problem :

The Huns and the Bulgars were the same people.

I admit that this sentence should be corrected, though it is a truth, but it is more precise to say

The Bulgars were children of the Huns. (or sth like that)

See: A history of the First Bulgarian Empire by Steven Runciman (

Nevertheless, this is much less misleading, rather than to say that Bulgars were Turkic people, which is not true. This is only a hypotheses, and most probably it is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 03:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Email notification[edit]

Hello, ESkog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A2soup (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ESkog, please see my reply to your quick delete challenge. Thanks. drtimjames Drtimjames (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

Please can you not do that. Thanks, (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And please don't accuse me of vandalism either, it's uncalled for. (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Solar certifications[edit]

Im trying to include information on NABCEP certifications. on the Louisiana solar page. Can you tell me how you would like that information given? NABCEP is a national certification group that is not for profit. Are you ok with me taking information directly from their website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Sorry i inserted the wrong file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stchaby (talkcontribs) 03:14, 10 March 2015‎

108 25 61 171b[edit]

revoke talk page access on 108 25 61 171b please. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Brendon Small[edit]

Look at this citation for the entry "Brendon Small is a fan of pee." at the 1:00:00 mark.

It is factually accurate and I believe the subject in question would find it funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Govinda KC[edit]

Thank you for pointing out the nature of the article. I understand the new portion on the fifth fast to have more promotional and blow by blow details of the latest protest. I will tone it down soon. I have tried to make the page as referenced as possible. Also, I understand wikipedia's concern of making it more encyclopedic than promotional. If you could point out a particular section, I could work on that. Rabindahal (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lexalytics Montreal Image[edit]

Thank you ESkog! I believe I've filled out all the necessary information. Could you let me know if I did it all correctly? Thank you for your patience. I appreciate the advice!

Charleslegros (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Brettanomyces Picture for Entry[edit]

Hello, I saw your discussion on the talk section about issues with the licensing/usage of the current picture on the Brettanomcyes article. I am soon to be college graduate who just finished a year long research project and thesis working with Brettanomyces. I have plenty of micrographs (pictures) of the yeast with scale bars and magnification information. I would be more than happy to give you any of these to use for the article. I have no interest in copyrighting them or retaining any ownership over the pictures. Please let me know if you're interested. I can also be reached at my school email: Kaulme93 (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about removal of Southland Conference logo from Wikipedia pages associated with the conference.[edit]

The Southland Conference logo has been recently removed from several pages with the following comment.

"rm nonfree image with no rationale for this use"

When I review the logo file in question File:Southland Conference Logo.png, it has a rationale of Fair Use using the following template {{Non-free logo}}

What else is required to provide proper rational for the logo's subsequent use on Wikipedia pages?LUSportsFan (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Zach Hyman photograph from Hockey City Classic[edit]

Hello. Thank you for pointing out the licensing concerns with regard to the photo of Zach Hyman located here:

I have contacted the copyright owner Ronald Wray and requested permission for this file. If it is not obtained, we will obtain an alternate. Thank you. Realstuart (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The owner of the photograph, Ronald Wray, has declined permission to use this photograph. I have removed it from Zach Hyman 's Wikipedia Page and request that the image be deleted. Realstuart (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Markham Royals Logo.jpg[edit]

Regarding "File permission problem with File:Markham Royals Logo.jpg", A letter of permission from the club owner, Stuart Hyman, has been emailed to Thank you. Realstuart (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Fuhrman[edit]

You asked for a source, I gave you one, and now you're trying to claim undue weight over two words, after you initially interpreted the source incorrectly. Let me emphasize, this was NOT my edit. It existed as such for a long time before an editor eliminated it with a bogus edit summary and which should have reversed as vandalism. (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And since when is a plea bargain not a conviction? Familiarize yourself with basic legal procedure. And before you even try, that includes a plea of no contest. It remains a conviction. (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jingle Jangle[edit]

The copyright owner is or was Kirshner Records. After all it was they who released it by the Archies. Caden cool 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Btw he did give a source. Go back and read closer. Caden cool 22:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome for the info but I wouldn't even know how to add it to the image page. I have zero experience when it comes to image edits or even how the whole thing works. It's just common sense to me that the image or art work would be owned by the record label. Perhaps you can add the info since you have the experience with images and I don't. I prefer to see images saved rather than deleted. Caden cool 03:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this [1] the correct way? Does that solve your concerns? Caden cool 16:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to image permissions[edit]

Hello, ESkog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hello Chuugokujin8 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I just Change another photo[edit]

Good day! thank you for noticing my errors, Im quite confuse of the procedure. Can I just change the picture in my article by new one? Thanks again. Hannakimithree (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Where can i find this[edit]

If i upload new image of the subject of my article where can i find this? Creative Commons, or be in the public domain? is it on the procedure in uploading? thank you for speed reply!

  • The owner sent me his picture can i use it?
  • i've already used another picture

Hannakimithree (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


I DON'T understand what you are talking about I follow the policy when adding the new image, correctly site the sources what are WRONG with the images????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesco482 (talkcontribs) 19:01, 18 May 2015‎

I already have the conformation receipt[edit]

where can i put the ticket number that I just received from Permission- English Wikipedia Hannakimithree (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Images on Herbert Mensah Deleted[edit]


I don't really understand why the images on were deleted.

MMZANetworx (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm hoping you can help me out. I would like to remove all versions of the images at on behalf of Mr Cerina but I do not have sufficient permission to do so. Can you advise on this? Thanks in advance Jamesvanderzee (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Hi there. I'm hoping you can help me out. I would like to remove all versions of the images at on behalf of Mr Cerina but I do not have sufficient permission to do so. Can you advise on this? Thanks in advance Jamesvanderzee (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider file deletion Reinhard_Gammenthaler_practicing_Baddha-Padmasana.jpg[edit]

Hello. You have speedy deleted this file under the criteria of Unambiguous copyright violation. This is my mistake as I was unaware of the image policy at the moment of upload. Now I have received the permission from copyright holder to use this photo under a free license, but the file is already deleted. The confirmation letter of his permission is sent to OTRS, so such deletion criteria is not appropriate anymore. Is it possible to reconsider the deletion? What should I do to use this file? Can I upload the it one more time and put OTRS-pending tag or the file can be restored only by administrator? I would appreciate your consideration. Thank you! Kolgoo (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Change of files tags[edit]

The copyright holder has granted the permission to use these files under the free license CC-BY-SA-4.0:

The confirmation letter of his permission is sent to OTRS. Should I change the tag {{Non-free use rationale 2}} to {{Information}} together with {{OTRS pending}} and remove both {{di-replaceable fair use}} and {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tags? Thanks! Kolgoo (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Some unknown vandalism warning[edit]

Hi Eskog,

I cant remember ever doing an edit on Wikipedia site, especially if its something rude and offensive. Please forgive me for any misunderstanding that may have occurred because of this. But i looked at the page your referring to and i can tell you 100% it was not me.

Kind Regards,

kane0091 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane0091 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

You closed the discussion on the fair use use of File:Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.jpg as delete. But you didn't explain your reasoning. I think nominator @Stefan2: takes an extreme view of fair use.

You did not explain what you thought was wrong with my explanation of how Stefan erred in this discussion. I did not see or respond to his final argument in the discussion -- which I think was nonsense. I don't think Stefan2 has made enough effort to understand the argument of those who disagree with them.

People have a right to make "fair use" of images that meet certain criteria. When an image meets the criteria for fair use people have a right to re-use that image, without regard to the photographer's potential loss of income. I've done my best to understand Stefan2's arguments. Stefan2, however, seems to think we can't allow wikipedia contributors to make fair use of images, when one of our readers might re-use the image in a context in which the fair use criteria weren't met.

When we re-use an image under a CC or GFDL license, we honor our obligations to state it is being re-used under that free license, even though our readers might re-use that image, ignoring the obligation to state it is being re-used under a free license. We all understand that we can't be held responsible for how our readers use images, so long as our use clearly states their obligations.

I see our obligations in just the same way when we re-use an image that legitimately meets the fair use criteria. Our readers may see a fair use image that we are making legitimate fair use of, and see a context where they too could re-use it in a manner that is a legitimate fair use. When our readers re-use an image, and their re-use also meets the criteria for fair use, then neither the WMF or are reader is, in the wording of WP:NFCC#2 making use of the image "in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material."

Legitimate fair use trumps the photographer's right to make a profit from their photo. States grant photographers, and their estates, a (limited) right to make a profit from their photos. They do so because doing so is seen as in the public's best interest. And states also grant a right to make fair use of images that meet narrow criteria, because they think fair use is in the public's best interest. I suggest it is obvious that the right to make fair use has to take precedence over the photographer's right to make a profit, or no image could ever be used in a fair use context.

Legitimate fair use -- use of an image that genuinely meets the criteria for fair use -- does not interfere with the photographer's right to make a profit, because, when an image meets the criteria for fair use, the photographer has been stripped of the right to make a profit.

I have explained this point to Stefan2 before, and, as in this discussion, he argues from the fallacy that we have to prevent the possibility that our readers will re-use the image in a way that doesn't meet the fair use criteria.

Let's see...
  1. Original market role: Selling the picture for display on websites and printed publications.
  2. Wikipedia's role: Displaying the picture on websites and printed publications.
In exactly which way are you claiming that Wikipedia isn't replacing the original market role of the image? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Note his point 2 -- here Stefan2 is essentially stating that we are responsible if our readers re-use an image we used, but do so inappropriately. We all recognize we have no such obligation when we use CC images, and Stefan2 has made no effort to show we have this obligation when we use an image that meets the criteria for fair use.

We are all fallible. I too am fallible. There may be a passage in a wikidocument that explicitly imposes the obligation Stefan2 keeps implying we are under. But, if so, he has never been able -- or willing -- to cite that passage. You closed this discussion, without explanation. If I take this as your endorsement of his reasoning, then I would like to ask you if you can cite a passage from a wikidocument that says we are responsible when one of readers makes a further re-use of an image we used appropriately, but they did not.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You wrote 'Stefan2 is essentially stating that we are responsible if our readers re-use an image we used, but do so inappropriately'. Would you care to specify where I said so? The quoted 'point 2' contains no such statement.
You seem to have forgot about WP:NFCCE: It is the burden of the user wishing to keep the image to prove that the file meets all of the non-free content criteria. If the uploader provides a source which is so poor that it can't prove whether some of the non-free content criteria are met, then the file is to be deleted. See also WP:NFC#UUI §10, which partially deals with this situation.
The source given suggests that copies of the photograph are sold by news agencies, suggesting that the file violates WP:NFC#UUI §7. Are you suggesting that the news agencies are using the image illegally? If the news agencies are using the images illegally, then it is unclear if WP:NFC#UUI §7 is a concern or not. If the news agencies are using the image illegally, then a) provide evidence of this, b) provide evidence that the file doesn't violate WP:NFC#UUI §7, c) prove that the file satisfies WP:NFC#UUI §10 and c) provide a file information page which satisfies both WP:NFCC#10a and WP:LINKVIO. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Replied on your talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Hello! I saw your message about the picture. It comes from here: Thanks! <3 The PancakeofHeaven! (Talk) (Stuff I did) 16:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion[edit]

Hi, You recently contributed to the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_October_6#File:Clement_Davies_1948.jpg regarding the Creative Commons licence. I had answered your point and provided a link. Soon after, the image was deleted in error and the discussion closed in error, so you may have missed my reply. Fortunately, the image has been restored and the discussion re-opened, so that you now have the opportunity to comment about the licence. Graemp (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Portrait on the Dennis Patrick Curran page[edit]

Hi ESkog, I was trying to upload the image of Dr. Curran. The Copyright of this image is belonging to the University of Pittsburgh but all students and faculties at Pitt have right to use it. I am not sure what option I should choose. Should I select "It's a free work?" but it's only available for Pitt students and faculties. or I should choose "it's a copyright, non-free work"?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jah247 (talkcontribs) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert Hill Hanna VC photo[edit]

I uploaded a copy of a photo I was given by the Bagnels Castle Museum in Newry Co Down Northern Ireland of Lt RH Hanna VC for my blog site on first war members beloning to my Orange Lodge. The original painting belongs to a friend of mine who has it displayed in the Royal British Legion in Kilkeel Co Down Lt Hannas home town. I see you need a copyright tag certificate but I have absolutely no idea what that is or how to create it. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulsterscot1690 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

how kennedy killed[edit]

I think that kenedy was kulled by a hat explosion geven to him befor his tour94.59.211.204 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

help me sir[edit]

Why I cant upload my picture7.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaysen143 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NZ MoT Logo.gif[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:NZ MoT Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, ESkog. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of government picture[edit]

You recently nominated for deletion File:Accumulated rainfall in the DR due to hurricane Matthew.jpg saying that "surely there are government sources who make maps such as these freely available..", but unfortunately, legally speaking, there is no such thing as government free images in the Dominican Republic, unlike in most countries, since our backward copyright law does not provide it. That's why nobody can upload logos and emblems of the government ministries nor official portraits of government officers nor any file done by a government employee as part of his/her duties, when in other countries, those files are copyright free. For an example just see this deletion. Nika de Hitch (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)