User talk:GermanJoe/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Babbu Maan

Hi, recently you have reverted my edit. Since "Punjabi language" itself can be wikilinked to a relevant article, was it the hyphen(-) that warranted the revert. If so, can we put Punjabi-language? There are articles which do not use the word "language" in the sentence but something like "...is an Indian actor in Punjabi cinema". Kindly clarify - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Fylindfotberserk:, thanks for double-checking. As a non-native speaker I am only like 90 percent sure but the hyphen seems needed in this case. I didn't link the "language" part just for aesthetical reasons to avoid an ugly pattern of 3 Wiki-links in a row. If you think that the whole hyphenated term would be better linked or just "Punjabi" would be clear enough, that's fine for me as well - not a big deal either way :). GermanJoe (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I've to agree that consecutive wiki-linking looks ugly. Actually in most articles(both regional and Bollywood artists), only "the regional cinema" or "regional music" is mentioned and the whole term is wikilinked without any "language" part. E.g Jane Doe is an Indian actress who appears in Hindi films rather than Hindi language films. See: Mahesh Babu, Vijay (actor), Kareena Kapoor for example. I believe we can write it as "Most of his artistic work focusses on Punjabi music and films" for the subject in question if we are in agreement. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution. GermanJoe (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OK then. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-51

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

Tech News

• Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 7 January 2019.

Recent changes

• Some templates that show notices about the content of the page will now be shown on the mobile website. In many cases they were hidden before. [1][2]
• Admins can no longer unblock themselves, except for self-blocks. A blocked admin can block the user who blocked them but no one else. This is so no one can block all admins on a wiki without being stopped. [3]
• The ParserMigration extension has been removed. It compared the result of two versions of the MediaWiki wikitext parsing pipeline. It was used when we moved to the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy.

Problems

• <ref> tags can use parameters such as "name" or "group". For example <ref name="adams" group="books">. If a <ref> tag has more than two parameters all parameters are ignored. You don't get a warning that they don't work. This will soon be fixed. [4]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 December. It will be on all wikis from 20 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation Android app team are working on making it easier to edit on mobile phones. You can read more about these plans. If you have an Android phone and speak at least two languages you can help testing in English. Tell Dchen (WMF) you want to be part of the testing by writing on her talk page or email her.
• tiles.wmflabs.org and wma.wmflabs.org will stop working. They have no maintainers and run an old operating system. Tools which use it could stop working. This includes the mapnik gadget, hill shading, and hike and bike layers. New maintainers could help out and keep it going. [5]

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

20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification

IRT your two notes on the Latino page - my apologies... I'm new at this and a rookie! Lennycampello (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Lennycampello December 21, 2018 3:15

@Lennycampello:, no worries and thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions in the future, please feel free to ask anytime. I - and most regular editors - would be glad to help. GermanJoe (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Unreviewed article assistance

Hi, one of my articles is unreviewed and not appearing on google. I would appreciate some help if you have time. The article is Kinwar. Thank you.ChuckAlor (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @ChuckAlor:, articles by new editors without autopatrol user right are usually indexed after 90 days or when a new page patroller has reviewed them, but I am not a member of this user group (and don't know all the procedural details). I hope this helps a bit. But if you are looking for a more qualified answer from editors active in this area, it might be better to ask at WP:Teahouse. GermanJoe (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Incremental reading

Moved misplaced good-faith message from my user page to user talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Guten Tag German Joe.

Danke für deine Hilfe

You reverted edits to my changes on: Incremental reading

I *am* the author of Polar but didn't feel the need to disclose as I make effectively NO money developing Polar. It's a gift to the community. If anything I've probably lost a massive amount of money developing it in my spare time with no financial reward - much like your contributions to Wikipedia.

I don't see how Open Source gifts to the community need to be disclosed.

My edits are accurate and not product promotions.

The same Wikipedia page makes references to other incremental reading tools of which actually RECOMMEND Polar as it's becoming an industry standard tool in the space.

Please re-introduce my edits. I will try to disclose this in the future though even as it would be redundant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burtonator (talk • contribs) 06:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Burtonator:, thank you for your disclosure. But you are mistaken in one important point: free software, open source, charitable activities, advocacy etc. are not exempt from Wikipedia's anti-promotion policies. While paid editing is an even more problematic case (covered in WP:PAID), all kinds of general "conflict of interest" editing without an immediate financial benefit are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia as well and should be properly disclosed (per WP:COI).

If your application has been covered in truely independent reliable sources (see WP:RS), it might be possible to add a short mention somewhere in appropriate context. But even then you should not add such content yourself, but suggest it on the article's respective talkpage using Template:request edit in your message to ask for an uninvolved review (please always provide an independent reliable source for such suggestions). Hope this clarification is helpful, but please feel free to ask me or post on WP:Teahouse for advice, if you have further questions. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Re-ping with correct name (typo): @Burtonator:. GermanJoe (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

SAP Business ByDesign

Hi GermanJoe,

thanks for your edits and changes! I added the "Business Scenarios" to bring more details on what the software does. I copied the scenarios from the SAP official help page and put a reference to it to makes the source transparent. Do you think that this is too much of detail?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathimanu (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Mathimanu:, yes that's definitely too detailed. The article is only supposed to provide an encyclopedic overview of the most significant facts (ideally based on independent reliable sources, with only a limited usage of self-published information), not a comprehensive ressource for all secondary information. Such secondary information should be available in further literature or on the topic's own website anyway. Extensive internal information and contextless data should be avoided (see also WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE for more information on this aspect). GermanJoe (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks again,@GermanJoe: ! I think it is important to get an overview which processes the software supports. What about this: — Heading: Business Scenarios — Text: SAP Business ByDesign processes are grouped as 39 business scenarios which provide specific capabilities for the involved users and business documents. Most important business scenarios are: Cash and Liquidity Management, Demand Planning, Expense Reimbursement, Field Service and Repair, Financial Closing, Fixed Asset Management, Make to stock, Marketing to Opportunity, Order to cash (projects, standard service, materials), Physical Inventory Management, Procure to pay (stock and non stock), Project Management, Resource Management, Time and Labor Management — For all the scenarios above I will add a link to the existing wikipedia articles (not to the SAP help)

Mathimanu (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Mathimanu (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mathimanu:, just as a random idea: you could simply move the listing of application areas from the lead (which is too detailed and list-y for the lead anyway - see MOS:LEAD), and put it in a dedicated section ("Application areas" or something similar). The lead is only supposed to provide an even shorter summary of the article's main body. In such a main-text section you could also briefly mention that these broad areas are further divided into 39 business scenarios. But Wikipedia articles are not comprehensive product descriptions, so you should not go into detail about specific modules and functions (unless such details are covered in indepedent reliable sources as especially noteworthy). The list of business scenarios is already linked as reference, so readers can easily access it if need be. So mirroring this intricate secondary information or presenting an indiscriminate list of random examples here serves no encyclopedic purpose.

Also, just to avoid future misunderstandings: could you please clarify if you have any personal or professional connection with SAP? I hope you don't mind me asking, but it's important that editors in such situations clearly disclose this. You'll find all necessary information and links to the relevant guidelines in the COI-related message on your user talkpage. Thank you for your understanding, and of course I'd be glad to help and further discuss article-related questions regardless. GermanJoe (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: I did the changes you proposed. I'm freelance IT consultant and I work with business solutions and very often use SAP software in projects. Mathimanu (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mathimanu: thank you for the clarification. GermanJoe (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

COI on Flowable open source page

Hi GermanJoe. Thanks for reminding me of correct behviour. In part, I had assumed that information about an open source project that tried to be factual and had no reference to commercial use, was clear of marketing or promotional implications. The original article was written at a time when there was no formal relationship with the people mentioned, but this has subsequently changed. I can leave it to others to maintain the page - e.g. for new release information - or if the interpretation of the rules is not black & white, I can make edits of a purely factual nature (which I expect to be reviewed for any inappropriate content). Are any edits by me acceptable? Thanks, Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulrhh (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Paulrhh:, personally I wouldn't object to simple maintenance edits such as updating of release numbers - "conflict of interest" isn't a black and white issue. But it would be better to suggest anything substantial about the topic on the article's talkpage, if you are currently closely involved with it (I have already added a message box with a "Request corrections" convenience link on top of Talk:Flowable). If you have a close connection to the topic, you should also briefly disclose this fact on article talk or on your user page as described at WP:DISCLOSE. Regarding the article, it has a bit too many product details in my opinion (the whole "Components" part has no independent sources for instance and would be better presented as summarizing prose). But on the bright side, the article isn't overly promotional per se and seems to focus mostly on basic facts. Hope these tips and assessment are helpful. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulrhh (talk • contribs) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

GermanJoe please tell me how can i update all the articles which includes reservation india.

Today Our Prime Minister Narendra Modi 10% quota for economically weak among upper castes You can just google reservation in india, the net in flooded with information but almost none of the articles are updated. please help.

You can check the following links. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10-quota-for-upper-caste-who-said-what/articleshow/67420151.cms

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/10-reservation-caste-quota-for-economically-weaker-sections-here-is-the-list-of-documents-you-require-to-avail-benefits-nda-modi-general-category/343442

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cabinet-nod-to-10-quota-for-upper-caste-poor-historic-says-bjp-election-gimmick-counters-congress/articleshow/67422877.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnape (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Djsnape:, I am afraid there is no good way to find all occurrences of this info. You can try searching for specific key words or look into all articles that may be closely related to this aspect. One important point though: Please make sure to add a new reference to all articles that you change. You don't have to cite 2-3 references, just pick one of them that is most reliable and contains most background info. If you are changing content in multiple articles with the same information, you can simply copypaste the reference part from one article into the others, but you should always include it after the changed or added statement. Hope this helps a bit, but please feel free to ask if you have further questions - I'd be glad to help. GermanJoe (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-02

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

Tech News writers, editors and translators wish you a pleasant 2019 year.

Recent changes

• RelatedSites extension has been undeployed. It was used to create interwiki links on Wikivoyage, now handled by Wikidata. [6]
• MediaWiki logstash logging is moving to a new infrastructure. This is an ongoing deployment. [7]
• codesearch.wmflabs.org has been updated, with new and updated repositories and a new search options for code. [8]
• On several wikis, an account named "Edit filter" has been created on December 17 to perform some technical maintenance on AbuseFilter. This account has sysop rights but it's a system user and no human can use it. The account already existed on wikis where AbuseFilter can perform blocks, which are issued using this account. See T212268 for more information and future plans.

Problems

• In AbuseFilter, the "Throttle" action takes three parameters: count, period and groups. They must now strictly respect the requirements listed on mediawiki.org. A list of broken filters is on Phabricator. If you're familiar with AbuseFilter, please take a look and fix them. [9]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from January 9. It will be on all wikis from January 10 (calendar).

Meetings

• Search Platform Office Hours is rescheduled to January 9. Check the details for time and date.

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

18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hallo GermanJoe. Es ist natürlich richtig, dass hier ein Interessenkonflikt vorliegt. Aus diesem Grund habe ich den Artikel ja auch nicht selbst geschrieben, sondern einfach im Template:Orthodontics angeregt. Ausserdem habe ich bei den Firmen die dieses Produkt anbieten nicht nur unsere eingetragen sondern auch 2 Mitbewerber. Ich denke, dass Leute die sich zu diesem Thema informieren eine Übersicht zu allen grösseren Anbietern erhalten sollten. Bisher sieht es aus, dass das Produkt nur von 2 Firmen angeboten wird was natürlich falsch ist. --Mafussen (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Mafussen:, thank you for the disclosure. By the way, even if German might be easier at times for native German speakers we should generally try to use English for all activities and messages here on English Wikipedia (just to keep communication accessible for all interested English-language editors). Back on topic: if you'd like to suggest new articles for probably notable topics, you can add a suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Templates like Template:Orthodontics are primarily intended as navigational help to existing articles. Redlinks should usually be avoided (with some exceptions - see WP:NAV for more info). Hope this helps a bit, but please feel free to ask if you have further questions - I'd be glad to help. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @GermanJoe: thanks for your answer. I added a suggestion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/F-L#F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafussen (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @GermanJoe: Do you think our company meets the relevance requirements? We are still relatively small but we are market leaders in Switzerland and already active in 3 countries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafussen (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mafussen:, the 3 sources in your request are certainly a start but the coverage is still a bit thin and mostly consists of routine startup announcements and interviews. While such sources are not completely prohibited, sources from interviews, press releases and announcements are of limited value (specifically the parts of these articles originating from your company). Not trying to discourage you, but startups and SME companies usually have a hard time to establish Wikipedia "notability". That's not judging the relevance of these companies of course, but their media coverage is naturally less developed compared to larger or more established companies with a longer history. If I were you, I'd just wait a year or two, and look for further coverage of your company and its hopefully succesful business in the future. Aside from news coverage you could also include articles from medical journals and similar independent publications, in case your products are reviewed there in the future. But with the current limited sources it seems to be too early (imo). PS: please make sure to sign talkpage messages with 4 tilde characters. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-03

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

• You can now use Google Translate in the content translation tool. [10][11]
• You can now add captions to files on Commons. Captions are short descriptions of the file. They can be translated to all languages we use. They can't use wikitext markup.
• Earlier a quoted HTML attribute had to be followed by a space. Now it doesn't. This means that some pages could look different when you save them even if you didn't edit that part of the text. [12][13]
• Templates with could not show the difference between the live template and the sandbox version when they were tested. This has now been fixed. has a new wrapper parameter now. You can use it for selectors like .mw-parser-output <wrapper parameter value> <selector from CSS page>. [14]

Problems

• When you see an edit in the recent changes feed or in the history of a page some of them have tags. Some tags are added automatically. You can also add tags manually. Tags for edits that have been added manually can be edited. This didn't work for a little while. This has now been fixed. [15]

Changes later this week

• You can move files from your wiki to Wikimedia Commons and keep the file history with the new FileExporter. It will be a beta feature on all wikis from 16 January. If you want to test it you activate it and check your wiki's configuration file.
• Users who could cause more damage to the wikis if someone took over their account have to have more secure passwords. This includes administrators and other user groups. They can't use passwords that are in a list of common passwords. Accounts with common passwords are easy to take over. The list of common passwords was made longer a few weeks ago and has a different error message. Some user groups have been added to those who can't use common passwords. This is to protect all accounts with user rights that could cause damage. [16]
• The AbuseFilter variable minor_edit has been removed. It was deprecated in 2016. Now you can't use it. You can fix the filters using it. You can find them if you use the search bar on Special:AbuseFilter.
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 15

17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-04

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

Tech News

• Some people did not get last week's issue of Tech News. This was because of a problem with MassMessage. If you did not get last week's issue, you can read it on Meta. [17]

Recent changes

• The content translation tool can now use version 2 as the default version for users who turned on the beta feature. For example it adds the tracking category Pages with unreviewed translations to translations that might have used machine translations without fixing the problems. This is so others can find them. You can find this category in Special:TrackingCategories on Wikipedias.
• https://mediawiki2latex-large.wmflabs.org can now convert collects of up to 800 pages to PDF, EPUB or ODT. Previously this was 200 pages.

Problems

• When a template was edited with the visual editor, it would sometimes put all information on one line. This makes it difficult to read for editors who use the wikitext editor. It also makes it more difficult to see what happened in a diff. This problem affected edits made between 8 and 17 January and is now fixed. [18]
• MassMessage is used to post a message to many pages. It has not been working reliably. Some messages have not been posted to everyone. [19][20]
• Because of a database problem that had to be fixed immediately you could not edit most wikis for a couple of minutes on 17 January (UTC). This has now been fixed. [21]

Changes later this week

• You will be able to use template styles in the Module namespace. [22]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 January. It will be on all wikis from 24 January (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

20:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for advices

GermanJoe big thanks, for you advices. I will try to improve my wiki skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kachuralexandr (talk • contribs) 08:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome - please feel free to ask if you have further questions in the future. GermanJoe (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit reversed?

You have reversed the edit that I made today. I added GeNIe/SMILE, quite likely the most popular software for Bayesian networks along with the current link to where it can be downloaded. Is there anything wrong with that? Cheers,

Marek Druzdzel (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in case, here is the article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network Druzdzel (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Druzdzel:, the first important point is that you are editing Wikipedia with a clear - likely financial - conflict of interest, as explained in the message on your user talkpage. Such editing without a proper transparent disclosure is against Wikipedia guidelines and the Terms of Use for this site. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, and post the necessary disclosure as described in the linked guidelines.

Regarding the article-related aspect: such lists are limited to entries with existing Wikipedia articles that are based on multiple independent sources. In-depth coverage in such independent sources shows that a topic is "notable" (in Wikipedia's sense of the term - see WP:GNG and WP:WTAF) and can be summarized in an encyclopedic stand-alone article. If you can find multiple independent reliable sources about this topic, you could try to create a draft and let it be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. You'll find an extensive step by step guide to create successful drafts at WP:Your first article. But please note, that any such draft should be reviewed by an uninvolved volunteer before it can be published in mainspace.

I know that's a lot of links and information but COI editing, notability and article creation are complex topics. I hope some of these details are helpful for you. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review request

Hi. I found your name from a featured article nomination of mine from a few years ago; you had provided a source review for The Ecstatic's FA nomination. My current nomination for Forca Bruta requires a formal one, although much of the sourcing had been reviewed in others' comments and supports. I made a request at the FA talk page for a source review a few weeks ago, but it has remained unfulfilled. Would you mind offering one? Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Dan56:, I am very sorry to say but I haven't done source reviews for ages and am currently fairly out of touch with FAC. Not because I don't appreciate this part of the project and its great contributions to collaborative article creation and reviewing, but due to time constraints and a shift of interests I have moved on to other areas of article editing and maintenance. If I were you, I'd directly ask one or two of the regular reviewers who have already supported the current nomination for an additional source review. On a very very quick glance, several of them have already offered a detailed analysis of the article and should be able to summarize their opinion of the sources with a bit of additional source-related checking. I do hope the tip is helpful and am sorry to refuse your request, but it's just not in my area of interest and Wikipedia-related work at the moment. Best of luck with your nomination and thank you for your great music-related contributions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Bihar

Hello GermanJoe I made changes in Bihar page because the city list mentioned there is absoultely wrong. i am pasting the link of city list here according to 2011 Indian census on cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Bihar_by_population. You can compare the list currently on Bihar's page..i.e city list and the one mentioned here, Purnea is 5th and Darbhanga is 6th while on the page purnea is 9th and darbhanga is 10th. somebody has manipulated it and you couldn't find out the errors. M surprised! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajit.usp (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Ajit.usp:, if the list is wrong, it should be deleted or fixed of course. But without a meaningful edit summary I couldn't know about your concern (I thought you might have simply misclicked while editing) - please use edit summaries at least for substantial edits. As the city list exists as separate list anyway, the article-internal list is redundant too. I will remove the erroneous list then and link to the separate list page to avoid the duplication. Thank you for the clarification and sorry for the misunderstanding. GermanJoe (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-05

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

• The Wikimedia servers use HHVM to run the PHP code. They are going to use PHP7 and stop using HHVM. You can test PHP7 with a new beta feature. That way you can help find and report problems.

Problems

• When someone moves a page to a name that already exists that page that had the name the article is moved to is deleted. For a couple of months this didn't always work. Some users saw an error message instead. This has now been fixed. [23]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 30 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Diffgram

Anthonycalifornia (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Please stop reversing edits you don't agree with. Instead consider the source, ie do your own research, and then upgrade the article yourself. Thanks

Hello @Anthonycalifornia:, I have also a request: please stop misusing Wikipedia as free PR platform to promote your own company and software. Per WP:COI you are welcome to suggest additions on the article's talkpage (after you properly disclose a possible connection with the added product), if you can provide an independent reliable source with some coverage about it. A pseudo review on a questionable blog like altcoinflow.com - or a commercial site like the original humansintheloop.org source - have zero credibility as a source, you'll need a reliable uninvolved non-commercial source.

Regarding "do your own research", last I checked it is not my responsibility to support other editors' efforts to promote their own endeavours. But feel free to do that work yourself, as long as it is within the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:COI. Lastly, if you continue to add this software yourself, I will report your promotional editing to administrators. GermanJoe (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The article I linked is a valid 3rd party source. As clearly as shown in their review they listed a bunch of other annotation software along with Diffgram.

If you do not stop artificially attacking this I will report you for abusing your privileges on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonycalifornia (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Anthonycalifornia:, are you going to clarify your likely "conflict of interest" with this topic, or will you keep ignoring this request? Anyway, the source is not sufficient and your (likely) self-promotional editing is not acceptable. I will now report you. GermanJoe (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Intelligence Squared

Hi there @GermanJoe:. Ok, forget about the link, you are an experienced user, I am a noob. I thought it would be nice to have it somewhere, as I visit it just as often as the UK main site and it has very good content. The article isn't great. I PRODNOM'd the long list of debates on there, outdated and who needs a list of their content on WP. But how about the text edits that I made. The old versions has logical errors, "was launched by Robert Rosenkranz, an initiative of The Rosenkranz Foundation, a non-profit organization" that's just wrong, the guy is not an initiative of the Foundation. Thanks for being patient. RainyVision (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello RainyVision, thank you for helping with article improvements - and no worries, initial good-faith mistakes do happen :). If you see any obvious errors (like grammatical flaws, bad formatting, confusing phrasing, etc.), please be bold and fix them on sight. Such maintenance edits are always appreciated. If you need help with more complex situations or (sometimes a bit obscure) Wiki guidelines, feel free to ask or post at the Teahouse. Regarding the PRODed list: I would agree that such lists are not really encyclopedic, but opinions often differ about deletion-related questions. Anyway, if the PROD tag isn't removed, it's up to an administrator to decide this after 7 days. GermanJoe (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe, thanks for your swift response. Ok that's what I did. Brief question, the infobox had CEO in there but the field was empty. The webpage states managing director as the top position. I put the MD's name as CEO. Or should I change the infobox to Managing Director, instead of CEO? Thx. RainyVision (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello RainyVision, the template documentation at Template:Infobox website (a redirect from dot-com company) is apparently incomplete, but I found a specific parameter for MDs in the infobox code and changed it in the article (it's also often helpful to just look at working solutions in other similar articles). This infobox allows several variants, so you could also define "key_people = Matt McAllester ([[Chief executive officer|MD]])" with key_people as a more flexible parameter for leader info - both work. GermanJoe (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GermanJoe! RainyVision (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-06

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

Changes later this week

• It was easy to untick a box by accident in Special:Preferences. This will now be fixed. [24]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 February. It will be on all wikis from 7 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing remote desktop page

You deleted Ericom Connect from the page comparison of remote desktop software. There are several other products listed that also do not have separate Wikipedia pages for the product, only for the company - see for example Be Anywhere Support Express, Cloudberry Lab Remote Assistant, etc. Why is Ericom Connect being singled out for special treatment? Ericom Connect has much greater market share of the remote desktop market than some of the other products that also don't have a separate Wikipedia article, so it would seem to be more "notable." Either add Ericom Connect back, or delete all references that don't have Wikipedia page for the product. It's not appropriate to treat one vendor differently than other vendors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabcfi (talk • contribs) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Rabcfi:, as an editor with a conflict of interest please suggest such changes on the article's respective talkpage (using Template:Request edit on top of your message) instead of editing the article yourself. Obviously I disagree with the addition, but another uninvolved editor will then review your request. The existence of other possibly flawed entries (as unpaid volunteer I don't have the time to double-check every single entry) does not validate the addition of yet more problematic content - see also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It would be better to continue to improve your product draft with independent sources and to submit it for review instead of arguing over a questionable list inclusion. But please feel free to post an edit request if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi GermanJoe, I had made an addition to one of the pages you have reviewed. I had not written the edit summary. Is there any way I could write the edit summary for the changes I had made. The page is Make a Difference. I had made changes to the 'events' section Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodlord360 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Bloodlord360:, previous edit summaries cannot be edited. However, you could add a "dummy edit" - for example with some minor formatting improvements - and explain your previous edits in this "dummy edit". Speaking of minor formatting, you should usually avoid HTML "br" tags and use real line breaks instead. Just edit the article as regular flowing content - usually without any artificial HTML formatting. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sprint already had a slogan caption on it's page. Works for me. I changed it to Brighter Future for all, which is it's current slogan. I don't see how I did anything wrong. I just updated what was already there. Sjj1091 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Slogan

Sprint already had a slogan caption on it's page. Works for me. I changed it to Brighter Future for all, which is it's current slogan. I don't see how I did anything wrong. I just updated what was already there. Sjj1091 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Sjj1091:, neither slogan should be there. The addition of such slogans in the infobox is generally discouraged, a "slogan" parameter was removed for this reason (a year ago or so, if I remember correctly). But it's not a big problem - I just didn't notice this minor issue earlier. GermanJoe (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Hi GermanJoe, i have made edits to the pages "symbol" and "impression management" which you have deleted. This is not CITESPAM as you suggest. These are legitimate edits based on recent research. Why have you deleted them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.109.121 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm at a loss as to how you can modify all the other edits I made to pages such as "reputation" and "status symbol." Have you read the research article I included as a reference to the edits I made to these pages? I suspect not, considering how quickly you reversed each of my edits after I made them. The included reference is to a review article (a comprehensive and broad contribution) on symbols and symbolic management recently published at a highly respected academic journal. If you are going to take on the responsibility of managing the content edits made to these pages, I can't imagine how you can do so in good faith without reading the references used to cite included work. Again, these are not CITESPAM edits, and if you take the time to read the article, I'm confident you will agree that they are completely justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.109.121 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, are you one of the cited authors? Assuming this is the case, you have a conflict of interest and should read WP:COI. 2 basic steps are required: Please disclose such a connection regarding the added publications, and secondly use the article talkpage to suggest such additions instead of adding them yourself. You'll find more information at WP:COI.

Your edits did not add substantial new information to most affected articles, but added minor and tangential details that were either already covered in some other article sections or added little value to an encyclopedic understanding of the article topic. Anyway, I'd be glad to discuss your suggestions at the articles' respective talkpages if you decide to respect Wikipedia's guidelines about such situations and use the talkpage for further edit requests. GermanJoe (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd also note, that the linked article at [25] is an in-press article, just published online-only a few days ago. Wikipedia is generally not a venue to popularize cutting-edge research and new publications, but to present established knowledge and information that has already been widely discussed and reviewed by academic peers and other experts. GermanJoe (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand your response, and I appreciate your professional tenor and editing advice. My main concern relates to the grey line between "contributing to Wikipedia" and "spam." I assure you, I have no intention of spamming Wikipedia. Quite frankly, within my area of "expertise," there are numerous pages within Wikipedia with incomplete and/or misleading information. My intention is to aid the community of contributors by doing what I can to fill those gaps with whatever research is relevant to do so. If a single review article covers a broad content domain (as does the article I recently inserted into multiple pages), my intuition is to include it in whatever pages it is relevant to. If this constitutes "spam," so be it, and I will refrain from contributing to this website any further. As I am writing this response, it appears you have taken the liberty of undoing the limited reverse-edits to your deletions I undertook. Fine then. You can call the research I inserted limited, trivial, and spam. I will back away from contributing to Wikipedia any further. I would only suggest that you are a representative of a public store of knowledge, and regardless of who the authors of the inserted article are (and I'm not conceding that I am one of them in the least bit) the high standards of academic peer review about what constitutes a meaningful advancement to our collective knowledge should probably be considered in your evaluation of what is a "trivial" or "limited" addition and what is not. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:4000:5FF2:B4AF:3073:B746:A047 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

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) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-07

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

• You can use the ambox CSS class to show page issues to mobile readers. When you use ambox there are classes you can use.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 February. It will be on all wikis from 14 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-08

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

• When you thank someone on the mobile web you will now have two seconds to cancel the thank. This is in case you clicked on the thank button by accident. [26]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 February. It will be on all wikis from 21 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• There is a proposal to add a red link to mobile search results if there is no page with that name. This is how it works on desktop. You can leave feedback. [27]

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

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Question - RE your recent comment to me

Hey, I was not trying to add anything bad, I thought what I added was informational only. I don't have any skin in the game on this topic, just trying to get the hang of wikipedia updates. Can you suggest any reading materials? I've already read all the Wikipedia creating and updating page info, but I think it will take a little bit to get the hang of it. :) Thank you JessRzech (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC) JessRzech

Hello @JessRzech: the 2 basic requirements for Wikipedia content are independent reliable sources (see WP:RS) and an uninvolved neutral point of view with dispassionate non-promotional language (WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO). Information on PR platforms or commercial sites is biased by their own self-interests and promotional intent (or may be just false in worse cases) - and Wikipedia content based on such low-quality sources will reflect this. It's almost always better to look for an uninvolved source that has no financial stake or other conflict of interest in the topic (for example: books, reputed journals and newspapers). Regarding neutral language: just avoid any and all subjective claims of quality, importance, success, etc. Such claims are usually only allowed as direct quotes from acknowledged uninvolved experts, but should be included only in exceptional cases when they are of encyclopedic relevance. Another quick point while checking your recent edit: articles never use first or second person language. I'll post a few additional links on your user talk with other basic information. Hope these tips help a bit. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Press releases are not independent sources

Hi GermanJoe, I really appreciate your help educating me on what's considered reliable/independent in terms of sources used. With your recent edits on Silicon Valley Bank, you mention that press releases are not independent sources, and so I have a quick question that I'm hoping you can help me with (or point me in the right direction). Are PR Newswire press releases considered independent, while MarketWatch press releases are not? (I noticed you didn't remove all press releases on that article, just the one from MarketWatch.) Can you help clarify the difference between the two? Thanks for your assistance! Tycoon24 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Tycoon24:, generally all press releases are considered as not independent sources. While such sources are not completely prohibited (they can occasionally be used for uncontroversial non-promotional information), they should be avoided in favor of independent sources. And promotional information from press releases should never be included (source quality and independence are explained in detail in WP:RS). Other problems in the article will be fixed by other editors when they get noticed, all editors are welcome to collaborate on improvements. One last point: it seems you have overlooked my question on your user talkpage about a possible conflict of interest. It would be great if you could clarify this point: do you have a connection with Lighter Capital (per WP:COI or WP:PAID)? I'd be glad to help with further questions, once this aspect is clarified. GermanJoe (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more clear, I thought I answered it. I like the site's content and really was just trying to improve Wikipedia. But you made me aware that even expert blogs aren't considered reliable, and so I'm not arguing with that. Like I said, most or all of the pages I edited were literally asking for sources and improvements - that's what I was doing, using sources I thought were reliable. In any case, I'm always looking to learn and I do want to improve Wikipedia. Would you be willing to help teach me how you decide what's "promotional" and what's not? For instance, you edited this page to remove sources considered promotional, including a Forbes article [28], but you left this [29], which is from a firm that provides RBF financing. Is Forbes not reliable? What makes one a reliable source and the other not? Many thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Forbes is even more difficult to assess than other sources: it hosts articles written by Forbes staffers (usually reliable), but also articles from guest writers and contributors without editorial oversight (usually not reliable) on the same website. The linked Forbes article is from a contributor, even worse it's from the company founder promoting his own company and business model. To be clear: the information may be correct, but it must be verified by an independent source. By the way, please note my disclaimer above: "Other problems in the article will be fixed by other editors when they get noticed, all editors are welcome to collaborate on improvements." - just because I don't fix a problem immediately does not mean I endorse the problematic content. I often fix only specific links, but cleaning up an entire article from top to bottom is a completely different, much more time-consuming matter. Regarding the gsdcapital source, I agree with your assessment (another editor tagged the article in January regarding "unreliable" and "self-published" sources). Such sources should be replaced by independent expert sources such as books, journals or reputed news media. By the way: if the content is deemed uncontroversial or likely correct, there is no need to remove it together with the problematic source - but that's a case by case decision. Hope this helps. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: forgot to ping @Tycoon24:. GermanJoe (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. That all checks out. Except... Would you point me to the Wikipedia rule that states you can keep information on a page while only removing the source from which it came? (Without of course adding a new source to verify the information you’re allowing to stay.) I’m no expert, but that sounds equivalent to adding unverified and unsourced information. Or just a loophole to allow plagiarism. Tycoon24 (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Promotional links and spam are prohibited content (see WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM). Any prohibited content violating basic Wikipedia guidelines can be removed on sight (not only promotional content, but also copyright violations, libel, hate speech, and similar cases of clearly unsuitable content). Keeping promotional and spam links, that are not suitable as reliable sources, for a longer time just rewards promotional editing and encourages more advertising on Wikipedia. The general topic of verification, sourcing and how to challenge questionable content is explained at WP:V. GermanJoe (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I’m not sure what the first paragraph of your reply has to do with my question, but your final sentence and wiki link to WP:V is helpful. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant to say that removing prohibited links takes precedence over the basic sourcing requirement in such cases, although sourcing is important as well of course. But I probably wasn't particularly clear about it, sorry for the (sometimes) garbled English. If you believe that remaining questionable content should have an inline citation after cleanup, you could add a citation needed template to tag such an issue. GermanJoe (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ooh that makes sense, thanks! Tycoon24 (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-09

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

• There is a new version of the iOS Wikipedia app. It has for example syntax highlighting and new toolbars to make it easier to write wikitext. It also has night mode, a find-on-page function and other things. You can give feedback and suggestions. [30]

Changes later this week

• When you look at your watchlist or the recent changes page you can use the new filters for edit review. There you can choose tags to filter different edits. Empty tags will no longer be shown. [31]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 February. It will be on all wikis from 28 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikipedia app for Android will invite users to add Wikidata descriptions to Wikidata objects that have Wikipedia articles but no Wikidata descriptions. It will only invite users who have added a number of Wikidata descriptions in the app without being reverted. This is to avoid spam and bad edits. You can read more and leave feedback.

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

21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki hosting services

Hello GermanJoe, I have seen that my edit on Comparison of wiki hosting services was reverted. You mentioned that historical information is still relevant, but in the past a closed wiki farm was removed from the list (see this edit). Why was that edit not reverted? Thank you. --Abcd500 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Abcd500:, thank you for pointing this out. Truth be told, I haven't checked the entire article history for past incidents. Anyway, software-related lists often have the same dilemma: what to do with discontinued software or sites? There are basically 3 different approaches: 1) Keep them in 2) Keep them in, but move them to a "Discontinued X" section or 3) Remove them.

Software-related lists on Wikipedia use either of these 3 approaches often without consistent system or clear criteria. Personally I'd prefer 1 or 2, but I would be fine with any of the 3 approaches for this specific comparison, as long as it is sufficiently clarified. We should probably discuss (on article talk) and clarify (in the article) which of the 3 approaches we want to use. If the article should only include active services, a simple rephrasing of the lead would be sufficient to avoid future misunderstandings. GermanJoe (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. In my opinion, if the decision is to keep the list of closed services, the services which were removed from the list (like Wiki.Wiki) should be added again, otherwise it is a bit unfair for them. --Abcd500 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I do agree in general. However, Wiki.Wiki doesn't have a sourced stand-alone article and is just barely mentioned in a redirected topic. So it wouldn't qualify for an entry anyway (imo), whichever approach we choose. GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

HiPEAC

Hello @GermanJoe: Thanks for your message - I'm new to Wikipedia so just trying to get my head around the conflict of interest part. Could you provide some clarification? Just to give you a bit of background, my employer is Barcelona Supercomputing Center and I work on a public, European Union-funded project named HiPEAC at https://www.hipeac.net/. HiPEAC is a network of around 2,000 computer scientists and engineers. All have computing PhDs, many are senior scientists and many of them are working in the latest research on computing systems and engineering. We believe this network is an important source of knowledge on computing systems, but some people within the network may not be able to update Wikipedia pages themselves (and in any case would probably contradict your conflict of interest guidelines as they may refer back to their own research, from what I can see). We have both academic and industry members, but we do not represent any one specific company or academic institution in particular and, as I say, our funding is public. Given this background, is it possible for me to add information with references to, for example, the HiPEAC magazine or HiPEAC Vision (roadmap document) as long as the conflict of interest is declared on the page? (Madeleine.S.Gray) 12:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Madeleine.S.Gray:, thank you for your message to clarify some details. If you have a financial conflict of interest, please read and follow both WP:COI and WP:PAID. If you have only a non-financial conflict of interest, only WP:COI is relevant for you. A transparent disclosure should be published in both cases (see links for details).

Regarding editing in such a situation: you are welcome to add unrelated information in your area of expertise everywhere, such contributions from topic experts are greatly appreciated. But when you want to add information about your organization, or to promote your organization's goals and publications, such editing is strongly discouraged. If you believe that such related information would add substantial encyclopedic value, you should use Template:Request edit and suggest such additions on the article's talkpage instead of editing the article yourself. An uninvolved editor will then review your suggestion and implement it if it's OK from an encyclopedic point of view. It is preferred to use independent 3rd-party sources whereever possible, but you can also use affiliated sources, assuming they are reliable (see WP:RS).

I hope these tips are helpful, but please feel free to ask if you have further questions. You can also post for advice at WP:Teahouse, a forum specifically for new editors. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @GermanJoe:Thanks a lot for the clarification. In that case, I guess it would be OK to add edits relating to research projects in which I wasn't directly involved and linking to their websites and publications rather than directly to HiPEAC publications? I will also look into suggesting articles or edits - for example, I would suggest that the page on virtual assistants could do with mentioning open source work in this field. (Madeleine.S.Gray) 13:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Madeleine.S.Gray:, aside from COI there are a few additional aspects to consider for such project citations: Wikipedia generally shouldn't include "research project X was started in Y" mentions just for the sake of mentioning a project. Ideally such an addition should focus on major noteworthy projects and also provide some substantial and relevant topical information. Another aspect is a possibly undue emphasis on recent news or cutting-edge research - Wikipedia should focus on established knowledge that has already been widely discussed and reviewed by other academic peers and experts. So information on very recent developments, that might be interesting for academics, might be too soon for an encyclopedic inclusion. But such considerations should be made case by case, it's certainly not a simple black and white decision. When in doubt, you can always start an informal discussion first on article talk to get additional feedback from other interested editors. GermanJoe (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @GermanJoe:OK, thanks a lot for the clarification. Sounds like the talk function could be a good way to get started.(Madeleine.S.Gray) 13:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-10

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

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 March. It will be on all wikis from 7 March (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• You can give feedback on the future of talk pages.
• The mobile website will use the standard fonts on your computer or phone instead of a generic font. This will make it easier to read text in many scripts. [32][33]

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

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

BHIM

Recrishi (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Hi I had added link to official BHIM app :- BHIM

Why you deleted link? Please explain.

Thanks

Hello @Recrishi:, as a general rule we try to limit "official links" to 1 link (usually to the topic's central homepage) - see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL for more information. Links to several app stores are already available on BHIM's main site, so an additional link here is redundant. As an encyclopedic project, the usage of external links in Wikipedia is relatively restricted, compared to other publications like blogs or forums that use such links far more frequently.

By the way just 2 quick tips: please add new messages to the bottom of the talkpage (new topics are usually added as new section with their own header). Also, please make sure to sign messages at the end. Not a big deal, but it helps to keep communication a bit more structured. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask (or you can post at WP:Teahouse, a forum for new editors). I'll add a few more links with basic Wikipedia information on your user talkpage. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-11

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

• Pages can use geocoordinates from Wikidata with the mw.wikibase.entity:formatStatements Lua function or the #statements parser function. If they do, they will now be shown using a Kartographer <maplink> if the wiki can use Kartographer. You can report bugs or ask questions on Phabricator.
• There is now an EventStream to see when links are added or removed on Wikimedia wikis. You can read the discussions and plans.

Problems

• Some wikis will not be able to edit for a short period of time on 19 March (UTC). This will start at 15:00 UTC. It will last up to 15 minutes but probably shorter. You can see the list of affected wikis. This is because of network maintenance. You can still read the wikis.
• Editors who use Firefox to edit with the visual editor had a problem with copying text. When they tried to select text that included footnotes, templates or block images in the middle they would often only get part of the text. This has now been fixed. [34]
• Some maps didn't work for a while on 8 March. This has been fixed. [35][36]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 March. It will be on all wikis from 14 March (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Priya Nigam

• Priya Nigam (talk · contribs)

This looks like a rather sophisticated spammer to me. If you hadn't left a message today, I'd have left a uw-paid1 message. I'm thinking a discussion at RSPAM would be a good step instead. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronz There seems to be a good amount of advocacy involved, but I haven't checked all edits in-depth to be sure. It's possible that the editor is connected to some of the cited groups or just feels strongly about the issues and wants to write about them (in a too biased and ill-sourced manner currently). Maybe give the editor a little bit more time to acknowledge the concerns and (hopefully) improve their editing. If the current pattern continues, the issue needs to be raised in an appropriate venue though - agreed. GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll focus on cleaning up the MEDRS stuff first then while we wait to see what the editor does next. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe not: Very similar editing as that from 122.160.172.8 (talk · contribs). --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronz If you believe you have enough evidence for a case (you certainly have looked deeper into the background than me), maybe start an SPI or ask one of the admins involved in previous blocks for some advice? Just some random vague ideas, sorry I couldn't be of more concrete help. GermanJoe (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. SPI is probably the way to go. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Siegfried Vogel

Thanks for the help. LouisAlain (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.

Hello GermanJoe,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc ^connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)