User talk:GermanJoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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)

The Signpost
28 October 2018

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018[edit]

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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-41[edit]

23:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Request to revise entry[edit]

Hello GermanJoe, Thank you for reviewing my entry for Kyvos on List of big data companies. I noticed that in my entry, I have named Kyvos Insights which does not have an article, instead of using Kyvos which has an article page. Please review my entry again and rename to Kyvos. Thanks Namita Awasthi (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Namita Awasthi:, thank you for your message. The page is listing notable companies though, not products. So I don't think this entry belongs in this case. I'll admit that the distinction between product and provider can be a bit blurry in some articles for this list, but Kyvos contains almost no independently sourced information about the company at all (aside from a trivial listing in a trade magazine). Of course I'd be glad to discuss this content-related issue on the article's talkpage Talk:List of big data companies if you'd like to get input from other interested editors. In case you have a connection to Kyvos Insights, please make also sure to read Wikipedia's guideline at WP:COI, disclose such a possible conflict of interest, and avoid editing such articles yourself. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please restore content that had in fact a reliable source[edit]

Dear GermanJoe, the content you removed, mentioning lack of a reliable source, about the history of the Scratch programming language per this notification was included with the official award abstract from the National Science Foundation site that funded the initial development of the language in 2003 as the primary source. The source that is currently under history is from 2014 and refers specifically to the Scratch Jr iPad version. This source, by the way, gives credit to professor Marina Bers, who was the main researcher for the Scratch Jr version and was also removed citing lack of a reliable source. —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message. But please discuss such issues at the article's talkpage Talk:Scratch (programming language). Maybe I misunderstood the sourcing situation, although changing a long-standing version with significantly different information should usually require additional sources to clearly verify all details of such a change. But the incomplete - or probably just unclear - sourcing is only part of the problem. Your addition contained several non-neutral phrases directly from the source, and gave undue weight to this aspect (imo). Quoting the abstract for the goals of this research is problematic: such information should be presented from an uninvolved observer's point of view in the editor's own words. Lastly your edit changed the start date of this development from 2002 to 2004. Neither of the sources seem to explicitly mention this date as unambiguous fact. Of course such values can be changed if they are deemed wrong, but such a fundamental change should be based on a clear secondary source and may be better discussed beforehand.
I hope, I could clarify some of the concerns - maybe you could try to rephrase your suggested change? It wouldn't hurt to find an additional secondary source(s) to corroborate some of the most important details of this change as well. The limited usage of primary sources on Wikipedia is allowed, but secondary sources are generally preferred for most purposes (per WP:PRIMARY) - analyzing or synthesizing primary sources is not permitted. As this is a complex topic and your change would alter basic long-standing information, I recommend to use the article's talkpage Talk:Scratch (programming language) to raise such concerns and propose an improved version of this content. This will also allow feedback from other interested editors and a more centralized article-related discussion. Of course I am not against constructive changes, but the suggested edits might need a bit more tweaking and discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your Revert on my additions in Hashtag pages[edit]

Hello I noticed you reverted my recent edits to Hashtag page. It is my first contribution, that is true, so maybe i didn't do it perfectly. But the content that has been added is definitely something that has value for people looking for most used hashtags in the premier league and that is not easy to find in a clear format. I have tested several of those hashtags on Twitter and they are actively used by fans. So what makes the source reliable or not ? Or maybe I should rename the column to "Hashtag Example" instead of "Top Hashtag" as I agree the "TOP" could be questioned if the source is not reliable. You also reverted on Sentiment Analysis page. I have added that short paragraph as I am interested in AI/Machine Learning and the same site as above was giving some good insights to complement the sentiment analysis page and in particular the application to sports, as the current page is pretty empty. If despite my clarifications you think my edits were spammy than I need to understand better how Wikipedia works. Thanks Katalan444 (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Katalan444:, and welcome to Wikipedia. The reliability of a source is ascertained following the criteria and description at WP:RS. Some of the red flags about this specific source: 1) It has no information about the authors and their expertise. 2) Is their methodology accurate and reliable, and has their methodology been assessed and verified by other acknowledged experts in the topic area? 3) The domain was created in March 2018, a mere 7 months ago - that doesn't indicate a long-standing reputed source of information. Lacking basic information about the site owner's professional expertise, the site looks like a personal website - blogs and other forms of personal websites are generally prohibited for almost all usages (for details see WP:BLOGS).
I hope these points clarify some details but I'd strongly recommend to read through WP:RS for more information and context. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you should try to look for established news media and journals (both online or offline), as well as books from acknowledged topic experts and similar high-quality sources, to verify added information. If you are unsure about the usage of a specific source, you can always ask other editors or post for advice at WP:RSN (for references) or at WP:ELN (for external links not used as direct sources). GermanJoe (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-42[edit]

22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-43[edit]

23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-44[edit]

20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletterSubscription list on the English Wikipedia


Did you know?

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

Screenshot showing the location of the pencil icon

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Toolbar with menu opened

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

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 Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes[edit]

Let's work together[edit]

  • The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
  • The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
  • If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you check if I edited the article Fiitjee with according to rules in Wikipedia.[edit]

Please check nif there is/are any mistakes. If any please correct them. Skymhnty (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-45[edit]

17:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

COI declaration and request to review a userspace draft[edit]

Joe, just over a year ago you made substantial and understandable edits to a page I'd been maintaining, Edsby. I was new to Wikipedia at the time. In the time since, I've followed the advice you left on my talk page about the edits. I declared a COI on my user page. And invested the time to stage some recommended edits/reverts on a userspace draft that I now invite you to review, User:EcoFuror/sandbox/Edsby.

While I understand and respect many of your edits a year ago, I wanted to invite you to reconsider your deletion of at least some of the awards previously listed on the page. I've included a handful for your review in the new draft that are legitimate, respected edtech industry accolades. I believe there were some babies in the original bathwater of the page that deserve to remain; the pages of many other tech companies on Wikipedia contain references to many of the same industry awards I've included. In my draft, I've linked to the Wikipedia pages of many of these larger awards and more notable pubs themselves to help illustrate their significance.

Your review, further edits and push to production if you see fit appreciated.

EcoFuror (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @EcoFuror:, first of all thank you for the transparent COI declaration on your userpage. But if you'd like to suggest some awards to be added, I would recommend to use an official edit request on the article's talkpage. You can simply click the "request corrections on or suggest content" link in the messagebox on top of the talkpage. An uninvolved editor will then review your request. I don't have time for a complete review myself (and it's always good to add fresh input in such cases).
Rather then commenting on every single entry, I hope you don't mind two quick additional tips for a possible future edit request. While self-published sources for uncontroversial details are sometimes OK, awards with independent coverage in regular news media or other uninvolved 3rd-party publications would have a much better chance to get accepted - especially when an award's significance is unclear. Secondly, a lot of business-related articles are still full of promotional content and need cleanup from other volunteers. Such articles and their often bloated awards sections are not a good example.
Just as an optional suggestion: maybe try to start with only 2-3 of the least promotional and most significant awards, and suggest such a careful selection in a smaller first edit request. Smaller requests are easier to handle for the reviewing volunteer, and you'll get a better sense which kind of awards might be acceptable and which not. I think most of the suggested awards should not be added, but it would be better to leave the final decision to an uninvolved new editor in a formal edit request. GermanJoe (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@EcoFuror:, a last minor point before I forget it: award lists are usually formatted as bulleted list in chronological ascending order (see WP:BULLET). Afaik this is probably not mandatory, but it makes such a listing a lot clearer and better accessible. Hope these tips help a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-46[edit]

19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018[edit]

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) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)