Last modified on 2 November 2014, at 13:32

User talk:Giggette

Return to the user page of "Giggette".
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giggette.

This is the user talk page of Giggette, where you can send messages and comments to Giggette.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | മലയാളം | português | русский | +/−

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.


El imagen (la mapa) de HispanoamericaEdit

Spanish speakers in the Americas (orthographic projection).svg

Hola, te escribo porque creo que la mapa de Hispanoamerica (tu obra) no es corecta. Me refiero de Canada. He mirada la fuente de Canada y me parece, que comprediste mal lo que se escribe allá. En página 4 hay "Más del 45% del total de la población hispana reside en la provincia de Ontario, otro 24% en la de Quebec y 13% en la Columbia Británica, lo que suma casi 83% del total de latinos concentrados solo en estas tres provincias." Pero estas procentajes coresponden al porcion de la poblacion latina, no la total. Es decir en Caanda hay 741 761 personas de origen latino. Eso responde a 2,4 % de poblacion total. De estos 741 mil viven 45% en Ontario (178 mil personas). Espero que hayas comprendido lo que estoy argumentando y que corrigirás el dibujo. Saludos --Unpocoloco (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Entiendo, pero en Ontario no viven 178 mil personas, en Québec si 178,625 mil hispanoparlantes, pero quizás te refieres a que en Ontario viven 337,650 mil hispanoparlantes, y la ecuación difiere al total de la población de Canadá y no con el total de la población de cada entidad canadiense.--Giggette (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Población hispana en Canadá por provincia 2006
Provincia Población total  % de la población del país Hispanos  % de la población de hispanos
Newfoundland y Labrador 500,610 1.60 1,955 0.26
Prince Edward Island 134,205 0.43 670 0.09
Nova Scotia 903,090 2.89 5,860 0.79
New Brunswick 719,650 2.30 3,385 0.46
Quebec 7,435,905 23.80 178,625 24.08
Ontario 12,028,895 38.50 337,650 45.52
Manitoba 1,133,515 3.63 34,450 4.64
Saskatchewan 953,850 3.05 7,160 0.97
Alberta 3,256,355 10.42 72,455 9.77
British Columbia 4,074,385 13.04 98,685 13.30
Yukon Territory 30,195 0.10 435 0.06
Northwest Territories 41,055 0.13 350 0.05
Nunavut 29,325 0.09 75 0.01
Totales 31,241,030 100% 741,760 100%

Tabla extraída. --Giggette (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, me confundí Quebec con Ontario, lo siento, pero ahora todo está correcto. Hasta luego. --Unpocoloco (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Aztec mapEdit

I see you still resist starting a discussion on the talkpage. Instead, I'm starting it here. Looking at those maps, there's obviously far more difference than simply "dominance" between two areas. There's a different shape to the entire empire. What is the cause of the differences between the maps? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, well, first I did not still resist starting a discussion on the talkpage because this discussion started here weeks ago, and not only on the talkpage of this map, and it was finally closed there and on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, and yes the only differente of these maps is the dominance between two areas, that's all. Both maps have sources but some more reliable sources than others, only the Wikipedias should choose to use for the articles. And this map was firstly created than the other. --Giggette (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I've shifted your response here, so I can follow the thread of conversation. A discussion on the file talkpage is different from the template talkpage. Looking at the maps, it's quite clear that the colouring in of territory between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco is not the only difference. The maps look very different. Why? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Supposedly it is the only difference, the map was created basing from the following sources.
1.- [1] by the Department of History by Ian Mladjov, University of Michigan.
2.- Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control by Ross Hassig, University of Oklahoma Press, according a user with his map on COMMONS in use
3.- [2] Encyclopædia Britannica 1994
4.- As such more sources [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
The template must have the two versions without distinction. --Giggette (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it's wrong : Gengiskanhg, the author of the original map never quoted these sources. And Maunus said that there is no such map in Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare. El Comandante (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Maunus said to be the author and his map was created by Ross hassig's Aztec Warfare here. --Giggette (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it's wrong and you know it. Maunus said that he made an original research compiling various maps of journeys of Aztec armies from Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare, which contains no map of the Aztec Empire. Also, Maunus said that he recommends the use of Yavidaxiu's map. El Comandante (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Look, this map File:Aztec Empire ME (orthographic projection).svg was created according by existing maps on COMMONS and in use as Maunus's map but I wanted to add references that's why I asked to the authors and Maunus accepted to be the author based by Ross Hassigs book Aztec Warfare. I'm not wrong and of course I'm not lying [12].--Giggette (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
And of course you know that when I saw that Maunus pretended that his map was based on Aztec Warfare, I asked him what was the exact page of the map that he used, and then he admitted there was no map of the Aztec Empire in Aztec Warfare and that he compiled various maps with absolutely no direct link with the Aztec Empire, just maps of different journeys of Aztec armies. And where an imperial army passes, it's not always considered as a territory depent on an Empire, if there is no treaty establishing such a relation of tributary or client state. That's why these territories are NOT included in the Aztec Empire by true specialists such as Michael E. Smith, Frances Berdan, Michael Coe, Leonardo López Luján and all the scholars peer-reviewing Arqueología Mexicana. El Comandante (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You repeat the same over and over again, probably these territories are NOT included by "true" specialists but others editors YES include these territories, where an imperial army passes, that's why both maps must be in the template. Furthermore we can see these territories with others maps in use "File:Aztecempirelocation.png" or "File:Aztecexpansion.png". --Giggette (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a bunch of maps made by unknown authors or not mesoamericanists. You are NOT able to quote a single specialized source to support your map, while Sémhur's is supported by a lot of very famous specialists. What else? El Comandante (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I can explain : the map that Giggette wants to impose everywhere is based on this Gengiskanhg map, itself based on no identifiable source, and more or less supported by another map by Maunus, which is an unreliable original research, as Maunus admitted it, compiling various maps of journeys of Aztec armies from Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare. Instead, the map created by Sémhur is based on this map created by Yavidaxiu and based on a special issue of the very specialized and renowed mesoamericanist review Arqueología Mexicana published by mexican archaeological authorities, and also supported by recent and specialized sources such as the worldwide famous book The Aztecs by Michael E. Smith, which provides full explanations about the name and type of dependency of each tributary or client state (primary sources supporting this map originally created by Frances Berdan can be read in her book Aztec Imperial Strategies). It is VERY clear that Giggette's map, which is NOT supported by Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare (as Maunus conceded it), and is therefore only supported by non specialized sources, is VERY LESS reliable than Sémhur's, as Maunus himself said. But she doesn't want to accept these facts, probably because she's a mexican nationalist wanting to glorify Aztec empire exagerating its power. El Comandante (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary El Comandante. I have however seen maps showing an extended contiguous Aztec Empire offline, in museums and such. Has the research developed recently? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The first very detailed map I know is the famous one by Robert H. Barlow in 1949, revised by Frances Berdan in 1996, and then by Michael E. Smith in 2013. It's true that older maps relying upon a vague methodology like Giggette's are still commonly used by unskilled people ; maybe sometimes it is possible that some people supposed to be specialists of Mesoamerica ignore that subject or accept a too less scientific approach for popularization medias (see for example Eduardo Matos Moctezuma using an incorrect Commons file for a TV show, not including Cozumel in Mesoamerica)... El Comandante (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

DisputesEdit

So Giggette, you have no explanation for the other differences? For example, why is Teotitlan from Maunus' map included in the empire on your map? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I already saw that Maunus' map doesn't include Teotitlan as part of the Empire but yes Encyclopædia Britannica's map. --Giggette (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
But what is the reason for the difference? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Teotitlan as others areas are where the aztec imperial army passes and some authors not always considered these areas as territories depend of the Aztec Empire. I think these areas should be included in a single map of the Aztec Empire with light green, and not to discriminate authors who include them, that's my opinion. --Giggette (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you able to rework your map to show the areas that are light green then? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes sure I can changed it, but "my map" is not exactly my map because I reuploaded it when I noticed that it was replaced by El Comandante's request [13] from French Wikipedia, and now the original map or "my reuploaded map" is not longer in use as originally, only this replaced map without pior consensus before "update", that's my disagreement or dispute with El Comandante on COMMONS 1, 2, 3, 4 and finally [14] and he can't understand that he must have uploaded another file with its sources and have consensus on wikis to change it and don't commit edit war, although El Comandante was blocked by insult me many times (personal attacks) he stills as you can see, just tired of arguing. --Giggette (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well if you change it, then we have two clear maps and everyone wins. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File correctionEdit

Given the minor nature of this I figured I would simply discuss it here instead of on the file's discussion page. On the file Spanish speakers in the Americas (orthographic projection) the numbers are all given using a decimal "." point with the exception of Belize which uses a "," comma. I thought it would be a simple fix for the next time you update the file. Regards Coinmanj (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Viceroyalty of New Spain 1819 (without Philippines).pngEdit

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Viceroyalty of New Spain 1819 (without Philippines).png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:Nahuatl in Mexico.svgEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Nahuatl in Mexico.svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--El Comandante (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Official Spanish language in the World.svgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Official Spanish language in the World.svg 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Permiso para usar contenido?Edit

Hola, soy Nuevo, y por mas que leo, no me queda totalmente claro como debo pedirte permiso para usar varias de tus creaciones, que informacion debo proporcionarte, etc. Si me pudieras orientar te lo agradeceria. --Omar10594 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Si, entiendo lo de saber ingles, cuando mire el autor de las imagines que queria usar, (que segun yo, eres tu, aunque el nombre es diferente, al darle click al nombre (Eddo) me manda a ti) habla español, pues mas facil (para mi) escribir en mi idioma. Lo de firmar, muy cierto, es casi lo primero que se ve al entrar a tu pagina, y se me olvido por completo, lo recordare. Ahora bien, respecto a las imagines que quiero usar, como lo comente antes, el autor aparece como Eddo, pero al darle click me manda a tu pagina, entonces tenia la duda de si eras tu el autor. Las imagines son: Tlaloc.svg y Mayahuel.svg, ambas tienen la misma licencia (Tambien planeamos usar Xochiquetzal V.png pero esta tiene una licencia de dominio publico asi que no creo que haya problema, aun asi se incluira el nombre de autor en las imagenes que se usaran), y basicamente dicen que debo hacer atribucion al autor, de la manera especificada por el, osea, que debo preguntar la manera "Especifica" al autor, por eso me vi en la tarea de buscarlo y preguntarle y por eso comente en tu pagina, pues creo que eres el autor. La imagen seria para unas cervezas artesanales, se quieren poner en las botellas (Una etiqueta con la imagen) para su venta, las imagenes no serian modificadas en lo mas minimo, simplemente se tiene un cierto espacio para ponerlas, por lo que no saldrian "completas", el tipo de atribucion que se piensa hacer, es el nombre que especifique el autor, en la misma botella, y en el sitio web, se pondria informacion mas completa (si es necesario), sobre el autor. No estoy seguro si esta es lo forma correcta de responder en tu pagina, pero mirando otros comentario, debo suponer que si, de antemano gracias, realmente esperaba que tardaras en responder por la fecha de tu ultimo comentario en tu pagina. Nose si sea el navegador o la pagina, pero algunas palabras me las "corrige", pero eso a lo major encuentras unas palabras "raras". Omar10594 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
a ok, entonces si uso esas imagines fuera de Commons, no ocupo poner creditos, aun asi pondre una pequeña referencia. Gracias por todo, leere un poco mas de Wikimedia Commons para entenderle mejor, :D. Gracias por todo Omar10594 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Joaquín Velázquez de LeónEdit

Hi Giggette, I found one of your files (Joaquín Velázquez de León.jpg) but I don't understand your description of it. According to you, it's self-portrait by Joaquín Velázquez de León, but then you specify that the author is "Ramón P. Cantó". In addition, the dates seem to be wrong. Clearly, it was not made on 8 October 2010, and Joaquín Velázquez de León did not live from 1870 to 1907 (he lived from 1803 to 1882). I found the same lithograph in a book published in 1885, but it doesn't mention who is the author nor its date of creation, so I would like to know if you could verify the information you provided. Thank you! --José Gnudista (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)