User:Giano/archive 28

Nice to hear from you

Good afternoon Giano. It's certainly been a while! You actually popped into my head not that long ago - I've recently moved to Oxford and me and my wife visited Blenheim Palace - I distinctly recall the fantastic work you did on the Blenheim Palace article and it's been on my bucket list ever since (and let me tell you, it did not disappoint!).

Like a fine wine, I've matured with age and I'd like to get back involved with the project in a small way and improve some articles, away from the wiki-politics that I used to involve myself in so hopefully over the coming months you might see a bit more of me, albeit in the background. I hope you are well and it's fantastic that you're still going strong - The project is much better with Giano, than without. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nice to see you again, Ryan Postlethwaite, and I'm glad you're going to be more active. There's a regular meetup in Oxford every month at the Four Candles and you'd be more than welcome, if you fancy a bit of less serious social time on a Sunday afternoon. We might even slay a fatted calf for you . --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Very nice to hear from you indeed. I too avoid politics....mostly. They do seem to still find me though sometimes. Congratulations on being married, it’s a good thing to be. Glad you liked Blenheim, I was never really happy with the page though, perhaps I’ll return to it. I made some 3D plans for a rewrite, but have never got around to using them - it’s the tiresomeness of having to find refs for every dull little fact which puts me off. I look forward to seeing you around. Happy New Year. Giano (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Gabriël Metsu

Man visiting a lady washing her hands, Gabriël Metsu

We are discussing this: Man visiting a lady washing her hands.

Metsu, The Hunter's Gift

A Young Woman Composing Music and a Curious Man 1662-1663. Ah Taksen, thank you for posting this. According to my “expert”, the foot warmer is a sure sign of sexual lust in a woman, so her mind was clearly not on her music and neither was his. Giano (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Giano. I have no idea what they are doing. Besides I do not like such explicit sexual explanations. I look at it more practical way. For me some 17th century painters had the idea a painting should have a mystery which is not so easy to solve. Otherwise the owner or his company would get bored too fast. Taksen (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We call it genre painting, but I just found this: The phrase "conversation piece" later acquired a different meaning. It came to refer to objects that were perceived to be interesting enough to spark conversation about them. They provide a stimulus for prop-based conversation openers. Taksen (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The "conversation piece" is a type of intimate group portrait, where the viewer was expected to know at least some of the persons shown, whereas part of the definition of a genre painting is that individuals might be used as models, but who they were was not intended to be meaningful to viewers. I think the Metsu is in the latter group, & there certainly seems to be some sort of sexual tension going on. As is not unusual around this time, whether the couple are married, potential lovers, or whatever, is left unclear. I don't think it is a brothel/prostitute painting. These Dutch works are like early versions of the Victorian problem paintings, which deliberately create a puzzle for the viewer to analyse. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "A Man Visiting a Woman Washing her Hands" is a literal representation. It is meant to be understood symbolically. Yes, there is a male courter. But no, he is not literally present when hands are being washed. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't agree with that! Is he a vision? The dog seems to think he is real. The Metsu I've added is a comparison; here it seems fairly clear to me the pair are married, though the modern analyses I've seen don't mention this possibility. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Giano—you say "Is the hand washing symbolising the woman’s purity, or is the woman hoaxing the man with the maid’s complicity or am I wrong completely?" Neither. Wetness serves to invoke the thought of sex. The painting is symbolic. Being symbolized are the very real relationships between 3 people (and a little dog at the man's feet). Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod—you have added a painting other than the one we are talking about. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I know - "The Metsu I've added is a comparison". Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. You did say that. I didn't notice that in a quick reading. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There are only two characters in "The Hunter's Gift". The symbolic interpretation is possible in "A Man Visiting a Woman Washing her Hands" because it contains 3 characters. The two women are virtually inseparable. But the man is quite "separable" from the two-woman unit. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don’t know what to think. I attended a lecture on Dutch Golden Age genre painting just before Christmas, and came to the conclusion the lecturer had the mind of a smutty 14-year-old schoolboy. According to him: fish were positively erotic and the sight of a candlestick or column was beyond pornographic. my painting has a candlestick and a column together! Hand washing was decent so long as no sly looks accompanied it, and a lady sowing while wearing a black dress with some nicely arranged pots behind her was greatly to be admired. However, a servant girl in a colourful dress undoubtedly has the morals of street cat, and were she to gutting or selling fish, then no man was safe from her. I can’t imagine what would have happened had she also a candle to see by. I’m not sure I believe any of it, so thought I’d ask the experts here who are far more reliable. So thank you Taksen, Bus stop and Johnbod. Giano (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have never seen the actual painting in person. I have never even seen a reproduction of the painting. So I am just judging it based on what I see in the online image which I am seeing for the first time. And I am utterly ignorant of any commentary by art historians about the painting. In fact I never even heard of the artist. But I am just speaking authoritatively because this is a Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

For us it is a genre painting as we do not know who is on it, but perhaps the client knew? The client may have ordered not just a painting, but a situation he had experienced, which he would like to remember? They had no camera in those days to store something for eternity. Taksen (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC) The women are familiar too me; they appear in some of his other paintings. Metsu used not only the women he was familiar with, but also a chimney he had painted before. The back ground is rather boring, perhaps Metsu had little time?Taksen (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

They may well be his family and friends, so familiar to them. Many DGA genre painters had regular models, or drawings of them. But they are clearly (to me) not intended as "portraits" - the work would have been sold, very likely to someone who did not know them. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that artists infuse faces with a characteristic appearance, resulting in all faces seeming related. I may be exaggerating, but if characters in painting after separate painting bear a similarity of appearance, it could be that the artist unconsciously includes certain characteristics that result in all faces seeming similar, making different models look somewhat the same. Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but Vermeer and Jan de Bray are among the DGA artists who regularly used their families as models, just as Italian Renaissance painters used their pupils. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Detail of William Hogarth's Marriage à-la-mode: 4. The Toilette, 1743

Ah, I see what you are saying. Thank you for that. Bus stop (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The painting is extremely well known to me, hence my interest. The maid/servant is giving a very sly/devious/complicit look, it is too obvious to be ignored, so I do believe there is a story going on here. I don’t suppose we shall ever know. My own thought is that the girl is washing her hands to show innocence and purity and the maid is thinking that if the man believes that, then he’s a fool. The dog a symbol of loyalty is very small indeed, and as the scene is in a bedroom, we probably have a deceived husband or lover, or even a client. However, my lecturer talked us through [this painting] and if he is to be believed (I’m not sure he is), it should be X-rated and not shown to children under 18 and impressionable adults as it’s full of vulgarity and sexual symbols which my mind was to innocent to comprehend. Giano (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a very lovely painting. Your lecturer would no doubt have something to say about the open-mouthed vessel half-hidden by the lady's dress, at roughly the level of her groin. There's probably deliberate ambiguity, but I think the most likely scenario is that the lover, or aspirant lover, is paying a morning call, but has perhaps arrived a little too early, before the lady has quite finished her morning toilet. Whether this is embarassing, or sexy, or both, one doesn't really know at this distance. With English high-society (insert rude word of choice) a century later, entertaining the lover during the toilet was acceptable (as in the Hogarth I've added), but how the more middle-class and earlier Dutch lady felt about it one doesn't know. Anyway the maid is clearly enjoying the situation vicariously (the failings of housemaids was one of Metsu's big themes, evidently popular with his patrons [oops - actually I was thinking of Nicolaes Maes]), and the lady's expression is, in proper lady-like manner, hard to read, but she doesn't seem too upset. If you know the original, who are the pairs of little figures at the tops of the bedposts, and what are they up to? As in the other Metsu above (with a statue of Cupid high up) the decoration of the setting often gives pointers to the meaning. My Dutch_Golden_Age_painting#Scenes_of_everyday_life gives background, as does toilet service. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The sly sidelong glance of the maid is impossible to ignore, as you say, Giano. But what she's being sly about isn't obvious. My first notion on seeing the picture was that she's glancing complicitly at the man because she has been instrumental (presumably bribed) in getting him admitted to such an intimate scene in a lady's bedroom. "Look at this, wasn't it worth a golden handshake now?" Oh, and I could say much about the phallic threat of the chandelier with its sharp Damocles-sword-type point, but I'd better not. Perhaps your lecturer did. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. No, the erotic symbolism of the chandelier escaped even his filthy mind, and mine too. How observant of you to notice it! There’s a flipped antique print of the painting (See left) where the detailing is clearer than the original, although the full extent of the maid’s leer is lost. The top of the bedposts has playful putti, there’s aLso some indistinct activity in the carving of the bedposts. I wonder if the mirror angled to reflect from the bed has any significance? Giano (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In the print the gentleman's "male gaze" seems to focus on either the maid or the mistress, while from the photo of the painting he seems to be looking at the hands being washed. It's a pity the print doesn't give a title - these are often interesting, though mostly made up much later. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Giano, I'm sorry to say your interlocutor Johnbod has been blocked for 24 hours, per this ANI thread. This conversation has thus been disrupted. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

Why is it that whenever one begins to think this place is a reasonable, educated and tolerable environment, along comes some person like Sandstein and restores one's original thoughts concerning the future of this site. It really does seem to be is a place for the less academically gifted which, sadly, is rather at odds with the aim of writing an encyclopaedia. Giano (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought some clever person (hints: Rex as the original must be well out of copyright. Every time I upload an image it just seems to result in a barrage of templates and bots, so it’s easier to let people who know what their doing upload them. I wonder if it’s a chamber pot at groin level?? It’s v interesting how much more detail is noticeable int eh print. Giano (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Intruder (c 1661), Gabriel Metsu, NGA Washington.

Would it be possible to post this painting to this thread, even if only temporarily? It is its own unique painting. That which can be said about another painting or print is not necessarily applicable to the painting titled "A Man Visiting a Woman Washing her Hands". Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This place, Excellency, contains a remarkable spectrum of inhabitants. All human life is indeed here – not to mention a varied collection of dinosaurs, fish and inanimates. The result is that one can find both reasonable and unreasonable behaviour; the educated and the ignorant; tolerance and intolerance. Don't despair: some folks will infuriate us; but others will salve our wounds. Take solace in the friends you've found here and avoid those who are vexatious to your spirit. Max Ehrmann surely got it right. Johnbod is now unblocked, so let's get back to our scheduled programming ... --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"I wonder what people in 2020 think about that funny scene I painted that Jeff told me about when he accidentally opened the door while Hilda was washing her hands. Hold on.... What the fuck!?? Cover your ears, Rover."

• • Actually, Commons has File:Homme visitant une Femme se lavant les mains - Gabriel Metsu.jpg already - rather low-res, but acceptable. Added at top. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added a more dramatic depiction of a comparable scene by Metsu, in Washington. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I am shocked and horrified by that painting - that flash of naked ankle. What on earth is going on there? Two women sharing a bedroom, a maid who laughingly admits men! One who lady looks happy to see him the other less so - perhaps because the symbolic candle is rather small? Giano (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The monster under the bed

Giano, I will not engage with your depraved notion of "symbolism". Look instead at the body language of the dog, to flesh out the "anecdotal" scene without any symbolism — I think it's barking at the man, and will bite if he approaches nearer. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

No, I think the dog is happy and wagging its tail - which is full of symbolism as dogs have loose morals! I quote "dogs warn us of loose morals in brothel scenes, they remind us of (marital) loyalty in quiet domestic scenes." That is not a quiet domestic scene! it gives me no pleasure to find this depraved art on my page! Giano (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bishonen - the lap dog is often the last line of defence of the more-or-less respectable Dutch lady in such situations. In this one the man is not so good-looking as in yours, so he might even be her husband. Certainly the other two women don't seem too concerned by the intrusion. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm less sure about an absence of depravity here. The discarded clothing indicates to me that Father Christmas is hiding under the bed! Giano (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

OMG you're right. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

Any understanding of symbolism must be symbolism that contributes to a satisfactory understanding of the painting as whole. Can anyone spot the sexual symbolism in this painting? Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope, just looks like a nice, well brought up lady smelling a rose to me. Giano (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The family Hinlopen by Gabriël Metsu (1662/3)

Visit to the nursery by Metsu

What becomes clear is that Metsu reused attributes: the women, their silk garment, the dog, the chandelier, the candle stick, the mirror and the chimney, but he did not paint a table cloth, which was probably too much time consuming. I also find the red canopy rather boring. Could it be called an "unfinished painting"? Was he paid by the amount of attributes or by size? The composition or distribution on the "woman composing" is a lot better than on the "woman washing her hands". There more paintings by Metsu, Portrait of the Family Hinlopen and Visit to the nursery by Metsu, where there is not much happening in the upper half. I don't understand why Metsu did not cut at least a third. It would have been more interesting paintings.Taksen (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

He may well have charged partly based on painted area, and the number of figures (Gainsborough supposedly charged per sheep), but I think that the very high ceilings in some are an easy way of suggesting wealth and status; very few Dutch houses in the period actually had ceilings that high. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Metsu: Tête-à-Tête

I take Taksen's point about the boring red bed, although, if you look closely, it does have a pattern in all that red. I think Johnbod is right thoughabout the ceiling heights indicating wealth. Another way of displaying wealth was to paint expensive food on the table - lobsters and oysters etc. But then some other "experts" have read sexual connotations into the oysters and probably the lobsters (although that does puzzle me). Another painting I know well is Metsu's Tête-à-Tête (left) - where a boring, dull looking couple (seated by our familiar fireplace) are attributed all manner of activities just because they are enjoying a dish of oysters. I am beginning to think one can find anything one wants in these paintings if one looks hard enough. Giano (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of having your cake & eating it regarding the depiction of deplorable luxury & vice - just like 20th century Hollywood. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Very true - and sadly none of these food attributes work anyway - at least not in my experience, and dogs in bedrooms always yap to be let out at a crucial moment. Giano (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"I wonder what people in 2020 will think about my evocation of sexual arousal in my painting "A Man Visiting a Woman Washing her Hands". I hope they won't think that this is a literal representation. But you never know with these people in the future.

When really required the civility police are always curiously absent

Well, Giano, don't mince words. What do you really think? FWIW, I think 90% of us are pretty good. How that relates to avoidance of teh dramaz, I shan't speculate on at this time. I would also say I am only medium-obsessed. Regrettably, my omniscience is pretty non functional, so I was quite unaware of the unflattering comment left for Bish. Such reflection on our finer qualities is often a measure of what a great job we do. Certainly Bish is among the greatest admins ever. tschau.-- Deepfriedokra 22:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well we appear to agree on one thing at least. Giano (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe more than one. anyway, I think we should archive that thread out of consideration for Bish. It's attracting gawkers.-- Deepfriedokra 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

[Bishonen is pleased with herself] I am the great giver of schäslongs! Bishonen | talk 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

ANd if one's detractors must detract, one's sycophants must rally. Who else gives away such lovely furniture?-- Deepfriedokra 22:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Today I read your essay "A fool's guide to writing a featured article," as linked by the Mentoring for FAC page and Yannismarou's "Ten rules to make an article FA". I really enjoyed it! It was informative, interesting, and at the end of the day, highly entertaining. I saw your note at the top saying it's generally out-of-date... do you have a more up-to-date essay on the same (or similar) topic?

In any case, thank you for some educational reading and some laugh-out-loud moments. I really appreciated your work.

Better head back to my recent GA nomination ;) —Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• That's very kind of you to say so. However, my days of handing out to advice are long over. I'm afraid I haven looked at the FAC or GA pages for years and I suspect that essay if of historical interest only. I think I have been here far too long. Good luck with your GA nom, Stanford Fleet Street Singers, from my brief glance, it looks excellent. It certainly has lots of footnotes which is what people like to see these days. Giano (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't get to it today, and I don't do GA, but I can enter some review commentary on the talk page tomorrow or next. I saw my alma mater listed at peer review, but the PR closed before I could get to it. And I'm busy today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you are too busy swooning about all over the place. Was Gone with the Wind set in Georgia, Texas or Carolina? I went to Atlanta a couple of years ago and thought I might see you, but I didn’t. Nobody swooning anywhere. Very disappointing. Giano (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I 'spose you know Georgia better than I do, since I have only been through the airport in Atlanta once, and never set foot outside of the airport :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You have just ruined a very long held fantasy! Giano (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! (I could offer to replace it with something better. Not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

At my age, life is just one long list of disappointments. Giano (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Awww, come on! You're sounding too young! At my age, you're just starting to realize 'tis best to enjoy every day ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Metsu discussion

Hello Giano, you moved the discussion to your archive, but I think one section fits well on Metsus talkpage. For the first time in fifteen years I experienced a spontaneous and rewarding discussion on Wikipedia with people who have good knowledge of 17th century paintings. It was a nice initiative. Maybe you can leave the two nervous images out? Taksen (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry [User:Taksen|Taksen]], I am a very fast archiver, too fast perhaps. I even take the Christmas decorations down on Jan 01, having been glaring at them since 26th Dec. Please paste what you want to Metsu’s talk. Not sure which were the “nervous images” if it’s on the subject talk, there’s always a chan e we may get somebody who knows the definitive answer in a few years. Sadly, the conversation on this page is seldom so rewarding. Giano (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque nominated for Featured Article Review

I have nominated Sicilian Baroque 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. -- Beland (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Original research?

I have found a sad little page in need of my kindly attentions, but it has a big banner saying this article saying: possibly contains original research. before I waste hours of my time on this, does anyone know how one finds out if it is Original research and does it natter much if it is - is it the same as copy-vio? Giano (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, apart from a little close paraphrasing in the lead, it's not flagging as a major copyvio concern here, [1]. I suspect it's more the lack of sourcing that generated the concern. I'd crack on! KJP1 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1, I will. Once I get home, I'll try and find the Blunt reffs on Sic Bar, but it's going to be about three weeks until then. I suspect you will have your copy by then. You shoudl find all the answers there. Giano (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Giano, no, it's not the same as a copyright violation; it basivcaly means that it's been written from the editor's own knowledge rather than from verifiable facts out of reliable sources. In this case, it's simply referring to the swathes of completely unsourced material. Get to work, people! ——SN54129 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh well, I have already taken out several chunks of erroneous or spurious information, so , hopefully, it will come right in the end. Giano (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• The tag was added 7 years ago by an ip whose other edits are mostly pop culture, so I wouldn't worry. It seems basic enough. I wouldn't have said that Caroline era was a term in terribly common usage myself. Not sure what alternative names there are - "Early Stuart" maybe? it averages over 170 views a day nonetheless, so is worth improving. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Even the page was confusing itself with Carolean. I'll play with it for a while and see if it attracts any thoughts? Early Stuart sounds a bit ambiguous, let's all have a think. Giano (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Blunt is already at home - arrived this morning - so I'll work through on the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant! let me know if there's anything confusing or needs explaining. I think he credits the Palazzo Ducezio entirely to Sinatra, but I've already removed and fixed that. Giano (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Blanking

Do not blank the redirect. If it doesn't belong nominate it using WP:RFD. ~ GB fan 21:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Then don’t redirect a page in the wrong direction. Giano (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you blank it or do anything other than redirect it to a valid article or nominate it usinf WP:RFD, I will block you for disruptive editing. ~ GB fan 21:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Will you indeed? Well I have redirected where I imagine it’s intended, unless, of course, you know better. BUt, you don’t do you or you would have made the redirect yourself. Giano (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, if I had any idea on where to redirect it, I would have. I have no knowledge of this area. ~ GB fan 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Then stay away from pages about which you know nothing. Giano (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

But I do know about WP:CSD and that is where it started. Then you were blanking the redirect and that isn't allowed and neither is redirecting to my talk page. Everything I did were things I do know about. I linked to the process, WP:RFD, multiple times that would end up with the redirect being fixed or deleted, but you didn't want to use it. ~ GB fan 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you seriously imagine I have the time, inclination or interest to concern myself with your ridiculous Wikipedia templates? In the English speaking world Carolean refers to the culture and times of the English King Charles II. Wikipedia does not have a precise page on that subject as Restoration can take in James II and even William and Mary. So until the happy day when someone writes Carolean era, there is little advantage to have such a page redirecting to a completely different era. Stuart history is clearly not your subject, so please desist from advising on it. Where do you admins go to school these days? The page now has a Habsburg chin, perhaps you’d like to fix that? Giano (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't advise you on where it should redirect. I advised you on how to accomplish what you were trying to do. If you don't have the time, that is not my problem. It would have taken less time than you have spent on this already. ~ GB fan 21:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you’re happy with the current redirect I’m sure we can let things rest there. Otherwise, I’ll leave it to you to point it in the right direction. Giano (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't help with that. I do not know anything about the subject. ~ GB fan 22:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Don’t worry I have done it for you. Really, admins these days, it’s like looking after children. One despairs, one really does. Who on earth hands out the tools? Giano (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You didn't do anything for me. It wasn't my job to fix it. I have areas that I know more about than you. I wouldn't expect you to fix problems I identified in those areas. I don't understand why you expect me to fix a problem you identified in an area you obviously know more about. As far as being an admin, I am not a child and you don't have to look after me. ~ GB fan 22:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You are an Administrator, you are supposed to administrate, not reconnect links which have been pointed out to you as erroneous and then edit war to compound your mistakes. Now run along and find something useful to do. Giano (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque

Giano - Just wanted to say how much I have enjoyed working on Sicilian Baroque. It was a style I knew nothing of, but your article brought it to life. I think we are nearly there on the cites and, with a little more tidying, the FAR should resolve as a Keep. It absolutely is a Featured Article and exemplifies what is so good about Wikipedia. I don’t know the process for Featured Article Review, but you should stroll over shortly and close it up. Now, I am planning my first visit to the island. And that is a, fully-deserved, tribute. Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's the process. FARs (Featured article review) can be closed without moving to the FARC (Featured article removal candidate) phase if there is consensus. When you are (all) ready, you go to the FAR, announce that you're done, and suggest that the FAR can be closed without a FARC. Then you wait for others to opine. (It only comes to Keep or Delist declarations if it moves to FARC. That is, if someone objects, and says no good, move to FARC, at that stage, Keep or Delist are declared. It's all designed to be very deliberative and give maximum time for improvements to be made and stars to be saved.) And then you wait even more for the Coords to act. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I should be paid by Regione Siciliana for all the tourism I bring in. However, in order to avoid disappointment KJP1, I suggest that you keep your eyes tightly closed for the entire journey from Falcone Borcellino Airport to Palermo and remember it says in the article: "the poor rebuilt their basic housing in the same primitive fashion as before." It's still pretty nice though, I remember seeing London for the first time when I was about thirteen and wondering why their was no downtown area with properly designed buildings - total disappointment! Thank you, as ever, SandyGeorgia, it's so long since I was involved in all these processes, it's now way beyond my limited intellect and comprehension how these things work. We shall probably have to take a few sentences and clauses out, as I originally wrote much of it from personal knowledge and looked for reffs when I'd finished. Poor old Sir Anthony was helpful, but he did have worrying tendency to get confused - I can't believe he was ever much use to the Russians. What is interesting is how may more pictures there are available now, but more often than not, the ones we've always had are still the most suitable - I suppose we have more holiday snaps now. Speaking of which, we need KJP1 on his trip to visit the the Palazzo Gangi and take a photograph of the ballroom. Giano (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 from me to award Giano a Hero of the Sicilian Tourism 1st Class. This is one of Wikipedia’s finest articles and of immense help to the tourist. I went to a wedding in Palermo in 2006 armed only with this article and found some amazing buildings I wouldn’t have otherwise seen. The only disappointment being that the Church chosen for the actual nuptials was the predominantly Gothic San Francesco d'Assisi, Palermo.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say User:Andrewdpcotton. Bad luck about the wedding, but less distracting, I'm sure you were able to keep your mind on God more easily - it's still a nice church to get married in though compared to some I could think of - some nationalities and architects never quite understand Baroque. Giano (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We could use your help identifying which article you think is most important

I'm soliciting your input on behalf of The Signpost for the upcoming "community view" piece. If you could, please contribute to that draft which article written on en-wp since November 1st, 2015 you think is most significant. I know that you're very content-focused and likely have insight to which articles out of the million written since November 2015 are really important. We'd need your input (110 words or less) within seven days, if not sooner. Thank you for your time. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Goodness Me! I have read all one million articles. I immediately went to Global Warming, but that’s years old, and so very concerningly are all it’s associated pages. Rather worrying really as in all that time almost bugger all has been done to arrest it. I suppose one could say Greta Thunberg, but despite my admiration for all things Scandanavian, I do find her a little irritating and wonder what her parents are thinking of: doesn’t she ever go to school? Overall, It it doesn’t really matter what one’s race or sexual orientation is because without a planet on which to moan about one’s inequality, we are all rather stuffed. I shall give it some thought. Giano (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely we should just select the article that is most important on the SI scale. Just run the impometer over them and see which gives off most imps/sec. Yomangani^talk 11:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Yomangani and very nice it is to see you here with such a helpful comment, but I have already made my choice and posted it. Rather a hypocritical choice as I fly everywhere and drive a gas guzzling diesel, but "un exemple pour les autres" as my sainted aunt would say. Giano (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

17th century American History

Calling any of my friends who know anything about the above subject? If you do, I need you to head over and help me at Caroline era where I am struggling - you’ll see the section I mean. We need short a précis of any state that was a British colony before 1649 and it needs to be written by an editor who can stop at 1649. Casual page stalkers studying their neighbour’s cousin’s great great arch grandfather arriving in or after 1649 are not required, no matter how valiantly they fought Red Indians, Eskimos, Cowboys, Mexicans or whatever the locals were currently called. I have a feeling we could have a collaborative new FA here, but it needs a lot of effort and patience. It might be amusing to try. Giano (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's how to ping the list you had in edit summary (taking me out): @Bishonen, RexxS, KJP1, Johnbod, and Hoary: One might poke around at Wikipedia:Featured articles#History to see who has written in that area (I spotted Plymouth Colony from Jayron32, but he is long gone), or Wehwalt might know who writes in that area. I'll poke around some more ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I was wrong; Jayron32 is active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. --Jayron32 16:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, I think it might be quite amusing for some of who have been here awhile to get our heads together and knock out a big page. Giano (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, then you have to bring along @Yomangani, Ceoil, and Outriggr:-- the originals! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed we do. The more the merrier. So long as we are all on the same Wikipedia wave length it will work. Giano (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I know those three are pleasant to work with :0 In fact, I owe all three of them my first-born. Snooping around at WP:FA, I find lots of no-longer-active editors of FAs, but only still-active American history editor that I can detect: Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec by User:Magicpiano ... up to you if you want to invite them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom is still around, who wrote Blackbeard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Is PoD still here? We need to rally the troops then Parrot of Doom. Giano (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking to re-engage old FA writers, user:plange wrote Stephen Trigg FA in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that Kafka Liz might also have an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It would depend what sort of timeframe you're looking at for the big article. I don't have time for the next couple of months, but beyond that, well, I do live in Virginia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

until I found it last week, it had been languishing full of templates and errors in a stubby state for 9 years. I think it has potential, but other than the architecture, my knowledge is almost exhausted there now. Let’s all dive in and see what happens when and whenever. Giano (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I may start reading some JSTOR articles and whatnot and I'll keep your talk watchlisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

An interesting idea, Giano. I'll see what I can do with British colonies in Canada during the Caroline period, although to be honest it was mostly French colonies (with a side order of Scottish) then. There might be some stuff involving Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that might work; I'll see if I can dig up some baseline data. The British didn't really kick in until the late 1600s, although they kept trying. Risker (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent news Risker. Funnily enough my sound Italian Jesuit education didn't really touch on Nova Scotia. In fact beyond human frailty, carnal sin and my undoubted reserved space in Hell it didn't really touch on much. There is so much to write here from Medicine and Mathematics to colonial expansion it needs Wikipedia's best brains on it, a sort of Wikipedia showcase article. Giano (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(The Observed Of All Observers) No politics? You might also find room for a small section on technology. Especially, naturally, military tech. And maybe music? Fashion?! ——SN54129 18:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Giano, it is frailty + carnal sin followed by confession (which is the short description for perpetual new start since it's weekly) + fear of purgatory (or a reserved space in Hell) that comprises Italian guilt brought upon us by overly-animated Italian mothers. It is what we older Italians are accustomed to, beginning with infancy. Such endurance training makes surviving a FA review a cakewalk. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Blasphemy; there is no such thing as "overly-animated" mothers of Latin extraction; those are merely exaggerations from the incognoscenti. (My husband's favorite self-help book for Catholics: How to Achieve Guilt without Sex.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, SandyGeorgia - perhaps "self-help" requires a measure of creativity - an assumption I've made based on the title of your husband's favorite self-help book for Catholics. But then, experience tells me it's always better when one has help. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough my mother was an East Coast American who just happened to find herself married into an ultra right wing family in Sicily. She rebelled in little ways, one of which was hanging naked people on the dining room walls which was an unusual form of interior decoration in those parts. However, she took no interest in her children’s education, so we all grew up full of sin. We are digressing, yes, we need fashion and politics (I’ve sort of started that bit) and Catholic persecution. Shame the Maryland experiment went wrong. I had never heard of that. How can St. Mary's City, Maryland be a historic centre celebrating America’s all encompassing religious tolerance, when it only lasted five minutes? Anyhow, there is a lot to write, if it happened in the Caroline era, and is vaguely connected with Charles I, go for it. Giano (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that hanging people on walls (naked or not) is an unusual form of interior decoration just about anywhere. EEng 19:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

User:EEng#s, it was only unusual because they were live modern people not tortured saints. One lady had three breasts which I agree is unusual and another was a man eating an apple with a square penis. Otherwise they perfectly normal, albeit a little too lifelike. They are probably worth a lot of money now. Giano (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A man with a square penis was eating an apple? Or a square-penised apple was being eaten by a man? Or a man was eating an apple with a square penis side dish? Or a man who was accompanied by a square penis was eating an apple? You can't leave these things dangling. Yomangani^talk 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just when you need a great Wikipedian example of dangling penises, participles and other peculiarities, a dangling everything presents itself. Calling all copy editors to that image caption. GA here we come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Recapping what Giano said, "hanging naked people on the dining room walls which was an unusual form of interior decoration in those parts", well...my first thought (considering my Italian heritage) was that it was not too unusual, but I was also thinking the people were alive...a rather common practice based on a few vague recollections from early childhood when overhearing discussions at my Grandma's house on Federal Hill. She had 5 daughters, a few of whom married into...uhm, certain families (not my Mom - she went Irish/French). Much to my relief, further reading of the comments cleared things up...and then came Sandy's witty retort. Sorry for the delayed response, but I've been busy wiping coffee off my laptop. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well. I'm glad someone liked it, but Yomangani, was the witty one, and the example (which no one has fixed YET !!) just fell into my lap. Wikipedia produces, on cue. So I guess historian Kathryn Kleiman was once considered a type of model, called "refrigerator ladies". So much wrong there, it could have been written by someone with prose as lousy as mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They are still dangling over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for sharing that with us SandyGeorgia, I am minded of one of Wikipedia’s greatest, if unsung, articles; the magnum opus of my esteemed aunt; her most monumental work, as relevant today as it was at the time. Giano (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Surely Her Serene Highness would not accept the annexing of additional acquaintances; I appreciate that she called attention to this abominable act. In Georgia, we would never acknowledge such accomplishments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Break

Ack. I see this, but ... it's so not my time period or even my continent of interest. I'm good to read and critique when it gets further along? That's about the best I can do for helping. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth I beg to differ. You can point us to best sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You pinged? Caroline anything is one of my many areas of the profoundest ignorance. But I took a look all the same. The first section that I happened to notice was about poetry. Caroline poetry is no exception to my blanket ignorance of the Caroline, but I do like to think that I notice repetition, etc, when I see it. So I smoothed out the section a little. I used no sources. I have no sources. I may have access to sources, and I may not. More problematically, I have no background knowledge and thus would be prone to misunderstanding any sources that I might find. Hordes of en:WP editors are far better equipped to improve this section, or any section, than I am. I think I'll bow out, in the hope that people who know their stuff will move in and chuck out what's already there (it's still confusingly expressed, some of the cited sources look dodgy, and I wonder about its accuracy) and start afresh. (Elsewhere, I'm still sporadically tackling a well-intentioned but, um, problematic amplification made in November last year to [20th/21st-century] David Goldblatt.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not just the colonial section that needs expert attention. Every section does. This is indeed a project for a group. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If there were any advances in chemistry, astronomy, or anything aside from medicine that we'd now call science, they're not mentioned. No section on technology (boat design?). No music. Guessing ignorantly/wildly at what might have seen advances, I thought of cartography. The article History of cartography seems to skip 17th century Britain, but of course noteworthy change in Britain needn't have originated in Britain. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, on the technology front, we know that Drilling and blasting dates back to 1627 in Hungary, but it may be hard work to find sources that discuss the spread of the technique to England and beyond. The same applies for muskets having rifled barrels being used in warfare about that time, which must have a significant impact, but I'm insufficiently expert to know where the sources are. Maybe we need to call in MilHist? --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester was doing some interesting stuff with steam, but I think most of his experiments may post-date Charles getting the chop. I'll take a look. As above and below, Giano, this is quite some way from my period but delighted to help out where I can. KJP1 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Like others, the American side is not my area at all, nor what I have books on. But I'd be very happy to take a look at what comes out. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• The Pequot War was one of the earliest of the Indian Wars. 1630s --Jayron32 01:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Much of the earliest settlement of Maine and New Hampshire was settled in the 1620s and 1630s, starting with the division of the territory between Ferdinando Gorges (Maine) and John Mason (NH) and the early settlements at York, Maine and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. --Jayron32 01:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson jointly established what would become the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in the 1630s. Williams founded the city of Providence on the mainland, and Hutchinson founded Portsmouth on Aquidneck (Rhode) Island. In general, the Antinomian Controversy is also probably a good politico-religious event from the Caroline era and greatly reshaped the political landscape of Colonial America at that time. --Jayron32 16:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Some of the Anglo-Powhatan Wars cover the time period in question. --Jayron32 16:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Middle Plantation (Virginia) was established (later Williamsburg). --Jayron32 16:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• History of the British West Indies has some good starting points; several islands were settled during the Caroline era. --Jayron32 16:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jayron32, thanks for this, perhaps you’d like to add a synopsis of these events to the article and also discuss on the talk page. Some editors feel the page should concentrate on England only, I am not of that view, but feel anything that pertains to the realms of Charles I is relevant especially as this Encyclopia has a large number of American editors and probably Indian and African too. Anyhow, the article talk page is probable the best place. Giano (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I've got a few other irons in my fire right now (mostly IRL) but when I get some time to expand the article, I will see what I can do. --Jayron32 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I think it's come on amazingly! Well done all. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• It’s amazing isn’t it? I’m sitting back for minute and watching the direction it takes. Bloody nuisance that Inigo Jones started the Queen’s House and Banqueting House before Charles came to the throne. However I suppose the building and completion was Caroline, but was the plan? Giano (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone have JSTOR?

Do any of my pagewatchers have JSTOR? I want to know what's said here here. Any help greatly appreciated. Giano (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Excellency. I've sent you a suitable precis via your GiacomoReturned email, subject 'JSTOR'. --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have it. Thanks Rex, that's brilliant. I was getting dangerously into the realms of own research. Giano (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thenford House architectural style

cc. Johnbod - I've just started Thenford House. Would you call it Palladian? The Heseltines do. Historic England doesn't venture an opinion, although it notes that Wodhull probably worked as his own architect, [2]. Pevsner suggests it's a design that would have been fashionable in the 1650-1680/90 period, and HE suggests it has features more typical of the late 17th century. To me, it's more Pratt than Flitcroft. So Palladian or Carolean? Hope both of you, and yours, are keeping well in these troubling times. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just googled for other photos to see if we could find a nice Palladian portico, but it lacks one. However, it does have the flanking wings which are Palladian, and the Inigo Jones Palladian alternating segmental and pointed window pediments at the centre, so in the balance of things I would say it is more Palladian than Carolean, it’s too late for the latter anyway. Pevsner’s view, I suspect, is swayed by the unusual roof and cupola. I’m writing a page here which were it earlier we could probably park it, but we can’t. Provincial architecture often dodges purity, but overall, I’d say, yes, it’s Palladian. I wonder if Johnbod agrees? Giano (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We’ll see if Johnbod has a view. KJP1 (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We can't see the sides well, but they seem to have the big curved (?) gables that are the trademark of Artisan Mannerism (great to see you're working in that Giano) and generally the facade seems busy & energetic, without the calm which Palladio always gives. So not very Palladian in mood, though with many elements typical of his style. I'd just attribute all stylistic comments, as you are doing. I'm well, the household now includes my son's Italian girlfriend (from Puglia) so we're eating well. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: I see you say "Raynham could easily be mistaken for a house built nearly a century later"; Thenford is perhaps the reverse. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks and shall do. I won’t ask what style I should record in the Infobox as I know the answer I’ll get! KJP1 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello. 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 | tålk 21:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC).

Giano and I are far too busy to see emails! We are living under wartime conditions here. I have volunteered to drive an ambulance and my maid is stitching protective clothing, so far she has made 240 sets of clothes, and we haven’t even got to the third footman yet. You can have no idea of my deprivations and sufferings or of how uncomfortable a protective mask is, catching in my baroque pearl earrings and denting my perm. Conditions are appalling, I have to send the staff individually to buy lavatory rolls and we are down to our last case of tonic water. I was even reprimanded in Waitrose because my chauffeur was pushing my trolly and my maid was placing items in it. The 1st footman keeps muttering about social distancing and throwing my food at me across the dining room. I don’t know why I employ all these people, much more of this insurrection and I shall farrow them all and let Boris Johnson pay their wages. Now, they’ve cancelled Ascot, Henley and Wimbledon, I’ve half a mind to come and join you in Sweden, I’m sure you have a spare room? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A heads-up

I think you were edit-warring, and raised it at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As only someone as disruptive as you would do. Cassianto^Talk 09:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

... We had a power cut and I was lucky to get my comp back, then I saw the unnameable site had flagged that you had been reported for edit-warring. I note with relief that the article talk page appears to show the issue laid to rest, and would applaud your final statement there, except that there's a risk of giving the busy-bee coders ideas ... Hoping you and yours remain healthy, Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we be quite clear on this: I don’t “edit war”, I revert the confused. Very nice of you to ask after my health, but unless one is within ten minutes of death, one is always “Very well, thank you.” However, since you ask, I don’t anticipate dying today; that’s despite some clueless editor declaring me ten years dead. I do hope you and yours are similarly well disposed. Far too many “unwell” Wikipedians as it is without you and me swelling their ranks. This daft infobox business will have to be banged on the head sooner or later, I suppose it will be left to me to sort it. Otherwise, they will take over the world with their trivia, I suppose now is as good a time as ever to start the war, no point putting off the inevitable. I’ve turned a blind eye long enough. Giano (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Stairtpwer.jpg

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

Unused file. No encyclopedic use

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. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 07:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• If Koridas, you are so stupid, ignorant and beyond thick that you can see no “encyclopaedic use” for that image, the you must delete it. However, do not expect me to go rushing off to the Loire, Buckinghamshire or N Carolina to find something similar when such an image is required for an article. Giano (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Koridas, Keep I say that it could have encyclopedic use for an architecture or some article. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 21:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Horsley Towers

Johnbod - Now, how on earth would you begin to describe this in terms of architectural style? Lovelace was his own architect, and it shows! Rundbogenstil? Romanesque Revival architecture in the United Kingdom? Some kind of Rhenish? Or just bonkers? KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• That’s quite easy, it’s Mausoleum Gothic as I describe here, in this description of my aunt’s celebrated country home. However, I suppose we need a term known to Mr Pevsner, so as we can’t use Bonkers, we need to look at Romanesque Revival, there is a look of Castel Sant'Angelo, so perhaps mausoleum is not so very far from the truth. I really can’t see where the current attribution to Tudor Revival is coming from, although there is a bit of Renaissance Revival and one could make a case for Chateauesque, but that’s not a term I like to use. It’s horrible though, isn’t it? When one thinks of all the beautiful houses demolished in the 50s, 60s and 70s, why did that survive? I shall give it some more thought and see what Johnbod thinks, and take my cue from him. Giano (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: I was looking originally at the view across the water. This view is a bit more Tudor Revival, I grudgingly suppose. Sort of early English Renaissance, but it’s a struggle to get there. Giano (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Tudoresque part is Barry’s original building, which Lovelace then encased in towers. I’ll go for RR, subject to Johnbod’s view. It is indeed a monster and I’m rather fond of shock Gothic. And now a venue for weddings. Like choosing to tie the knot in Gormenghast. KJP1 (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing (Bologna)

I actually think the article currently covers it fine, with quotes. Clearly its not a building whose style is easily caught by a two-word phrase. There's some Italian late Gothic in there also - the Visconti might have rather liked it perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Mmmmm! The Italian Gothic passed me by somehow. I am rather stuck on Highgate cemetery meeting Victorian municipal water tower. What is evident though is that somebody enjoyed themselves creating it - so good luck to it. Not sure I would choose it as wedding venue though, it seems more architecturally suited to Wakes. I've never before seem "violent" deployed as an architectural term. I must remember that. Giano (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nairn did have a striking turn of phrase, his assessment of Greathed Manor being particularly good; "an extreme example of a justly neglected type"! KJP1 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Much-needed gap. EEng 13:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, now "being run as a private nursing home" - a newly-sinister phrase. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There's something on my user page for every occasion. EEng 13:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, that Greathed Manor’s website [3] has the house being built some 50 years older than our article here, and visited by a relatively obscure daughter of George III, Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, who seems to have died 20 years before the house was built. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation. Giano (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That will be the earlier manor, mentioned here [4], for which Kerr's monster was the replacement. KJP1 (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. Well I hope it gives the nursing home patients some comfort to know that a princess once visited a previous house on the site. My own historic residence is very interesting as not only dinosaurs, but also the entire Greek and Roman armies once marched straight through it or would have done, had it been built. Giano (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As Johnbod indicated, I fear the residents may have more pressing immediate concerns than worrying about the ghost of Princess Elizabeth! KJP1 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:StateroomsWP.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:StateroomsWP.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm about to delete File:StateroomsWP.JPG, Excellency, as it's identical to File:StPeterburgPalace.jpg that you uploaded seven minutes later on 26 September 2008 (perhaps you didn't think the first upload succeeded?). I've tagged File:StPeterburgPalace.jpg with {{keep local}} for you, in line with your expressed wishes. Should you ever need the first file for whatever reason, I'll be happy to restore it for you on request. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Rex. At such a distance In time, who knows? Interesting, I never used it, I wonder why? I remember writing that page it took ages, and isn’t much changed even now. Jack Meridew (of blessed memory) made the click-on plan, I thought every architectural page would eventually have one, yet even now, I know of only one other and I wrote that too. Shame Jack has gone as I don’t know how to make them. Funnily enough, I went to the Winter Palace a few years after writing that page and knew my way around easily, it was rather spooky. Giano (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The article uses File:Modified WinterPalace.jpg, which I guess is another version of the plan, but it has been moved to Commons. I've got a copy of that now, so we'll never lose it while I'm still around.

I miss Jack – I hope he's keeping well. I could make a clickable image map for you for any plan you want, but they are going out of favour because so many readers are now using mobile devices that don't have a mouse, so there's no "hover" for a pop-up label and following a link tends to make the visitor lose their place in the article. I'd now recommend just using a numbered list for the rooms/areas.

It works nicely in Winter Palace for me using my desktop, although it's not so good using my phone. But that's hardly surprising. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

People spend far too long fiddling about with their phones. I am mystified why a generation in a constant state of communication is permanently so poorly informed. Giano (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I heard Jack missed, and join the choir. (DYK that - after months of no singing at church - we sang some of my favourite songs last Sunday?) - People spend too much time wrong, deleting, reverting ... - how about supporting a featured topic, in memory, for a change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, Monteverdi's operas are now a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice what you told RexxS but too late, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Holkham Hall

Came across this rather wonderful Lord Leicester quote today; “It is a melancholy thing to stand alone in one’s own country. I look around, not a house to be seen but my own. I am Giant of Giant’s Castle, and have ate up all my neighbours - my nearest neighbour is the King of Denmark”. I think I shall see if I can work it into the article. Hope you are keeping well in these difficult times. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Lovely quote, I’m sure I’ve heard it before. One of those things that you don’t no you knew until you hear it again. Yes, do work it in. Giano (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rather reminiscent of Sir George Reresby Sitwell, 4th Baronet to Evelyn Waugh, when both were looking out over the view of the whole of smoky Sheffied from a terrace at Renishaw Hall, "In the valley at our feet , still half hidden in mist , lay farms , cottages , villas , the railway , the colliery and the densely teeming streets of the men who worked there . . . Sir George turned and spoke in the wistful, nostalgic tones of a castaway, yet of a castaway who was reconciled to his fate": "As you can see, there is no-one between us and the Locker-Lampsons". Cheers both! Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful Johnbod, strangely enough Sir George’s name keeps cropping up in my present nighttime reading. I requested one of my offspring by me Superior Person by Kenneth Rose for Christmas as I usually enjoy his books. This book, however, seems to be below par, but as it was bought with love and limited funds, I feel compelled to finish it. I have never slept so well and so quickly. Wasn’t Sir George even more mad than Osbert and Edith? I did have sympathy for Sacheveral, but have lost it as he seemed happy for his wife to have Ugandan discussions with Oswald Mosley. Weird family, rather like my own in some ways. Giano (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've never read much about them (rather more by them), but wierdness abounds. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Wikidownload.jpg

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

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use.

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. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes TheImaCow, the stupidity of you people is quite breathtaking and probably accounts for why people like myself hardly edit any longer. The fact that you are so ignorant of the importance of that image and why it might be useful says volumes about you and your lack of education. What in earth are you doing here? Giano (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

On occasion, Excellency, our wiki-gnomes get too enthusiastic about their efforts to tidy up every nook and cranny of the encyclopedia. It is not going to be obvious to all of them that the plan refers to the Winter Palace, so it's probably best to mention that explicitly (I know, I know).

I have, therefore, added a standard template (sorry) to the file description page which will hopefully work as a kind of talisman to ward off the evil spirits in future. I hope that meets with your approval. Yours etc. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know that the map is about a "winter palace" if there is no description? By the way, there was no source for the "plan already uploaded to Wikipedia", so I could have tagged the file as WP:F4 (no source) for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There aren't that many Winter Palaces! Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: you make my point for me far better better than I could ever hope to. You are supposed to do due diligence before proposing a deletion. Some of us may recognise the plan as the Winter Palace; others may not, but that's not necessary. The author of the plan was clear, so what was the problem with asking him what the context was? – apart from slowing down your rate of nominations, of course. This is why experienced contributors can be so scathing of editors who restrict themselves to gnoming and sometimes fail to communicate or see the bigger picture. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rex, and Johnbod. One despairs, one really does! Giano (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

tand anyone. Well that could be either new or old Scotland I suppose. --kelapstick(bainuu)  22:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Data leak

just been told on logging in that there’s been a data leak and my account is compromised, is this true? Giano (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Was this message from the Chrome browser? It has a direct interface with Have I Been Pwned?, an online database of several billion compromised login credentials. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know but the likely explanation is as follows. Let's say your Wikipedia password is 123456. Every now and then, you need to log in at Wikipedia and you enter Giano + 123456. Your browser noted what you entered (Giano + 123456) and queried a database (see Jehochman's reply) to ask if that combination of user name and password has been published on the internet. Apparently the answer was yes. The cause may be that long ago you went to some website where you had to enter a user name and password, and you entered Giano + 123456. Don't do that! It is a bad idea to re-use a password because the other website might have been hacked and Giano + 123456 was one of many credentials stolen and copied onto a hacker's forum. Or, someone else happened to use Giano + 123456 as their user name and password at another website which was later hacked. However it happened, the combination is published and if someone finds it, they could log on as you at Wikipedia. The solution is to visit Special:Preferences and click Change password. Before doing that, make up a good password (8 characters or more, not just one word but with a couple of extra characters) and write it down in a couple of different places. Do not use the Wikipedia password at any other website. What I said about a good password is good enough for here. Anyone interested in more techo stuff could browse User:Johnuniq/Security. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Let your browser pick and remember a random password, different for each site. Don’t bother trying to remember it. A browser like Chrome or Safari can handle it and sync between your various devices. This is a shoddy patchwork solution but it’s the best currently available. I’m building a better authentication scheme with some of the profits from the last venture we did. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's handy. You would need to very confident of your backup system to avoid losing all passwords. I believe it works well if you have multiple devices set up to share data on the cloud. If someone stole everything in your house, you would need to buy new devices and restore data from the cloud. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I struggled for years with synchronising passwords between devices and updating to a new PC. Eventually, I gave in and started using Dashlane, but I think any of the major password managers would be an improvement over manual methods. Although, if you sign in to a Google account, you can share data between Chrome browsers anyway these days. My bank doesn't like me using a password manager, so I exclude their website and have the passwords written down on a piece of paper next to the computer. The bank seem to think that's better security. --RexxS (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but that seems all far too stressful, I'll just stick with the easy to remember password and hope for the best. Funnily enough, I did have someone email last year who really knew a very old password (it was the same one for all sites) and claimed to have a video of me watching porn and enjoying myself and unless I gave them thousands of Bitcoins they were going to publicize it. I said let me see the footage first, Id like to see a bit of porn, but sadly they didn't send me any. That was from the Linkedin leak apparently.Giano (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You should change your password because the combination of Giano + your_password have been revealed in a hacker's forum on the internet. In particular, make sure whatever email account you use for Wikipedia has a different password. For Wikipedia, a simple password is all that is required, for example someone's name with two extra characters. Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I have changed it. I can’t see why anyone would want to log in as me though. If they have, they haven’t been doing anything very exiting, I just checked my contributions hoping

for something interesting, but nope, it wasn’t to be. Giano   (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If someone can login as you then they can email malicious links to all your friends. Your friend, thinking that it’s you, will trust the message click the link and their computer becomes infected and is added to someone’s bot net, their passwords are stolen, and their bank accounts are drained. An alternate form of the scam is that they email a message to your friends saying that you have been robbed in a foreign country lost all your identification and need some money to get home please wire it to me immediately thank you so much. There are lots of ways that the social network of trust can be exploited to generate cash. Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I have heard of these scams, but I do feel if any of my friends had an email stating I was kidnapped and marooned in a foreign country, they would probable be inclined to leave me there. Similarly, I have little time for people who are stupid enough to leave more than they can afford to loose in their everyday bank accounts. In this day and age there are plenty of cash platforms etc with super high security for proper money. Giano (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I shall have to ask Lady Catherine for advice on this topic. As member of the nouveau riche I feel vulnerable with my life savings in a checking account. Maybe I should spend it on a fancy car, or a vacation? Jehochman ^Talk 06:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mr Hochman, I have no idea what a checking account is, nor a “fancy car”, presumably some sort of decorated conveyance at a carnival. As for “holidays”, presumable something enjoyed by the type of person who has “weekends.” However, here’s an interesting thing, since poor dear Giano changed his pass word, he has been unable to log in, and when he sends a reset request, nothing arrives in his inbox. However, he is getting emails saying there has been multiple attempts to log in, which is most definitely him. Isn’t technology odd. Just give me back the dear old telephone, and I can communicate with the world unimpeded. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I am back! Life gets more stressful by the moment. Giano (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• A very happy and holy Christmas to you too. Giano (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Caro Giano, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you mia cara, and a Happy New Year to you. Giano (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice what you told RexxS but too late, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Holkham Hall

Came across this rather wonderful Lord Leicester quote today; “It is a melancholy thing to stand alone in one’s own country. I look around, not a house to be seen but my own. I am Giant of Giant’s Castle, and have ate up all my neighbours - my nearest neighbour is the King of Denmark”. I think I shall see if I can work it into the article. Hope you are keeping well in these difficult times. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Lovely quote, I’m sure I’ve heard it before. One of those things that you don’t no you knew until you hear it again. Yes, do work it in. Giano (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rather reminiscent of Sir George Reresby Sitwell, 4th Baronet to Evelyn Waugh, when both were looking out over the view of the whole of smoky Sheffied from a terrace at Renishaw Hall, "In the valley at our feet , still half hidden in mist , lay farms , cottages , villas , the railway , the colliery and the densely teeming streets of the men who worked there . . . Sir George turned and spoke in the wistful, nostalgic tones of a castaway, yet of a castaway who was reconciled to his fate": "As you can see, there is no-one between us and the Locker-Lampsons". Cheers both! Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful Johnbod, strangely enough Sir George’s name keeps cropping up in my present nighttime reading. I requested one of my offspring by me Superior Person by Kenneth Rose for Christmas as I usually enjoy his books. This book, however, seems to be below par, but as it was bought with love and limited funds, I feel compelled to finish it. I have never slept so well and so quickly. Wasn’t Sir George even more mad than Osbert and Edith? I did have sympathy for Sacheveral, but have lost it as he seemed happy for his wife to have Ugandan discussions with Oswald Mosley. Weird family, rather like my own in some ways. Giano (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've never read much about them (rather more by them), but wierdness abounds. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Wikidownload.jpg

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

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use.

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. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes TheImaCow, the stupidity of you people is quite breathtaking and probably accounts for why people like myself hardly edit any longer. The fact that you are so ignorant of the importance of that image and why it might be useful says volumes about you and your lack of education. What in earth are you doing here? Giano (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

On occasion, Excellency, our wiki-gnomes get too enthusiastic about their efforts to tidy up every nook and cranny of the encyclopedia. It is not going to be obvious to all of them that the plan refers to the Winter Palace, so it's probably best to mention that explicitly (I know, I know).

I have, therefore, added a standard template (sorry) to the file description page which will hopefully work as a kind of talisman to ward off the evil spirits in future. I hope that meets with your approval. Yours etc. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know that the map is about a "winter palace" if there is no description? By the way, there was no source for the "plan already uploaded to Wikipedia", so I could have tagged the file as WP:F4 (no source) for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There aren't that many Winter Palaces! Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: you make my point for me far better better than I could ever hope to. You are supposed to do due diligence before proposing a deletion. Some of us may recognise the plan as the Winter Palace; others may not, but that's not necessary. The author of the plan was clear, so what was the problem with asking him what the context was? – apart from slowing down your rate of nominations, of course. This is why experienced contributors can be so scathing of editors who restrict themselves to gnoming and sometimes fail to communicate or see the bigger picture. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rex, and Johnbod. One despairs, one really does! Giano (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)