User talk:Giano/archive 30

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

New address, is it? Very well, I'll send to that as well. Bishonen | tålk 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you my Sweet-pea I have replied to you. I hadn’t realised that Wikipedia was running out of space and our readers attention spans were shrinking at such an alarming rate. I blame the internet; at one time, one went out, bought a book, read it, placed it on a shelf and then occasionally consulted it. Today, one Google’s the subject in 45 seconds, and then with no qualification or knowledge whatsoever decides one knows better and rewrites and chops the information in half ready for the next reader. I’m not altogether sure that progress is always a good thing. Giano (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Section

hi giano, thanks for your correction, which i appreciate.

if you're correct then i accept that the entire section i added on various israeli locations named for rothschilds is out of place. i now realize i jumped to the conclusion that pardes hanna was named after hannah primrose, countess of rosebery simply because she was the only hanna rothschild i could find info on and much searching could yield nothing (no alternative option) on the actual origin of the name of the city. but can you give me proof that your version, that the correct hannah for pardes hanna was the daughter of nathan mayer, is the right one? i see from the nathan mayar rothschild article that not only his daughter but also his wife was named hannah. and there may have been others. it would be good if some emotional or other tie could be found between hanadiv and the hannah you're proposing, to cement the fact that she's the right one.

i agree with you that if i reached the wrong hannah, then the entire section i added should indeed have been deleted, as you did.

but beyond that, i also added the info on the various israeli locations named for rothschilds, including the incorrect(?) hannah, to the entries on (1) the city of pardes hanna itself and (2) the rothschild family. so again, please provide proof of who the correct hanna was, and then i'll correct those other two entries.

Fannybriceii (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC) fannybriceii[reply]

There's reference here [1]. However, I expect that is also wrong and if the town was named after another Rothschild, probably Hannah Barent-Cohen, the wife of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who was the mother of Hannah Fitzroy (your Hannah)and grandmother of Hannah Rosebery. That Hannah was a powerful matriarch of the family and far more likely to have a town named after her, although she did die around 1840 or 1850, I forget which. But as none of these people were great Zionists, I suspect the town is named after a Hannah from another branch of the family - there were then five major branches. Another source says the Hannah in question was a neice of Baton Hirsch, perhaps look in that direction. On the other hand, perhaps it’s not named after a Rothschild at all, Hannah is a very common Jewish forename. I agree Wikipedia and elsewhere has very poor material available on the Rothschild women. How fortunate Wikipedia is to have such a comprehensive page on Hannah Rosebery. Giano (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
giano, so... what do you suggest? take out all mention of who she was & contact the pardes hanna museum, hoping they'll know? i'd better remove my mentions of hanna primrose, countess of rosebery first; otherwise they're likely to consult wikipedia & assume the (my) info there is correct :-(

imo the validity of wiki info is overrated... Fannybriceii (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

giano,

- i now see that the hebrew entry on the city of pardes hanna (which i haven't touched so far) states that my hannah (1851-1890) is the one after whom the city was named. this is where i got my initial info from... but two links are given for that fact, neither of which works.

- also, this site https://shimur.org/sites/founders-house-pardes-hanna-karkur/?lang=en, the council for conservation of heritage sites in israel sites, states that it was PJCA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association), which i guess is a.k.a. PICA), which maurice de hirsch founded, that bought the lands, so it would make sense that hirsch would have named the place & not rothschild.

- the hebrew article on pardes hanna also states that the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association bought the lands. (they spelled the word as colonisation but other than correcting it & possibly adding PICA i didn't change that fact).

- (btw the wiki article on maurice hirsch notes his wife's name as being clara & their having a daughter [name not mentioned] who died in infancy. so we also don't know who a hannah hirsch might have been.)

- oy. this is why real encyclopedias are prepared and edited by scholars... Fannybriceii (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief the 19th century Rothschilds, especially the English branch, were not ardent Zionists. Many of them took the view that Jews had worked very hard to be assimilated into European communities and that the establishment of a ‘homeland’ would once again make them foreigners in their adopted countries - I offer no view on that, merely explain their thought. The first and perhaps greatest Rothschild Zionist was Edmond James de Rothschild who was of the French branch of the family. Hannah Rosebery was of the English branch. Her mother, Juliana Cohen, was also an English Jewess, and they all died well before Zionism really became a popular cause. Perhaps Baron Hirsch was somehow related to the Rothschilds, but when not marrying each other, the 19th century English branch tended only to marry Cohens and Montefiores. Furthermore, after her death in 1890, Hannah Rosebery’s husband ceased supporting Jewish charities so there’s unlikely to be a posthumous connection. My gut feeling is that you will have to cast your net further afield to find the ‘Hannah’ in question. Giano (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, giano! i've applied to the rishonim museum in pardes hanna & asked for their help. have also updated itm the wiki entries for pardes hanna in english & hebrew & the rothschild family entry in english to reflect the uncertainty of hannah's identity, hopefully awaiting the museum's response. & i've removed for the time being, from the pardes hanna entry, a link to a category in hebrew of israeli locations named after rothschilds -- which i discovered after doing all my own research & writing...)

funny that there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer itm on the hannah issue, despite the city being well-populated & well-known w/in the country. don't people, at least people who live there, think, "hmmmm, i wonder who hanna[h] was...)?

(btw hannah rosebery's husband was non-jewish & perhaps even anti-semitic, as per hannah's entry, so it's not at all surprising that he ceased supporting Jewish charities after she died.) Fannybriceii (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi again giano, i've re-posted (in slightly different form) the info about pardes hanna having been named after hannah primrose that you removed on apr 2 as being unsubstantiated, since i received confirmation of its varacity. the info comes from the london rothschild family archive in the 1980s, which imo indicates that it is more trustworthy than info of decades later which may have been copied from one website to another and whose accurateness is more difficult to prove. if you still object to the inclusion of the info in hannah primrose's entry i would like to know why; kindly contact me before making the change on the entry itself. btw i've put the info (as before) at the top of the section on legacy since as i see it, having a town named after one is more of a legacy than what one's spouse & children did after one's death. Fannybriceii (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s true then, of course, it can be included. However, I am not seeing evidence of that in the reference you’ve provided. Quite a large chunk of which I wrote. Giano (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Blenheim Palace in film and media

The article Blenheim Palace in film and media has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Violates WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the template. I am, however, familiar with how Wikipedia works. That was a page I created 12 years ago as a dump for all the dull information on the Blenheim Palace page when I re-wrote it. In those far off days, one attempted for a higher intellectual type of page. Today, I suppose readers want to know about the filming location, preferably with photos, of Elizabeth Bennet’s multi-orgasmic sexual encounter with a young man from a country virtually unknown in Jane Austen’s time. Suggest you re-incorporate it with Blenheim Palace and give the masses what they want. Giano (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (let me know if this proposed again). There seems to be a purge going on - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccadilly Circus in popular culture. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: I'm a little bit confused by your apparent hostility and removal of the PROD given you appear to agree with me that this is unencyclopedic content hence why you removed it from the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROD, such a notice may be removed by anyone without giving reason - the removal itself means someone does not believe a discussion is not required. I also did not see in Giano's reply where he said the content was encyclopedic; he said that it was detracting from the main article per WP:Splitting. Giano is a content contributor, who does not care to involve himself in the wonkery (MY PHRASING) of maintaining the encyclopedia - or so I understand, anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: I have removed the template because there are people who are interested in such trivia. However, the main Blenheim Palace page would be swamped if it had to document every film, TV series and advert filmed there. If I sound hostile it is because I consider your nomination to be unnecessary and almost bad faith. Giano (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blenheim Palace in film and media for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blenheim Palace in film and media is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blenheim Palace in film and media until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AusLondonder (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see Johnbod, these people can never leave well alone. Giano (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Splitting provides the context for keeping the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sophisticatedgoat.gif listed for discussion

Sicila in her prime following her 2006 trip to London.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sophisticatedgoat.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.

Ah! Dear Sicila, how beautiful she was. Sadly, now rather an old goat. We must keep her, though, as the patron of all the other cilly old goats there are here. I’m quite sure that I never uploaded her to Commons, so I’m sure there’s no problem. Giano (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I have a new email address available through Wiki-email. If you’ve mailed me within the last three months, I won’t have received your message.

Please leave comments below:

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 20:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Sweet Pee, I have replied!

User:Giano/List of cultural references in The Cantos

Hi Giano, I have just taken the liberty of moving Use:Giano/List of cultural references in The Cantos to User:Giano/List of cultural references in The Cantos. Hope that was what was intended and you had just omitted an r. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very observant of you. Giano (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this is a copyright violation, as a copy-paste move without attributing history. I would normally speedy-delete it right away as a G12, but out of deference to you as a very long established editor, I will give you a short period of time to remedy the lack of attribution. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

I have nominated Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery 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. Ravenswing 01:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said recently, "[I] think this should serve as a reminder to exactly what we're doing to retain editors who can write brilliant content - all too often, they get scared away or blocked on trumped-up civility charges when they finally snap. It also doesn't really change my view that I think FAC is a fool's errand." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As may be, but c'mon. You are not a Wikipedia rookie. A great many more editors have been scared away over the years by our tolerance of bullies and namecallers (as long as they have enough edits under their belts, of course) than we've lost by the bullies and namecallers being held to account. Someone whose reaction to their work being questioned is to "snap" and fling ad hominem insults is a poor fit for an encyclopedia where everyone's work is subject to being questioned. Ravenswing 19:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Palladian architecture

Hey. Palladian architecture is at WP:FAR, if you care. Here. I'm telling you about it because the nominator sent the notification to your old account Conte Giacomo, that last edited 16 years ago. (I noticed Conte Giacomo has been told about a lot of image deletions also.) Compare Ritchie's comment above. Bishonen | tålk 20:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Palladian architecture again — better news

Palladian architecture is having an eventful summer. No sooner was the above-mentioned FAR wrapped up, than the article was scheduled for being featured on the main page! The alert for that came to my page, not sure why. Lord knows I had little enough to do with it — the article is all your work — but perhaps I nominated it for FA or something. Please read all about it here, and look at the draft blurb and so on. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I think it came to you, Bish, because you were listed as the nominator on the original FAC. I think those things are done by bot, which is silly, but whatevs. The FAR isn't actually wrapped up yet, but the TFA scheduler is confident (as am I) that it will wrap up in time to run that day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, KJP1 has not yet looked at the draft blurb (which I don't think is quite ready yet ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare also the section above, Sandy. I think I was watchlisting "Conte Giacomo"'s page, or neither G nor I would have learned about the FAR. I really appreciate all the help from the FAR people (not the nominator so much, but the others). Bishonen | tålk 21:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The heavy lifting was done by KJP1 and Ceoil with the usual MOS tweaks by moi. Of course, I know to combine all the contribs from the four Giano accounts in calculating the article stats. I've tried to overlook some of the above :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was KJP1 that did all the heavy adding and Sandy did all the heavy reviewing, but they are just two single people, and perhaps the frequency of noms could be slowed down for some origional nominators, such as Giano, who only has a limited and ageing (speaking for myself and KJP1: spring chickens back in 2006 but no more) rescue pool. Sometimes I worry if Filiocht articles might collapse around me. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to warn nominators not to add too many from the same original writer or WikiProject at the same time, but most new-ish editors don't have the background we have to know that a) in the "olden" days, the nominator wasn't always the writer, and b) that Giano is Giano under several accounts (and gosh knows some of us remember the incidents that led to that!) or what the circumstances of some of the older, prolific nominators are. I know that Z1720 is a well intentioned and thoughtful editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, oh Ceoil dear, on that topic, I have been trying to email you something related to the Irish articles, but it seems I'm on your blacklist, so I can't share that news with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a blacklist, except for Boris, Nadine Dorris, Beria, Bannon and Jimbo....will email you now so you can reply (sorry Giano for clogging your talkpage). Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Bout time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mansionplan1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mansionplan1.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2013 file that does not appear anywhere on the public side of Wikipedia... it may be politic to await Giano's reply, and even more politic to consider the meaning of any message rather than the language. I would say that the image does not appear to reside under the criteria of "screenshot of a computer game or movie" - it appears more to be a self generated building plan from a 3D modelling program (which itself might be free) probably by the editor. Whether it remains useful to Giano is another matter, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mentmore from Southwest.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mentmore from Southwest.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mentmore from south.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mentmore from south.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mentmore overheadexp2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mentmore overheadexp2.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mentmore overhead expirement.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mentmore overhead expirement.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mentmore groundfloor.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mentmore groundfloor.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mentmore overhead 2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mentmore overhead 2.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:MentmoreRooflessexpirement.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:MentmoreRooflessexpirement.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Vyne2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Vyne2.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Vineexpirement.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Vineexpirement.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Vyne1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Vyne1.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to all of the above

As I clearly stated when uploading all the images stacked above, and is perfectly obvious, I drew them and created them entirely myself and have released any claim to copyright. This one [Vineexpirement.jpg (640×480) (wikimedia.org)], if someone feels so inclined, could be used (with a key) at The Vyne which remains a poor little page for so great a building. This one [20130704202622!Mansionplan1.jpg (1523×751) (wikimedia.org)] or [20130711094654!Mansionplan1.jpg (640×480) (wikimedia.org)] or indeed any one of the plans in that file’s history would be useful at Mount Vernon, where we aren’t told a great deal about the layout of this important building. I do not often check this page or edit. So please, User:Minorax, just sort it and add the plans to Mount Vernon and The Vyne yourself. Giano (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the software you used to draw these files? The software might not release their content as free for use and thus, you can't release it as "free" file. I have no doubt that they're drawn by you and it's what you used to draw it. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Save Award for Palladian architecture

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having given us most of Palladian architecture, - great to see it today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very pretty on the front page! Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Look at the church where I heard VOCES8, interior in blue light. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda. It was a sterling effort indeed by those who worked on Palladian Architecture; however, I was not one of them. Without denigrating the extremely hard work of those who produce and maintain FAs, I now take the view that pages are often better and more informative if they are not featured. FAs seem to attract pedantic, flyby busybodies who delight in removing important information, plastering templates and making others dance to their tune. I won’t speculate on why people enjoy doing this, but I prefer not to engage with them - life is too short! Giano (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Mansionplan1.jpg

The file File:Mansionplan1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Mentmore from south.jpg

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

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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. Salavat (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:CornersalonWinterpalace.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CornersalonWinterpalace.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. matt br 05:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

matt, It says quite clearly in the given information that the image is 'A Watercolour painted in the Mid-19th century by Konstantin Ukhtomsky. Mr Ukhtomsky died in 1881; I consider it extremely unlikely that he will employ the services of Heavenly currency, a clairvoyant and a lawyer to claim against Wikipedia for breach of copyright. Further information is given on Commons where it states equally clearly: "Русский: Виды залов Зимнего дворца. Угловая гостиная императора Николая I - художник Константин Андреевич Ухтомский (1818—1881), архитектор, академик Императорской Академии художеств." In future, please try to apply a little common sense. One becomes extremely tired of this barrage of needless templates and deletions Thank you. Giano (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]