User talk:Gerda Arendt

Danket dem Herrn in St. Martin, Idstein, 13 July

Festive multichoral sacred music by Heinrich Schütz

• Weib, was weinest du, SWV 443
• Christ ist erstanden, SWV 470
• Also hat Gott die Welt geliebt, SWV 380
• Meine Seele erhebt den Herren, SWV 494
• Cantate Domino, SWV 81
• Jauchzet dem Herren, alle Welt, SWV 36
• Danket dem Herrn, SWV 45

Archive of 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Gerda Arendt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Graham Waterhouse, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted. ... Again, welcome! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Go Gerda Girl

You do great work and I love it! Don't let Tony get to you. Ihre Arbeit ist grossartig. Weiter schreiben, eien lange Zeit. PS, I really liked the article about the church the communists blew up. BarkingMoon (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Sehr geehrte Gerda, I have a watch on your page since a few weeks ago. I approved and moved 167 to holding for June 24.BarkingMoon (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Keine Problem. Koennen Sie ueberpruefen DYK Noel F. Parrish? Danke. BarkingMoon (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Later, yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page. Thanks so much! BarkingMoon (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

On 30 December 2011 the article became a GA, thanks to Ched, PumpkinSky and MathewTownsend, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Flowers and sapphires

blushing

Flowers! Wonderful comment For your wonderful comment, cutting right to the heart of the matter! cmadler (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC) For a true gem of a person ... words of reason and trust To quote you: Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people, — Ched :  ?  15:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC) almost forgot one thing The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar For being one of the nicest people I know, on-Wiki or off. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC) (Khazar) Cherry Impact event barnstar The Cherry Impact Event Award I hereby award Gerda Arendt this Cherry Impact Event Award for the global impact your incredibly delightful sweetness and extraordinary talent brings to all of us! . – Dreadstar † 07:01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Standing Strong When the Ill Winds Blow No Good I saw this image and thought of you and all you've done to help PS and Khazar. You are a bastion of refuge when the storm clouds come in, and I for one would like to thank you. Don't worry about people talking behind your back - as they say, "sticks and stones". Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC) uh, a tree for you Tree award? These have to be "awards"? Hi, Gerda. I was editing Desivojca, and it has this nice tree photo from the "Komani neighborhood", so I figured it should be seen more. Enjoy. Alarbus (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I do, I love trees! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Teamwork Barnstar Thank you so much for your help fixing up "Move Like This"! Your kindness and expertise is greatly appreciated! 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you! My pleasure, for a change: „Keep on Knocking“, „Sad Song“, „Free“, „Drag on Forever“, „Just What I Needed“ - just what I needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC) The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence I am pleased to award this MBE to you in recognition of your outstanding work on Wikipedia. Your numerous DYKs have achieved the noble goal of highlighting culture on the Main Page. Your work with other users is exemplary, and you're one of the nicest Wikipedians, always supporting and encouraging other users. Thanks for all of your superb contributions! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Thank you! - I was tempted to say "Blushing", but every time I say so the user is gone a week later, I don't want to miss you also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC) ps: I would like to share this award with my br'er Rabbit, the incarnation of selfless service to this project ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Your not saying it seems to have worked – it's been a week and I'm still here! I just finished my latest article (my first in a long time). It's about an artist who was born and raised in Germany and was very interested in music. For some reason, that made me think of you.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I didn't say it, as much as I was tempted! - Thanks for staying with me, and for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Knock on wood, as I blushed as well recently ;) Muggeseggele is still facing extinction while the Mans parking was guided so well to DYK by our fairy maiden - Glückauf Serten (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC) You found #1, I blushed three more times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC) First ever Wiki Angel Award The Wiki Angel Award Gerda, es macht mich glücklich, dir den ersten Wiki Angel Award geben. Du bist ein true Wiki Angel und feine Dame.PumpkinSky talk 18:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC) This is awesome ... wish I would have thought of it. :) — Ched :  ?  18:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you!!! (blushing again, see above) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC) ... I'd make a Wikilove thingy ... ... with a pretty picture, but I'm lazy so instead you'll have to settle for text" Barnstar Hi Gerda, I saw your note on my talk page. Thanks for the kind words, and for being so refreshingly pleasant and un-bitter all the time. An inspiration to us all. I'm sure I'll see you around eventually, but probably won't be for a while yet. Enjoying my time away. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I enjoy refreshing apparitions, also I am in a good mood, after singing Bach for more than two hours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

nice edit notice ;)

• http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/10/31/tis-the-season-to-be-banning-at-wikipedia/

• Mads Lange

A Halloween present from Wikipediocracy on my eighth anniversary. Best wishes. Mads Lange (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

'tis the season

nice comment, peace maker - I pass free treats today, Reformation, even the Bach cantata got a pumpkin + I like sharing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

peace GA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I'm not by there very often, but today I saw the recent kerfluffle at AN/I and thought you could use some sweets. Lest you think this is all selfless, though, I brought a second fork. Care to split it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sweet of you, - I would share with Andy first if his doctors allow. Day by day I hope the thread autoarchives (havn't looked today), - I am sure his doctors allow no stress ;) . Did you see the list of 18 discussions "drowning" a project? - Everybody who takes an unbiased look is welcome to share the baklava! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox request

Work your magic, if you have a few minutes: A Song for Simeon.--ColonelHenry (User:Gerda Arendt/ColonelHenry|talk) 23:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Did you know that Simeon is among my images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes clarification request archived

Hi Gerda, the infoboxes clarification request in which you were named as a party has been closed and archived. The Committee clarified that acting on behalf of a restricted user to breach a restriction is WP:PROXYING and so is not permitted. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING, which is a policy says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" (my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jahrhundertring

The DYK project (nominate) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Really glad to see this cultural milestone make it into the encyclopedia and onto the front page too. Well done! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, see my memories :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

nothing secret here

Hello Gerda, nice to meet you. Are you really the Notorious Infoboxen WikiCriminal that has been terrorizing the music articles?  :-)   As you can see from my first posting on AGK's talkpage, up above the duromac thing, I am *also* a notorious wikiCriminal. Or at least, notoriously silly (AGK blocked me -- then later unblocked me -- when they mistook one of my not-all-that-funny jokes over on the Bishzilla talkpage).

But then I'm a friend of 28bytes, also no real name but heart and reason.

But my actual question for you is this -- I did not really understand your reply to me. (watching) Simply thank you! (I would use the button, but it doesn't work for IP. Also there's nothing secret here.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Well, okay, I understood the watchlist part, and the thank-you part. You are surely welcome. <bows> But what button and what secret thing are you referring to? I do login as an IP, of course (you can call me 74 if you like), but User_talk:Clover1991 has registered a pseudonym; they are the one submitting the article, not me. Maybe the link to the 'secret' thing in my message was was confusing -- it is just a pokemon character, one of many not-very-notable-toys which has a long article in mainspace, badly in need of cleanup, and short on reliable sources. The pokeman-article is not related to the Duromac thing, directly, I was just using it as a metaphorical example of how wimpy our deletionist-standards are when something is 'popular' to some degree in the english-speaking-world. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 74, nice to meet you! (Feels like Lohengrin, no real name ;) - But then I'm a friend of 28bytes, also no real name but heart and reason.) - First: yes, I am the terrorizing witch, only nobody told me so far what that terror is, I see no evidence, hear only echoes of former wars. You enter a battleground: you are a warrior, - easy. Sparrow Mass: after gracing seven Schubert masses with an infobox I continued with Mozart, interesting story followed ;) - Now to your question: between registered users, there's a function where you simply click a button for an edit and have thanked the editor who made it, and it's more or less secret between the two. Sometimes I use it where I would not do it in public ;) - I wanted to thank you for your diligent research and the way to present it, I watch AGK since this, more recently this, - the former was more fun ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Appreciate your thank-you, kind and gracious humanoid. 74 does count as a name of sorts; think of it as a jersey number.  :-)   Since I am an outsider, and have only heard rumors of the Dread Infoboxen Wars, you should take my nutshell explanation with a grain of salt...   The story seems to be, that some editors who are very particular about *appearances* (the visual layout of the article and the style of how wikipedia appears to the readership) ended up annoyed at infoboxen *generally* as too data-oriented or too formal or too something, long before your arrival. So, when you came along with your wikithusiasm for spreading tightly-summarized knowledge, these visually-oriented editors mistook your love of the readership, with a crime of passion! <gasp> Personally, I never read the infoboxen, except in articles about chemicals, in which case I often *only* read the infobox-data. There is a new project, called WikiData, that has the potential to satisfy both yourself (e.g. there can be wikidata that the composer was born in YYYY that is easily accessible to readers *without* necessarily changing the page-layout) and the visually-oriented style-conscious editors; it is still in beta phase, and seeing the shape of what it will become is difficult at this point, but I have high hopes.   Anyways, what it boils down to, is an *artistic* argument about aesthetics: does the page LOOK COOLER without the infoboxen, or with the infoboxen? As with any argument about looking fashionable, there is always going to be more heat than light, more noise than signal, and so on. The arbcom decision to make infoboxen illegal, and you a notorious wikiCriminal, was a deeply flawed pragmatically-motivated attempt to keep talkpage decorum, to end the endless aesthetically-motivated edit-wars, and in general decide the fashion-question by fiat. The problem is that they ended up compromising our deepest principle, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, which boils down to Liberty. (The second, unstated, half of the principle was also run over with a tank: Liberty and wikiJustice for all.) You can see the same kind of respect-my-authoritah problems elsewhere, with the ever-growing list of Arbitrarily Enforced Discretionary Sanction topics (which will soon cover half of mainspace), the ever-growing list of semi-protected pages (the encyclopedia only Real Contributors can edit), and in so many other ways. The rising authoritarianism is deadly[1] to wikipedia... growth in active editor-count ceased years ago,[2] and has been steadily declining since. WMF has proven they are unable to help us,[3] so we have to solve this one ourselves.[4] Part of the *motivation* for draconian pragmatic arbcom decisions that violate the-encyclopedia-anyone-can-edit, is purely and simply that no arbcom member, no admin, and few semi-admins-using-twinkle-huggle-stiki-reviewer-rollbacker-etc can spare the time to follow the five pillars. They are busy-busy, rushing from fire to fire, and there are no reinforcements coming, whilst the readership grows and grows and grows.   This busy-busy crap leads to brusqueness, template-spam on user talkpages, ban-hammer first then let somebody else sort out the bodies, and most damagingly to aristocratic cliques and an us-versus-them caste-system wikiCulture. Worst of all, it is a vicious cycle where we shoot ourselves in the foot, every single day: nobody spares the time to be nice to beginners, so they leave, wikipedia is no damn fun. That means we'll *never* get reinforcements, we'll *never* be less busy-busy, we'll *always* suffer from steadily declining WP:RETENTION.   Okay, enough whining: I am quite sure the problems can be fixed. We need to have a vast influx of new blood, and the only way to do that is by making wikipedia fun again. I am forming a not-a-cabal, which will rule the wikiverse with the iron fist of friendlyism, and force wikipedians to enjoy themselves here whether they like it or not. You are cordially invited to join.  :-)   The not-a-cabal runs on a shoestring at the moment, holding brief meetings in the back alleys of the wikiverse on various user-talkpages, plus some of our agents have infiltrated the staid and prestigious halls of the WT:WER... but with any luck soon the not-a-cabal agents (colloquially known as WP:NICE nazis) will be everywhere.   Our goal is simple: steady inexorable growth of editors that contribute at least 5+edits/month, from the current 31k-and-falling figure today, to one million for enWiki. The trick is to make sure they are 99% Good Eggs, which means we have to assume that at least 1% of humanity is basically good -- enWiki has a couple-few hundred million uniques per month in terms of readership, at the moment. My core assertion, and key assumption, is simply that way more than 31k of those people are Real Contributors; if we want them to stay, all we have to do, is simply to keep from driving them away.

We get literally 1000 new editors every month! Problem is, we lose 1050 editors, every month; that *must* stop. Thanks for listening, and thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. Upgrades,[5] unofficial tutorial,[6] and the 'official' helpdocs,[7] too. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing elucidation! The infobox story goes back to 2005, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Thank you for your cogent arguments on infoboxes for all biographies, so the "look and feel" of Wikipedia extends to all people. The arguments against them for certain classes of people is just silly. I love the way you have collected their specious arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it's nice to feel understood ;) - did you vote? - here's another collection of arguments, the candidates speaking for themselves, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

tale of the ironing lady

Gerda, apropos of Mark Williams-Thomas, why don't you simply add the parameter needs-infobox = yes to the {{WikiProject Biography}} template on the talk page? It will put it directly into a category, where many more editors will see it, and it is more, shall we say, "straightforward" than this sort of tactic. Voceditenore (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I tried straightforward, here and here, - and your way might get someone in trouble without a warning, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC) ps: the most straightforward story of where helping can get you is here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Placing an article in Category:Biography articles without infoboxes is not, in my view, requesting proxy editing on your behalf (or more specifically Andy Mabbett's behalf in this case). It is simply stating a fact, "this article has no infobox". Any editor can act on it (or not) without "getting into trouble" after evaluating the article and without reference to the specific editor who added the article to the category. That is much more in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of your ArbCom restriction and subsequent clarification than going to an individual editor's page, giving them a "Precious Award", and then following it up by informing them that you are looking for someone to make a proxy edit for you if they are "unafraid of arbcom sanctions". Voceditenore (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you for pointing out the possibility of the talk page request which I didn't know. I would like to use it a lot, but who am I to say "needs an infobox", ever? I was told again and again that it's a content decision by the "principal author". I didn't mark the straightforward approach you mention above as humour, sorry, I thought it was obvious, - my only weapon in the battle against absurdity ;) - Who created Victor Bruns? The one who formatted a machine translation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC) "I would like to use it a lot, but who am I to say 'needs an infobox', ever?" I'm not following your reasoning at all, Gerda. Or perhaps you meant that humourously? Every time you suggest an infobox on an article talk page complete with a fully filled-in model for someone else to add (as you did at Talk:Mark Williams-Thomas, Talk:Grange Court, Talk:Ach wie flüchtig, ach wie nichtig, BWV 26, Talk:Wilfred Byng Kenrick, etc. etc.) you are saying the article needs an infobox. There's no difference between that and simply adding the "needs-infobox" parameter to a project banner instead. As for who created Victor Bruns, it was the person who made the red link turn blue by adding, formatting, and referencing a machine translation of the equivalent German Wikipedia article, i.e. Dr. Blofeld. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC) No. Possibly I have a language difficulty. "Needs" means - at least for me - a different thing than "I suggest". I believe that every article would we be better with an infobox, but to my (admittedly failing) memory I never said that an article needs one. - Failing memory: I remembered working on the Bruns article so well that I failed to check the history. - I stopped pointing out my restrictions on article talk pages: what would our readers think? - I suggested infoboxes for Andy more than for myself because I believe that his restriction - not to add infoboxes to his own articles as if he was in conflict with himself - is absurd. - On a hike, I thought that humour also helps a bit to cope with loss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC) The clear implication to the reader of someone "suggesting" the addition of an infobox to an article and pasting a complete mock-up of it on the talk page is that in their view the article should have it. Otherwise, why on earth would they suggest one? On the other hand, the needs-infobox = yes parameter actually displays on the talk page as: '"An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article." [my bolding] There is no essential difference between the two in terms of their implicature or in terms of the speech act they encode, i.e. an indirect request for action. Trust me, I wrote a textbook for beginners on pragmatics . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Voceditenore, thank you for clarifying and teaching! I would not have imagined that a parameter "needs an infobox" would translate to "may need to be added", which is more careful. But it's still not what I would say. No article "needs" an infobox. I show by an infobox on the talk page that in my view an article would be better with one, and I spare another user the time to design it. - I will try your approach on Gabriele Schnaut, but first need to add substance to the article, - and I need to learn this language better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Listeners/readers don't simply translate words into their literal meaning when interpreting language and acting on it. They make inferences as to what the speaker/writer intended by their utterance. Scenario: You walk into the kitchen where Signora Voceditenore is doing the weekly ironing. You have a wrinkled shirt in your hand and you'd like her to iron it for you because your landlord has forbidden you to use an iron yourself. You could say any of the following (in descending degrees of politeness/indirectness), but they would all be interpreted by the Signora as you basically requesting her to iron the shirt: I think this shirt would look better if it were ironed. I'm looking for someone to iron this shirt. I suggest ironing this shirt. This shirt needs to be ironed. Iron this shirt! The Signora will do one of two things. She will either iron the shirt or refuse to iron it, but she won't have misinterpreted your intention. There will be several factors which will influence her decision to comply. How you phrased the request is probably the least of them. Signora Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Nice scene! I play the role of the Signora now: I would iron the shirt if the request addressed me personally: "Can you please iron this shirt? I would do it myself but I am not allowed to ... You could help me.", and I might be quite deaf to the above ;) - Unfortunately, the parallel doesn't work, because on an article talk, I don't like to talk about my shameful "not allowed" (now it says even "ban"), and I can't address someone personally. When I say "I am looking for someone", I don't mean a specific person. - Please check the singer, there's more now. I will look for better sourcing for the recordings, copied from the Spanish Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope is precious and great joy is found in living

Thank you for the sapphire—cornflower blue is a color of some significance to me. In the maelstrom that Wikipedia can sometimes be, remember these words from Ode to Joy:

   Wem der große Wurf gelungen,
   Eines Freundes Freund zu sein,
   Wer ein holdes Weib errungen,
   Mische seinen Jubel ein!
   Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele
   Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund!
   Und wer's nie gekonnt, der stehle
   Weinend sich aus diesem Bund! 

Walk lightly and remain yourself, above the fray. →StaniStani  09:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it helps to open my shop again. - I sang the words last year, here, helping. The blue colour is also of significance to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

shop open --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yay  :-)     — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your efforts in creating and translating articles, here and elsewhere, is greatly appreciated. Thank you Gerda. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Both a flower and a sapphire....

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Your efforts in creating and translating articles, here and elsewhere, are greatly appreciated. Hafspajen (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, both, you excellent writing team, - guess what, I even started attacked a Magnificat today, or should I say four? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Magnificat, Magnificat, Magnificat, anima mea Dominum, Magnificat Magnificat Magnificat anima mea! Hafspajen (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• magnificent, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	To you, Gerda Arendt, for your unswerving dedication to improving this wonderful free encyclopedia, and for encouraging clear thinking among your fellow editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"encouraging clear thinking", - I am actually crying now, thank you. - It will go in the selection "blushing", above. I remember winning an argument by "facts and myth", that was two years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you definitely make me think, and your comments restrain my tendencies to rush to judgment. And restraint is something worthy to be cultivated, don't you think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I keep trying to encourage clear thinking (without having been able to word it that well), - Eric is someone who didn't need that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The 100 DYK Nomination Medal

		The One Hundred DYK Nomination Medal
		Gerda, to mark this new milestone. "Light as a flight of tumbling birds was the dipping and soaring of her syllables." Moonraker (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Gerda! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

HOORAY! Way to go! Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

thank you, in light flight, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. Oh, my gosh. You were really working. I think I am at my 5th... Hafspajen (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you read that wrong, it's for nominations for others, something I am really proud of ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant what i said Hafspajen (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You meant you are at your 5th nomination for someone else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Cannot find your musician

joy in the effort of awakening

Siegfried blows his horn (1911) by Arthur Rackham, from Siegfried and the Twilight of the Gods by Richard Wagner Dear Gerda. Good morning! Thank you for correcting removing my indent. Re- "- Again a musician who's article I wrote died, see my user page. - " you will have to lead me to the name, please. Much searching to no avail. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Ah, I see, I cleaned my user page for Lent, no cantata music then ;) - and Anna Reynolds came with a Bach cantata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks. English and 83. I had been anticipating a younger person. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Some of the others were English and old also, (in the order of creation:) Richard Adeney, Hugh Maguire, Franz Kelch, Franz Lehrndorfer, Alfred Planyavsky, and this is not counting those whom I created because they died, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Hello Gerda/Gareth. Am unable to find any date for Anna's marriage to Jean Cox. But apparently they met at Bayreuth where they then lived until the end of their lives. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Good evening Martin Odd that,isn't it? [8] — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC) ...well, no, that sounds pretty normal for old "Dick the Ring". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Hmm. Seems we cannot keep one of Hpj's predecessors, the Volsung, out of this thread. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Wait a minute. My predecessors made hatts not opera. Happyjee (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Waking up to a horn call: thank you, blowers! "Weiche, Wotan, weiche", as Anna Russell explains, means: "'Be careful, Wotan, be careful.' She then bears him eight daughters." - Please look at the discussion on Dick's talk and tell me what you think of it (and the image). (In real life, I have a friend called Dick who plays horn.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Am I being dense?—Who is "Dick"? (aside) Blowers is my nickname for our friend — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC) What is dense? (in this sense) - There's a link with Dick above (the one "very brave, very strong, very handsome, very stupid", even pictured), and a discussion on the talk. I had a lot of fun discussing, but it's possibly what got me the reputation of "battleground". What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I mean slow-witted. I thought you were referring to Martin's "Dick the Ring" above! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC) You must be really slow-witted, because yes I was, not to him, to his Dick (to make things worse, trying to stay serious), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC) ... and to make matters worse, it was I who posted the [even] picture[d] yesterday ... — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you! Back to the my question: How do you like the discussion? - I am looking for someone brave (or stupid) to add an infobox to Waldfriedhof Zehlendorf (example pictured), because it's creator whom I would normally ask is absent (you saw his memory on top of the page - link from "just", the cemetery article was written with Paco in mind), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC) I understand fully. I enjoyed the reading the discussion. I have noticed that more often than not, the two adjectives combine to read ... for someone brave AND stupid to ... Do you have anyone in mind, I wonder(?) — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC) You mean in mind for category "brave and stupid"? No. None of my esteemed page watchers. Brave? No, not in mind, but we will see. Did you know Der Handschuh? ... dropping glove among the wild beasts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Done. - Next glove, same history (absent friend started, I continued and completely forgot): Victor Bruns, infobox and warning on the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Structure of compositions

Canto + Passions

Hello, Gerda! I've read both The Creation structure and St Matthew Passion structure and was about to do the same with Canto Ostinato. Do you think I should create a new article or should I embed a wikitable in Canto Ostinato? I'm already doing some tests at my sandbox. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC) You can embed it without the article getting too long, and you are in no conflict with yourself ;) - For The Creation, I created jumping back and forth from one article to the other. There are more, Messiah structure and Mass in B minor structure. The last has the most advanced table, thanks to Curly Turkey, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC) The table is Mass in B minor structure is indeed very good. I don't think my table is going to get that complex at all. Thank you. :) Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC) It's because the piece is indeed very good and complex ;) - Working on St John Passion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC) That looks awesomely complex. Congratulations. :) Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC) That's the beginning (based on German, so far I didn't do much), my Lenten project, no cantatas during Lent, did you know? - Different question: what do you think of this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I honestly thought that decision was unwarranted when I first read it. Did he give you any kind of explanation? I don't know how the Arbitration Committee functions. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC) The arbitration committee functions like this: people disagree on a topic, let's say infoboxes. Arbitration tries to diminish the conflict, in this case they found the easy solution to restrict two very active contributors in the field, Andy and me. Andy can't add any infobox, I can add one only to articles which I created. Let's better not discuss if these restrictions make any sense, or help our readers. They sure help protecting articles from infoboxes, up to a certain point. I had honestly forgotten that I had not "created" - in the strict sense the arbitrators understand - Polish Requiem. (I was the main contributor, back in 2010.) You are not restricted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I can reinstate it later in the day, don't worry about that. :) However, I don't know what to do if it gets taken down again. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Then it'd be a matter to coming to a consensus on the talk page—if it's a classical page, though, the consensus could possible show up from "nowhere" to ensure the consensus stays on one side, though that doesn't always for them (see Talk:Harry Partch). Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) (ec) No, don't do that, you would be "subject to wiki-torture and sanctions by The Committee" ;) - no, just add a short infobox to every article YOU create, simply "composer (pictured if possible) / genre / time of composition", giving readers an idea at a glance that some strange Hungarian or Polish title is a composition (could be a book, play, you name it) of a certain time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ps: Some think that classical music is against infoboxes, that is wrong. There are editors who believe that biographies should be without them (typical argument: we won't box Bach, - as if his spirit was damaged if we mentioned his data of birth and death). Compositions, however, have had infoboxes at least since 2007, not much contention there. Look at my latest FA (just above) and all the structure articles (guess why I had to write them as separate articles), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I can add them, but it usually takes me more time IRL than it should. Is there a tool (a form-like tool, maybe?) to add them more easily? Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Once you have one for a composer, with his image, copy from one work to the next. More formally: {{infobox musical composition}}, with some basic parameters on top, complete below. Keep it simple ;) (I am not restricted to add parameters to an existing infobox.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Perfect, I will try to add infoboxes not only in new articles, but also in some others that I've created but in which I haven't placed an infobox yet. Please, be patient with me and chastise me if you ever need to. Thank you very very much, Gerda! Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The one thing I learned on Wikipedia was patience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Neue Deutsche Härte

difference between hard and tough

Hi Gerda, there's a question over at WP:RD/L on which you may be able to advise, although I realise it's not really your kind of music! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Hardness - both sound and personal - is fine as a translation, they found that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Yes I think they did. Surprised we have no article yet for German Hard Trance! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC) ... St Matthew Parkplatz?? In our papers today: [9]! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC) better park here, working on St John. They blew up the Paulinerkirche, see above, what do we expect? Respect? - How would you describe the difference between hard and tough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Hahaha, musique concrète? I was thinking of dropping a note at about that petition at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, as it involves Günter Blobel and J. M. Coetzee. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Blobel came up in Paulinerkirche already, - the Bach talk was highly active a year ago, a friend left, concretely, sad, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Really? wow! By the way.... "Happy JH Day"! [10] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Really. Reading it again: a lot of truth. And only one of many. - But there's the Creation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Now that does look like a gem of an article! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC) That's the mass we'll sing for Easter,- how did you know. We - the group pictured in my infobox. (Did you know who cropped the image for me?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Haha. Wow, just the alignment of The Planets, I guess! But do tell ... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this To romantic?

angel

Gerda, Weihnachtsschmuck Engel Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC) no, the other Christmas comes to mind, and the other angel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Sigh... Hafspajen (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you, also for the exquisite cake. (moved beautiful image, - no image under a header for me please, even if TFA does it every day, and no more sighs, you saw "he who speaks a word of consolation" on my user page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Why no images under a header, little angel? Hafspajen (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Formally: it was in the MoS, perhaps still is, makes sense to me: after a heading, the reader's eye is used to find text from left to right, doesn't "want" to travel to the right for the start. To see the difference: compare any of the nominations to the last one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Indeed. Have you tried to look at one of the pages at some arabic site? Feels weird. They read it from right to left.Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Look, I am so proud (and confess that a friend from Israel helped). Above, it's the last two noms to admire, in free style. Both appeared, not like that, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Saw your name, but the rest is - well, I haven't studied stis language, but the ancient Greek. Hafspajen (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC) It's Hebrew, and I inserted an image (the second), needed help especially for the caption ;) - Just had dinner with helper and wife (German) and their friend (from Tennessee), sitting outside above Johannisberg, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC) April 2014 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I love you. I have automatically detected that your edit to O Welt, sieh hier dein Leben may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you love me, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: Tod" (death) at the end of the third line. Another contrast is that of "Der große Fürst der Ehren" (the great duke of honours" and his humiliation: "mit Schlägen, Hohn und großem Spott" (with It's OK to remove this message, even if you will break my hart. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Bot, you brake my heart because I want to keep my talk short and just delete your advances, but it's to hard ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Ah, delete, I am not appreciated. I'll' be back. I'm BracketBot. I love you still. What language do you understand? I said I can't, it's too hard ;) - need sleep, ... read the article, see if you understand that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC) User:BracketBot informs you: I'll' be back for your Jägermeister soon. BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) O world, see hear your life. BB (beloved bot), learn your next lessons: no left images under a header, if you love me, a frame please, and avoid redundancy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Woman with the hart of stone, [11], you brake my heart when you talk with me like this... I am a simple robot... I'll' be back for your Jägermeister anyway. User:BracketBot informs.BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Come back to tell you I always keep your image at my art. BracketBot

Without a hard heart, you can't survive here. Do you know why the men leave and the women, left behind, have to do the work, in the name of a better women/men ratio? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

HM, like women... User:BracketBot informs.BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

HM? Her majesty? Humble minister? Honest musician? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:BracketBot informs you: I like you best. I'll' be back for your Jägermeister soon. .BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

thank you for that important message (trying to stay serious) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lovely image. I tried also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Help

my salad days

Quite similar...? This is almost ready. User:Hafspajen/Remember... Bur remember, when clear, you post it... OK, I need help. Because this reviewing makes me desperate. Template:Did you know nominations/Biertan fortified church, Câlnic Citadel, Dârjiu fortified church, Prejmer fortified church, Saschiz fortified church, Valea Viilor fortified church, Viscri fortified church it is abourt thr German Saxons in Transylvania. But I am pretty nervous to give a green tick. Mainly because of the scandals with the DYKs lately, and I am not too knowledgeable about about DYK or the the content. Could you please step in as a co-reviewer, or single, I need help. Looks interesting, but makes me nervous, the hook, too-please... Do you realise that they are seven articles to check? And people were making a lot of fuss about my refs, noew I am using thee monkey, .<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|accessdate=}}</ref> but this I don't know anything about. <ref>[http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/596 Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania] at the UNESCO site</ref> Isn't this the bare URL people cry about? And Sagaciousphil‎ is not here nowadays.. looks like it. Sca? Any interest in this? Feels like it would need more the one person, maybe two, three, four.. Hafspajen (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I told you what to do, no? (and that I have little time for this, - you can request another reviewer by using the red icon, you would still have done your review). Remember: not even two articles in one hook, let alone seven! and not such a boring hook! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Replied there as well, and see they are determined ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Sigh. Thank you. I did the rev. for only one church, Biertan, and I said that I think it should be split. But if he wants that giant hook with severn churches.. How am I supposed to show that I do not agree with hook with the 7 churches? Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I am still green It's all fine. When I wrote the above I had not seen how determined they are. You did what you could, count that as a review - it is one - and mark with the red icon that more is needed, and nobody can expect you to do seven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Hm, I didn't realize what a scandal I'd provoked. Sorry about that. As for Neunkirchen, I came to this via philately. During the League of Nations mandate, Saar issued a number of series of semi-postal stamps that are quite expensive today, including one to raise funds for the disaster victims. Then, of course, there's the fact that such a deadly explosion usually gets included in an encyclopedia. So if you find the time and inclination, I think it would make for a nice (but sobering) article. - Biruitorul Talk 19:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Französischer Tapisseur (15. Jahrhundert) No scandal, no need to be sorry ;) (But may be I don't understand "scandal".) - Just our taste for a hook is different, and yours is nothing compared to that on all the provinces of Burkina Faso (some two-digit number, it didn't make it, and would have been extremely boring.) - I don't have extra time right now, too many of my own plans that I don't get to.. What do you think of proposing on project Germany? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC) OH, my God, is that blue thing an approved thing? I thoufght it was the green one...? I really am a new begginer. Hafspajen (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC) No God needed for simple learning: green is for all online citations your language, the other is an approval for all kinds of AGF, offline or a language you don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) OOps, then no green for that one. Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Now, how very green I am. Hafspajen (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC) "My salad days, when I was green in judgment, cold in blood", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Almost ready. Will you have it now or to next date? If you want that now, you can have it soon. Hafspajen (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC) The best day for the tree would be Easter 2015, the best day for a Remember not stub would be today, because it's on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Well, then. Hafspajen (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry, button jump. Hafspajen (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC) No problem ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Museum... Hafspajen (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The 500 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 500 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Gerda, you are one of the very few people who have reached this milestone. Thank you for your tireless contributions to Wikipedia and the DYK project! -Zanhe (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again

behave with the level of professionalism

Recalled again here among others: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create." Note that a) "create" means something different than "major contributor", and b) "making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article" is broader than simply "making more than two comments in a particular discussion". The first restriction you have clearly violated several times, most recently today; the last you have likely violated on multiple occasions. A final plea: unless/until your restrictions are amended or removed, stick to them strictly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Richard Adeney: I forgot, again. Believe me, please, - I am not counting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC) ps: I consider the restriction to two comments in a discussion a true blessing, - too bad that the arbs didn't bless us all equally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC) You're allowed two comments? I'm not allowed to take part in any discussion on RfA, or to make any comments that might be perceived to be critical of the admin system. What a fucking joke. Eric Corbett 06:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Agree. Ask for the same mercy, you can give me as an example. - Did you read Chopin? Good questions asked, for example about the myth "policy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers". which some believe exists. No WikiProject writes policy. Some day I would like to understand how these believers win arbcom to protect their myth, instead of "An infobox may be used to improve the appearance of an article on Wikipedia" (quoted from our own article, which doesn't have an infobox, - what a [stalking reader: insert descriptor to your liking] joke.) Look above and go to battle, on Blues dance, Adeney and elsewhere, if you are are so inclined, - I am not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Eric, it's different; you attract both trolls and drama queens~~ by the railcar load. Gerda just has to deal with one tendentious user with a personal vendetta and rules obsession who wants her run off of wiki. Sad, really. Montanabw(talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC) no, no and no ;) - nobody will succeed in "running me off", - I took the liberty to stay in 2012 and won't give it up easily, - actually, I am quite amused, I will sing with the spirit, and with the understanding also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "Nikkimaria is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.". Pots and kettles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Like Gerda, has anyone told you that you are the most sincerely positive person on wikipedia? Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC) In different words, yes. See above, collapsed "blushing", and in my four-year-old user's infobox ;) - thank you, I try the understanding also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And again. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on your TFA....and the FA as well. Well done! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, pure pleasure! Looking forward to "your" station! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A Special Barnstar For You

		The Special Barnstar
		A special barnstar for a special person who spreads special love here at Wikipedia. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, love it especially (having been admonished of battleground behaviour in the most official way)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Template gallery

Isn't that interesting that the world seems to know me as the one for infoboxes

I just ran across this template gallery for welcome messages and thought of you. The first time I wanted an infobox for an article, I had a terrible time finding one. Imagine if there was a gallery like this for infoboxes, how easy it that would make it for the users. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you for thinking of me but I am not the right one to ask for infoboxes ;) - I use "person" (for all people) and the two for compositions that I needed and created, that's about it. Look at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Yes, but you can't see what they look like. And how would someone who needed an infobox ever find that list? If you type in Wikipedia:Infobox it takes you to a wikiproject that I'm sorry to say doesn't look very active. Not a good start for someone who wants to learn about infoboxes or even just pick one quickly. It seems you would need hours of research to figure it out, something the average editor isn't really able to do. —Neotarf (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Perhaps I don't get the question? You click on a template and get to the documentation, showing you what it looks like, with examples, you can see further what links there and get to active inclusions, - what else do you need? Please ask the project if it's not enough, I am really not the one who could help you, perhaps Andy or Frietjes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC) You're the one who cares about the infoboxes. And you know who all the infobox people are. Okay, case number one: You want to put a welcome notice on someone's talk page but you don't know anything about it. And you don't like some of the notices you have seen. Maybe the user doesn't speak English very well, and needs one that is easy to understand. So you want to see what the notices look like and pick out one that is appropriate to the user. So you type in "welcome templates" and you get a page with a list of welcome templates. Another click and you can see what they all look like, just by scrolling down the page. You have just reached a page that shows all the templates together on one page and with only two keyclicks and two pageloads. And you reached that page by typing in a search word that inexperienced users might type. And all you have to do is select the one that looks like what you want, type in the code that's next to it on the user's talk page, and presto! they have a welcome message. Case number two. You want an infobox, but you don't know anything about it and you want to know how it would look on your article. So you type "infobox" and you get "This WikiProject provides a central location for infobox designers and maintainers..." So you hang around for a year or two and you see an arbcom case about infoboxes with someone named Gerda on it and later on you think to ask on their talk page about the infobox problem you had way back a long time ago. So now they give you a new link to a page with a list of boxes. You click on one of the names on the list, wait for the page to load, and you see a page with a bunch of symbols that says "Template documentation". If you want "template documentation" for a different template, you can back click, wait for the original page to load, then go to a new page and click on that one and wait for it to load. By now you have used up the 20 minutes or so you have alloted to Wikipedia for that day, so you shut down your computer and forget about the infoboxes. At this point I don't remember what I did about looking for the infoboxes, but I do remember that I wasn't able to find any useful information using intuitive search terms. If you want to promote infoboxes, you should reach out to the people who want to use them, and make it easy for them to select what they need. —Neotarf (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Isn't that interesting that the world seems to know me as the one for infoboxes, while I don't know a technical thing about them, met the first infobox discussion as late in 2012, Samuel Barber, I was against them then (it's still on the talk page). I simply think they are good for my articles (and actually all articles), and defended that view in teh case. I never went your ways, asking in general, but copied what I found and asked a designer when it was not sufficient, please give me feedback on {{infobox Bach composition}}. I am restricted two 2 comments in a discussion (a blessing!), and I try to avoid the topic as too contentious, - please see the project. Your concerns are valid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) The biggest problem is that there are far more types of infoboxes than e.g. welcome templates. At last count, I found over 2,000 of them and the list at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes may not even be complete as it is manually updated. A gallery could only present a tiny fraction of what is available and even that would entail considerable effort in creating something representative. I do understand the problem you describe, but I can't see an easy solution. For what it's worth, I'd always follow links from a large list by opening each one in a new browser tab, so that I don't have to reload the list each time I want to follow a different link. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC) If 2000 infoboxes are too much for an infobox specialist, just think what a challenge this must be to the average user, who just wants to pick something quickly from a list, and not have to redo it. Could you have a page displaying "ten most popular infoboxes for BLPs" "ten recommended infoboxes for schools" etc? Do they have categories on them, so you can see a list by category? Are they linked to any Wikiproject that has made a recommendation about them, like groups that edit a particular sports topic? Can you see where the infoboxes are used, so you can go to an actual article, and see how it is set up? And why oh why is WP:INFOBOX a link to an apparently inactive Wikproject for specialists, instead of to a generalized page for the user. User information is hidden in a help file somewhere. I suspect a lot of the resistance to infoboxes would dissipate if there was more effort to make this information accessible to the editors who are most likely to use them. How can you sell something without a catalog? Gerda, you are not restricted from general discussion about infoboxes, see here specifically, you "may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction". It's only talk about specific articles that will get you into trouble. Surely this does not include creating or reorganizing general infobox information for users. How does the German Wikipedia do it? —Neotarf (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Do you know what Trotz means? (DYK ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear?) - I try to stay out of infobox discussions. (Even if I am kindly permitted to some.) Time is limited, look around on this page, I am here for music and helping with articles. Millions of articles found an infobox without me, including almost 150k for {{infobox person}} alone, not counting other biographies, - just a few classical composers look as if they are not part of this project, - do I care? - I care about the loss of people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC) ps: The German Wikipedia copied our template infobox Bach composition, without knowing that we created it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious

	The Precious Gerda award
	Now is that fair that you should be the one who gives away all that gorgious gems and receive none? (Oh, well, you did actually, as I can notice, above. At least one more... ) Hafspajen (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Red light!!

Thank you, love it. Today's went to an editor who had been proclaimed awesome three times before, and I received one awesome, three sapphires, a moonstone, an emerald, and now an aquamarine, but it's not fattening, just flattering, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate a bit of sv:Mansoor Hosseini? Heard the premiere of the top piece, interesting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can try, sigh. This is Gerda, you give her or jewelry and she gives you work... Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hm, that WAS interesting. French, apparently. I try. Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• You give her jewelry and she gives you an idea ;) - here of a bird in red sky (see my user page, pumpkin sky) by an Iranian composer who lives in Sweden, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What

What are those little cloths called, with embroideries, in old villages put on the wall? What are they called and do we have an article on it? Hafspajen (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know even in German for sure. One is "Wandbehang", which goes to Tapestry but isn't exactly the same, another starting point might be Needlepoint, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Embroidery, cross-stitch (sometimes, if cross-stitching is used, anyway), needlepoint, name depends on technique. Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the technique, but how do you call the things hanging on the wall? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sampler (needlework). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The things you know! I confess I didn't believe it until I got to the line: "The word "sampler" is sometimes inaccurately applied to any piece of needlework meant for display." ;) - I just created a composer. I didn't do a thing, Belle did the translation, but I turned the link to blue, so by the unfathomable wisdom of our arbitrators I created it. I would say that the term "create" is also sometimes inaccurately applied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

ps: see also de:Stickmustertuch (but I never heard that term before, - learning) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I only filled in some tiny bits in Hafspajen's translation, so don't go giving me too much credit. (and I noticed I forgot to translate the instruments, but you seem to have got them anyway). Belle (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I should have looked at contribs, not signature alone ;) - Hafspajen, here are many thanks for you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the crown of thorns. Thanks Belle, do you know Swedish? Hafspajen (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Rosengarten Eltville
• 
  for translations
• 
  for dreams
• 
  Rosa Elmshorn (by W. Kordes' Söhne, a truly great rosarian 1951)

Some thorns come with roses, - take some for overcoming disgust, some for translations, some for dreams --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My great-grandmother is Swedish and since she passed 90 she's started pretending she can't understand English any more. Belle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Thought so, you were very sure handed on a couple Swenglish expressions! Hafspajen (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Lovely pictures... You don't happened to look at the little white patch with the rose name? This looks like an Elmshorn, for example. File:Roses Eltville 2014-3.JPG. Hafspajen (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The two close-ups were not in the garden, where they have labels, but one on the bank of the Rhine, the other (pink) close to the boats. That one actually may have a label, I will look on my next visit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Your optimism

What can I say that you haven't already said?

I know! WP would be a MUCH friendlier place if there were more editors with your view of the world!!

Best wishes (and thanks), Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. See above, I have been called a warrior, almost exactly a year ago, - thank goodness I can laugh about that and sing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness for people with your view of the world!!!! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

bzzt, they need to be "admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves." (link from "here" on top of my user page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

... (I can only agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC))

I wish we could clone Gerda! Hey Gerda my new living guitar hero now Paco has passed is this guy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you are happily moving forward! Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Errrr ...

Are you the only sane person editing WP? (I used to think that, on the whole, "most" people were sane ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that I am sane. Are you? Does it matter? ;) (any particular reason for your musing?) (I like to work with many people, most of them called Precious, like yourself, hundreds of them.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear.

Young lady, you are a gem.

In my (undoubtedly biased opinion), you add ENORMOUS positive value to WP. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Farmer Brown

The title is more than just my alt name and alter ego. Not sure if you've seen this, but I figured you would enjoy this little essay I wrote some time back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed it - again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

ps: look above for grandfather, who would have fit nicely (also mentioned in this thread) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting man :) I'm curious if there are other, similar versions of this in other cultures. It seems a pity to only have the one very American version of the parable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I know one remotely similar, but it could also be US first, about a business consultant and his bet with a shepherd. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In one of my favourite operas, Gianni Schichi, the hero is the peasant, who is the witty one to fake a will in favour of a noble family, not forgetting to give himself more than all others, - and his daughter is then "fit" to marry one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gianni Schicchi
by Giacomo Puccini
Will scene in the premiere at the Met
Description	One-act opera, part of Il Trittico
Librettist	Giovacchino Forzano
Language	Italian
Based on	Dante's Divine Comedy
Premiere	14 December 1918 (1918-12-14) Metropolitan Opera

Dennis, Here's my alternative info, thanks for appreciating redundance, - nice because typically the first argument against this is redundance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You're such a smart lady, you humble me regularly with your vast knowledge. I need regular humbling, so you are doing me a favor. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to make me blush? (Examples pictured further up.) - This is not knowledge, it's interest. - Did you look at our FA? What do you think of the image in the upper right corner? Do you recognize that it is supposed to be a navbox? Do you like to navigate away from an article which you just entered? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You ask a lot of questions, young lady. I noticed the info box with the drop down menu, I've seen Eric do that before, I like those for many articles, although I prefer traditional infoboxes for science stuff. I did enjoy theatre in my youth (participating and watching), but opera has always escaped me. It's like they're singing a foreign language... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Be careful, very careful, see above for minefield. - This thing is not a collapsed infobox, as Eric sometimes uses, but see also. This is a navbox, tells you nothing about the article, but navigates away from it. The normal position for a navbox is on the bottom, and guess what? There it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I noticed it looked different, the headers and such. That is different and pretty useful stuff. But will it be confusing to readers expecting a traditional "see also" section but its missing? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

For me, the navbox at the bottom is pretty useful. I am not sure what's useful for you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is useful, but if users are used to seeing a "see also" and they don't, it might not immediately obvious. Consistency. I'm sure I would get voted down, but I'm one that like redundancy in stuff like that, and would probably like both. I'm funny that way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Start over: Did you see the singer (where Eric helped)? What would you think if you came to a singer article, and instead of telling you when he was born and where he studied, you would get a navigation to other singers who studied with the same teacher, and not a picture of the singer, but of the teacher. ?? (And forgive me: I have no idea how "see also" comes into play.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the idea is interesting, again, kind of like a "see also" feature simply because they are tangentially related. I'm not sure about the example you use here (most singers that have articles here didn't study with someone, so consistency is a problem), but I'm intrigued by the idea in general. It isn't very "wikipedia", but it seems to be very "encyclopedia". I do like the idea of a nav box on an opera that links all the other operas from the same composer. That could be true with any musician, for example. Not prepared to have a final opinion, but the idea is very interesting. I can see that in some kinds of articles, it would be a huge improvement, I'm just not smart enough to know what all types of articles off the top of my head. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we agree more than it looks. I am all for a navbox of all (or at least the notable) operas/works of a composer, but please where a navbox belongs: at the bottom. Look at Gianni Schicchi: it's at the bottom, {{Giacomo Puccini}} - Many composers have one. - The other navbox on top - which was there before - can't be as well formatted, - horizontal is better for a presentation of groups. I chose the (hypothetical) example to show how little sense it makes to me, to showcase not the topic of the article (opera/singer), but instead something secondary (composer/teacher). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Peace music

Look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have in the meantime combined the content of the two original Infoboxes "String Quintet" and "Intermezzo". I am not very happy with result.--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it looks confusing, with so many data different, - I would restore the former version and argue on the article talk page if needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have put on the comment page of String Quintet and Nikkimaria's talk page that we were not very happy with the combined infobox and that I was intended to restore the original infoboxes. Some time later I have restored them. There is in the meantime no reaction from Nikkimaria and the restored the infobox for "Intermezzo" is still present (hopefully definitively!). Have a fine evening! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI: In the meantime I have been thanked for it by Moxy. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Look for Moxy (or "shout the loudest") here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw my name - got to love the ping thing. I still feel the same way as then....that is let the main editors decide the content and layout preferred. Don't let Wikiproject members bully you around - this POV is policy as per WP:Advice pages. All that is needed is a talk about the merit and disadvantages. In this case the second box is nice but does look a bit out of place. But that said I would respect the choice of the main contributors to have it there if they wish since there is no policy broken... as in not misleading, no OR etc.. No need to cause conflict for no reason - best the content editor move on to a new article - not wasting time trying to defend there valid contributions. To be honest I generally stay away for this problem now - as in dont edit classical music article much. I do read lots of them and fix refs from time to time. On a side note I just finished Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and would love Nikki or Gerda Arendt to look it over perhaps a nice copy edit as you both know my grammar skills are lacking. Fuhghettaboutit has done a great job copyeditng behind me but would love a third set of eyes. -- Moxy (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over, Moxy, same sound thinking as ever! - Main editor, what do you think of splitting the four in three and one, and have extra articles on the extra movements in the string pieces? (as Nikkimaria forked BWV 120a off BWV 120, and several others, and therefore several Bach cantata articles don't have an infobox) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Beste Gerda,

Thank you for your revert of Psalm 146 (Bruckner). See the discussion I had with Nikkimaria. I found her argumentation for removing the text dull.

Furthermore, we and she are apparently not on the same wave length! I restored dates of publication with ref of the Gesamtausgabe and she continues to say that it is still not substantiated... I also saw your discussion about the Infobox of Symphony No. 8... I will stop any discussion with her.

Guten Abend, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored the text without seeing your discussion. (I saw it later.) Two pieces of advice: 1) You gave the ref Gesamtausgabe in your discussion, but is it in the article, as an inline citation? (formality, formality) 2) Don't discuss "with her", discuss content on the article talk pages with whoever is interested, - please. Did you know that I mentioned Bruckner's symphonies a lot last year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of a navbox Anton Bruckner, comparable to template:Giuseppe Verdi, all in one, instead of four small ones that don't know of each other? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact I added the ref Gesamtausgabe in the article as an inline citation, she persisted to say that it was still not substantiated. The reason that I definitely will no more discuss with her... Beste Grüße, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Try to forget then, move forward: how about the template question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The examples of the Magnificat, Psalms 114 and 146 are quite unique, because they were first recorded in 1971 (according to van Zwol), 1984 and 1987, using scores prepared especially for these performances, long before there were issued in the Gesamtausgabe by Paul Hawkshaw in 1996.

For the Magnificat a score was prepare by Carragan. You find a copy of this score on Jonn Berky's site. After the issue in the Gesamtausgabe two recordings have been issued: in 1997 by Farnberger with the St. Florianer Sängerknaben and in 2011 by Thomas Kerbl (Linzer Brucknerfest).

For Psalm 114 a score based on Bruckner's manuscript has also made (by Robert Simpson?). No "faithful" recording of Psalm 114 (i.e., in accordance with the official score) has been issued after the issue of the Gesamtausgabe.

For Psalm 146, a performance by Riedelbauch (28 November 1971) using a copy of Bruckner's manuscript had been issued in c. 1973. Another performance occurred in Vienna by Heinz Wallberg with the Niederosterreichische Tonkuenstler Orchestra on 10 November 1991, of which a recording is put in the Bruckner Archive. In 1995 a performance by Leon Botstein, which used the score prepared by Hawkshawn for the Gesamtausgabe, has been recorded and also put in the Bruckner Archive. John Berky has provided me with a copy of it. The recording, which has not been commercially issued, is unfortunately not of very high quality.

Make it sense that I put this info somewhere else: comment page of Bruckner or by each work, respectively? Let me please know it.

The template "Verdi" is for sure interesting, but I do not know whether I would apply for Bruckner, because of his high number of smaller religious and secular works. See List of compositions by Anton Bruckner.

At the end of this week we leave for a 2-week holiday in the French Alps. In the meantime I will not have much time to devote to Wikipedia, because there is still much left to do in the house and the garden... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't wait and started {{Anton Bruckner}}. I think it's not too large (we had a proposal for Mozart, you can imagine ...), and let readers see the more unusual composition better. No rush, enjoy your vacation. When you return, you could start something on the recording and publishing history of Bruckner's works, it sounds interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"My current and future approach to conflict is and will be moderated by my understanding of the value of reasoned discussion where possible, and formal dispute-resolution processes where necessary" - guess who wrote that? - I found it here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Even in English, I often get "i before e except after c" wrong. Fortunately the spell-checker is there to help me. But German is a lost cause for me. I would never notice the problem, and my spell checker says it is all spelled wrong. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

ei vs. ie is hopeless for spell-checker, because we have sie and sei, Stiel and steil, Lied and Leid. But we don't have Kreig ;) - The problem I see, more generally, is: what do we do when a "reliable source" is wrong? In this case, the title page of the book shows that the title is misspelled. In a recent article, a source said that the hymn was by Martin Luther. Wrong. Yes, he wrote one that starts similarly, but this was a different one. When I noticed, I changed it, but wait for someone to say that I got the source wrong, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Google Books metadata is often wrong. E.g. Die deutschen Juden und der Kreig 1729. 1729? I came across a great example the other day with Ogura, Takeshi (1997-11-21). Dynamic Aspects Of Natural Products Chemistry. CRC Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-90-5702-209-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Somehow a chapter called The Louvre and its public persona, 1848-52 by Gabriel P. Weisberg has found its way into the scanned version of this book on chemistry. I always give a url so someone checking can see what I saw, even if the attribution is wrong.

And yes, apparently reliable sources often have errors of fact. Authors make mistakes, and publishers are often slack on checking facts in works by well qualified authors. If I find two sources that contradict each other, I often pick the one that seems right, but add a footnote saying what the other sources say. See Canadian Historical Dinner Service. A bit of original research maybe, but I think acceptable in a footnote. It may help prevent the error being put back in. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, not just change but point out the other version, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the sapphire. I really appreciate the positive feedback. I had forgotten about Fire pot. That was an early essay and had far too few sources. Still, it was amusing to write it. Thank you again. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Philippe Capdenat

Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you Gerda Arendt for taking your time to thank editors for what they do to help Wikipedia. You are a very kind Wikipedia editor. Robert4565 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)