User talk:Giggy/Archive6

So empty..

Actually thanks for your work, keep it up & your talk page is so empty, I just needed to well.. you know?! :) --Kanonkas_(talk) 00:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:) Giggy (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg

Yep, I did notice :-) Thanks for the help. I updated Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg with more info, and uploaded a higher-res version. tineye.com helped out on this one -- just happened to recognize the photographer's name after that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings; can you help me?

I have been editing on the English Wikipedia for nearly two years, I'm trying to figure out where and how to start HERE. I can't find anyone to ASK! I have a couple of images I'd like to upload to Wikimedia Commons, especially for not only my use there, but for editors in the other language wikis to use. I saw photos on Flickr of Susan Tedeschi and Derek Trucks, both blues and rock musicians and convinced the photographer to upload them here, and noticed all the other languages' wikipedias have used them too, which makes me feel great. Problem: I don't know how to do it! I have a Fair Use image of an Iris, and a shrunken photo of a record album from a fairly unknown musician named Alun Davies for a page on him in the wikipedia, but not only do I not know how to upload the one for Davies, (since it's copyrighted but won't harm anything since it's so small and the album has been out of date for decades), but don't know how to help do anything here on the 'Wikimedia and would love to learn more about images and sound bites. Will you help me????!! Please? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, Welcome to Commons (yes, that links to the handy dandy welcome page). Anything you could ever want to upload can be done so via the Commons:Upload wizard, Commons:Flickr images has information about uploading stuff from Flickr. Note that we can't accept copyrighted stuff, even if small (sorry!); Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content. That said, any free images you have (via Flickr, your own work, or whatever) are very very welcome, and if you get confused by the upload wizard you're more than welcome to ask me for help navigating your way through it. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallery deleted - please tell me why

Hi,

Two days ago I created a gallery containing simulated X-ray phase contrast radiographs. I put this gallery into the category "X-rays", because that seemed a logical and appropriate choice to me. Now I noticed that you decided to delete this gallery page because ‎it was "out of project scope" [1].

Did I put this gallery into the wrong category? Or was something else wrong? I'm not sure why exactly you decided to delete the gallery. I'd like to know, and maybe to have a suggestion as to the category in which I can put this material, and how I can do better next time.

(This is the first time I upload something to Wikimedia Commons. The reason I put these images onto Commons was that somebody who'd seen them in a presentation I gave asked me if they could use the pictures in a book they are writing. Wikimedia Commons seemed an excellent way to make this material available to the general public, inluding the people who had contacted me, and to license the material.)

Thank you! --Timm Weitkamp (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I now had a close look at COM:PS, but don't see which of the conditions my material should violate. Please tell me. I made these images myself (i.e., hold all rights), put them under a free license (Cc-by-3.0-de), the file formats were all okay (JPEG and PNG)... so what else should be wrong? In case you don't see the "educational purpose" required in COM:PS: the images in the gallery are part of a tutorial lecture I prepared some time ago. I have also posted the complete slides of the lecture on the Web [2], but so far not with a free license for the whole. (The images in the gallery in question are used in slides 47 and 48 of the slide show.) --Timm Weitkamp (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timm. This was essentially deleted because it was more an encyclopedia article than an image gallery (take a look at other galleries for examples). It only contained one image, but a fair bit of explanatory text. These things are generally more appropriate on other Wikimedia projects, most likely (at a glance) Wikipedia. Feel free to ask for clarification if this doesn't answer your question. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Giggy. Actually, there was not only one image, but six of them! Since this was an image series which (for five of the six images) showed the same thing with only one physical parameter varied, I felt they should have the same description, and be available as a group. The only way I knew to do this was a gallery. These images are still on W. Commons now [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], but since I only categorized the gallery, not the individual images, and since the description was on the gallery page (because it was the same for all images), it is almost impossible for interested parties to find the images now. On the other hand, since it does not make much sense to have only one image from the series without the others, I don't really understand why they should not be put in a gallery. Concerning your suggestion that this material might be suitable for Wikipedia: there are people who find these images useful for teaching, but the series of images and their description alone is definitely not enough for a separate Wikipedia article. On the other hand, there is not yet any decent article on X-ray phase contrast in Wikipedia in which the images might be included. Maybe I'll one day have the time and courage to write such an article, but this is so much extra work that it is definitely not for now. -- So, if I only want to make my images available for the moment, and want to group them as an image series, how can I do that while sticking to Commons rules? Surely there must be a way. --Timm Weitkamp (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Thanks also for the link to other galleries. I looked at some and saw things like this. I admit that it doesn't really help me understand ;-) --Timm Weitkamp (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Would you accept the gallery in this way, in the "X-rays" category? --Timm Weitkamp (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Timm, sorry for the late(ish) response; fell asleep. Firstly, the images can be placed in a category and they will show up, perhaps in the way you intended them to originally. The main issue, if I recall from when I deleted that page, was the large amounts of encyclopediac(ish) text surrounding the images.

:-) I clicked the random gallery link and got Oyster which hopefully helps a bit more.

The first section of that suggested page is fine; the rest still have that text issue (compare to Oyster). Am I making any sense? Sorry if I'm not. Giggy (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here Giggy and Timm, but from following the discussion it seems to me that both of you have a point. First, a proposed resolution to this: I suggest that the images are both categorized and added in a gallery as Timm originally tried to do. Unfortunately, as I cannot see the deleted gallery, I cannot evaluate how encyclopedic that was, but if we use the Oyster gallery for reference, I must say that is a fine gallery to my mind. Do I understand you correct Giggy, that you find there is too much image text in that gallery? If yes, I must say that I do not agree as I also see it adds value for repository users quickly navigating through to look for material. Anyway, I fully understand Timms motivation regarding the idea of assembling a set of images in a set as a gallery, in a given sequence with adequate descriptions stating how the images in the set interrelate. Like in this case, a single parameter is changed from image to image (I'd love to see that if I could). This is a thing you simply cannot accomplish with a category and the kind of thing we are trying to emphasize the value of with the valued image sets, where we value that a set of images in a gallery, when seen together as a set in a certain order has special meaning and value. On the other hand, a lot of the organizational mindset, tools and bots for images on Commons relies on that every image is categorized to an appropriate level. I therefore think the resolution to this is to allow the gallery Timm wants to make and categorize the images. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(<--) For the record, the deleted content can be seen at User:Giggy/Timm (my apologies, Timm, I didn't see those five images at the bottom when looking through the deleted content, which only shows edit code). Giggy (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with giggy that the page there is a tad too article-like. I still the existence of such a gallery is warranted though, but this should be cleaned up:

• There are image-specific descriptions, which are not present on the respective image pages. All image specific details should be added to the description field of the {{Information}} template. It is OK to replicate some of this information on the gallery page.
• On each image page I recommend adding a gallery of the related images in the other_versions field as that gives a quick navigation to the related images from each individual image page, see Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg for an (otherwise completely unrelated) example.
• For each image add one or more adequate categories
• Let the gallery stay but keep only the text needed for understanding the interrelationsships between the images

-- Slaunger (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Giggy and Slaunger for spending so much time and effort on this. Unfortunately I myself have very little time right now. I'll try to implement your comments and then post the improved version. As a general remark, I have to admit that I was (and still am) a bit surprised at your strict interpretation of COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content, because I don't think that my original gallery fell into any of the categories mentioned there. Please consider also that different user communities of W. Commons may have different habits in terms of their appreciation of longish descriptions (scientists generally appreciate too much over too little description). -- Be that as it may: thanks again, and I'll leave a note here when the new version is online. --Timm Weitkamp (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Timm, I have taken your advice on board and will reconsider my actions in future. Until then, Giggy (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And to close this, here's the new version: Simulated X-ray phase contrast radiographs. I hope it's okay. I think you can delete User:Giggy/Timm now. Cheers, Timm Weitkamp (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timm, I think it is much better now. I added the other versions field of your simulated images with different distances behind the phantom object in each image page for easier navigation between related image pages. Concerning descriptions I do think (and strongly support) long image descriptions, but these belong on the image page as prepared by the creator. As a matter of fact, I think the reference you have to the simulation code in the gallery should go on each image page as well, as it is the image page which is the focal point for information regarding images. The thing with the gallery you have created is that it, in its current form, represents some original research from you, whereas the gallery as such has a name which refers to a certain discipline in science, which over time could have more material added from other users, thus making it not as coherent as it is now as it is not your page so to speak, in contrast to the image pages. I do not know exactly how to solve that, except to make the name of the gallery even more specific, perhaps by including the specific name of the model/code library used in this series of simulations. Maybe giggy has an opinion about that? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing regarding the categorization: We have this policy that it should be as specific as possible. Currently the images and gallery are categorized to Category:X-rays. There is a sub-category to this called Category:X-ray diffraction. Is that not a better and more specific category for the simulated images and the gallery? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slaunger here (and incidentally, thanks very much for your help). Giggy (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Slaunger, for the "other versions" thing. I had not thought of that! I also agree about putting the reference in each image pane. It's just that everything takes time, which I currently don't have. I also understand the point of the gallery being a place where other material might be placed by other contributors (particularly given the new, more general title).

The only point where I disagree is the suggestion to use Category:X-ray diffraction as the category: It is true that the phenomenon shown here is based on diffraction. But unfortunately, for a lot of people the term "X-ray diffraction" only encompasses diffraction from crystal lattices (can be from single crystals or from polycrystalling samples ["powders"]), and the contents of the category clearly reflects this. Therefore, IMO the images would best be placed in a subcategory Category:X-ray imaging or, slightly more specific, Category:X-ray phase contrast, but nothing of the sort exists (yet). --Timm Weitkamp (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Category renaming - some help please

Hi Giggy. How would one go about renaming Category:St.Paul Church, Melbourne to Category:St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne? Cheers, Mattinbgn/^talk 01:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I listed it at User:CommonsDelinker/commands, it should be done shortly. Giggy (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks heaps. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Commons requires a little tiding.

Hi, thanks for trusting me as admistrator. I will be trying to make a good use of this tools, and using it with care. Surely this will motivate me to work more on the project, as well as in other areas ;) Sfu (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hi Giggy, I send you an email a few days ago, but I didn't get a response. Maybe you didn't get it, maybe it slipped through your mind, maybe I an too impacient ;-). Maybe you'll find time to answer it. Miho (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Miho. Gmail tells me my last reply was at Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:52 PM my time zone, which is 10:52 UTC. I haven't gotten any emails from you since then as far as I can see. You might want to resend if you've sent something since then (or if you didn't get that email let me know here and I'll resend). Giggy (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Giggy, in case you don't watch Sandy's page, see this. To reiterate here, sincere apologies if my omission at all precipitated the entirely unfounded and despicable attacks. Эlcobbola _talk 01:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not particularly bothered by them. I saw the reply there, yeah. Have a good one. Giggy (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hi,

I just recieved a reqeust from user Miho. You renamed him and blockt his old account.

This user has two sul accounts and if people checkt his Miho NL sul account the see a big red text that the user is blocked.

He was asking if his block could be removed.. I have unblockt him. I hope you don't mind? If it is not oke i well put the block back on. But i didn't see a reasson why the block should stay.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 14:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I also do not know what we block renamed accounts for... abf /talk to me/ 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Future protection of the user - it has happened in the past that vandals have managed to "take over" an old user name if it is not done properly. So we block the old user (two accounts are kinda frowned on) and protect the redirects. That gives the renamed user protection (& no reason I can see why you would need to get back into a renamed account). Same principle of Meta FWIW. So speaks an ex crat on both projects! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes but this user use the name Miho on all projects where he is very active. And Miho NL on others. Now it say that this user is blocked indef on commons. I can understane it if he thinks it is bad for his name or something like that. Sterkebaktalk 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I can explain the reason why I have two global accounts. Before SUL I used Miho on my homewiki (dutch) and Miho_NL on all others because I noticed that on some wiki's other Miho's were active. Now there is SUL (super!) and I am merging all accounts if possible to global-Miho. For most of them that went okay with some usurps along the way. The ones I cannot usurp I merged in my global-Miho_NL. And then it makes sence that this global-Miho_NL includes the commons account. This gives me most protection. Miho (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, most important is that I have access now. Thanks to everybody who made this possible. Miho NL (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly don't object to the unblocking. I didn't do so myself because I couldn't - it said there was no block recorded and thus nothing to unblock. When I renamed Miho there was a checkbox in the rename interface which said something along the lines of "block account from further use", which was checked by default - I didn't uncheck it. I explained this, as best I understood it, to Miho in our emails, but if it's been fixed up since then (as it seems it has, with an unblocking) then that's even better. As for why we block, I echo Herby. Sorry for the confusion etc. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to sort things out. Giggy (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

Do you have a few minutes for a pm on irc?

Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 11:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rainbow Leprechaun.png

It's a Second Life screenshot? Oh my I didn't realize this. {{Second life}} screenshots are actually under free license :P -Nard the Bard 21:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored and asked for clarification at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Second Life screenshots. Giggy (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 -> cc-by-sa-2.0

OK. I've changed Nicolelis' photo licence for a cc-by-sa-2.0 license.

Thanks for the information,

--Everton137 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we forgetting something?

Gridge (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Oops, clicked keep instead of delete. My apologies. Giggy (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

UBank logo

Hi Giggy. As my source of all knowledge here at commons, can you point me in the right direction to have Image:UBank.gif reviewed and possibly deleted (or at least sent to enwiki). I'm no expert here at commons but I don't see logos as meeting the criteria. Note this appears to be part of a rather poor viral marketing campaign waged on enwiki. Thanks for your help! -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging with {{Copyvio}} usually does the trick. If you want it on enwp you need to save it here and reupload it. I wouldn't bother in this case as the NAB article is already full of unnecessary fair use images. This one is now deleted. Giggy (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No, I don't particularly want it at all. I just happened to run into it and remembered the laughs at enwp at the amateurishness and utter transparacy of the viral UBank campaign waged there by someone ostensibly on behalf on NAB. See this article for more details. Cheers, Mattinbgn/^talk 10:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article, I got a laugh too :) Giggy (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This sort of discussion hardly seems to belong on Wikipedia. Certain "editors" seem to take soo much pride in deleting other people's contributions... but can't be asked to fix or improve them... it's the lazy way out, I'd say ! 124.170.146.114 10:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The logo is copyrighted even if the uploader created the logo since it's based on copyrighted work. I see that your comment is more of an attack against Matt and Giggy who are acting in the Commons best interest. Bidgee (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Left?

You haven't left here I hope? How do you turn this on (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have, for now at least. [9] Giggy (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:(

Sorry to see you go. Hope you'll be back. Best wishes while you're gone.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the good ones - ditto Mike's comnment. Enjoy life - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Real sorry. Good luck. --Foroa (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh  :(((( Patrícia ^msg 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gah... what a shame. Feel free to email me if you want to rant... Best wishes, How do you turn this on (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes. Hope you are able to return soon. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks I know how you feel. Need a vacation? Bali's a nice spot and not too far for ya. Ping me. Enjoy break. Jack Merridew 05:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:'( Sterkebaktalk 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF? You left? You can't leave! No one told me! Bastards! Come back here! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 08:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have carried out your wishes

as outlined at m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Giggy.40commons.2C_Giggy.40ensource. I have done so with considerable regret, and with the hope that you will find your way back to the projects. (I consider you to be able to get your Commons permissions back upon request, since you are in good standing) You will be missed. Till then, best wishes and happy trails. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/555.bot

Unfortunately my short wikibreak on Commons didn't ended before your departure... Well, I will leave a reply even so.

Yeah, I've seen the reply. I didn't replied back because I don't known an automated way to add {{BookNaviBar}} in my uploads using the commonist =(

(I've seen your message before your de-adminship, but don't replyed since I was searching for ways on doing that. I'm now repling to you because I've seen the m:Special:Log/rights [I check that log and some pages on Meta-Wiki periodically]) and I believe that you may check your usertalk page in a near future to read the goodbye, please come back messages) Lugusto • ※ 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing my username

Hi I go by the name User:Dr. Blofeld on English wikipedia. Can you please change my user name in the commons to this. It will be less confusing. This is a request to move User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld to User:Dr. Blofeld. Can you do this for me? Thanks Ernst Stavro Blofeld (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Giggy is sadly not a bcrat anymore; you can request on Commons:Changing username. Best wishes, How do you turn this on (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

Glad to see that you are still active here! We miss ya at WPPoppaballoon (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

!!! Giggy (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Input needed on a Wikiversity project

Hi Giggy. I'm trying to get a project started on Wikiversity: Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections‎, which is a research project on how Wikipedia articles are created and improved, particularly when the topic is the subject of strong sentiments and relates to events that change over the time period in the study (probably January 2008 through January 2009, but there's some question about when the campaign actually "began").

I'm leaving you (and a few other folks) this note because you've had some interest in Wikiversity's studies of Wikipedia in the past, I wanted to get a few more eyes on the project before announcing it on Wikipedia: I hope to do that over the next few days on the talk pages of the 4 "beta test" articles: w:Barack Obama, w:John McCain, w:Sarah Palin, and w:Joe Biden, with a broader announcement later after the initial kinks are worked out. I was also hoping you would know people who would be interested in this, as well as knowing people with a few "special skills", including:

1. Data collection and sorting from the article histories (how many edits and what sorts of edits over a given time period, etc.)
2. People who can make good graphs and charts from that data
3. people who can help develop guidelines for whether and how to discuss individual editors if they are felt to be "notable"

I think this could be a very fruitful study: Wikipedia's model of content creation is quite complicated, but it works! --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi Giggy! Thanks for giving me your oppinnion about me in my RfB, and because of some opposes of really trusted commons-users (including you) I withdrew. Now I have got the best 'crate-coach I could think of and I might possibly retry in a few month. To improve my behaviour/editing habbits here on commons till then I'd like to hear what you want me to change in detail. Expecially examples you're not happy with would be great. Feel also free to e-mail me if you don't want to say this in public. Thanks for your help, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 14:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggy are you still here?

You offered to help me once. I am unsure if you are still here. I have been editing the en.wikipedia for 2 years but only now am getting involved in images and soon, hopefully sound. If you are still here, I offer to help categorize some things if something is explained to me.

Example: I typed in photos of the Counting Crows and found this image that doesn't belong: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blason_ville_fr_Rivedoux-Plage_(Charente-Maritime).svg

In addition, the 3 Counting Crows photos belong with another group of at least 12 photos, one of which is a duplicate. And, in THAT group, there's a photo of David Lindley which doesn't belong there. Thanks for moving David Lindley, although, I feel that the Counting Crows will require a category. There are 9 bandmates and they have been together for 18 years and there will be a flood of photos coming soon, since their tours with The Who this year, and the Rolling Stones, etc. See my note of the "other" band photo collection here!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another example of a "group" of photos that do not belong together. I put Dixie Chicks in the search engine here. Although it says, "no category for the Dixie Chicks", as soon as you scroll down, there are about 6 photos of the three women in the all-female controversial band, the "Dixie Chicks", and then another photo of Pete Yorn, a male musician who is not a part of their band. However, after checking the origin of a photo on the Dixie Chicks page in the Wikipedia and found this category for their photos:

[10] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You

are always welcome to edit my shit  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 07:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

restored

File:That's why my mom always told me to cross my legs when I wore a skirt.jpg

I nominated again--Cerejota (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; you are officially more courteous than these guys... Giggy (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that was sneaky, but not knowing about it led to me requesting deletion again.--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Category

Giggy, can you check on this from time to time? This particular message? I found yet another audio under Stevie Nicks that does NOT belong. This audio: [File:Q 2008-05-26 Stevie Nicks.ogg] OR find it here: [11] Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's the wrong category; it's a Stevie Nicks work in the Stevie Nicks category, isn't it? Giggy (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the wrong category. It's an audio file of a MAN talking about SATAN. That, IMO, is not a Stevie Nicks song. Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping...

...!. Gb in waiting (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

the door

Please don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. In the old days, and for however briefly we used to call it "twat". -- carol (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had time to consider "giggy" vs "twat". Just look at the rhyming options:

"Giggy": biggy, diggy, HIGgy, piggy

"Twat": blot, swat, squat, kumquat

New and improved should actually be this. -- carol (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New Images

Hey there Giggy, I don't do much with images, so I was hoping that you could check out two that I just uploaded File:WPT Champion Bracelet 2.JPG and File:WPT Champion Bracelet.JPG. While I thought I clicked the same process, the steps I was walked through was different for the two images, so I want to make sure that they are both ok. Thanks, Still, the Balloonman here ;-) Balloonman (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a change of username: from "tvdm" to "tvdm (usurp)"

Hi Giggy, According to the discussion below you changed my username on commons.wikimedia from "tvdm" to "tvdm (usurp)" on the 24 July 2008. Even though I'm not frequently contributing on wikipedia, it is incredibly that a username is not safe once it is chosen. Not all contributors to wikimedia and wikipedia is using the "wikiprograms" as an active communication port to all the other wikipedians. There are some of us that only use it infrequently to contribute by writing on new or existing articles published on wikipedia. But when your username isn’t safe after you take a brake for a while, things get a little bit fucked up….. To make the story short, I want my old username "tvdm" back, with my old password. I was first on commons.wikimedia with "tvdm", and that other guy “tvdm1” should accept this and find another username (like "tvdm1" that he actually first chosed)! I hope you can fix this problem for me, since you agreed to do the change for "tvdm1" on the first hand. Thank you very much in advance…..

Kind Regards, tvdm (Wikipedia Norway)

Rename Tvdm1 (talk • contribs • count) to Tvdm (talk • contribs • count) Hello, I would like to change my username Tvdm1 to Tvdm for SUL. Tvdm1 is my own account, Tvdm is not mine. Tvdm here has made only 3 edits, Tvdm1 has made more. At Wiktionary-NL, I have made over 13.000 edits. Please rename Tvdm1 to Tvdm so I can use SUL. Thanks in advance! Tvdm1 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As he has made non-deleted contributions, you're going to have to ask if you can have his username (that's our current policy; see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Apr#Usurp or not usurp accounts with useful contributions). You can do this by emailing him and leaving a note on his talk page. You will also need to provide a crosslink as instructed by this automessage...

Hi. Before we can do this, you need to go to your userpage on another wiki (where you have the desired username), and while logged in, edit that page to say "I am requesting a rename on Commons." (and mention your Commons username while you're there.) Save the page, get a diff, and post it here. If you have one, a wikimatrix (like m:User:Lar/WikiMatrix) also works for this purpose. All this is just to prove that you're who you say you are and make everyone's life easier. Thanks. —Giggy 01:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've edited a page on the nl.wiktionary.org. Here is the diff: here. Is this enough to do the usurp? Tvdm1 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I can't e-mail the user (no e-mail provided) and he hasn't been active for 2 (!) years (latest activity at December the 10th of 2006), so posting a message on his (unexisting) talk page wouldn't be useful, but I still did it because you asked so. And, his contributions don't get lost if you do a usurp, are they? Just rename Tvdm to Tvdm (usurped) and then Tvdm1 to Tvdm. Tvdm1 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff; that should be fine. Yes, he does regain his contribs when renamed, but it's a bit undermining to have a photo accredited to you as "Tvdm (usurped)" as opposed to "Tvdm", if you know what I mean. Anyway we'll wait about a week and then go for it. Thanks —Giggy 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More than a week has been past, and there is still no reaction on his talk page. Could you please usurp his account? Thanks in advance for your efforts! Tvdm1 (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added a note to your userpage also, and recreated the old account to prevent impersonation. Email me if you'd like the password. —Giggy 09:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, please help me. Nobody else will.

I've been uploading photos (specific ones) that I look for in Flickr, and then ask the photographer to change their copyright to attribution. I only do it for pages in the en.wikipedia lacking photos. I was using the Flickr to Commons upload, the Bryan's tool thing (do you know what I'm talking about?) It was going fine, but in the last week, I keep getting a screen with no picture, but a big green check mark with my name leahtwosaints saying I can upload the photo. But I already have! So where IS it? This has been going on for the last 10 photos or so, and I upload a lot, if the photographer is willing to let us have them. Not one picture is wasted though, I attach them right away to the biography pages in Wikipedia that they were meant for. What can I do? The manual upload directions don't seem to work for me, and SOME PLACE in COMMONS my photo of Jeff Sipe must be just hanging in cyberspace! HELP!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert the page to the original version (the one with the "Preparing upload using Flickr upload bot" edit summary), save in this state, and click the blue "click this link" button again; that should force the bot to re-download from Flickr. — iridescent 16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Your cascading protection of file description page disable editing POTD of passed days ! Today I can't edit yesterrday's POTD. Arno Lagrange ✉ 06:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of personality rights by picture in the article Jan Jelinek

The upload history tells me that you uploaded the picture of Jan Jelinek from FlickR. This is to inform you that the picture in question (regardless of the authors copyright) violates Jan´s personality rights[[12]]. He does not want this particular picture of himself to be shown on the internet and therefore asks kindly to remove it from Wikipedia. An authorised press picture can be obtained from the German article.Thanks.--92.226.52.193 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Giggy has not edited Wikimedia Commons in about a year, I think you would probably be able to receive more immediate attention by nominating the image for deletion. You should see a "nominate for deletion" link at the bottom-left when looking at the image page. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...Sorry but I cannot see a "Nominate for deletion" link on the page. To be honest: I am not overly happy with how this is going here. The image shouldn´t have been uploaded in the first place without Jan Jelinek´s permission. Neither in FlickR nor in Wikipedia, let alone with a CCLicense. The publication of private pictures without permission on the internet showing other people than the one who is uploading is a serious violation of personal rights. If anyone could please see to it being removed asap. Like I said: Authorised press fotos can be obtained from the German Wikipedia or from Jan Jelinek directly under info(at)faitiche.de.--93.219.184.202 13:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Move to Commons talk:Licensing#Illegal Pictures, please. --Túrelio (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:L Sanger.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:L Sanger.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Rockfang (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Janesohu.jpg

File:Janesohu.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Fixer23 (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion

There is a problem with your transfer: Commons:Deletion requests/File:STS068-258-80 Sydney annotated.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:RHCP 2007.jpg

File:RHCP 2007.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ytoyoda (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Hi, User:Giggy/Main Page salt is preventing me from editing File:Cheetah portrait Whipsnade Zoo.jpg. This picture was POTD on 31 May 2012, but that was 4 days ago. Can you release the protection please? —Bruce1ee^talk 07:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As you were, I've fixed the problem. I refreshed User:Giggy/Main Page salt (purged the cache), and that released the protection. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:This Is It Cover.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:This Is It Cover.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:This Is It Cover.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, there is a de-flag proposal at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag which affects your bot. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot de-flagging notification

Hi Giggy/Archive6, I'm writing to you because your bot Giggabot (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is about to be de-flagged as a result of inactivity. If you'd like to keep that account flagged as a bot, please speak up at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag#Discussion; otherwise, I'll remove the bot flag from that account in a week from now (20 February 2014). Thanks for your understanding, odder (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:OldhamParishChurch.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:OldhamParishChurch.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:OldhamParishChurch.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Kelly (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:OldhamTownCentre.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:OldhamTownCentre.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Kelly (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

File:The Wiggles, Oakland Arena.jpg

File:The Wiggles, Oakland Arena.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

IagoQnsi (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)