Jump to content

User talk:GermanJoe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.131.36.98 (talk) at 14:42, 2 August 2019 (→‎Hey bro!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, GermanJoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"conflict of interest"

Hey GermanJoe,

Is this where I discuss issues? I would like to understand more about why you deleted mt edit on applications of virtual reality. Please let me know.--Jay Santarossa (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GermanJoe, I understand the reason why you left the conflict of interest message on my page, maybe I was not be just clarify in my edit. This is my first change on Wikipedia, but only be just clarify I do not in any way represent or work with the people behind the distribution I written on in the page Arch Linux!! I helped to contribute to the page, because this information about is missing! I will change the section again, feel free to edit the description or make it more solid. If there's anything else, feel free to reach out. Best --Chrepl (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)chrepl[reply]

Hello @Chrepl:, thank you for clarifying that you have no conflict of interest. As you probably assumed, the notice was meant as an info "just in case" and non-COI editors can safely ignore it. But regarding the removed article edit: please do not restore it. Entries in such Wikipedia lists are usually limited to "notable" topics (in Wikipedia's sense of the term). Simply put, entries should usually have a Wikipedia article written first before they are added to related lists. These lists are not supposed to be 100 percent comprehensive, but should only include major notable entries (from an encyclopedic PoV) - to avoid bloating the list with minor and secondary entries. More information about list inclusion and other list usages is available at WP:CSC. The definition of "notability" is described at WP:GNG.
Please feel free to ask me if you have any further questions, or you can post at WP:Teahouse (a good forum for new editors). I'll also post some generic basic links with further info on your user talkpage. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GermanJoe: thanks for your clearly answer and providing me more information. I understood. I didn't know about that Wikipedia articles should be written first before they are added to related lists. Thanks for the further info. Maybe a stupid question, but if I have any further questions so I should write it on the talk page or give it any possible private talk? Best regards. Chrepl (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrepl: Almost all conversation is held on public talkpages like these, so feel free to start a new thread here (or at Teahouse) if you have any question. If you have a specific suggestion or concern about article content though, the article's associated talkpage at Talk:article name here might be the better place for content-related discussions - so other editors interested in the same article can join in. GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Task management software comparison chart

Sorry this is my first attempt at an edit. I don't have any relationships with the software vendors I added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_management. I had emailed various vendors to provide a nice chart comparing their software to others and none of them had a chart to help me decide what task management software was for me. I left it as incomplete hoping that others would hop on to add additional information. --Rgeoghan (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rgeoghan:, thank you for the clarification. Such technical comparisons should be based on independent sources and focus on notable products (with an existing Wikipedia article). Such lists are generally very difficult to create and maintain - partly due to lack of independent sources, partly due to information becoming outdated over time. A lot of "comparisons" created 7-10 years ago are simply no longer useful, actual or reliable. Also, as an encyclopedic project Wikipedia is not really supposed to serve as product guide for customers. For these reasons I'd recommend against creating a technical comparison as your first major contribution. On the other hand, a lot of articles about IT-related topics need additional independent references and sourced updates from knowledgeable editors if you'd like to give Wikipedia-editing a try in your area of interest. Please feel free to ask me or at WP:Teahouse, if you have any further questions. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exception to removal of comments

I removed the comments legit, due to their bad faith carrying on attempts by editors to carry on a legal (court) fight removing the university from any display as explained in both edit summaries. Please remove the AfD nomination as well for this reason as I can't. Thanks. 2001:8003:594A:6800:E548:78F9:A5F7:C787 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of another editor's message based on mere allegations without clear and verifiable evidence is absolutely inappropriate (see also WP:TPG). And even if the request was made in error (no stance either way), you should not delete such messages. Of course you are welcome to respond to allegedly wrong messages in a civil manner to point out perceived problems. Anyway, I'll let other editors or an admin handle further steps to resolve this. And no, I will certainly not remove the nomination based on your unverified assumption about the other editor's motives. GermanJoe (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the history of the edits on the articles and you'll think again I would state! 2001:8003:594A:6800:E548:78F9:A5F7:C787 (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thank you! Lewistheeditor (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey GermanJoe,

Thank you for your message regarding the nature of my edit on the applications of virtual reality. I have no bias opinion on the matter and am just trying to help fill out the lead paragraph. After reading over the edit I can see how the first 2 sentences may come across as making VR seem potenitally better than it is. I'm curious, is this the reason you took my edits down? If so, I understand and will try to rewrite the first 2 sentences or take them out. Please let me know, as this is my first interaction with someone not agreeing with my edits. thank you (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC) User:JaySantarossa[reply]

Hello @JaySantarossa:, thank you for your interest in improving this article (I have moved your question in a new thread down - new threads generally should be added at the bottom of talkpages). Regarding your question: yes, the main concern was certainly the section's non-neutral, slightly promotional tone as mentioned in my first edit summary. I hope you don't mind a few additional quick tips regarding editing in general and lead changes in particular:
  • The tone should be completely dispassionate and uninvolved. Try to focus on "dry" objective facts and avoid any subjective assessments and qualifiers - especially in the lead section.
  • If you need to include a subjective assessment to provide some context (occasionally), such an edit must be sourced and attributed to a high-quality expert source.
  • The lead section should only summarize what is already in the article's main body. Generally speaking, you should try to avoid introducing new facts and aspects that are not already covered further down in more detail. You'll find a detailed guideline about editing lead sections at MOS:LEAD.
  • Usually you don't need sources in the lead for common summary information that is already sourced in the main body. But you should source quotations, possibly controversial statements and extraordinary claims in the lead.
I hope these tips are helpful, but please feel free to ask anytime if something is unclear (WP:Teahouse is also a good forum for advice). Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Why you always remove links from Wikipedia? ? There are many links which are not that much useful still you all keep it in as a reference link or external link.

I am also providing useful information to the readers. I don't want to do spam.

Kindly check my all links they all are useful. I will never provide a spam link to Wikipedia and readers.

Thank you! ! Sukriti maurya (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sukriti maurya:. Personal blogs and advertising sites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Please read WP:EL and WP:RS for more information. Frankly, any kind of promotional or SEO activity is prohibited here. You are very welcome to provide relevant encyclopedic information based on independent reliable sources, published by acknowledged media and experts. But all further link additions to self-published blogs (for example the use***tips.com websites) or other advertising sites will get reverted. Repeatedly spammed domains will get blacklisted. If you need further advice about editing on Wikipedia, please feel free to ask at WP:Teahouse, a forum for new editors. GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


"Gartner's syndicated pseudo research is insufficient for notability"

Hello GermanJoe,

when I reached the page Price Optimization, I found a list of solution without any reference to support it (they are not university research study on this subject). So I used Gartner study because it is the benchmark on a lot of business subject. So, how can I proceed to update this list which is not up to date regarding existing offers on pricing solution ? Could we set a warning among the reference to Gartner study ?

Best regards, Forvalaka (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Forvalaka:, entries in this particular list should be "notable" (in Wikipedia's sense of the term). Notable companies or products either have a sourced Wikipedia article, or should have at least an independent source with some coverage. The latter criterion excludes simple listings, passing mentions and PR coverage. Gartner reports are often presented in an uncritical, promotional manner to hype such technologies and products. Just to be clear, these reports are not unreliable for basic information, but they are a poor indicator for objective notability (many of the listed companies have almost no other press coverage aside from Gartner). I would recommend to look for additional articles in other reputed trade magazines or news media instead, that specifially focus on a company or application in some detail. You'll find detailed information about Wikipedia's concept of "notability" at WP:GNG. Hope this helps, but please feel free to ask if you have further questions. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @GermanJoe:, thx for your explanation, take care.

20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

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) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

Toolbar with menu opened

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-RS"?

Hello GermanJoe,

I'd like to know more about the reason of this revert of source. What does "Non-RS" mean, please? What is the problem with this source?

Thank you, --Daehan (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Daehan:, non-RS meant "not a reliable source". Personal websites, blogs and blog-like sites are generally not considered reliable sources (see also WP:RS for more information). Sorry for the confusion with the abbreviation, it's just easier to type in short summaries when one is making a lot of routine edits. But I'd be glad to help if you have any further questions or want to discuss this source in more detail. GermanJoe (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for making wikipedia a better place. Quick question re recent removal of AI projects I've edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_intelligence_projects

Can you please expand on what I was required but didn't complete? your comment was: "no additions without sourced article, also WP:EL" I'm new be nice :) Cheers, Bargalon

Bargalon (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bargalon:, and welcome to Wikipedia. Entries in such lists are usually restricted to "notable" topics (in Wikipedia's own sense of the term). A "notable" topic should have been covered by several independent reliable sources in some detail, and already have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia that is based on such independent sources. You'll find more information about the concept of Wikipedia-"notability" at WP:GNG. Also, if you are connected to the added project, please make sure to read WP:COI about editing with a possible conflict of interest.
Please let me know, if you have any further questions - I'd be glad to help (and will post a few basic links on your user talkpage). WP:Teahouse is also a good forum for new editors, if you need any Wikipedia-related advice from other editors. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

How did you know it is incorrect some times it will be correct. If it is correct and you removed it, it will be your mistake. And only you are responsible for that. Mary Poppins111 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is with respect to my edit which you removed at HTTP Live Streaming. I think rather than undoing my change you removed the entire line. The link earlier was incorrect and I was providing the most relevant link I could think of (the company's homepage). I am new, can you please provide a clarifiation or suggest on how to fix it.

Hello @Vrmaroli:, the entry had 2 issues: Wikipedia generally does not use external links in the main text of its articles (see WP:EL). Secondly, entries in Wikipedia lists are usually restricted to Wiki-"notable" topics, that is topics which already have a sourced stand-alone article on Wikipedia - that's why I removed the entire entry. Hope this helps a bit to clarify the reasoning, but please feel free to ask if you have further questions (see also the blue links for more details). Please also make sure to read WP:COI, in case you are connected to the added company and would like to suggest further changes related to it. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time series database - reliable sourcing

You are right, thanks a lot! I found a better reference, please check my contribution.--Jimmy Olano (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jimmy Olano:, thank you for looking for better, more reliable sources. I haven't read the whole source with all details, but it looks better at first glance. GermanJoe (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That investigation talks about a new field of study: Time series motif,[1] I propose this new article for your advice to me (your answer is not mandatory).--Jimmy Olano (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mueen, A. (2014), Time series motif discovery: dimensions and applications. WIREs Data Mining Knowl Discov, 4: 152-159. doi:10.1002/widm.1119

Hey bro!

Can you help me find sources to my wiki: Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki. -- 81.131.36.98 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]