Tibesti1

Welcome!

Hi Tibesti1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Grimes2 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Aachen did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Uness232 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: Messages to users

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much!

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 1RightSider (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk page procedures

I noticed the current discussion at the talk for Intforce (talk · contribs) concerning Hamburg. An earlier discussion from June 2023 regarding the same subject is still on that talk page. The comments suggesting the discussion should be at Talk:Hamburg are correct. When there is a disagreement about an article, it is important that discussions occur at article talk. That allows others watching the topic to see what is going on and join in if wanted. It also makes it easy for editors in the future to find relevant discussions when trying to work out why certain changes were made. It may be that a discussion will not get much attention on article talk, but that goes more so for a user talk page. There comes a point when a discussion crosses over from being a debate about improving an article to unpleasant pressure. That is not permitted at Wikipedia. The official procedure that should be followed is dispute resolution. To attract more attention, a neutral message could be left at the talk page of one of the wikiprojects listed at the top of article talk. That would probably be WT:WikiProject Germany. It is common for disagreement to occur and contributors must discuss things from the point of view of improving the article. For images, it may not be possible to demonstrate that one arrangement is better than another and what should happen will boil down to personal opinion. In that case, Wikipedia puts the onus on someone wanting a change to justify why that change should occur. What happens in other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFF) is not relevant. Any further discussion about Hamburg should be at its talk page. If wanted, you can ask questions here or at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq, the discussion on the talk page of Intforce is actually not about Hamburg anyway. I just made a mistake when writing the headline. Furthermore i'd like to let you know, that the same thing that i am accused of, happened the other way round too: i made a photo collage for Vienna last December... This has been changed without having been discussed on the talk page before, a few days ago. And there are still those mistakes at Bautzen and Cottbus. Please note that the articles of cities are named after the most often used name in English. The most often used names for Bautzen and Cottbus by far are the German ones, and not the Sorbian ones. Therefore, the intros would have to read: "Bautzen (Upper Sorbian: Budyšin)" and "Cottbus (Upper Sorbian: Chóśebuz)", and not "Bautzen or Budyšin" and "Cottbus or Chóśebuz". However, someone else insists that he is right. Tibesti1 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have moved your above reply from my talk to here as standard procedure is to keep discussion in one place. If wanted, you could notify the person you are replying to, for example, {{ping|Johnuniq}}. The points made above do not change the fact that a discussion about an article should be at the article talk page. If you want to know what should be done if multiple articles are involved, try the advice I gave above about asking questions. To make myself clearer, the discussion at User talk:Intforce has been going on too long and is too confrontational. As an administrator, I am supposed to explain procedures if needed. Hundreds of disagreements occur every day at Wikipedia and contributors have to get used to the fact that others will revert edits and will argue against proposals. People who respond in a WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion are not successful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:. Everything you said, i already know... As you can see, i didn't even change back the things where obvious mistakes occurred, and stating the fact that it is common practice to revert unwanted changes, and redirect them to talk pages while hoping that this won't be done because it is too stressful, is just stating a true fact. As an administrator you probably know the naming rules of articles about foreign cities, and now that i've told you what happened at Bautzen and Cottbus, perhaps you could change it. The discussions i had back then were exactly the same style as now, and the result was, that the article is false now since months, because i am too good-natured to press through my will. Tibesti1 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Images

Hi Tibesti1,

I noticed your recent edits and your intention to decorate articles a little. First of all, that's great! Images are important to convey topics the way you intend to. However, too many images can become messy quickly, making it difficult to navigate through an article, especially the lead section.

I would like to ask you not to put more images than absolutely necessary into infoboxes of towns and cities and consider the technical quality. For example, the image you added to Halle (Saale) had a terrible quality, low resolution, unfortunate perspective, and poor contrast. Pictures like that are almost never a good idea. On the other hand, this file doesn't have those disadvantages and therefore is a probably suitable image.

I understand that it can be challenging to determine the quality of a picture, but it is necessary to ensure graphic article quality. –Tobias (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tobiasi0: Since the collages are there for a month now, and you are the only one who has something against them, you would have to discuss each of your alterations on the talk pages, i've been told. Also, there is no rule stating how many photos a collage should include, see Miami for instance, long-lasting collage with 12 photos. And your mentioning of the low resolution is just a trick to alter all the collages the way you like them. The one photo you chose was probably the only one with a lower resolution. You know exactly that i only use high quality photos, and it is astonishing how someone could think that your new collages are an improvement. You didn't even just reduce the number of photos, but changed almost all of them. If you can't cite a rule stating how many photos should not be exceeded in the collages, i will undo all your deletions and you will have to discuss each collage on the respective talk pages. Tibesti1 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

PS: i saw that you even changed the Vienna and Cologne collages which are there for months now. You forgot to delete my collages at Wiesbaden, Mainz, and Stuttgart :-) Tibesti1 (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to just delete your edits, I want images to meet minimum quality standards and not to be spammed everywhere. There were countless other examples of poor quality pictures you inserted, I can give you a few others later if you wish that, but for now, I feel like I invested enough time to clean that up a little bit. –Tobias (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no time limit for reverts. I would be careful with redoing reverts if I were you as this is considered an edit war. The duration of the existence of this infoboxes is just the lower visits of the articles. German people usually search for cities on German Wikipedia, not here, but there are actually not just a few people who hate too many images in an infobox. So unless you got good reason for spamming low quality images, leave it. –Tobias (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw. I reduced ALL image count on any infobox. Yes, I altered a few, mostly the ones with poor quality, but there isn't one single infobox that contains the same amount of images than before. –Tobias (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you think i'm stupid? We both know that the photos i included were not low quality ones. Sorry, but which ones were low quality again? Please show them here. When i changed the collages i was told that i have to discuss the alterations on the talk pages, if someone has something against the changes, so why should you not have to do that? And to be honest, if you compare the Dresden or Leipzig collages now and before, is it really possible to regard the new ones as better than the old ones? It's unbelievable, they are so ugly now, that it is a disgrace. Tibesti1 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tobiasi0: And again i tell you, apart from the fact that your photos are of lower quality than the ones from before, this discussion is actually not about the quality of the photos, but about the fact that you changed almost all collages without having discussed it on the respective talk pages before. Neither can you cite a rule that doesn't allow the inclusion of a certain amount of photos. And therefore, it is my right to undo all your changes. But yes, show me the low quality photos anyway and let's compare them to your photos afterwards. Tibesti1 (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, this is nothing personal (at least for me) and I invite you taking a deep breath prior to your next answer. We both aim for improving articles on this website, but I feel urged to point out WP:NPA and WP:WQ to you as I'm reading your answers.

Secondly, you asked for a guideline - speaking in general, content on WP orientates on the Manual of Style (MOS). MOS:IMAGES is the rule applied to the use of images. You are right that there is not an exact number of images that are regarded as "too much", mostly because such a regulation wouldn't make any sense as this can differ significantly depending on the affected topic. To wrap it up: images need to be encyclopedic, meaning they should convey suitable information. We look for images that meet general quality criteria, which not only includes basic technical quality like resolution and focus, but also good depiction of the pictured object concerning angle, perspective, coloration, and the area percentage occupied by the central object (not too far away or close). Basic requirements other than that include relevance and representative value, according to MOS:LEAD, and promote understanding and be considered carefully to not just distractingly clutter an article's lead, which is my main concern. This means that there shouldn't be any more images than absolutely necessary; it is okay, to represent a city with images, but in general it follows the pattern: the less and the more representative, the better. Additionally, both images and icons are not primarily decorative.

Because we're talking about the infobox, we should note the general idea of a lead section, which is to summarize and effectively give an overview over the core information of an article, in this case a settlement. It may be reasonably doubted that everything that you can see and photograph within a city, even if it has an article on its own, belongs to that exact core and therefore needs to be in an infobox about it.

To ensure comparability, I would like to provide the lists for the previous and current infobox images with focus on Freiburg and Dresden and my specific reasoning to the images. Let's start with Freiburg:

Previous

1. Minster: pretty common image, nothing outstanding here, neither good nor bad. Seems somewhat uneven to me, as it is slightly tilted to the left. There are a lot of roofs in the foreground, so I would look for a better image, as this is borderline.
2. Swabian Gate: reduced resolution, slightly fuzzy, but underexposed, the depths are just too dark. Nevertheless, the scene and coloration appears to be acceptable. If there is a better alternative, I would use that but if not, this image is ok.
3. Minster Square: noticeably blurred image, dark at the edges, random spot, definitely not suitable for an infobox.
4. Bächle: great job, image is technically well-made, has an interesting perspective imho and exactly shows what it is supposed to show, Bächle not irrelevant in the context of Freiburg, overall suitable and solid image.
5. Minster: reduced resolution and strange focus (Minster not centered, too much sky. In terms of coloration, this is outstanding and if it weren't for the other flaws, I would've chosen it immediately. Additionally, we don't need two images of the same building, this would've been my preference out of the two.
6. Martyrs' window: just a window of the church, I don't see any chance how this is supposed to represent part of the city of Freiburg, not suitable for lead.
7. Herz-Jesu-Kirche: questionable relevance of the building as it doesn't even has an own article and definitely isn't as relevant as the Minster. Image slightly overexposed, nothing outstanding here, most distracting is the strange vanishing point in my opinion, building appears to tilt backwards, there are better images on Commons of it.
8. Schauinslandbahn, underexposed onride-photograph with low resolution and artifacts scattered all over, not even located within Freiburg, definitely not appropriate for infobox.
9. Schauinsland: perspective and contrast well accomplished, technical quality by far sufficient, solid image, but not located within Freiburg as well, hence not suitable for the infobox.
10. Historical Merchant's Hall: relevance of buildings given, colors, focus and technical quality appealing, overall solid image, suitable for the infobox.
11. Branches of Dreisam, just a random spot in Freiburg, can't see any connection to the city, typically warped for a panorama, not suitable for the infobox.

Current (just the ones I added)

1. Minster: great perspective and centering of the Minster, natural coloration, technical quality by far sufficient, suitable infobox alternative for both previous images of the Minster.
2. Areal view: common areal view, nothing exciting, slightly reduced resolution, if there is any better alternative, we should replace it with that. We could omit it without substitution depending on if it is useful for Freiburg or a city in general to show an areal view and what that should look like.

Now we move on to Dresden:

Previous

1. Dresden skyline: blue hour image, great coloration and focus, decent image for infobox.
2. Academy of Fine Arts: slightly overexposed and blurred, the bricks can't possibly be that smooth to merge, not suitable for infobox as there are many better images of the same object available.
3. Semper Opera: good coloration, slightly reduced resolution, no obvious flaws, lantern maybe slightly too centered, there are a lot of alternatives available as well, it isn't the best image of its kind, thus shouldn't end up in the infobox.
4. Frauenkirche: one of the landmarks of Dresden, great focus, good depiction, slightly reduced resolution, nothing special, there might be too much shadows, nevertheless possibly suitable for infobox, but there are alternatives.
5. Zwinger: old, very overexposed, contrasts too strong, blurry, doesn't meet basic technical quality criteria, definitely not suitable for infobox.
6. Cathedral, low resolution, a bit fuzzy probably due to light circumstances, cathedral covers less than half the image size, not suitable for infobox.
7. Yendize: foreground too dark, background too bright, otherwise great coloration, questionable relevance as it is not an important landmark, can be omitted without being a great loss.
8. Neumarkt: basic quality criteria failed, image is fuzzy, significant noise visible, appears to be a photograph of a photograph as there even is a visible edge, definitely not suitable for infobox.
9. Fountain: unimportant spot in Großer Garten, I don't see how this is supposed to represent Dresden as well, not suitable for infobox.
10. Dresden Castle: terrible focus, exposure, colors and perspective, half of the building covered by statues in foreground, definitely not suitable for any encyclopedic purpose.
11. Dresden skyline once again: second image of the same skyline redundant, poor focus and contrast, overexposed, definitely not suitable for infobox.

Current (again only the additional)

1. Academy of Fine Arts: areal view with Academy of Fine Arts in foreground, great focus and colors, reduced resolution, possibly slightly too strong contrasts, could be cropped at the top to remove part of the sky, overall suitable for infobox as long as there is no comparable better alternative.
2. Frauenkirche: great coloration, focus, and perspective, no shadows, could be cropped left and right to center it even more, suitable for infobox.
3. Cathedral: recognizable strong contrasts, more artistic approach to depict cathedral, slightly reduced resolution, especially when cropped as well, questionable suitability for infobox, should be replaced with better alternative if available.
4. Semperoper: decent resolution, neutral colors, great focus, lantern covers part of the building's edge, overall suitable for infobox.

By the time you're reading this, I've moved the skyline on Dresden to the bottom, that's where panoramas like this fit the best. If you have any additional ideas or questions, let me know. I hope you can follow every one of my steps and thoughts for this particular articles, even though it doesn't look any different on the other infoboxes.

As you may have noticed, I am aware that my images are not perfect as well, I rather looked for a provisionally temporary solution even though I think I obtained a few quite suitable pictures - the same goes for your images, you found a few actually great ones which is why I didn't just rigorously reverted everything you've done. If you really think that it will do any good to revert my additional images - feel free, but maybe you can ask yourself if this is really your sincere wish or if you're just frustrated and want to irritate me in a similar way, latter of them being human and understandable, but doesn't belonging anywhere near Wikipedia. I'll take my time to respond another time as this was really time-consuming, have a great one! –Tobias (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tobiasi0: There apparently exists an unwritten rule that if someone makes changes to something someone else disagrees with, the text or collage has to stay in the state it was before, until the dispute is solved, and not in the new state. At least this is what i have been told when i wanted to alter a collage. Therefore, during your discussions as to why your collages are better, they would have to stay as they were before you changed them. Secondly, all that you wrote above reflects your personal opinions concerning which photos are suitable for collages, but i have other opinions. It is always a clever trick, if there is uncertainty and confusion about anything, to initiate discussions with lots of technical terms, much text, and to try to come over as an expert in the field in order to intimidate the interlocutor. And please don't tell me all the time how time-consuming the discussion is, because i'm also not interested at all in those discussions you are forcing me into.

Just to take one photo and compare them:

i chose this one

you chose that one

I see that there is better weather and less disturbing people on my photo. All in all, the photo i chose appears to me to be of higher artistic quality than the one you chose. What was it again that makes your photo more professional and more suitable for the collage? What is all your alleged or perhaps really existing expertise worth if the result is something like that photo? Do you really think that this photo with grey sky and disturbing people in the foreground is better. It's sad. Tibesti1 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: User talk:1RightSider

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. - 1RightSider (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tibesti1: I explained basic #Talk page procedures above. It appears that another disagreement with another editor has resulted in you again commenting on a user's talk instead of Talk:Cottbus. Experience suggests that I won't convince you that article content should be discussed on article talk, so let me just say that I will block you the next time that occurs. Other editors, now and in the future, should be able to easily see discussions related to issues concerned with an article. That means such discussions should be on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, however, the problem doesn't just concern Cottbus, but all Sorbian-related articles that 1RightSider changed to the format: Cottbus or Chóśebuz. I'd like to know the general rule, if places with two official names have to appear like Cottbus (Lower Sorbian: Chóśebuz) or Cottbus (Lower Sorbian: Chóśebuz) or like 1RightSider writes: Cottbus or Chóśebuz. The last thing i wrote on 1RightSider's talk page is: "So it would be nice if you could cite the exact sentences of the respective guideline that allows the "Cottbus or Chóśebuz" version because i couldn't find it." So is it friendly and cooperative to just ignore what i wrote and instead just warn me? I would even apologize to 1RightSider if you told me what exactly it could have been that appeared like harassment, because this is not my intention. I just want the Sorbian-related articles to be in a correct form. Tibesti1 (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Use the article talk page. If necessary, WP:PING other editors. If other articles are involved, put a brief notice on talk of the articles with a link to the discussion. If it concerns many articles, try to locate the relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT from the headers at the top of article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)