Jump to content

User talk:GermanJoe/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Image check

Hey Joe, I know that you've already done an image review on Master of Puppets on the previous FAC, but the coordinator wants another one at the current FAC. No image or sample has been added since the last time, but can you do another check for formal purposes?--Retrohead (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Retrohead:, I left a short check notice in the nomination for clarity - should be OK as nothing has changed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Unintended removal of ref

Hi there. You recently made this edit to remove a blacklisted link. This is acceptable in and of itself, but it has had the unintended consequence of deleting a valid ref with four citations to it. Each citation was supporting one or more facts stated in each sentence (each sentence has multiple citations because they contain facts drawn from multiple sources, none of which contain all the facts).

Please be more careful when deleting such links, or at the very least ensure that facts supported by citations to deleted refs receive a new citation to support the claim. Thanks. Mindmatrix 13:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Mindmatrix:, thank you for the notice and sorry for my mistake. I generally check this for single refs and named refs, but did not see, that the cite was connected to some harvard citations - totally my bad. In this specific case the first 2 uses seem to be covered by multiple references, the 3rd usage sounds relatively uncontroversial (but I can search for a new ref, if needed). As you have contributed to this article in the past, would you agree to simply remove the 3 reference instances? GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As a better solution (imo) I have restored the cite as offline source - with the title and "change.org" as information any interested editor can reach the petition site and verify the content. GermanJoe (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I found a bunch of potential replacement refs when I checked your edit; I'll read them sometime in the next few days. If any are viable, I'll update the article, otherwise I'll leave the changes you made. Mindmatrix 14:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi German Joe, I see that you've been working on copyright issues on Kenneth Morse's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Morse . All of the content on Ken Morse's ESADE biography page was written by Ken, and provided to ESADE by Ken himself, so the copyright for that source material actually belongs to Ken (and not to ESADE), so there are not actually any copyright violations. Thanks for your work trying to improve the page. I'm not fluent in making complex changes to Wikipedia pages, so it would be great if you could help get that content back on there. Best wishes, Entrepreneur2014 Entrepreneur2014 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Entrepreneur2014:, thank you for the information. Such a copyright situation would have to be verified - see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The process may seem bureaucratic, but is set up to protect authors' and artists' copyright. Regardless of this copyright question, biographical articles should be primarily based on independent third-party sources, not on Mr. Morse's own information. See WP:Autobiography and WP:SPS for some related information. The best course of action (imo) would be to find independent articles in journals or newspapers, which cover the removed information and phrase them in your own words. Just incase you are connected to Mr. Morse, please read our "Conflict of interest" guideline at WP:COI. COI editors are discouraged from editing such articles, but you could still post suggestions for improvements on the article's talkpage in this case. I hope this information helps, please feel free to ask again if you have further questions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi GermanJoe, thanks for this quick response! I do know Ken but I don't have any plans to edit the page or be involved with it. (Although a while back before I knew about the COI policy, I made some updates.) But, someone who knows I'm close with Ken let me know about the copyright situation, and so I figured I'd try and help out. At this point, I guess it's complicated, because the fact that Ken owns the copyright to the material means that it's okay on the copyright issue, but not ideal on the Autobiography issue. But removing that content really makes the Kenneth Morse entry much less useful for the public. Where to from here? There is a huge amount of press about Ken on the Internet... Perhaps you know someone without a COI and an interested in entrepreneurship education that would be interested in repairing the page with third-party info? Curious to hear your feedback... Best, Entrepreneur2014 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Entrepreneur2014:, not really sure about the best place to request this, as you would want someone interested in this kind of articles (myself, I am mostly looking for COI, copyright and other structural problems in articles). A post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies may raise some interest, but in an all-volunteer project there is no guarantee for that of course. Another option (even if you don't want to get involved too deeply): if you know 2-3 good independent articles about Mr. Morse, just post their links on Talk:Kenneth Morse as ressources for future work on the article. By the way, the removed ESADE information is still linked in the "External links" section, so interested readers can look up more details of Mr. Morse's career, until the article itself gets expanded. GermanJoe (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Some help needed

Hi @GermanJoe:, sorry but I need a little help with Oberrothenbach again. I've been looking all over the internet for the village's Coat of Arms and translation into Upper Sorbian and Czech but I can't find anything. Can you please help? I added a cleanup template for it. Thanks.--Sιgε |д･) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Sigehelmus:, a Google image search found [[1]], where the green/white coat of arms in the lower half of the logo may be the coat of arms for Oberrothenbach. But we can't take such information from a private website, we would need some additional verification for this theory. Unfortunately I can't really help you with the other questions, I am not from Saxony and know nothing about possible Sorbian or Czech names :/. But you don't have to include all details at once, maybe someone else living in that German region comes along and will help some day. Another option, if you absolutely want to add such details now, would be to search for the contact mail info of Zwickau's mayoral office and ask them for assistance (most larger towns have a tourist or citizen office, where such questions are handled). Oberrothenbach itself will likely be too small for such a service. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. You know what's pretty interesting is that badge refers to the village as a Gemeinde instead of a Stadtteil of Zwickau which I was told by another user. I reverse image searched and found nothing like that image. This is odd. Should I just give up on the article and move on since the village is not so relevant anymore?--Sιgε |д･) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) @GermanJoe:
Probably, some basic information is in the article now and anyone interested can chime in and add further details. It's easier to work on topics with more publicity of course :). Regarding "Gemeinde" or not "Gemeinde": as far as I understood the situation, the village is both (sort of). It is incorporated into Zwickau, but has retained a few minor local administrative features. The German article has more details about that special legal situation - but it would be too confusing, and too detailed, to add this in an English-language article. GermanJoe (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, I was really trying to create an article that could at least reach above Stub-class. Thank you for your help so far. At least I learned a small bit of German stuff along the way and practiced my skills. I'm not giving up but I guess I'll just tweak the minor things. Thank you.--Sιgε |д･) 19:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Genesis Mining

(replying here to give DGG further spacetime.) Yeah, your phrasing was proper, GermanJoe. I too employ somewhat-idiosyncratic English, so you are not alone. And yes, it was the /sigh that caused me to violate the DGG-rule about letting DGG respond first.  :-)     Anyways, my main point in posting over there was to mention the other sources, suggesting caution with the SPA was only a secondary worry. After some AfD's of bitcoin-related articles, I've been delving into the depths of that mini-industry; the additional sources I dug up were buried in the trade-rags. Interestingly enough, Genesis Mining wasn't yet listed on "my" list of blockchain-orgs, but does seem to be wiki-notable, even by an extremely strict WP:NSOFT essay-standard that coalesces all bursts-of-coverage into a singular unit, and prolly also the hypothetical WP:TRADERAG standard which ignores the various bitcoin-specific zines.

  Now, since the first edit of the SPA was effectively a complete article, right in mainspace (over top of a redirect thus autoconfirmed was not required) perhaps this SPA has had wikipedia experience in the past? Or maybe it is a case of copyvio. I will also note that Draft:Genesis Mining currently exists, listing Economist and BusinessInsider (the latter of which the mainspace article lacks). I will further-further note that *that* specific draftspace article was created September 4th by User:1Wiki8 aka the user with the really long cryptographically-strong name, who I became somewhat familiar with after seeing them at one of the AfDs for bitcoin-articles. 1Wiki8 is a recent username-change (all accounts properly linked I believe), but they've been on the 'pedia off and on since 2005, and are thus unlikely to be a bad apple, though 1Wiki8-fka-Eclisped *was* doing some-paid-some-volunteer-editing work in 2013, before taking a long wiki-break, I recently learned. Whether that has any import or not, I do not know. 1Wiki8 started Draft:Genesis_Mining a few days after you had A7'd the mainspace article, which was September 1st according to your CSD log. 1Wiki8 also created the redirect, from Genesis Mining to the List of bitcoin companies article (not yet under WP:CSC restrictions).

  Anyways, I agree with your request that the deleted-version of the User_talk:FedHarris89-created Genesis-Mining-article needs to be userfied, and that some SPI work to sort out who all the people are in the various edit-histories, ought to be done. I'm happy to help if I can, but I've never filed one of those so you'll have to bear with an amateur if you accept my 'help'.  ;-)     I will be very curious to know whether or not some of the orangemoody IPs are back in action. I also think that Genesis Mining is a small enough firm, and passes WP:42 by a large enough margin, that it makes sense for some actually good-faith wikipedian to contact them, preferably on-wiki via usertalk, and explain the CSD. Mayhap the SPA who recently re-created the article, is one of the victim-good-apples? Time will tell. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@75.108.94.227: I'll just add a few points of pure opinion for now, while we wait for DGG ;). Your description of "mini-industry" is quite fitting, and being "mini" raises additional problems for the sourcing of those articles (in my experience at least). As mainstream media rarely cover those topics, such articles often use more branche-internal sources, which tend to hype their own branche to a degree - even if they are usually quite reliable for common facts. A related problem are small new sites for evolving markets, that specialize on more or less reliable reviews and announcements to partake in the new topic's rising popularity, or worse in hidden marketing for those companies. A third aspect is obviously COI-editing: such editors have a vital interest in raising as much publicity as possible and often pick the most favorable over the more reliable sources. Of course it's not totally impossible to source such an article about a relatively new company or its products (we have enough articles in such areas to show that), but considering this background it seems to be a lot more difficult than "mainstream" topics. GermanJoe (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup, you are correct. There is a large degree of what DGG sometimes calls WP:NOTSTARTUP in the bitcoin-related-articles. This particular bitcoin-topic of Genesis Mining falls on the upward-side of the wiki-notability bar, but of course, that doesn't mean that sticking to NPOV will be easy, when it comes to article content. And as you point out, it doesn't mean that COI-encumbrance will disappear ... quite the opposite, often enough. Which is another ongoing discussion-can-of-worms, which erupted at AfD one day. And is now permanently solved! Oh... no, and is now still contentious.  :-)
  p.s. you cannot {{ping}} anons due to purposefully-imposed-technical-limits, but you can {{talkback}} to joggle my elbow, if I don't remember to circle back promptly. Also, I "invented" this thing, which is a bit faster than manual {{talkback}} maybe... [2] ... though I'm still working on getting that anonping link to preload a properly-formatted talkback-template, since the Template:edit thing doesn't seem to permit hardcoding the |preload= param, instead requiring a wikilink-title. On the upside, since pings don't work you don't have to bother with typing out the full dotted-quad, you can just refer to me as 75.108 or 75108 or hey-you.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now deleted it and protected as a probably orangemoody re-creation. Further explanation here. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joe

Thanks for checking up on the link I edited, but I have double checked, and the information that is referenced is stated as fact by a large Telecoms company on the link I provided. So I believe it to be correct.

Further to that, the link you left in there is broken, and although the PDF is still available for download I think there is very good reason as to why it is no longer a live link.

I would like to make valuable edits to Wiki, and I think this is 100% a good edit, can we please revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Golfies:, blog posts are usually not acceptable as reliable sources (see WP:RS). We have no way of verifying, that the author "steve" is an acknowledged expert for the topic. Secondly, information on company websites with a promotional interest in the topic are generally discouraged, unless the company is talking about itself (and even then such sourcing is limited to uncontroversial information). If you want to help fixing dead links, please look for archives of the broken links (via Internet Archive for example) or try to find references from independent sources (like newspapers, journals, books, or truely independent websites with expert reviews and articles). GermanJoe (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello @GermanJoe:, thanks for the tips. The source referenced isnt a "blog" it just has a blog section. The author is listed as a verified spokesperson for the Telecoms industry and as such seems pretty reliable for me. Furthermore this cant be a promotional opportunity due to the inherent nature of the information. Lastly, its just clearly a better source, and I think there is a really good reason that pdf is no longer live. Have you read it? The only information its in reference to is where DECT is used. The rest of the PDF has malicious information about hacking a DECT system. The new source only has the information of where DECT can be used, and other info on DECT, and nothing controversial. Thanks
Hello @Golfies:, I already explained, why this "trusted source" (which was just posted a few hours ago) is not acceptable. Such attempts to raise traffic to a website are plain obvious (and not very original). If such links are added again, I'll report them to an administrator and the domain will most likely get blacklisted. Please stop adding such links. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello @GermanJoe: I read what you said but I did not agree with all of it. Explain yourself further before taking control. I am happy to move on to try and edit another piece of wiki, but I cannot just leave this when the facts I stated are true and you have not addressed them. Regardless of where the "link" goes, you cannot keep the old link there - Have you read the information contained within the PDF that has been removed?
@Golfies:, I have added a functional archive of the PDF, so the old source is accessible again and the problem is solved. Your suggested new source is not suitable per WP:RS. Facts need to be verified by an acknowledged expert in a reliable neutral source, not by your or my personal knowledge - that's a basic requirement for all Wikipedia references. And I really think, that I have explained that in enough detail now. The linked guidelines have additional information. If you still disagree, feel free to ask for a second opinion from other experienced editors or administrators. GermanJoe (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello @GermanJoe:, I have reviewed this. I am greatly concerned. I stated the only three facts referenced where on that page I referenced (not that I care what is referenced, I just saw a reliable source (You can't say it Isn't because they are a retailer. BT are a British Telecoms provider, you wouldn't dispute their knowledge of copper wires would you?) - Furthermore I asked you to read the document you have now managed to download and re reference - Do you not see why this should not be linked to? The information referenced is there, fantastic, but so is other information which should not be linked to and is strictly against wikipedia ToS.

What makes you think you know enough about that industry to put that back? If you disagreed with my suggestion (which was totally valid) you should have found another link. You are A) Hurting wikipedia by making edits for the sake of it B) Discouraging new users from contributing and C) Aliening retailers in general regardless of reasons linked to. Big companies are linked to from Wiki loads - because they are experts in their fields. Examples being Dell, Intel, Apple, Walmart, BT, Panasonic, Mitel, Plantronics and thousands of others.

Though I agree businesses should not use Wiki as a means of promo, it doesn't stop wiki users linking to valid reputable sources, as such with BT. For a bad example look up "copper wires" a company called mr telco are quoted as a source and they are a small retailer, likely with an interest in that.

The source I spent time finding are a huge company, possibly one of the biggest, yet you think its okay to remove a link based on the fact that they are actually in the industry that is linked to? That my friend is not fair on wikipedia or its readers, and the fact you have linked to malicious content which is possibly even illegal, but definitely against a whole host of rules shows to me you did not read the source yourself to find out if it was a reliable source or not, and you think thats a more verified source than a huge telecoms company who is clearly an expert on that particular field. Look them up, they are one of the main distributors of DECT, and this to you counts for nothing?

I cannot stand by and let you change sources when you have no idea yourself about a particular subject, it is simply wrong and goes against everything that wikipedia stands for. It is one of the best resources available today on encyclopaedic knowledge and I would hate to see contributors put off by "power" editors such as yourself.

  1. If you think I made an error, feel free to post your complaint at one of the dispute resolution boards (not here) - as already mentioned above.
  2. But please read through some of Wikipedia's basic guidelines first (i.e. WP:RS, WP:PROMO), before judging the usability of sources.
  3. Spamming (including the addition of "useful" links to promotional sites) is prohibited on Wikipedia.
  4. The original source was perfectly OK and is still available as an archived site.
  5. If you suspect that the original source is "illegal", post your concern about this point at the article's talkpage.
  6. Please refrain from posting on my user talkpage again - unless you want to notify me of a formal dispute resolution thread. GermanJoe (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of Kingdom of Germany

Hi, I noticed you've recently participated in a discussion on the talk page of the above-mentioned article. I'm letting you know I've opened a move request here. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits page

Thank you for the edits regarding the page Sébastien Turbot. I appreciate your help. I used my account to just post the text that was written by a professional writer and state facts only. Please do not hesitate to recommend further changes and edits to ensure that the text is within Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Nandita Vij Tandan (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nandita Vij Tandan, thanks for the notice. I'd still recommend to read the instructions in WP:COI. I am only a volunteer editor myself, so I don't know all details of this guideline, and if or if not they apply in your specific situation. Best to be sure and check this yourself. Wikipedia has also a board at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help, where you could ask for further clarification, if necessary. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to notify in my earlier post: @Nandita Vij Tandan:. GermanJoe (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oberrothenbach

Guten tag, GermanJoe. Can you help me improve my article Oberrothenbach that you've been tweaking? I'm kind of stuck on what content to add or how to reorganize and structure the article, and I'm anxious to add the template seen on the German/Dutch articles for the town. Any ideas, can you help?--Sιgε |д･) 14:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sigehelmus, regarding the infobox I suggest you just copy/paste the infobox from another municipality in Zwickau and change the respective parameters. It's really not necessary to understand all the syntax (I don't), if you use a functional template from another "life" article. About content: I know nothing about Oberrothenbach - aside from the article's information of course :). So it's difficult to recommend, but maybe you could take the last paragraph of "History" (which is actually "Today"), move it into a "Today" section and elaborate a bit more: After the mines closed, have any notable new branches developed? Where do the people work now? You mention events and tourist attractions nearby. Of course the article should not read like a tourist guide, but you could certainly note 1-2 details, if they are a bit more notable within the region. Hope that helps, if you have problems copy/pasting the infobox, please let me know. GermanJoe (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to @Sigehelmus:. GermanJoe (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, I will work it over and find more sources when I have time. This helps a lot, danke. Please feel free to make whatever changes you want, anything helps. I'm still learning especially regarding the syntax of links and references, it drives me crazy haha --Sιgε |д･) 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: Also if you could help link the article to others and help make it look pretty it would be great. Much appreciated --Sιgε |д･) 15:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor update

This note is only delivered to English Wikipedia subscribers of the visual editor's newsletter.

The location of the visual editor's preference has been changed from the "Beta" tab to the "Editing" section of your preferences on this wiki. The setting now says Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta. This aligns en.wiki with almost all the other WMF wikis; it doesn’t mean the visual editor is complete, or that it is no longer “in beta phase” though.

This action has not changed anything else for editors: it still honours editors’ previous choices about having it on or off; logged-out users continue to only have access to wikitext; the “Edit” tab is still after the “Edit source” one. You can learn more at the visual editor’s talk page.

We don’t expect this to cause any glitches, but in case your account no longer has the settings that you want, please accept our apologies and correct it in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences. Thank you for your attention, Elitre (WMF) -16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Userpage Update

I updated my user page as per Wikipedia terms. Thanks for your suggestions. (Chenthil Vel Murugan 1986 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC))

Thanks and request for further help

Hi @GermanJoe Thanks for all the guidance. I am just getting to grips with the right style and appreciate your guidance. I have created a userspace draft with content for the first section of the page that I am trying to edit. I would appreciate your guidance as to whether this is OK before making another change and having it rejected.

Thanks Shaunlegal (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Shaunlegal:, please let me know when the draft is ready and I'll take a look. The main points in short: 1) Try to avoid any promotional or subjective language. Anything that is not a clear verifiable fact should be removed. 2) Use as many reliable 3rd-party sources as possible (trivial info can be referenced by self-published sources though). The rest is just formatting, and I'll be glad to help with that. GermanJoe (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @GermanJoe:, please see User:Shaunlegal/sandbox/Richard Susskind I have only included the first section of the article as this is the only section that I want to change at present. Is this OK? Thanks Shaunlegal (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks mostly OK (I edited the link to the draft above), but the last sentence "Susskind has more recently furthered his research to cover the professions more generally and his latest book, co-authored with Daniel Susskind, reflects their joint research into the future of the professions" seems a bit vague, and the "future of the professions" part could be phrased a bit more neutral. I don't know the book and can't comment on its content, but could it be summarized with more specific information? "Future of the profession" is a big term, but surely the book contains some notable practical conclusions. If someone reads the article, they would ask "What is this book about?", but the current sentence doesn't really answer this question. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Forgot a @Shaunlegal: to notify. GermanJoe (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @GermanJoe. Thanks. I have made some further changes based on your advice and posted the changes to the live article. If there is anything that you arent happy with, please let me know and I will change further. On a separate but related note, is there any way I can upload images without waiting the 4 days etc to be an autoconfirmed account? Thanks Shaunlegal (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Shaunlegal:, if the image is freely licensed and accessible with a public URL, anyone can upload it for you of course. But otherwise you'll probably need to wait - or ask at WP:help desk, if someone else has a good idea for a quicker solution. GermanJoe (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

AFD discussion for X-Systems

hello , there is an ongoing discussion AFD X-Systems. This is related to Wikiproject Companies so I thought I may indulge you in your opinion on the same. Devopam (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Devopam:, thank you for the notice. Contrary to my spamming of their project talk, I am no WikiProject Companies member ;) - generally more interested in history topics, and general cleanup of formatting, spam and COI-edits. But I have added my 2c at the AfD discussion: the topic has certainly potential for an article, but may be too soon for now. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
hi @GermanJoe: , thank you for taking up time to provide your opinion on my request. Devopam (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

after review by an editor, how can my article be considered as coherent?

Hi Germanjoe, I recently wrote an article on miniwiz. Thanks for proofreading the article and modifying it; I understand you removed all elements that could be considered as an advertisement (which is totally fine for me, I agree Wikipedia should be left as an encyclopaedia). But why is the mention "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (October 2015)" still preceding the article? Anything else I should change on the content to make the article more neutral? Thanks Tombg131 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Tombg131:, thank you for looking over those issues. First things first, if you have a connection to this company or have been employed to write for it, you absolutely need to disclose this "conflict of interest" and read Wikipedia's guideline at WP:COI (if you are not connected with the company, please just ignore that point). Regarding your question, see your last edit as example: statements like "it possess incredible thermal and sound insulating characteristics in addition to an awesome strength to weight ratio." should simply never be added in this manner. See WP:PEACOCK. I realize, you took those phrases from the source, but this source is itself biased as a green design website and is not strong enough to verify such an extraordinary claim (extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources for verification, per our sourcing guidelines). Even if it was a top-quality source like an independent scientific journal or research paper, such subjective terms like "incredible" should still be added as quotes and not in Wikipedia's own voice.
Regarding the advert tag, it's still valid imo. The article focusses too much on the company's achievements and its products' qualities. It should simply describe those features in a neutral, completely uninvolved, and more concise manner. A short description of 2-3 main products is probably fine together with a general summary description of all products, but an extensive discussion about the company's entire product portfolio is not. A similar situation in "projects": 2 of the 3 projects don't even have an independent source - their extensive coverage is undue WP:WEIGHT, and adds to the article's imbalance in favor of the company. Aside from the newly added statement most article content isn't particularly promotional in tone, but the content's presentation and balance is still a problem and would benefit from tweaks by an uninvolved topic expert. It needs a bit more work on those issues. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info. Tried to modify again. reducing the amount of unnecessary + adding references. Can you let me know if it is ok like this? tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombg131 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks better now. I have removed "Services" as an independent section, as 1) most of those services are already mentioned in context of other sections 2) Wikipedia should not contain complete product and services listings 3) most of such services are self-evident for a company in this branche anyway, they don't need explicit mention in a redundant list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Great. Will try to find more sources and references + to upload some pictures too. Thanks a lot germanjoe. Tombg131 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Raeburn page

Hi GermanJoe,

I've added the missing citation to the wiki page of Peter Raeburn - reference no.1 . Could you remove the 'additional citations needed' tag? Also, I looked at the edit you did of the page, and if you are happy that you have removed the promotional fluff could you remove the conflict of interest tab?

Thanks a lot.

Tomfitz92 (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Tomfitz92:, thank you for the notification. However, issues with the article are bigger than just one missing reference, not least due to the editing by possible company representatives in this article. Such editors need to clearly disclose their conflict of interest and follow Wikipedia's WP:COI guideline. Aside from this general point, award information should not be sourced with self-published or affiliated websites - such lists need independent sources to back up those claims (usually from the award organizations' websites or news about the award ceremonies). Another improvement would be to trim the award list down to a sourced overview of the most notable awards in Mr. Raeburn's career. The entire biographical description is lacking references from independent sources as well. All information should ideally be referenced (except trivial "the sky is blue" information). In short: the article needs a lot more work in referencing and cleanup of WP:PEACOCK phrases, and this cleanup should be done by an uninvolved editor. Editors with a "conflict of interest" can suggest improvements at the article's talkpage or work on new article versions in their user space, but are discouraged to edit such articles themselves. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@SwisterTwister: Many thanks - just what I needed after digging through heaps of EL spam ;). GermanJoe (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

CashCashPinoy

Hi German Joe, thank you for the message you sent me - I appreciate it. I will always keep the guidelines on my mind from now on. Regards, Gilbert Bermudez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertbermudez (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration of those guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Supermac's page neutrality

Hey GermanJoe! Good morning and thanks for your message. After reviewing the information given on the article I'm sure the tone is neutral. Still, please would you edit/proofread it to make sure I did not make a mistake? Thanks very much (I hope this is how it is supposed to be done, the messaging). Frenchiefry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchiefry (talk • contribs) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Frenchiefry:, I'll just give you a few general tips, as someone more knowledgeable with the chain could do a better job improving the article:
  • In case you are connected to this company, you should disclose that connection and read the WP:COI guideline for editing.
  • The article's "Advertising", "Sponsorship" and "Charity" sections are very detailed and put a bit too much weight on the company's accomplishments from its own point of view. More content to those sections should be avoided, the information should be summarized as far as possible (I already trimmed it down some).
  • I have added a few "citation needed" tags to the article, where additional sources would be useful.
The article is not totally promotional - compared to other company articles -, but it was certainly biased in favor of the company. GermanJoe (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @GermanJoe, I am @Wavefxsimple. As you knew that I consider to the dead links reference from wiki. I tried to get back the content and post it in a blog platform with the clear format and correct content. I also happy to correct grammar and spelling from suggested articles. It very grateful to me that if you could correct me if I am wrong in this case. When I found a dead link, may I replace it by the same or the original content. Could you guide me on this situation Thanks and best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavefxsimple (talk • contribs)

I have moved your question to a new section, just a technical fix for clarity. Usually new topics or questions are started with a new section at the bottom of talk pages. GermanJoe (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Wavefxsimple:, I have posted a standard message with some links to basic information on your talkpage. Regarding your question: in general blogs are not considered to be reliable source (see WP:RS for the basic guideline about what is and is not a usable source on Wikipedia) and should not be used, although there are some exceptions. If you see a dead link, a good way to fix it would be to find a replacement for the original link or an archived page for the dead URL on sites like Internet Archive. Alternately you could try to search for more recent reliable sources, as the content of some of those dead links would be outdated by now anyway. In that case it would be best to update the article content and the verifying source for the more actual information. As a basic rule: links to promotional sites or unreliable sources should be generally avoided. When you are unsure about the reliability of a source for any given information, you could try asking on the article's talkpage or at WP:RSN (as a last resort for difficult cases). I hope, that information is helpful for you - please feel free to ask, if you have further questions. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello @GermanJoe:, That's pretty clear to me, thanks for the hint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavefxsimple (talk • contribs)

Lipman

Excuse me, but I do not know the man. Statements were selected from work, and cited as correct form in WPPEACOCK, and as in countless other articles--and god knows, I've read them. See the WPPEACOCK example. I appreciate your work, but What on Earth? I'm not him. I don't know him. In any event, appreciate your efforts on my contribution, and a good cup of Earl Grey to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.55.217.6 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, please keep the discussion about this article to the article's talkpage Talk:Alan Lipman, so other interested editors can follow it more easily. I have the article watchlisted and will get notified automatically about changes and new discussions. I'll check the latest situation and comment on article talk with further thoughts. Thank you and best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

GermanJoe, yes the logo is the school's official one. As a new Wikipedia user, I'd need help uploaded it directly to English Wikipedia and use it as a "fair use" logo. If it helps the image's source is https://webstores.activenetwork.com/school-software/ihs_viking_webstore/index.php?l=product_detail&p=323#.Vl5xe4Rln-Y Rnk97280 (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Specifically, the source link is [here]. Rnk97280 (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Rnk97280:, I'll take your word on the "official" part :) and have uploaded the logo at File:Irvington High School Vikings logo.png, please double-check, if I got any of the information in the image description wrong - feel free to tweak the info. GermanJoe (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Everything's fine and thank you so much GermanJoe! Rnk97280 (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Improve existing entry

I am trying to correct information and increase the amount of information available on our Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_College_of_Health_Sciences. The information is not biased and can easily be found in various sources. However, the edits keep getting undone. Since an authority on the subject (an employee/members of the organization) isn't allowed to make these improvements, can you suggest the best way to help build upon the limited entry that is currently in place? There is a lack of information on the page and some of the links are incorrect...this seems counterproductive when the goal is to provide accurate info. The article as it was prior to the latest reversion - or at least as much of it as possible - is information we would consider useful.

For an example of the scale of information we'd like to have available on our page, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson_College

Thank you in advance, Mchsmarketing (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Mchsmarketing

Hello @Mchsmarketing:, thank you for checking before making any additional edits.
  1. First things first, you'll have to start a new user account. In general, account names representing organisations or groups of people are prohibited. You could name an account "your firstname_MCHS" or "your initials_MCHS" (or a completely anonymous invented name), but it should be something that is specific for one single user.
  2. As a user with a conflict of interest, make sure to disclose this information on your (new) userpage - see WP:COI for more information.
  3. For changes or corrections you have 2 venues for suggestions as COI-editor:
    1. Post your suggestion on the article's talkpage and add {{edit request}} at the start of your message.
    2. Post at WP:PAIDHELP as central forum, again starting your message with {{edit request}}.
  4. If you want to suggest a complete re-draft of the article or a whole section, it might be better to create such a version in your userspace first and then link to it in your edit request. But I strongly suggest to start with smaller changes for now, until you got used to Wikipedia's specific rules and processes.
  5. If you know additional sources about the topic, it would also be helpful to post those links on the article's talkpage even if you do not intend to use them yourself. Maybe some other editor will find them useful to expand the article. Or you could upload some photographs of the college, but make sure those images are released under a completely free "Creative Commons" license, or you own their copyright yourself as photographer and are willing to release the images under such a free license.
  6. Uncontroversial common facts can occasionally be sourced with self-published references, anything else should have an independent, reliable source from newspapers, journals, books, etc. (see WP:RS).
Hope those tips are helpful to get the article improved. Please feel free to ask me again, if you have further questions. General article-related questions are better posted on the article's talkpage though - so all interested editors can follow them. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A minor question

Hey GermanJoe :-),

I was wondering; was there any reason as for why you removed numerous "legit" people from the Iranians in Germany article? Amongst which Melika Foroutan, Sudabeh Mohafez, etc? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello @LouisAragon:, I know this will sound lame and unbelievable - but I did not do some of the changes, that are included in this edit!. The problem seems to be the first edit here (diff only for this edit). See for example the entry for "Alexios Schandermani, writer" - why would I delete ", writer" from the entry (which is completely correct), but leave similar information in other entries above and below? I am also completely sure, that I didn't swap "Immigration to Germany" with "Iranian diaspora" further down in the navboxes. If I would have to guess, I edit conflicted with someone else here (but I don't remember an edit conflict warning). The other possibility is a "suppressed" and hidden edit between 5 January and my edit on 13 January. This is very, very weird. GermanJoe (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Whatever happened, some of it was not intentional by any means. Thank you for spotting and fixing that problem. GermanJoe (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, I instantly believe you. I also had a few edits during my time here which I later looked back at, and I was like "wat?.." But yeah, ofc its mind-conflicting, especially that moment when you think like "did I do that? Can't be, lol" Anyways, absolutely no probs; its fixed again. Thanks for your kind response. :-) Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, and the same to you, @Ozzie10aaaa:. GermanJoe (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Photocopy (film) Neutrality

Thank you for indicating that there may be a conflict of interest on this page in my contributions. I would like to clarify that this page has been a natural contribution of me trying to follow the career path of Akash Rajpal & Neha Rajpal which has led me to write about various aspects of their contributions to their professions. I vouch that there is no personal conflict and this article has been made with complete neutrality and the same is backed by various news & public domain article links. There are hardly any wiki articles of interest on Indian diaspora & such tags will discourage more articles of public interest to come out from India. I agree this article needs improvement, but should not attract a neutrality tag just because there is a common contributor. It can happen when a contributor tries to follow one professional to write about and finds multiple aspects to write about. The article is open for edit & refinement by public at large and there have been many edits after my contributions by various other contributors. I would sincerely request you to remove the neutrality tag from this page & help improve article if possible. Akneal (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Akneal:, as requested I have removed the tag from the article. However I'd encourage you to read through WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV and WP:RS as general advice how to write encyclopedic information in a more neutral, "uninvolved" manner. A lot of phrases, that might be OK for IMDB or other movie reviews, shouldn't be used in Wikipedia articles. Looking at my recent removals in the Photocopy article, you'll see some good examples what to avoid (and why a COI would have been possible prior to your explanation). If you have any other questions, please feel free to ping me anytime. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello @GermanJoe:, Thank you for removing the tag and guiding on way forward. Will surely do the needful. Akneal (talk)

Heath Mount School

Hi GermanJoe,

i recently edited a page for Heath Mount School which you revoked. Please can you offer some more information to the exact reasons that the content was denied - you mentioned a supposed conflict of interests which I believe to be untrue it was an independent edit and be one, as i was simply enriching the page nd offering more about the school (an independent charity), the historical listed building that is Woodenhall and the surrounding parkland - seeing as there is no information on these on wikipedia i thought it beneficial and am left confiused to why you decided it to be removed.

Thanks

RoosterCreative (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello @RoosterCreative:, large parts of the added content were copy/pasted verbatim (or very closely paraphrased) from the institution's website, as mentioned on your talkpage already. Such additions are not permitted. Aside from that fundamental copyright problem, additions should be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone (see WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK) and primarily based on independent reliable sources, not on the institution's own website (see WP:RS). Please read through the linked guidelines, as they will provide more comprehensive details about Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Thanks alot for your help on this Phoebe.Ashley (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

TemplateData project

User:Mooeypoo and I have cooked up a Google Code-in project for TemplateData. One task is just to have students create TemplateData, but the bigger idea is to have them read the docs on mw.org, add some TemplateData, and then see whether they can improve the docs. I can't remember whether I told you about this last month, but are you interested in this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Whatamidoing (WMF):, that sounds like a very interesting idea. While my personal days of studying are many years ago, it would be great if you could keep me updated on this (or just provide me a link to the project page please). Truth be told, I have slowed down a bit on the whole TemplateData topic, now that most of the high-usage templates have been covered. But I'd be interested to read more details about this idea, and maybe I can offer some unqualified criticism from the sideline ;). GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
See phab:T117499 for the full description. Nothing happens until a student volunteers for it, of course, and then it's largely a matter of seeing whether the student's work is done correctly – so plenty of opportunities for comments from the sidelines. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Editing since mid 2010, GermanJoe has become most active this last year with over 15000 edits, 65% to article space. His 99% use of the edit summary shows a desire to help editors that follow to understand the "Why" of an edit. GermanJoe gladly provides assistance to many historically related articles as is evidenced by his work at Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor and Germany. He takes his time to make articles and images better and assists editors in need whenever possible. He is especially adept at providing guidance and formatting help in a very congenial and collaborative tone. A worthy recipient of the award. 

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
GermanJoe
A file that GermanJoe improved
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning December 13, 2015
Provides guidance and formatting help with a congenial and collaborative tone. Assists fellow editors in need whenever possible
Recognized for
Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor and Germany.
Nomination page


Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: - just trying to help out where I can :). But thank you for the kind gesture, it's appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
One of the benefits of facilitating the Eddy award is that I get to meet editors like you. Too many veteran editors spend too much time at the various drama-laden pages of Wikipedia. They rarely take the time to see the hard working editors that fly under the radar of contention and strife. Editors like you are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Thanks for all you do. Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 16:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Frenkel - User talk:עמית באום

Hi,

thank you so much for your helpful comments and assistance, we will correct all of the errors on the page ASAP.

Best Regards,

Amit62.219.62.60 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations for Hasso Plattner article

Hello GermanJoe, would you be willing to review the citations I've proposed on the English version of the Hasso Plattner article? It seems some citations are missing. It would be great if readers could see that the information in the article has all been properly cited. These citations have been missing for some time, too. I appreciate any feedback you can offer. Thank you! Harper70 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Harper70

Hello @Harper70:, I have added 3 of the 5 suggested references (thank you). Please see my comments on the article's talkpage about the other 2 sources and the current article's WP:WEIGHT problem. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, GermanJoe, for adding those three citations! I definitely appreciate it! I'll continue to look for other sources that strengthen the article. All the best. Harper70 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Harper70

One additional question for you: Since many of the citations (but not all) have been added to this article, is it possible now to remove the banner at the top that calls for citations? Thanks again! Harper70 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Harper70

Done - but as noted in the edit summary, more sources are always welcome :). GermanJoe (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help, GermanJoe. I'll keep hunting for more citations for this article. Harper70 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Harper70

Ice Prince Edit

i just received your message. You said you deleted my reference because the source is unreliable? Thanks. i will recheck to confirm if the source is reliable. Best regards Acquilawrites (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Acquilawrites:, thank you for double-checking. The source has a few problems: 1) it lacks an "About" page to check the website's credentials and eventual editorial oversight (or I am just overlooking that information somewhere on the site) 2) It appears to be a self-published website. Such sources may not all be completely unreliable, but should be used with caution. Regardless, I have found the original awards list and added it to the article to replace the dead link. GermanJoe (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for clearing that out. I will make sure to be more careful. Appreciate. Acquilawrites (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. i have checked out the website and you are right. it does lack an "About page" but i am afraid i do not understand what you meant by the term "Self Published Website". Please could you explain? So i can be more careful and avoid similar sites in the future. Thnks in anticipation. Acquilawrites (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
See WP:BLOGS for more information about the problems with such sources. Please also check WP:RS. Admittedly this guideline is quite lengthy, but it contains all basic requirements for a "reliable source", and useful comments on the various types of sources in different cases. GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes you are quite right. it is quite lengthy but i believe i have covered the basics. Thanks. If i have any more questions in the future am i free to ask you? Acquilawrites (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure. I am happy to help where I can, although I certainly don't know everything :). GermanJoe (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe, I saw your message about removing my link on release management. I do not see any problem with my link, It was very much relevant to the release management definition and doc provides more detail on Release management. It wan not irrelevant or spam in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal vsh1 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Vishal vsh1:, the Wikipedia guideline about this policy is already linked on your talkpage - WP:EL (and WP:BLOGS in a wider context). Please read it and stop adding your supposedly self-written blog to Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi GermanJoe, well said, i missed this part. Apologies about it. One more question As per same document under heading "Newspaper and magazine blogs" it says "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." I would like to ask if this link "http://devops.com/2016/01/25/release-engineering-vs-release-management/" can be posted or not? Just asking in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal vsh1 (talk • contribs)
@Vishal vsh1: You really shouldn't add such links. Firstly, it seems like you are affiliated with the author or may have written the content yourself. Adding such links is usually discouraged and could be easily seen as attempt to popularize that content. Secondly, see WP:ELNO point 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." should not be added. The linked post lacks such unique content. But if you disagree or want a second opinion, you could also try to ask at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, where other editors experienced with this aspect could take another look. As I said, in my opinion all these and similar links should not be added. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi GermanJoe, absolutely fine with your view and opinion. I agree with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal vsh1 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

I have reported that asshole to WP:AIV. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @The Quixotic Potato: - your help is appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

Hey Joe, do you have some time to perform an image review on Ride the Lightning? The FA nomination is here. Sorry if I'm rushing you, but I want to get pass the image/source procedures as quickly as possible, so I can focus on the prose. Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Retrohead:, no problem at all. Everything was OK (the note about song length just fyi). GermanJoe (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for a favour (translation)

From time to time over the years I've noticed your wiki-name. Thus inspired....

I've just more or less finished a translation on Werner Krauss. I wanted to include a quote I found in the German wiki entry (and which turned up three years later in Spiegel in an article focused on his apparently rather unhappy interactions with the Stasi). I also included an attempted translation for the quote because ... one does.

But my translation looks horroble lumpy, and I'm still not sure it captured the essence. If you have a moment to think about it, and especially if you have a better idea than I could manage on what it's about, then two heads are better than one. If you don't have time / need to get on with the day job no problem. It cost nothing (well, maybe a couple of minutes) for me to ask and for you to think about it. And thank you if you did.

Der Sozialismus bleibt einzige Lösung, trotz seiner Diskreditierung durch eine Praxis, die manche Ansprüche erfüllt, aber den Anspruch, der der Mensch ist, geflissentlich überhört und verleumdet.

Thank you and regards Charles01 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Charles01:, I'll give it a try but that's a really tough one. Your current English version connects some aspects, that are not directly connected in the German original (for example: the "necessary conditions" relate to the quoted practice, not to socialism in general). Here is my English "translation":
Socialism is still the only solution, although its theory has been discredited by a practice that meets some demands, but deliberately ignores and denies basic expectations of being human.
Some quick disclaimers: 1) my knowledge of English syntax is limited (and my practice sloppy at times), you may need to tweak that. 2) I have focussed more on paraphrasing the intended meaning in clear terms instead of a purely literal translation. 3) I didn't try to capture the original rhetorical structure, as I don't see how it could be transferred to English (the usage of ellipsis and of "Anspruch" in two slightly different contexts are especially tricky). Such an attempt will likely cloud the intended meaning of the sentence - and the meaning is far more important for readers than rescuing some rhetorical fancy. If you want, you can tweak that new English version and I'll check the German <-> English accuracy once again later. GermanJoe (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. And for spelling out your thought processes. So much of this stuff goes on - at least for me - on a subconscious level (and/or not at all). Anyhow, I think it looks a whole lot less clunky than what I'd put, as well as being a bit shorter, so I'll substitute it.
Sometimes sleeping helps disentangle the strands on these occasions, so I may come back in a few days and revisit it. Or you may. Don't hesitate to do that if the spirit takes you that way. Meanwhile, I think it's "good to go" as the kids said a few years ago. I'm not sure whether that still counts as a contemporary phrase, however. Thanks again. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Charles01: - the slightly tweaked translated quote looks fine, no problem. I took the liberty to add Template:translated page to the article's talkpage. Both steps, mentioning in edit summaries and the usage of this template on the talkpage, are recommended for clear attribution in WP:Translation. GermanJoe (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not sure about the Translation template if only because when one starts out with a translation and then, on a good day, gets lucky with Google, at some point it stops being a translation, and then one is left having to apply intelligence - a commodity never in unlimited supply meine Meinung nach - to determining at what point it stops being a translation and .. and ... But it's not something on which I have a dogmatic view. With a lot of translations from German or French wiki (which are the only ones I really trust myself to get more or less right) it's useful to try and dig out a few more source notes than the German or French wiki ever mentioned. Then not infrequently one discovers hints of an old fashioned unattributed copy 'n paste job in the original wiki-de-text. Then again, most of the entries with enough in them to be worth translating have been worked on by more than one person, so by the time I get to them hints of some originating copy 'n paste have to some extent generally been overlaid. Sorry, you really didn't deserve a mini-novel. I guess I'm trying to put off dealing with the stuff the mailman just delivered. And as far as I can see the translation template works just fine with this one. Thanks again. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Eric Heinze

Hello, I have just received a message where you mentioned that you deleted something I wrote on the post on Eric Heinze, mentioning I have a conflict of interest. Could you be more specific? I have already sent a message to an administrator to at least retrieve my original posting. If I manage to retrieve it and someone else proofreads it then would that be ok? Thanks Andto10 (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Andto10

Hello @Andto10:, please see WP:COI for the relevant guideline. My message on your talkpage was about a "possible" conflict of interest - if it doesn't apply to you please ignore that part. But if you have a so-called conflict of interest, you should disclose this situation. Also, edits to Wikipedia should not promote new publications, or popularize novel ideas or viewpoints. Per WP:WEIGHT: "each article or other page in the mainspace [should] fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In other words: if the new book's ideas are discussed and taken up by other experts, then it's usually OK to include them in articles. Until then, it's probably too early to include them (a short mention in the author's article is usually OK though). Hope that additional information is helpful. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: Your "old" edits are still visible in the article's edit history (click on the "View history" tab on the article's page to see them). GermanJoe (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. As I have no conflict of interest I assume that the problem refers to the fact that the book in question is very new. So I assume it would be fine if I wait for a while so that the book is in fact discussed before writing anything on it? Alternatively, it would be ok if I just wrote a couple of sentences by way of summary of the new book? Thanks again for your help.Andto10 (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Andto10

@Andto10: Has the book be formally published yet? (I am asking, because Amazon still lists it as "pre-order possible") If the book has been published, a short mention in the author's article is usually OK (1-2 sentences). But I suggest to wait with any other detailed additions, until the book has been reviewed or discussed by other experts. And even then, the amount of coverage in other articles should be proportional to the prominence of the book's viewpoints. Established mainstream views will usually get more detailed coverage in articles than minority views or novel ideas. GermanJoe (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The book has been published in the UK, last month I believe. I'll probably just write a couple of sentences. Thanks again. Andto10 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Andto10

VisualEditor News #1—2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?
Among experienced editors, the visual editor's table editing is one of the most popular features.
Screenshot showing a pop-up menu for column operations in a table
If you select the top of a column or the end of a row, you can quickly insert and remove columns and rows.

Now, you can also rearrange columns and rows. Click "Move before" or "Move after" to swap the column or row with its neighbor.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Indic, and Han scripts, and improving the single edit tab interface.

Recent changes

You can switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor after you start editing. This function is available to nearly all editors at most wikis except the Wiktionaries and Wikisources.

Many local feedback pages for the visual editor have been redirected to mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

You can now re-arrange columns and rows in tables, as well as copying a row, column or any other selection of cells and pasting it in a new location.

The formula editor has two options: you can choose "Quick edit" to see and change only the LaTeX code, or "Edit" to use the full tool. The full tool offers immediate preview and an extensive list of symbols.

Future changes

The single edit tab project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. This is similar to the system already used on the mobile website. (T102398) Initially, the "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as an account preference for logged-in editors, and as a cookie for logged-out users. Logged-in editors will have these options in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences:

  • Remember my last editor,
  • Always give me the visual editor if possible,
  • Always give me the source editor, and
  • Show me both editor tabs.  (This is the state for people using the visual editor now.)

The visual editor uses the same search engine as Special:Search to find links and files. This search will get better at detecting typos and spelling mistakes soon. These improvements to search will appear in the visual editor as well.

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at most "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers would like to know how well the visual editor works in your language. They particularly want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect the following languages: Japanese, Korean, Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Hindi, Bengali, Assamese, Thai, Aramaic and others.

Let's work together

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thanks!

– Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-10

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Files on Wikimedia Commons can now be 2 GB big. The old limit was 1 GB. [3]
  • Welcome notifications now have a different symbol. English Wikipedia already had this one. [4]
  • The Wikimedia memory cache servers in the Eqiad cluster have now been upgraded to Debian 8 (Jessie). Some users might have had to log in again because of this. [5]
  • It is now easier to categorize images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in the Commons Android app. [6]
  • Bare attributes in tags now parse according to the HTML5 specifications. <pages from= to= section=1> will parse as <pages from="to=" section="1"> instead of <pages from="" to="" section="1"> as it used to. Please use <pages from="" to="" section=1> or <pages section=1> instead. This is mostly likely to affect pages on Wikisource projects. [7]

Problems

  • Phabricator has been a bit unstable lately. This should be fixed now. [8]
  • The PageView API shows wrong data between 23 February and 29 February for pages with special characters in their title. [9]
  • The parsing change mentioned above caused a large number of pages to break, especially on Wikisource. [10]
  • You may see falsely formatted edit links on both mobile and desktop devices. Mobile devices can also show incorrect formatted table of contents. This should be fixed soon. [11]
  • Templates using TemplateData that were edited with the visual editor might have some problems in wikitext mode. This can be fixed by editing and saving the page by using the visual editor without making any changes. [12]

Changes this week

  • Cross-wiki notifications will be enabled as a beta feature on all wikis on 10 March. You will be able to get notifications when something happens on another Wikimedia wiki. [13]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 March. It will be on all wikis from 10 March (calendar).
  • Wikivoyages will get the Kartographer extension. Kartographer will allow <mapframe> and <maplink> tags in an article to insert an interactive map and overlay it with different markers. You can add ideas and suggestions to the Maps talk page. If you find any bugs, you can report them in Phabricator. [14]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 8 March at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The buttons in interfaces will be simplified. Instead of white, red, green and blue buttons, in future there will only be white, red and blue ones. [15]
  • The Wikimedia technical operations team plans to do some server work on 22 March. This could cause some problems, for example make it possible to read but not edit the Wikimedia wikis for a short period of time. The date for this might change. [16]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GermanJoe/Archive_3&oldid=1076711271"