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)

Help RequestedEdit

It has been brought to my attention that the Timeline of asexual history page was started by JaneSwifty, who apparently was a sock of Dante8. I did not know this. Clearly this page is important, as are all the pages that user created. Clearly, though, this is a classic example of WP:EVASION. So, since I don't want this page to be swiped down in what would be a completely justified deletion, per EVASION, would you mind preemptively deleting the Timeline of asexual history page and I will come in right behind you and recreate the page myself with all the same information so that it is not an EVASION?

I know this has been done before in rare instances, but I put alot of work in this one and I don't want to see it all lost because of a sock from 3 years ago. Thanks in advance for your help. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:49 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

TomStar81 took care of it. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:12 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Exsite Webware deleteEdit

Please don't delete without discussion. Amongst other things, it's not proper Wikipedia behavior. I'm restoring the delete, and ask that you discuss first. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talkcontribs) 02:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Santamolo:, please read the clear notice on top of the edit window for List of content management systems - entries should only be added with a Wikipedia article (= an accepted mainspace article) to avoid bloating such lists with promotional entries of minor products. Once the draft has been reviewed and accepted by an uninvolved reviewer, it can be added of course. Also, please disclose any possible conflict of interest, if you have one, regarding this topic. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
By the way, you are incorrect about the deletion of such edits. Content that doesn't meet Wikipedia's content guidelines can be removed anytime by any editor (if a meaningful edit summary is provided). See also WP:BRD for additional information. GermanJoe (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-34Edit

20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your revert hereEdit

Hi GermanJoe. I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I'm wondering if you can explain your revert here. You wrote "source already given, not a survey list". The sentence in question acts as a statement of consensus in the field (in the introductory paragraph, no less), but only one source is cited - even though a major part of establishing consensus is showing that multiple works are pointing to the same conclusion. Also, I'm not sure what "not a survey list" means. Thanks! Hypatia's Quill (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)HypatiasQuill

Hello @HypatiasQuill:, the basic information was already referenced, and additional sources do not strengthen the claim or added anything substantially new. Of course there are often multiple sources saying the same (or almost the same) thing, but for Wikipedia's purpose of verification 1 reliable source is generally sufficient (unless the claim is controversial or extraordinary). GermanJoe (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I think I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, I find myself scratching my head a bit. The paper already cited is an important one, but it's a small conference paper (probably peer reviewed), while the other is a more robust journal paper (definitely peer reviewed), which qualifies as strengthening the claim made, as far as I can figure. I also can't help but notice several cases elsewhere on the page where there are multiple sources cited that don't seem to add to the claim made (starting with the opening definition sentence). So it seems that the "one reliable source for verification" rule is the minimum, with additional citations being acceptable, as long as ... well, I'm not sure (my assumption: that they are relevant and important). I have several more sources I'd like to add, but I don't want to do the work only to have it undone ... Can you provide any more insight and guidance here? Hypatia's Quill (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)HypatiasQuill
If a given fact is already sourced, I wouldn't bother searching for additional sources - unless the original source is unreliable or outdated of course. But replacing questionable sources or finding references for unsourced content would certainly be appreciated. And of course you can also add new sources, if given content has been substantially changed or when you add completely new relevant information. If you feel that a reliable publication has additional information to offer, you could also add it to "Further reading" for the time being, so other editors and readers can use it as ressource in the future. Hope these tips help a bit. While only an essay, you'll find a few more thoughts on the broader aspect at Wikipedia:Citation overkill. GermanJoe (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the additional information! I'll keep your points in mind. I suppose additions may be rejected but that doesn't mean they aren't valid -- just may need to be placed elsewhere. I'll be giving the essay you recommended a read now, too. Hypatia's Quill (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-35Edit

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir need to know about the reason why did you revert my uploadsEdit

Can you reply sir? Sharan Sharma the clicker (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the advice already given at your user talkpage. But quoting from the guideline "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself" - several images of yours included a copyright notice within the image itself. Such notices are also covered within this guideline. A free image on Wikipedia should have no manual distorting additions whatsoever. Also, please note that images should add to the encyclopedic understanding of an article in directly relevant context - merely decorative images with little or vague context are generally discouraged. GermanJoe (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #4Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Reply toolEdit

 
The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

  • More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
  • Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
  • Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[5]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signaturesEdit

  • The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
  • Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion toolEdit

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-36Edit

20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteriaEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria. I've started a formal RfC to try to resolve the dispute on what time series databases should be included in the article on them. As someone who's commented in discussions related to this in the past I'm notifying you as a courtesy. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

  Administrator changes

  Eddie891
  AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

  CheckUser changes

  SQL

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

HokaglishEdit

Just wanted to let you know that I moved this back from draftspace, because I didn't believe your original move to draftspace was appropriate given that it was a longstanding article. See WP:DRAFTIFY for when moves to draftspace are acceptable. Feel free to nominate for deletion though -- I agree that it's not a great article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I am sure you moved this in good faith, but this seems really a bit too bureaucratic. After a long and complicated discussion, the author of the page himself agreed that the page would be better placed in draftspace for now. For what it's worth, the draft should not be deleted of course. This topic - aside from it's editorial problems with only 1 notable source - seems it could be improved over time (only by topic experts though). Maybe this is the first time, I'd like to claim WP:IAR in my Wiki career :). GermanJoe (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: I have restored the talkpage of this article (or draft). Whatever it is, the talkpage contains relevant information about past discussions and the article's history - seems like a mistaken deletion during the back and forth movement. GermanJoe (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, it already was deleted in draftspace after it wasn't edited for six months. And whenever something is moved to draftspace and isn't edited in 6 months, that's what happens... I restored it after it was deleted, and in the process of doing that I saw that it was a longstanding article. Anyways because to the threat of deletion in draftspace, I don't think this was bureaucratic at all. (If the draftspace didn't have an automatic deletion mechanism mechanism, I wouldn't really care one way or the other.) Thanks for restoring the talk page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

List of manual image annotation toolsEdit

Why Labelbox.com is a valid online platform and trainingset.ai is not? Both are free and offer similar capabilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.54.34.98 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Because all entries need some independent reliable sources with significant coverage about the added tool (or a stand-alone article on Wikipedia including such sources). GermanJoe (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-37Edit

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020Edit

 
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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Your revert Fog computing on Vlado Stankovski's editsEdit

Hi,

I do not at all understand how I violated the terms with my edits. First of all, I have not written anything about myself or about any of my things. I highlighted an improved understanding of the term fog computing. This is really something missing on this page. DECENTER project is a research and innovation project, so even less biased than OpenFog. The "advertisement" on the left side, isn't that biased towards just one group of companies? We do not receive extra funding from mentioning the DECENTER project in Wikipedia. The article is currently very biased towards just one definition of a business group - the OpenFog, which I think is not what the spirit of Wikipedia is. The term "fogging" who wrote that, I do not think it is even technical.

Hence, adding my edits are meant to bring new quality for the readers in understanding what fog computing is. I think because I work in this area for about 15+ years, and I am professor of computer science, I should be allowed to highlight aspects of fog computing, as this had been done by other authors. I would be very grateful for your response. This is not about me, but, about the others.

Anyhow, I am not and will not be paid for this work, and what i have provided is my best effort to highlight a term, which i think is very important in understanding why at all the term "fog" is used. As one can see from reading the whole page, no author so far has explained anything like that, and I see this page for quite some time. So, it seems it is missing and should be explained. This is how community work builds.

Also mentioning DECENTER, I think it is really important to understand the state-of-the-art in the subject area. There's one more project that could be mentioned RainbowH2020. Similarly to OpenFog, DECENTER also contributes towards the definition of what fog computing is in substance. Focusing just on OpenFog makes this article extremely biased and that is frustrating. Also, the cited article is not about myself, it is about a publication that shines information for better understanding, so, I do not really think i am violating the terms and conditions.

Please, if you accept this explanation, could you please bring back my text to the page? Best regards, Vlado — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladoStankovski (talkcontribs) 10:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello @VladoStankovski:, as a dissemination manager (according to your edit summary), you have a clear and direct conflict of interest whether you are being specifically paid for these edits or not. WP:COI includes and relates to all kinds of unpaid conflicts of interest - Wikipedia is no PR platform to draw attention to organizations, projects or any other external cause. And you have an additional COI using your own publications as sources (see WP:SELFCITE). I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. If you feel that the content would be helpful to improve the article, please suggest an edit request on the article's talkpage. I'd also recommend to find truely independent sources for such suggestions. By the way, I sort of agree with your criticism about a somewhat one-sided presentation of the topic. Sourced suggestions for improvements on article talk to fix this aspect would certainly be appreciated (as noted, independent sources are always preferred). GermanJoe (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @GermanJoe: so we sort of agree that it is questionable if the article on the OpenFog Consortium was written by somebody who is neither "a dissemination manager", nor with a "clear and direct conflict of interest whether"... they ... " are being specifically paid for these edits or not" directly or indirectly linked to the OpenFog Consortium? Would this assume I should find an XY person who is going to write that "selfcite" for me and that would be morally acceptable and scientifically impartial? I have seen for example many Wikipedia pages of "important people" that I should trust have been written by impartial persons, somewhere from the other side of the Globe? I just wrote this, because these are particularly the kind of questions we have been discussing lately, and our new Horizon 2020 project called ONTOCHAIN (https://www.f6s.com/ontochainwildandcrazyideassessiongecon2020/about) would have direct implications to trust management in this kind of situations. I have been in contact with Carole Goble, Soeren Auer and other people for years. Anyhow, in complex questions like this one, it is really difficult to assess the impartiality, and according to the Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorems, there is no single truth either. Perhaps, i can refrain from putting my own reference there, or ask some other people to do it for me, however, it is cited and known already, Google finds it, so, it makes really no sense. Then from the viewpoint of clarity, the whole page is not really clear, it is biased, and i know it from professional viewpoint. Anyhow, what I cannot be convinced is that all those references cited under the same page have been brought up by "independent editors and sources", it would be impossible to convince me otherwise. In fact, i see no reason for that, Wikipedia is not presenting the truth, but it is about presenting the multi-sided aspects of the same thing, so that people can see, read, and understand their own truth out of what is written.

One more thing, related to citations. I do write papers, but, never have i used a reference from a wikipedia page. I usually come, and see what they explain on a subject matter. For referencing, i use other search services. So, citing myself in here would not make me more popular than i am, really. Even, it is the first time in many years i do an edit here. Anyhow, thank you very much for the feedback, and I will see what I will do, I am a busy man, but, I can definitely say I was curious about your response.

Yes, if you have a conflict of interest please avoid adding your own publications and suggest changes in affected content on article talk rather than editing these articles yourself. Unfortunately a lot of editors with a conflict of interest have written biased or promotional content in the past, and Wikipedia as a community has only tightened their policies about this issue in recent years - so many "old" articles with flaws still remain for now until they can get fixed. Just for clarity: you are of course welcome to edit articles in your area of expertise, as long as the specific content is not directly related to your conflict of interest. Anyway, thank you for your understanding and the thoughtful response even if we disagree on some points. GermanJoe (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-38Edit

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

About Spam Links(!)Edit

Hello GermanJoe, You said some of my edits are spam. But they are not. How could you decide that? Do you have enough experience on that area? You can not block people to edit or add somthing without really examining. Thanks for everything.

If you ignore the warnings on your user talkpage, you will be blocked. Please note that promotional websites and blogs are generally not reliable sources for encyclopedic content. All other necessary information is available, when you follow the links on your user talkpage to the respective guidelines and policies. GermanJoe (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
GermanJoe: Tecbrain is a confirmed serial liar, sock puppet and spammer. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hamitdmr. If you see another user spamming with links to Ant Media, recreating Ant Media Server or resubmitting the repeatedly declined Draft:Ant Media Server, please consider filing another report at SPI. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-39Edit

21:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)