User talk:Johan Elisson/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johan Elisson, for the period 2 January 2006–11 April 2006. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Johan,

I'd appreciate it if you let me finish my edit before you shoot me a note on how I messed something up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggy! (talk • contribs)

Hi. I saw that your last edit to the page was 13 minutes ago, quite a long time when talking about fixing mistakes in an article. You have made the same error (adding an extra column) two times before, errors which I had to fix because no one else did. I would advise you to not complain at me but instead take it as a note that you should use the preview button a lot more. However, I appreciate the time you are spending on improving our football related articles, so don't think that I don't want you here. :) Just don't add any extra columns. :P -- Elisson • Talk 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you jumped in again to "patch" things up. And offered a kindly comment. If you had bothered to look you would have noted that blackquarters14 and blackquarters23 were indeed two different files with the blacks appearing in reversed quadrants. I made the change to meet what appears to be the standard naming convention. I also fixed the files to show a transparent color as set forth in the file convention. And added a couple of other files for general use (without messing anything up). Thanks for your acknowledgment and support! ;) And you're slowing down, Johan. Get with it man! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggy! (talk • contribs)

Time for me to be sorry. :) The quadrant stuff was due to the image not being reloaded to show the new version, I just saw two 14quadrant-shirts. Well, well. You have still messed up the lower part of the Sashes section, go have a look. ;) (just add another three "|":s (pipes) after the _whiterightsash and you've fixed it. ;) -- Elisson • Talk 00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have a lot of fair use images on your user page (according to this report, 112 of them at User:Johan Elisson/football badges). You should know that, in accordance with Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy, you can't display these images on user pages. I suggest that you either remove them from your user page, or write the link like so: [[:Image:Somefile.jpg]] (note the colon at the front) so as to link to the image without displaying it. --bainer (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gram, but I've done the same. -- Elisson • Talk 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned to the others who replied, the reason is a legal one, which basically overrides all the policy on the subejct. The legal stuff is discussed at WP:FU, if you haven't read that, I suggest you do, it's very useful. Thank you for removing the images though, remember you can link to images without displaying by putting a colon before Image in the link ([[:Image:Somefile.jpg]]). --bainer (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just placed Manchester City F.C. on peer review, your input would be welcome. Oldelpaso 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gamla_ullevi.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 06:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

List of football (soccer) clubs has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

I didn't vandalize that talk page. I archived it and I think you know that. Kingjeff 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope there isn't hard feelings about the situation yesterday. I hope you don't mind me tellng you how cute you are. Kingjeff 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no hard feelings, if you could just stop doing what you are doing. -- Elisson • Talk 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Bayern Munich has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Please see and respond to my comment on the FPC page, tack! --Janke | Talk 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Johan:

Kingjeff left a message in WP:ANI regarding an "attack" on the football improvement drive page. He does have a point in that the wording was probably a tad aggressive although calling it an "attack" is probably a little bit of an exaggeration. I hope you don't mind my attempt at mediating here, but I think you should be a little more calm in the way you refer to other users to avoid hurting sensibilities, also remember WP:AGF. If I was in his place, I wouldn't have liked reading that either. This is regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong" in the discussion.

Thanks for the time and, again, sorry for the "intrusion". I hope you see it as a friendly attempt.

Please, feel free to check the message I'll leave in his talk page after I finish this one.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, I am sorry to say that assuming good faith is a no-can-do when it comes to User:Kingjeff. He's done way to much harm to the project for me to be able to do that. See all current discussions on the FAID talk page. He has seriously disturbed the WP:FAID in several ways, and has not only pissed me off, but several others as well, some being close to opening an RFC against him, and he is also suspected of sockpuppetry.

And yes, I may have been a little harsh on him, but the way he has acted earlier [1] has not been very helpfull in calming me down. -- Elisson • Talk 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient reply, I have not previously seen the link you sent before. I would still advise you to Be Cool, although an RfC might be the way to put this to bed. Please keep in mind that WP:AGF is non-negotiable since it would require substantial proof of vandalism or bad intentions to overrule. I think that taking a step back (and a deep breath) before answering will have a positive effect, maybe even waiting 2 hours to write the response will do good. I know this because I've been involved in conflicts before, and I found this approach beneficial. Thanks again for letting me help. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Kingjeff, ask yourself why about everyone at WP:FAID has been having dusts with you over the past few weeks. Is that my fault too? -- Elisson • Talk 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why it only happens there. Kingjeff 00:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Didn't notice this until now and would of course voted support if I had seen it earlier! -- Elisson • Talk 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your congratulations message on my talk page. I'm sure you're aware of Kingjeff's block so not a lot needs to be said on that - hope things get back to normal for a while. CTOAGN (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change the scope of the article. To not complicate article writing and reading, I've split the Swedish clubs into a football page and a general page. This is because when searching for i.e. IFK Göteborg, 99.9% of the time people want to know about the football team, and not about the orienteering section of the bowling section. The same goes for i.e. Djurgårdens IF Fotboll and Djurgårdens IF Hockey which have separate pages to not mix the football and hockey teams (which in fact also function as separate clubs). -- Elisson • Talk 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As nobody seems to care about orienteering and bowling there is no point in a disambiguation page. That stuff can be linked from the club page once written. It is irritating having to go through a disambig page through a IFK Norrköping link. Everything club related ist to be linked from there.

Can be done in the following fashion :

Club Intro, ...

Club does the following, ...

For the following aktivities follow these links:

• Link1
• Link2

Remember, that the club is not relevant for orienteering and the like (maybe in Sweden).

Cheers, Oalexander-En 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to not want to understand what I want to do. In the case of IFK Norrköping, the football section is the most known and is thus written about on IFK Norrköping. Other things, like general history of the club, or minor sections that don't deserve their own articles can be written about on the "club" page which in this case is IFK Norrköping (disambiguation). Mixing everything on one page is not a good idea, as it also confuses the reader. See for example how Allmänna Idrottsklubben (AIK) is structured. The club is often very relevant for "orienteering and the like", take for example "my" football club IFK Göteborg which also has an orienteering section which is regarded as one of the best in Sweden and probably the whole world. And blanking, which you did to IFK Norrköping (disambiguation), is regarded very impolite. -- Elisson • Talk 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

The list has been promoted to Featured status, congratulations! It would be nice if you could put up an appropriate picture whenever you have the opportunity. Keep up the good work. Happy editing! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've contacted the Swedish FA to check if they have any free license images of the trophy the champions get (Lennart Johansson's Trophy). That should surely be a suitable image to add to the article. It also looks like any non-art-image taken in Sweden before July 1, 1944 is in the public domain (see {{PD-Sweden}}) so I guess one or two photos of champions from the early years would be nice. -- Elisson • Talk 15:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the pictures and tagged the trophy picture with the appropriate tag and added a fair use rationale. Hope that is what you asked for. :) -- Elisson • Talk 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely fantastic. Well done! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hej!

jag har av misstag pga respekt för statliga utredningar fört in at det var nazister som överföll reclaim the Streets festen 2001 under EU-toppmötet på engelska. Detta eftersom det står i Göteborgskommissions rapport. Tycks vara kontroversiellt trots att det står i den officiella utredningen.

Jag brukar föredra att skriva högerextremism eftersom det är lite mindre precist m,en ändå någon form av politisk bestämning, nazi bör också användas men om det verkligen rör sig om det.

Problemet är att jag också införde Schymans tal på Götaplatsen starx innan där hon talar om huliganer. Men inte alls samma huliganer. det kan bli lite missförstånd här. Därför behövbs en politisk även om den är vag bestämning av viulka som startade bråk på reclaim festen. Vad ska man skriva om statliga utredningen inte duger.

mvhTord Björk 18:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hej! Let's speak English to allow anyone to read our comments. I didn't fully understand your message but I suppose that you are asking about what political ideology the hooligans that the police let through to the RtS party had? The answer is: none. The hooligans, belonging to the football firm Wisemen are not politically active and they consist of people with different background, some originally from other countries than Sweden or with foreign ancestry (for example Tony Deogan who was killed in a fight in 2002). The reason that they wanted to fight the left activists was to "protect Gothenburg". -- Elisson • Talk 19:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the official and many other sources state that there is some kind of political tendency so I guess I have to further find out more about this from some other sources as well and not only trust the official one. My problem was that I only after making my change according to the offcial source found out that you much earlier had made a change on this topic. I will try to find out more before making any foúrther changes if yoiu do not mind. Tord Björk 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The hard thing to find out is wether or not the hooligans acted from their political stance. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that some of the members of Wisemen are neo-nazis or racists (but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some of them are leftists either), but the firm as a whole does not have any political affiliation (to my knowledge) and it might thus be hard to decide in which "role" they acted. -- Elisson • Talk 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was creating my own AID when I accidently edited FAID Kingjeff 23:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I was very confused at first but then saw that you were on the way of creating a German AID and guessed that you just edited the wrong page. -- Elisson • Talk 12:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to ceate templates? I need some for the GermanyAID.Kingjeff 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Try Help:Template. :) -- Elisson • Talk 18:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

A.C. Milan has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hi Johan,

Can you please help me out a bit with the football kits in club infoboxes? I asked CTOAGN, but seems like I'm still doing something wrong. Please look at User:Aabha R/Workdesk and tell me why I can't get the shirt body, arms and socks in the away kit to show as yellow. And why are the stripes in the home kit shirts not white, as they should be, but cyan? I'll be really thankful. Thank you.

Oh, and all colours seem to look different in different browsers! -Aabha (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -Aabha (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and support with the List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries, which is now featured! Conscious 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article English Canal, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, Johan, the font's fine, but I think the letters need to be bigger. Preferably. Do you think it would look too crowded if you make the small ones as big as Svalbard and FJL, or almost, and then Svalbard and FJL bigger still? You can lose Mossel Bay, btw, that should help. I thought I was gonna mention MB, but It looks like I'm not.

Kap Flora doesn't exist in Russian Franz Josef Land, it looks like. But, on second thoughts, we should prolly change it to Cape Flora, because that's surely it. I mean, I got the "Kap" from a Swedish source.

I'm inclined to think white land might give better contrast, like in the Svalbard map. What do you think? I don't know if there might be issues for the color-blind of various hues (geddit?) here, but for my very ordinary eyes, white works well. Bischånen | tåk 10:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC).

Neato! :-) Bishonen | ノート 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Ronaldinho has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hello. This is in regards to the upcoming Wikipedia improvements Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 and Wikipedia:Stable versions, which have the intentions to provide stable versions of articles suitable for prints or publishing.

I've noticed you have written several articles about Swedish matters. If you feel some of these are decent enough to deserve recognition, you are encouraged to nominate them at Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Swedish quality articles. In the end, our articles should be comparable to what is expected from the Encyclopedia Britannica. If it currently isn't, but you feel you have spent a considerable amount of time on it, you are still encouraged to nominate it, so that your work will be recognized and others can continue to improve on it. Don't be shy! :-)

Fred-Chess 11:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

European Football Championship has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hello, I'd advice you not to add a lot of categories to articles about football. The categories have a structure, and what you do is ruining that structure. For example, a women's national team should not be placed directly under Category:Football (soccer), and not competitions either. But please do continue to contribute to football related articles. :) – Elisson • Talk 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hej Johan. Thanks for the advice about categories. Where can I find the correct hierarchy for football categories?

Deebki 21:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hej. :) The easiest way to find out what categories to add to an article is to check a similar article. For example, if creating an article on a women's national team, check which categories an already existing article on another women's national team has, and add the same type of categories (change continent, country and similar if needed). The WikiProject on Football (where most of the football discussions and info pages are) also has an incomplete page with general info on football categories. Good luck! – Elisson • Talk 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Johan, adressing you as WikiProject Football master. Not sure if you saw Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Article_improvement_drive#MLS soccer club articles vs. European soccer club articles. Basically, Kingjeff has been going into MLS articles and changing them into something ugly, with 1-sentence subsections (witness this [2]). I've been working hard to keep these updated and consistent... Frankly, since I'm still fighting to keep MetroStars page alive after modern football killed (ok, re-branded) my team, I don't want to deal with someone pissing on my work... DR31 _(talk) 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Johan, I don't know what to do. Sorry to bother you on this page again, but this crap from Kingjeff just doesn't stop. I explained it all here. I am just lost for words. This summer, I quit Wikipedia for a couple of months because I was tired of all the in-fighting. Now I'm in the middle of the fight myself. It's getting beyond me. I'm trying to adhere by the rules, and at the same time, I don't want to see the article on my favorite (rebranded, f@#$king Red Bull) team made look like crap. I've even been trying to make the page more standard like Angelo suggested. I've come back to Wikipedia because I think it's a great product, and you must know how many soccer articles I've worked on the past 2 years, and I think my work is not that bad. But honestly, I don't need this s@#t. DR31 _(talk) 04:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we talked it out for now. Anyway, thanks for reading my rant and for all your hard work. DR31 _(talk)

Hallo! I want to creat e side from pescara calcio in german! Can i use the logo from your side? Sorry, for my bad english! best wishes, padilidi

It is not "my side", and the logo isn't mine, so I am not the right person to ask. The picture is however noted as "fair use" and I guess that goes for the German Wikipedia as well. – Elisson • Talk 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is military service compulsary in Sweden, or is that a different country i'm thinking of? Philc 0780 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have compulsory military service here, but in reality, only about 15% or something are conscripted, as our armed forces have been drastically cut down lately. I was lucky enough to do my service before the the government disbanded most of the regiments a year ago. – Elisson • Talk 21:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Football in Germany has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

You previously requested this article for the main page. However, the introduction isn't suitable for me to do the main page blurb because it talks about the name (and various translations thereof) without doing much summarizing of the article. Could you fix that? Raul654 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite, hope it is good enough. Might need some minor grammar checks and maybe someone improving the "prose" as my English often fails when it comes to that. :) – Elisson • Talk 11:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! I see you've made quite a few edits to football related subjects, feel free to join us at the WikiProject on Football, where we try to organize our football-related contributions. (One note, standard name for categories on players is <CLUB> players instead of <CLUB> footballers. :) – Elisson • Talk 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the whole system is so inconsistent. I first started using "players" because all the English clubs use "players", but then realised that "footballers" is much more descriptive, especially where there is a club that participates in a number of sports e.g. Panathinaikos etc.

I then tried to act more consistently e.g. using "players" for German clubs etc.

Do you have a preference for all new club lists? (Benjy613 21:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I do realize the problem, although I do also have a solution to the problem of clubs with several sections. I've done it with the Swedish clubs, and I have noticed it elsewhere too, and that is to give each notable section its own article. In that case, there should be a general page (a sort of disambiguation page), which gives basic club info and links to the sections. See for example Djurgårdens IF (which has equally famous hockey and football sections, thus a disambiguation page at the generic club title), with Djurgårdens IF Fotboll and Djurgårdens IF Hockey as section articles. Also note how the players of the football section has the category named after the section article title. In cases where one section is much more famous than the others, that section is placed under the generic club name. See for example IFK Göteborg, which also provides a link to the disambiguation page with the other sections. In the Panathinaikos case, I'd like to see the football section at Panathinaikos FC, and the category named Category:Panathinaikos FC players. However this is probably something we should discuss at the WikiProject before doing anything that radical. I don't fully understand your last question about new club lists, though. Care to explain a little better to this stupid Swede? :) – Elisson • Talk 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just meant to ask, for any further clubs that I add player lists to, should I always use <club> "players"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjy613 (talk • contribs) .

Ah, yes, please do. :) – Elisson • Talk 23:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)