User talk:Giano/archive 25

neutrality of a Talk page heading

Hi Giano—concerning your edit here, I feel it is giving a non-neutral tone to the topic of discussion. At WP:TALK I find: "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Good grief! Cassianto^Talk 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• @ Bus stop. Oh Dear! Why do I suspect this is going to be difficult? Let me try and explain this as gently as I can: in most parts of the world, at least those which which I am familiar, after people die (that means pass away, Go the Lord or in some other way gently (sometimes noisily) stop breathing they are given a funeral (this can take many forms religious or otherwise) after the funeral the mortal remains are disposed of. This can be in a number of ways including burial, cremation, blasting into space or converting into a diamond. Now this is the truly sad bit, so brace yourself: after the disposal, no dead body has ever been known to suddenly sit up, stretch and say: "Wow, that was a really good rest, I think I'll go and have a game a baseball." I too wish it was otherwise, but it is not. In fact, so concrete is this unpalatable fact that it can't really be given a "neutral tone" in a debate because it is an absolute fact of life. I am sorry to have to be the one to break this to you. Giano (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned you

here- but not judgementally. Take care! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh Dear, how very confusing for you all and poor old Cassianto that does seem rather harsh. Doubtless there's other agendas playing around here. I wonder how Fram came to hear of it, and I wonder who the logged out IP who was threatening to report it was? I suspect our little friend, Bus Stop is anxious not to attract too much attention either. In the immortal words of dear old Sir Walter: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive!" Giano (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Temporary image

Hey there, I'm sorting through orphaned images to see which ones should go, and stumbled upon File:Quiranalroom key1.jpg - are you done with this file? If so let me know so I can PROD it. Cheers! Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be very grateful if you didn't "Prod" it (whatever that means) as I may require it sometime. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Man in wig.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Man in wig.jpg, 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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Giano'patentcureforflu.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giano'patentcureforflu.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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif listed for discussion

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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: Have you really nothing more profitable to do with your time than run around making these pointless nominations. It is because of people like you that people like me now spend so little time on this project. Giano (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: I added this to the discussion -Keep: We have been using this work for twelve years. This is the sort of irritating fiddling we can do without- I hope the nominator can find somewhere else to use his talents. Get involved in Women in Red and produce some serious BLPs, go over to Wikishootme and convert some red-dots to green ones- or just follow me arounf and correct my typos- and I have a to-do list of vital articles that need referencing.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Basildon Park

Why does it not need an info box? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Because everything that needs to be said is already in the lead and over simplified information is misleading. Furthermore, the lead image does not need reducing to the size of a postage stamps. Giano (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

About Villa Di Poggio a Caiano

Ciao Giano,
Ho added gli required banners ed il "translated page" template.
Article looks like it's up your alley.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. It is indeed very much up my alley, but sadly I currently only have time to check the pages I have already written. However, the good news is that from April 2018, I will have unlimited time for Wikipedia and will be giving it my undivided attention. It will be just like old times. Giano (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Giano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 07:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

staircase

The staircase in Schloss Ledenburg has been described as "dreiläufig", as in the Würzburger Residenz. Is there a term in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

imperial staircase Giano (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lady R Churchill.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lady R Churchill.jpg, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Brympton Plan.jpg

The file File:Brympton Plan.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned "keep local" file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems superfluous to File:Brympton evo.gif but Rob, YOU SHOULD CHECK!! Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Wycombe plan.gif

The file File:Wycombe plan.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned "keep local" file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Fontainebleaustairs.gif

The file File:Fontainebleaustairs.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned "keep local" file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Tour de S Marie Monaco.gif

The file File:Tour de S Marie Monaco.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned "keep local" file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:VillaMedicicafaggiolo.gif

The file File:VillaMedicicafaggiolo.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned "keep local" file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:VillaMedicicafaggiolo.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VillaMedicicafaggiolo.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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The above images

I can't be arsed to argue the toss about deleting the above images. They were all uploaded in good faith to help the project, all are clearly extremely old and out of copyright or have the necessary information as to their source. None of them were orphans until some interfering idiot decided to reupload them to Commons and then replace them here. They all have Keep Local templates and indeed I may well use them again as I don't touch Commons unless there is no alternative which as images are replaced and deleted here is becoming frequently the case. I have no idea why that is thought to be such a good thing. I often wonder why anyone bothers to write anything at all here as the only people valued are the bossy little tits who scuttle about interfering pointlessly. Giano (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Giano: Actually, many of them aren't uploaded to Commons, and none of them are used (either here or at Commons). That's why I nominated them for deletion; they simply aren't in use and haven't been for at least a half-decade in most cases. I do not interfere with {{Keep local}} images that are in-use (including uploading to Commons), but it's difficult to justify indefinitely holding images that aren't being used anywhere. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately commons has the better File:Giusto utens, lunette delle ville medicee, 1599-1602, dalla villa di artimino, cafaggiolo 01.JPG. In cases of (actually quite well-known) artworks like this, nominations should check whether there is a commons equivalent first. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• There you are problem solved User:BU Rob13. Most of the images are now "in use" and no longer orphaned. Now, if orphans bothers you so much, run along to Commons and delete the images there which now are orphans. Giano (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Amorial Hall.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Amorial Hall.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we not to trust our fellow Russian Wikipedians? In my experience they are often better educated and more dedicated to the project than most of their Western colleagues. Anyway, it's on Commons now so it must be sacrosanct. Giano (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) This is the sequence of events, ShakespeareFan00

1. On 19 September 2007, Ivanchay uploaded the file as 'Изображение:Зал в классическом античном стиле в Зимнем Дворце.jpg' to the Russian Wikipedia. [1]
2. On 29 March 2008, Giano found the file on the Russian Wikipedia, where it has GNU licence, and uploaded a copy to the English Wikipedia, called 'Amorial Hall.jpg'. [2]
3. On 11 April 2008 a copy was uploaded to Commons by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), and renamed to c:File:Amorial Hall.jpg. [3]
4. On 2 March 2013 the original file was deleted from the Russian Wikipedia by Tosha. [4]

Is that clear enough for you and "other users to examine the copyright status of the image"? If so, perhaps you could amend the file description to suit your needs, and remove that misleading template from the file page. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Rex; I couldn't have it put better myself. Giano (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Tag removed, but why was the file deleted at Russian Wikipedia? Also what was the original source listed there? I am perfectly willing to assume good faith, but it would be additional useful information to confirm at as 'self' work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to an archive.org copy of the linked page, I've now been able to confirm it was listed as own work, so I've struck out the concern above. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh thank you what a relief. I can breath again, how would we ever manage without you? Giano (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

File source problems

I've collapsed these down from the original notifcations, per some advice from an admin on IRC.

The concern was that these didn't have any other source information besides them being an old photo.

Whilst in the past, because these are "old" images, and I am not disputing that, there had been a tendency to let these slide. It was my understanding based on the direction of more recent FFD disscussions and the efforts of certain editors, that listing an image source as merely being an "Old photo" wasn't sufficient.

I will on consideration be de-tagging the files below, but would appreciate additional information being provided if you can recall where the images actually came from ( such as cross-wiki uploads from Russian Wikipedia for example?)

I will be adding an {{information}} block to the file information pages anyway, because I'm told that this will make it easy to migrate the information, when a "structured data" approach for image meta-data is implemented at a later date.

• File:Quirinale 1699.jpg.
• File:Tsar'sStudy1917.jpg.
• File:Quirinalfalseperspective.jpg.
• File:NicholasIIbiliardroom.jpg.
• File:Castle Bernard.jpg.
• File:Empire-Salon1900.jpg.
• File:Tsaritsasitting room2,1917.jpg.

Forgot to sign the above, but re-signing it now ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Exploding palazzo

File copyright problem with File:G'sPB7.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:G'sPB7.jpg. However, it is currently 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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:G'sPB6.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:G'sPB6.jpg. However, it is currently 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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

File:G'sPB3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:G'sPB3.jpg, 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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Each of the above files, as well as File:G'sPB4.jpg and File:G'sPB expl2.jpg, are used in User:Giano/Exploding palazzo. I assume that when Giano agreed to license his contributions on that page as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, it automatically included the files he created as they made up the entirity of that contribution. As such, I've taken the liberty of noting the licence status on each of the file description pages. Hopefully, if my assumption is wrong (for example, Giano may have wished to license the files as {{PD-self}} and forgotten to say so), His Excellency will point out my error here and we can correct it. Otherwise, I think my assumption is reasonable and we can happily remove those unnecessary deletion nominations, and go back to trying to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

These files are essential to a page I am working on! They represent hours and hours of hared work! Please do not delete them.Giano (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Those images looks great. I got my first second message on Commons the other day - a deletion request. On a file I scraped off Geograph. I despair. Turns out I also got a Trump troll some time back too Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:RexxS. Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In short: Fastily started a discussion about some edits made by RexxS, and then your name was mentioned several times, but no one seems to have informed you about this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Giano. I realize this got out of hand in several directions. Thank you for your work, and for the valuable images. Please do us all a quick favor, and just reply to this comment, saying your intention, if not otherwise indicated, is to release your images under CC BY-SA 3.0, and we all, including myself, can all do very well to just shut right up, and find something that's actually productive to do. If need be, I'll go back and makes sure all the license are fixed myself.

I really don't think any of this was anything other than honest mistakes compounded with unnecessary argument. I apologize that you had to get dragged into it simply because you've been working hard to improve the project. Hopefully we can quickly set everything right. Again, thank you for your hard work, and feel free to reach out to me if I can ever be of any help. GMG^talk 10:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No,I have never created anything for Commons in my life. I do not like or approve of commons. There must be some other little tag that will keep the bureaucrats happy. What a fuss over nothing. I would hate to see the community when something really dreadful happens! Giano (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't very clear, sorry. It's not a Wikimedia Commons thing (although the similar names can be confusing). CC BY-SA 3.0 is the license that nearly everything on Wikipedia is licensed under, including this comment I'm posting right now. It's also the license used for lots of other content, including things on Flikr and YouTube. It doesn't mean you can't keep the files local on Wikipedia, it just makes it clear that you intend to license it for unrestricted public use. GMG^talk 10:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. If it stops all this incessant complaining. One despairs one really does. Giano (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How does one apply this template {{CC BY-SA 3.0}} doesn't seem to work. Giano (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably a capitalization problem. Try {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. And in the future, at the least, if anybody has any issues, someone can link them back to this thread and show that you've given the nod to the license in the case you've forgotten to add it, which lord knows I've done myself quite a few times in the past... probably because I can't manage to have less than 30 tabs open at a time.

Thanks again for all the really high quality images. I'm sure they've benefited a lot of people, and will probably eventually benefit their kids and grandkids too. GMG^talk 10:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's hope they benefit someone, but I expect as soon as the plans are finished, some bureaucrat will come along and reduce it to the size of a postage stamp on the page and on one will be able to see what it is anyway. 11:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't be. Normally only non-free content should be reduced in that way. And anyway, there's very very little on Wikipedia that can be done which cannot be just as easily undone. It's a blessing and a curse, but we've managed to build a half decent encyclopedia anyway, even if we've sometimes had to do it despite ourselves. GMG^talk 11:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• To be quite honest, I find it very sad that so many people and such a storm in a soup plate can be silenced by such a small template that could have been easily added by anyone of so many. In my day, when we had a battle at least it was a good one. Speaking of the good old days, there used to be a wonderful man called Jack who could add amazing links to my plans (see Winter Palace). I think he was driven off or banned for eternity, I wonder if we have anyone so talented now because I have need of them for when the finished Buckingham Palace 3D plan is uploaded and I start to write a new category. Giano (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I've seen that before especially on bigger maps, although not all of them seem to be working. Looks like you mean User:JayHenry, who yes, unfortunately doesn't seem like he's edited since 2011, and actually stopped editing very much around 2009. Folks come and go. Sometimes they come back. Sometimes life happens, or stops happening. It's hard to tell most of the time.

If it helps at all, most of that thread wasn't really about you in particular, even though it may have seemed that way. It was really mostly about interpretation of policy in a much more abstract way. Stuff like that is an unfortunate side effect of the types of people who edit an encyclopedia in their free time; they also tend to be people who maybe miss their old college debate team a little too much, and occasionally enjoy a scuffle over obscure rhetoric and policy. GMG^talk 19:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, it was User:Jack Merridew, and very useful he was too. However looking him up, it seems he was the devil incarnate. Pity, I always liked him. Such a nuisance when useful people are sent packing and one is left with the useless prattling about nominating things for deletion and contributing nothing of any worth. Giano (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Jack was my wiki-friend and he was indeed both knowledgeable and useful to anybody who would listen. Sadly, he was never one to suffer fools gladly, and that led to him making too many enemies. When the mob eventually came, demanding his head, there were not enough of us to stave them off. I suspect, though, that Jack wanted to be free of Wikipedia and welcomed the release – and who could blame him? Nevertheless, I still miss him.

I don't miss my college "debating team" – contemporaries like Jeremy Paxman are entertaining in small doses, but you wouldn't want to revisit that for any length of time. My arguments centring on the interpretation of licensing were sufficient to postpone deletion until such time as Giano returned. I don't care if I was right or wrong, but it served the purpose.

Excellency, I know how to create image maps and apply styling and labels to create whatever efect is needed. When you are ready, my poor skills are at your disposal. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good. I will take advantage of you then. This will be the biggest clickety plan on Wikipedia. I'm going tho have a lot of free time in the near future to finally finish and rewrite BP. Poor old Jack, I never understood what was so bad about him.Giano (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. You are encouraged to change

<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Giano|<font color="blue">Giano</font>]]</span> [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] → Giano (talk)

to

<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Giano|<span style="color: blue;">Giano</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] → Giano (talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: (talk page stalker) If you're going to suggest improved signatures, at least suggest valid syntax:

• [[User:Giano|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">Giano</span>]] [[User talk:Giano|(talk)]] → Giano (talk)

See how simple it is? --RexxS (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

RexxS: My syntax was valid; Preferences accepts it; it is lint-free, and it "works" in the sense that it does exactly what Giano's old signature does. I agree that it is more elegant to combine the two style markups for the same text.

Giano: I didn't bother to look up what texhtml is or does; I simply preserved the markup and altered only where necessary to avoid lint errors. In fact, texhtml is intended for use in equations; see Wikipedia:Rendering math. The way you (and I) used it, it has no effect at all and could be removed with no change in appearance:

[[User:Giano|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">Giano</span>]] [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] → Giano (talk)

If you want the serif font that appears in RexxS's version, that's fine too. RexxS's version has the talk link bold here on this page because throughout Wikipedia, links to the page you're on display as unlinked bold text. If you want the talk link to be bold on other pages, you'll need to put the triple apostrophes back in. Also, I suspect that you created your signature on a Apple or Mac computer and one or more of the spaces between the two links are actually nonbreaking spaces. I have a Windows computer, where nonbreaking spaces display just like regular spaces and can't be copied and pasted as nonbreaking spaces. If you want any of your spaces to be nonbreaking, I assume you know what to do about that. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: The hell your syntax is valid. I don't give a shit what your tools suggest – anybody who writes css knows that style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml" is garbage. Style doesn't have a class and you don't have '=' inside a style definition. For your information, texthtml is simply the name of a class (a defined collection of styles), but class is a separate attribute of the <span>...</span> tag. Got it now? --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

RexxS: OK. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: You're welcome! By the way, the class="texthtml" sets whitespace:nowrap, so once the class is actually working as intended, it could be used (e.g. in an outer span) to prevent unwanted line breaks within the sig. Cheers. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Giano: Don't let this back-and-forth between RexxS and me deter you from the task. RexxS is correct that the first signature I proposed for you has invalid syntax. Don't use that one. Use the other one I gave you, or RexxS's is fine too but the talk link won't be bold except on this page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Giano: Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware that I had. I don’t believe in changing things just to suit a fad. In my experience things always come full circle if one waits long enough. It’s why I never throw old clothes away. Giano (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Giano. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Giano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 12:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)