Hello, Gisel, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
Hello. Your recent edit to List of clarinetists appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Alexf(talk)23:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't expect too much, Gisel ;) - I came to thank you for what you do for Sabine Meyer. I made some changes, please go over them and see if the edit summaries explain enough. If not please ask right here. I added categories to her fine new image which is actually the second. Nice to meet you! I expanded the article for her brother, DYK? We could also speak German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gisel, sorry for removing the information you have added to various clarinetist infoboxes (Sabine Meyer, Shirley Brill, Sharon Kam). I have no issue with the information you are providing in the article, but the infobox is meant to be a summary of key information that has been determined in consensus as part of the infobox template discussions. The module fields are only designed to be used for other infoboxes to be embedded in the main one, not for any other information. It seemed to me that the information I deleted was already contained elsewhere in the article. Maybe the Template:Infobox person contains some of the information you'd like to provide in an infobox and you could embed the Template:Infobox musical artist in that one? Thanks for your contributions on the musicians! Bonnie (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Annelien Van Wauwe DYK sources
Hi Gisel, could you check the references after the statement that she had a concerto commissioned as a result of her breathing? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Monteverdi und Smirnow, welch eine Kluft! Leider erwischst du mich mit beiden Komponisten auf dem falschen Fuß. Monteverdi haben wir im Musikunterricht durchgenommen, als ich etwa 13 Jahre war, eine Qual für mich, im Gegensatz etwa zu Hindemith, der uns später näher gebracht wurde und mit dem ich mich durchaus anfreunden konnte. Und Smirnow kenne ich nur vom Hörensagen. Ich habe deine Notiz aber zum Anlass genommen, auf YouTube mal in die eine oder andere Kompositionen hineinzuhören, z. B. das Triplekonzert für Alt-Saxophon, Klavier und Kontrabass mit Streichern und Perkussion. Eine Liveaufführung dieses Konzertes würde ich sofort besuchen. Ich werde Smirnow mal im Auge behalten.
Sorry, I reverted you now the second time, {{infobox musical composition}} (while WP:BRD requests to better discuss when reverted once). As said in the edit summaries, please suggest changes on the template talk, and let someone experienced with template editing (not me, but perhaps Andy or RexxS) actually make changes that find consensus. Please don't invent German abbreviations such as AufDauer, at all, but especially not when we have |duration= already. No upper case in parameter names, please. The documentation has to follow changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to add 2 new lines to the box. Since I'm not a programmer, I first have to figure out how to do this. With several other boxes (in different languages) I succeeded, but once not. For this it is necessary that I create such an info box on my sandbox in order to test whether the intended changes will take effect or not. Unfortunately, I couldn't do that because you kept getting in the way and deleting every little change before I was finished.
But now I know the following:
1. It is not possible to insert a new line between the existing lines in this box, as the programmer left no space for it
2. It is possible to add lines to the previous end and I now also know how to do that.
If an addition is successful, I will of course also change the documentation, as I did with the changes mentioned above.
It's about these new lines that someone may or may not use:
I don't know what keeps you from copying this to the template talk and discuss with all interested in this template? Upfront: I'd object to both parameters. Both have way too long names, duration is already there, and importance is a hopeless one, inviting WP:POV. We face a lot of objections for anything related to infoboxes in Classical music, and such a debatable parameter would be a welcome target. Please consider. Discussing when reverted is a very good, very general concept to avoid edit warring, - please stick to it. See my new year's resolutions on top of my talk. - I was close to ask for admin protection of this highly visible infobox template for editing by people who don't have template editor rights (as for {{infobox person}}), - can we please avoid such measures? - Of course you are free, and even invited, to create a sandbox infobox template, and test it in a sandbox article, - probably the best first step before even going to the template talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please make a proposal at the template's talk page, so it can be discussed with other editors. Changes to templates should be proposed in its sandbox, accompanied by appropriate test cases. Links are at the bottom of the template's documentation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for explaining the irreplaceability of the photo. I've fleshed out and tweaked the fair use rationale. One question: I've looked on Charles Neidich's website for the photo link, but I can't find it. Since WP:NFCC#4 requires prior publication, it would help to have a page where the image can be found. Would you mind adding the source URL? Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I see today at 1:47 the user JJMC89 looked at the file and now wants to start the same procedures that we have already done. Can you get him to withdraw his new entries (they are the same as a few days ago)? Many Thanks! --Gisel (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the picture of the clarinet family that you uploaded - it's used in the Clarinet article. The second one looks like a standard Eb alto clarinet, but it's labelled "basset clarinet". I may be wrong, but check it out and see what you think. Thanks. - Special-T (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I see that on the Wurlitzer site now. Which leads to another question: the images look identical to those on the Wurlitzer site. If they're the same photos there might be a copyright issue. - Special-T (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the original photo by Herbert Wurlitzer with 7 clarinets.
According to the company, the 2nd instrument is a basset horn in F.
The picture with the 8 clarinets is an adaptation of mine: first I cut out the original photo, then I added a new background and then, on the far right, I added a basset clarinet by Leitner & Kraus. (Although Wurlitzer makes basset clarinets, he could not give me a photo of them.) This basset clarinet you can see also on this picture:
Auch ich wünsche dir ein gutes neues Jahr. Woher hast du eigentlich so schnell erfahren, dass Mozgowenko am 31.12. verstarb? --- Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !09:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gerda! Only: I wonder how the 2 years were calculated. In my global user settings it says: Connected since 17.11.2016. My 1st edit was on 9.7.2019. --- Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !13:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was slow to notice that you changed the image of the Yogo sapphire, and beg you to revert it. It has a history of 10 years, on thousands of pages, and I don't want it changed, - improved or not doesn't matter in such a case. You can upload your version under a different name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda, I have now set the old version from 1/18/2012 with a plain white background instead of a marbled one, a small visual improvement that is only noticeable at 2nd glance. But if you still want to have the old version back unchanged, that would be done in a jiffy. --- Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing changed since I wrote that. I know you like to improve, but please restore the image to its historic form: no uniform background, no sharp lines and extra brilliance. Feel free to save the improved version under a different name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Des Menschen Wille ist sein Himmelreich."
I followed your wish and reset the photo, but without conviction. The amateur photo by PumpkinSky is exceptionally miserable. This is not what a sapphire looks like, with frayed edges. Every stone has exact contours. And the background is blotchy, sometimes dark and sometimes white. And the stone takes up too little space on the overall surface. A decent photo would have been cropped to show more stone as background. I don't know what there is to like about this photo. Here are both photos side by side. Please enlarge them once!
You are right on all accounts. I am a sentimental woman, Precious was modelled after PS's model, and the memory of his miserable amateur photo serves its purpose of connecting to a history. Thank you for understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unzulängliche Fotos lassen sich natürlich nur begrenzt aufhübschen. Gleichwohl, so meine ich, habe ich eine Reihe älterer Klarinettenbilder ganz gut hinbekommen, zuletzt noch ein mit Dunst überzogenes Foto von 1910. Ich habe gegen Entgelt den Saphir freistellen lassen und dabei den Auftrag erteilt, den ausgefransten Rand mit wegzunehmen, also eine klare Kontur zu schaffen. Dann habe ich das Bild so gut es ging, geschärft und auch die Belichtung geringfügig verändert. Schon im Februar hatte ich mich an dem Stein versucht. Sieh dir doch bitte einmal die Versionen vom 19. und 20. Februar 2022 an. Findest du eine davon besser? Was in einzelnen gefällt dir an dem neuen Bild nicht, der Rand oder die Fläche? Ich könnte z. B. noch einen Weichzeichner verwenden, der die Konturen etwas verschwimmen lässt, entweder im Ganzen oder nur am Rand. Für eine Antwort wäre ich dir dankbar. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !12:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe meine Probleme mit dem retuschieren von Fotos. Genau wie bei schönheitsoperierten Menschen, man siehts. Ich frage mich immer: Hatten die einen schlimmen Unfall. Entschuldige, dass ich so konservativ bin. Grimes2 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zu meinen Bildverbeserungen sh. unten "My image edits".
Das sind ja fotogarfisch tolle Aufnahmen, insbesondere die von St. Bonifatius. Ich nehme an, du hast eine hochwertige Fotoausrüstung mit mehreren Objektiven und Stativ.
Dazu schreibt mein französischer Partner und Autor des frz. Artikels, Clarioio, folgendes: "In the french WP, we have also some rules about reliable sources; nevertheless for the Musical domain, there are some flexibilities to use other sources than academic and native language sources because they are rare. For this special WP page about a part of a musical instrument, we can use some exceptions, but german or british guys are free to apply their own rules. On my side, I prefer to use good web pages as those ones from M. Touroude (well known expert in France and around the World) than bad sources compliant with strict WP 《rules》. I will have a look on the new sources and maybe I will include some of them in the french WP." - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !22:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, dear Gerda. I didn't know Charpentier's mass until now, I listened to some sections on Youtube. Very beautiful. All the best for you, now and in the new year. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !17:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
January 2023
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Martin Fröst, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. This article is one of my babies, it is 56% mine.
3. Yesterday I updated the English and German articles in coordination with my friend Martin Fröst. The French and Swedish articles will follow.
4. In connection with the updates, I checked all the links and deleted the ones that no longer work. I was in a hurry and therefore did not fill in an edit summary.
(watching) The article suffers from a lack of inline citations, and removing the few that were there doesn't look like a good idea to someone not looking closely, - better remove them only when replacing them with with better ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that certain internet sources no longer worked and had intended to look for other sources, but yesterday and today there was no time. A dead link is of no use to anyone. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !22:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Even if dead, it shows that there was something before. If you think that is not a good idea you could change to cite book or cite news, without link. Sources don't have to be online, but there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With about 50 sources (including a, b, c etc.), the article should now be sufficiently substantiated. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Datumsformat kann man einstellen. Europäisches Format 13 March 2023. Händisch kannst Du noch die Zeitung verlinken und den Parameter |trans-title= einfügen. Sieht dann so aus:
Hi, you recently uploaded a high resolution version of File:Amati_Kraslice_logo.png but its fair use rationale limits the image to 100,000 pixels (316 × 316). Can you please revert your change, before the bot deletes the original image which is now orphaned. — Jon (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Photoshopping
Hi, I appreciate many of your image contributions, especially musical instruments; but sometimes I think your use of "photoshopping" is too enthusiastic. Things like removing backgrounds from single specimen photographs of objects (as opposed to photographs of events, people and places), adjusting white-balance, crops, minor straightening corrections etc. are useful. However, doctoring photographs to remove details (vs. the original), when used as documentary evidence in encyclopedia articles about real subjects, or replacing the logo on the outside of the building (vs. the original), is not. It is in fact misleading, even disingenuous. By all means create art, but it must be labeled and described as such, and not passed off in a Wikipedia article as a depiction of reality. If we don't want the ugly and derelict building as photographed in 2020 in the Amati Kraslice article, then we need to find a better (perhaps historical) photograph of the building instead, or even just use the (un-doctored) photo from the other end of the building. — Jon (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I heard the wall on the right was repainted. The black line is no longer there. And: the building is in reality straight, not slanted as in the 2nd picture. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !23:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to photos of buildings that have been professionally photographed, there is nothing to improve. The photographer has already done that himself, for example, corrected the exposure in a too dark picture. On the other hand, amateur photos often have flaws, for example, the building is not straight. Or there was a trash can in front of the building that a professional would have removed beforehand. Or there are reflections due to the sun's rays or a flash, or there is still a part of another building in the picture that is quite unimportant. In these cases, I tend to remove the defects to the extent possible. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !12:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: a dress. On the right the original. In this picture everything is uninteresting for the article except the dress. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !20:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this:
In the image on the left, the picture on the wall is from this photo
Yes, I understand what you're doing. I'm not sure how to make this clearer; what I'm saying is 1. sometimes you overwrite other people's photos with what you think are improvements, which is objectionable, please create separate images for your art projects 2. you assert your own form of aesthetics categorically, and they're not always the fabulous improvements you seem to think they are, 3. they are sometimes bordering on fraudulent, and/or 4. they are sometimes inappropriate for use on Wikipedia as depictions or documentation of reality. Jon (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. I heard they painted the Eiffel Tower orange, perhaps I'll go and fix all the Eiffel Tower photos. The World Trade Center is no longer there either, perhaps I'll go and remove them from all the New York skyline photos from before 2001. By all means straighten it or adjust the white balance, but if you want to include it in Wikipedia, then this photo is a document of the building as it was taken in 2020, not some ideal of what you want it to look like, or even less, what you think it might look like based on... something you heard?! Jon (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I didn't change any photos with the Eiffel Tower or the World Trade Center.
About the picture with the dress. The author of the German article Vestal Goodman thanked me for the new picture. He is obviously happy with the editing. What would you have done? Left the picture unchanged?
I'm not talking about your dress or Deuker photos. I'm not even objecting to your art projects, necessarily, either - go nuts. But please use separate filenames for them. I'm talking about photos of the former Amati factory building in Kraslice, being used on Wikipedia. Why did you put a logo onto the building that isn't there in reality? — Jon (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company is no longer called Amati-Denak but Amati Kraslice. You can see the new logos here: . I think that Amati has long since changed the old lettering. I will try to get an updated picture. The picture with the new logo was never used. I have now removed it from Commons. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !22:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picture edited by me: . For publishing the pictures on the Czech website I need the permission, very difficult. - Gisbert ツ (talk) Illustrate Wikipedia !05:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
