User talk:Giano/archive 23

Unsolicited email[edit]

I've just received this - anyone know what it's about?

"Jeena122332 XXXXXXXXX@.com via wikimedia.org Jan 6 (1 day ago)

to me Hey a55hole. I am jaredgk2008 (see my spi case page) and i will continue to vandalize wikipedia until you stop me

I have undetected hoax vandalism on wikipedia articles and you'll never find it.

I plan on vandalizing and adding hoax info to JA Adande article, Kenny Mayne article, Chris Berman (ESPN) article and more.I won't stop until you personally stop me.I have hundreds of sleeper accounts and tons of different proxies (cyber ghost, surf easy, hotspot shield) I will vandalize as much as i want and you cant stop me

I will add hoax info and smear their BLPS. and i dare you to stop me ."

I don't think I've encountered this person before - perhaps somebody knows what it's about. Obviously, I can't reply and ask them without giving my own email address away. Giano (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just some child trolling you to try and get a reaction. They don't get enough attention from their parents, so are desperate to get it from anyone. Bin it and ignore them is the best response. --RexxS (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am, but I always think if you post their ramblings online is discourages others from similar behaviour. Posting and trolling on a public Wikipedia page is one thing, emailing people is quite another; it's invading their private, personal space, and those who are less tough nuts than me, may find that intimidating, so a naming and shaming can do no harm at all. I've blocked them now they'll go straight to junk which seems an aptly named place for them. Giano (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pldx1 Chesnaught555. Right! Password clanged - the edit mentioned above is nothing to do with me. Giano (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ummmm ... OK. I have no idea what that means. 206.123.253.82 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, we all have usernames starting with CH. Haha. Ches (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Hi, can you add your permission to File:Belton Church Giano.jpg. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]