User talk:GermanJoe

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


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

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

The Signpost
28 February 2019

Edit summary[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Intelligence Squared[edit]

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 I PRODNOM'd the long list of debates on there, outdated and who needs a list of their content on WP.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[edit]

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing remote desktop page[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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)


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 (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 (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 [2] 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[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-07[edit]

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-08[edit]

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Question - RE your recent comment to me[edit]

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[edit]

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

Press releases are not independent sources[edit]

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 [5], but you left this [6], 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[edit]

21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki hosting services[edit]

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)


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 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[edit]

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Why you deleted link? Please explain.


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[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-11[edit]

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Priya Nigam[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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

WikiProject Apple Inc.[edit]

Sad mac.png

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 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)

Tech News: 2019-12[edit]

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)