Talk:Clavia

Images

I don't see the point in having images of bad quality, that are so shaky that you can't see any detail. IMO we can remove images like that. Clavia has loads of products, there are tons of images available, and in fact the article has too many images already. There is no reason we can't have good quality images instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Below is a message [1] from User:OpenFuture. I quoted it to here to avoid the dispersion of the discussion. --Clusternote (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

“ Why don't *you* search for a better image? You apparently feel there has to be images of Nord Racks. I don't think it's necessary at all. So reasonable *you* should search for better images? Are you incapable of this, somehow? I'm working to improve these articles, all you do is complain and revert. I'm not going to let these crap images stay, so if you want images of the Nord Racks, find better ones. I have better things to do. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC) ”

Hi, User:OpenFuture.

Probably you didn't yet know the facts, over the half of synthesizer images under Category:synthesizers including Category:Clavia DMI on Wikimedia Commons are my uploads. In other words, almost half of synthesizer image on English Wikpedia are maintained by me. (Note: most of them are transferred from flickrs (under CC license), and several are derivation by me)

However already I almost tired to do it because most users are not cooperative, and even though several user tends to cause many troubles without notable contributions. If you want to upload new images on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons, your welcome! I'm expecting your fresh images are uploaded on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I figured it was you because of your silly reaction. I don't see how it changes anything. The images are crap images, fuzzy and blurry to the point of not adding any information. It certainly is not worthy of an encyclopedia. It's nice that you do this work, but perhaps you should try to restrict it to having images of usable quality? I don't see the point in uploading images to Wikipedia that are so blurry that you can't use them in an Encyclopedia.

Just as you are doing a big job and putting down a lot of energy of finding images and uploading them, I'm currently doing a big job in trying to improve the standard of the Clavia articles here. You hindering this by reverting improvements, but because it was you who added the pictures, and you therefore feel ownership. I'm asking you now to take the bigger picture and try to improve the quality of the article, instead of just cramming as many pictures as possible into the article regardless of the usefulness or quality of those pictures. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just search image yourself and upload it! --Clusternote (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The images are of low quality and does not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. They are also not needed in this article, which currently have way to many images anyhow. Hence, they should be removed. If you absolutely *must* have pictures of Nord Racks in this article, why don't you search for them? What gives you some sort of right to demand that other people do all the work? I'm trying to make this article into something of decent quality. Why don't you help instead of trying to stop me? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just search image yourself because you said it is easy thing. --Clusternote (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I said no such thing. You however are claiming that I can "just search". If so, then why don't you? The fact that you refuse to find better quality pictures is in fact an indication that it maybe isn't easy, and that you in fact know this, because you have tried, and you are just trying to waste more of my time.

You are now playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That is disruptive behavior, and can lead to a block. I'm running out of WP:AGF with you. Please engage in constructive discussion instead of disruption.

1. The images are of low quality and does not belong on Wikipedia.

2. They are also not needed in this article, which currently have way to many images anyhow.

3. If you absolutely want pictures of Nord Racks in this article, please find some good quality pictures that can be uploaded to Wikipedia and used.

4. Until you do so, the non-encyclopedic images should be removed, as they are not contributing to the quality of the article. It would be a good display of good faith and constructive behavior from you if you removed them. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to exhibit only high-quality images. Clavia Nord Lead, the 1st model of Nord series is historically important model for Clavia DMI, however, that image is not exist with CC-license. As the second better way, Clavia Nord Rack is shown on "Discontinued products" section. If you didn't agree with quality of image, please try to search or request the image you want. That's all. --Clusternote (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If the image is important, and there is no high quality image, then obviously a low-quality image will have to do out of necessity. This is not the case here. The images of the racks are not necessary for the article, and are in fact of so low quality that they don't add anything to the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably you don't know, "Clavia Nord Lead" & its rack version, "Clavia Nord Rack "is one of the first commercial product series of Virtual <de;>Acoustic Analog synthesizer, and as a result, it is very important model in the whole history of synthesizer. Also change of layout color (dark purple on red for ver.1, light purple on red for ver.2/2x, and dark gray on red for ver.3) is important visual hint to distinguish version of each models (1, 2/2x, or 3). That's why all three photographs (Nord Rack/Nord Lead 2x/Nord Lead 3) are necessary on article. --Clusternote (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of how important the Nord Lead was. And it wasn't virtual acoustic, it was virtual analog. However, the rack model is not as an classic product, and the Nord Rack 2X is certainly not a particularly notable product. And the picture of the Nord Rack is so blurry that it really doesn't tell you anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my typo. I was also considering AN1x, so I just typo it.

By the way, why do you think that Clavia Nord Rack is not the classic ? It was rack version of Clavia Nord Lead using same engine/same knob layouts. Therefore I use that image as alternative. --Clusternote (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The rack versions are not iconic in the same way as the keyboard versions. They have never been as popular. When people think about the pioneering virtual analog synth, they think about the Nord Lead, not the Nord Rack. As such, this article doesn't need a picture of the Nord Rack. Now, the Nord Lead article definitely could use one. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Still you seem not understand the difference of versions. Version 1 (Nord Lead/Nord Rack) is historically important version on whole history of synthesizer, as one of the earliest Virtual Analog synthesizer. Also version 2 (Nord Lead 2/Nord Rack 2) may be popular, however, it is not the exact version on which breakthrough was occurred. --Clusternote (talk)

This is self-evident. I'm not sure what in my above answer that is unclear. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained the importance of the Clavia Nord Lead version1, and also explained that photos of Clavia Nord Rack version1 is its substitute. Your repetitive long discussion is possibly intended disruption of discussion, and your selfish claim is not be accepted. --Clusternote (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a substitute. And your ridiculous accusations and personal attacks are *not* doing you any favors. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulation! I think that your new upload image File:Nordlead.jpg (via Clavia DMI) is appropriate for the article. --Clusternote (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded images were deleted due to lack of license

OpenFuture, after then, your upload images were deleted due to lack of WP:OTRS. If you still think the search of free or CC "Nord Lead" image is easy thing as you said, I expect your re-upload of these with proper licenses. best, --Clusternote (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again: I never said any such thing. I have no idea why you are trying to make this into some sort of personal fight by making things up. It's extremely destructive. I did upload them with "the proper license" but that needs a confirmation email from Clavia. Apparently they never sent it despite promising to, and I forgot to follow up on it. I'll contact them about that and see if I can work something out. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this sub-thread is just a confirmation of current status of these images. I only said that you should better to search next image, if you still think Nord Lead (rev.1) image is essential and easy to search (with proper license). Note: I know it is hard thing, thus, I have no plan to upload it. best, --Clusternote (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For the third (at least) time: I never said, implied or otherwise indicated it was easy. The purpose of this subthread is completely clear: You want to say "Haha I told you so" to the whoever said it was easy. Well, stop telling me, because I didn't say it. OK? Are we clear on this? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you can share the difficulties to get free or CC images. --Clusternote (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop the reverting war

User:OpenFuture, you should stop reverting war immediately. I already advice you to search improved image you want[2], however you ignore my advice and immediately revert the edit [3]. It is not the constructive way of edit. --Clusternote (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not revert warring. I have done loads of edits to improve the quality of this article. You are not contributing beyond reverting my improvements. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The evidence of your reversion is here: [4]

You just ignore my message to search image you want: [5]

--Clusternote (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you putting messages to me in the code in the article in the first place? What you *should* have done is to start a discussion in the talk page. But instead, you just revert war. And then you come with various excuses. This changes nothing: The images are of low quality and does not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. They are also not needed in this article, which currently have way to many images anyhow. Hence, they should be removed. If you absolutely *must* have pictures of Nord Racks in this article, why don't you search for them? What gives you some sort of right to demand that other people do all the work? I'm trying to make this article into something of decent quality. Why don't you help instead of trying to stop me? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your immediate reversion [6] (deletion of image) is not rationalized by your discussion at all. You should start discuss before immediately revert my edit. --Clusternote (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who did a reversion here, and then and since refuse to discuss it. You did not follow WP:BRD. And now you are also, in direct contradiction to your wasting administrator time on AN/I, dispersing the discussion. I warned you about edit warring in one place, and started a discussion in another, above. You then started this thord place, and then a fourth on AN/I. This is nothing but pure disruptive behavior from your side. I am running out of [WP:AGF]] since you at every step you do insist in proving that you aren't interested in being constructive about this. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The needs of reporting to administrator was just occurred by your behavior of dispersion of discussion. It is just your problem, and it is improper theme on this page. --Clusternote (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who are dispersing the discussion, not me, as the administrator whose time you wasted, pointed out. As evidenced below, it is possible to have a constructive discussion with you. I suggest you concentrate on that. You were wrong in making an AN/I, and wrong in accusing me of edit warring. Just drop the WP:STICK, that horse is dead. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop lying. You are just a person who are dispersing the discussion (see evidence 2 for details). I've first consulted to Help Desk about how to get advice/arbitration of administrator (evidence 1: [7]), and following the answer, I've consulted just your dispersing the discussion (evidence 2: [8]). That consultation is not related to the theme of discussion on this page at all. --Clusternote (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Images proposal

I would like the images in this article to make sense for the sections they are in.

In the company section, I think an image of the ddrum 1 rack would be nice, if we can find one. The original DP1 would be even better, but I think it is unlikely that we can find a free image of decent quality there. If none of these can be found, any ddrum set would do. I also think a closeup of the signature pitch-stick and modulation wheel would work well there.

In the products section, a couple of their biggest current products would make sense, say a Nord Lead 2x and maybe a Nord Electro 3?

In the discontinued section, some landmark old products would be nice, say an original Nord Lead, a Nord Modular (original or G2) and Nord C1?

At the bottom of the page a gallery of other products could be OK, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a nice proposal! However, enough quality picture of several models needed on proposal does not necessarily exist on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons.

As the next best plan, it may be good to notify "the request of images" to the entire user of Wikipedia. (Note: I'm forgot the proper name of such request page, but probably exist in somewhere) --Clusternote (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that there was a request page, even. That might be an option. I'll look into images soon, I think the text is still more important. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I called Clavia and received permission to use their press images. This does not really solve the problem, since the site doesn't contain any good press images of many of the early products, in particular the Nord Lead, but press images of older products might be available from other places. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's great! Then, probably you need to request w:commons:COM:OTRS (or WP:OTRS on Wikipedia) to the Clavia DMI. OTRS is a pre-formatted formal license-agreement mail needed in the case. best, --Clusternote (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do! --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Advertising content on article

Current image layouts on Clavia looks like a promotion of Nord Drum (released in March 2012) and its precedent, ddrum by Clavia (sold in 2005). However, Wikipedia is not the place for the advertisement of specific products.

Improvement based on WP:NPOV is highly required. --23:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter balderdash. First of all, the ddrum is not in any way a precedent to the Nord Drum. They are completely different products that bear no relation to each other. Secondly, the article can't be written as promotion of the Nord Drum, as the only mention of it is one line in the list of products. Thirdly, ddrums are mentioned with a couple of sentences (five, including the one mentioning that the brand has been sold) in the company section, as that was the company's only product for the first ten years, and hence a very significant product for the company. Everything the article says about ddrums are sourced. The text is not very advertisey, IMO. So stop this utter nonsense and self-revert by removing the idiotic tag you now added back for absolutely no reason. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you like to argue in the edit summaries, I have to copy your arguments here:

"Ddrum is not the current Clavia's product, however the image layout on page mislead it." - I don't agree that it is misleading. It is clearly under the Company heading, not under Products. Also, any of these ddrum 1's on the picture you would buy *are* Clavias products, since they stopped manufacturing them way before they sold the ddrum brand. The location of it under the company heading is something you agreed to below. Also, that has *nothing* to do with what your edit did, namely add a completely false advert-tag.

" Don't delete Advert tag without any improvement; " - As per above, that advert tag is complete and utter nonsense, and do not belong on the article. Please remove it. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, the image of Ddrum by Clavia should be moved to section #Discontinued products to avoid looks like an advertisement/promotion of similar product, Nord Drum.

For a "Company" section of article of Clavia DMI, images of more popular product such like a Nord Lead, Nord Lead 2 or more recent products are appropriated. --Clusternote (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Again you just repeat what you already said, although I explained above why it is wrong. Do you even read what I write? Is what I write somehow confusing or hard to understand? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion is not constructive at all. Always you repeatedly claim your opinion only, and completely ignore other user's opinion (in the discussion. also I know that you actually consider it). It is not civil manner discussion, and also you should stop the personal attacking. --Clusternote (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm* --OpenFuture (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Clavia to Nord anme change proposal

I propose a name change from "Clavia" to "Nord". Reason? Clavia is the parent complant and Nord is the brand. Nobody says, ooh i fancy a "Whitbread" do they? they say ohh, i fancy a "Costa" though (Whitbread being the parent company). Your thoughts below please.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)