User talk:Giano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:GiacomoReturned)
Jump to: navigation, search


Old messages are at:

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, 8 months and 18 days.
Animalibrí.gif

West Wycombe Park[edit]

I have nominated West Wycombe Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Well, when you've leaned to sign your name, I'm sure you will be a very good judge of these matters. Giano (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Rather than facetiously and impolitely mocking what you see as my Wikipedia credentials (or lack thereof), perhaps you could focus on the actual issue rather than conducting ad hominem attacks against me as a person (never forget Wikipedia:Civility!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
... and I've objected on the grounds that no genuine effort has been made to resolve issues or improve the article to meet specific concerns. General hand-waving about lack of citations is easy; taking the time to actually read the sources and confirm that particular content is unsourced takes more work. --RexxS (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Rex. I don't believe in citing the obvious. Anyway, I expect some bright spark will claim soon that it needs am info-box. It still looks like nice, pretty informative page and that's always been good enough for me. Giano (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your revert at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard[edit]

Dear User:Giano. I don't understand why you reverted the archivage of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Floquenbeam_reappointed_an_Oversighter. But, if you stand by this revert, it should be followed by the deletion of the corresponding section in the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 31. Could you please maintain the coherence of the two pages ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pldx1, I think his account may be compromised. See my post just above yours; he nominated a featured article for speedy deletion, branding it as "dreadful" just now. I am very concerned. Ches (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This edit here] is very worrying because I have not even looked at this page recently. I'll log out and change my password now!!!! Giano (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Pldx1Chesnaught555. Right! Password clanged - the edit mentioned above is nothing to do with me. Giano (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was certain that couldn't have been you. You're a very experienced editor, it would have been out of character for you to do so. Ches (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

FA, AfD, and other broken things. (for TPS)[edit]

  • Note that this is to the (talk page stalker) and not Giano (mainly because I obviously can't speak for him). Addressing a couple threads above.
  • Background: I once offered to take a really great article to FA (or perhaps it was TFA, IDK) for an editor (may have been Moni3, but I'm not sure), and we had a discussion. From that, I learned the following:
  • Just because someone writes a great article, doesn't necessarily mean they want fancy baubles and FA stars to flash about. In fact, as often as not - once an article becomes the focus of 50 people trying to edit it to reach that holy "FA" thing - the quality of the article actually goes DOWN due to too many people mucking about. The old "too many" adage. Perhaps this may explain a bit of thinking in regards to things ... but take it as you will. — Ched :  ?  18:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I should point out that notwithstanding our initial two letters, Ched, Chillum, Chesnaught555 and myself are all distinct, although it is possible I am misinformed. Choess (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Ummmm ... OK. I have no idea what that means. 206.123.253.82 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Goodness, we all have usernames starting with CH. Haha. Ches (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:QueenOfWikipedia[edit]

The name above was reported to the username board as a "misleading username", but I told the reporter that I don't really think it's capable of misleading anybody. After all, everybody knows who's the real Queen of Wikipedia. (Namely Darwinbish! Just kidding!) But I suppose your sainted aunt might find the name offensive? (One of our most cherished rationales for username blocks.) Like, disrespectful? Though she's probably above that kind of thing. Also, now I come to think of it, might it be simply your aunt creating a sock for use on special occasions? Bishonen | talk 16:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC).

  • Mrs Bishonen! Please do not refer to me in the third person as though I am not in the room; it is well known that I am all seeing and all hearing and miss very little. No doubt some poor deluded little woman thinks it très amausanti to style herself as Queen of Wikipedia. Well, one assumes it's a woman, who knows these days, at one time one knew a Queen was a woman to whom one curtsied to at one's coming out presentation; today, it covers all manner of folk. I suppose they, at least, all have coming out in common - far better when it was all swept neatly and tidily under the carpet in my opinion. I'm sure half of them wouldn't even think about these things if wasn't continually rammed down their throats in the media. I've no time for any of it, and it certainly isn't me creating a sock puppet - my tiara is quite firmly fixed and Wikipedia position assured, thank you very much. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Please excuse the intrusion, Ma'am, but I am reliably informed that while you are indeed all seeing and all hearing, Miss Very Little is actually someone else. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There are too many Miss Very Littles on Wikipedia - too little editing and a very great deal too much opining on matters they don't understand! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:G'sPB3.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:G'sPB3.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:G'sPB4.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:G'sPB4.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

it's definitely not going to deleted. Giano,did you intend these images to be Creative Commons 3.0, free to use? Jehochman Talk 20:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"When I uploaded, I clicked "It is entirely my own work and I am willing to release it irrevocably under a free license." so a licence should have been added automatically. As these images are still clearly work in progress, they are not going to have any information because when previously I have uploaded such work with descriptions of where they are, they then show up in google searches and sites relating to the building giving false information - these images are far from complete or currently accurate - so are best anonymous. I've only uploaded then temporarily so I can see what the finished product needs to look like. Giano (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can you add your permission to File:Belton Church Giano.jpg. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The original file File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif had the permissions clearly shown, so I've added links to it. --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
And of course, once they deletionistas found out that there was a file showing the permission, they decided to get rid of the evidence by nominating it for deletion. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 17 #File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Giano (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ashridge House - geograph.org.uk - 1568926.jpg[edit]

Some while ago (last September, actually) you added the above image to A Handful of Dust, as a more appropriate example of Gothic Revival architecture than the Lancing College Chapel. At the time I agreed; subsequently (I move slowly in such matters) I've become less certain. Ashridge House was built in what Waugh approvingly calls the "pre-Ruskin" phase of the Gothic revival, but the fictional Hetton was built much later, in "the worst possible 1860 style", and is stated as being "devoid of interest". So, quite unlike Ashridge. I'm rather inclined, regretfully, to delete the Ashridge image, but as a courtesy I thought I'd consult you first. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Oakley Court, scene of many a Hammer film, hideous enough? Otherwise we have good pics of Carlton Towers, but that is Pugin 1840s and not without "interest", though closer - they did the film there. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Waugh was a social climbing, pompous little oik, but if he knew his Perpendicular from his his Decorated is unknown, so please have whatever you feel was closest to Waugh's mind. Giano (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)