User talk:GermanJoe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

1900 film question

Hi GJ, I wonder if you could have a look at a file I recently added to Commons: File:Little Tich and his Big Boots - 1900.ogv. I'm fairly sure it's PD: it was filmed in 1900; the director, Clément Maurice, died in 1933; the actor, Little Tich, died in 1928. There's a little more information on the film at the BFI. I've gone through what I can of the complicated IP rules surrounding AV material, and I think this should be OK, but I'd be grateful for some independent verification on it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is OK, but do you have any info about the date of first publication? Would be good to add that as additional info - for images and other uploads in general, as US copyright uses that date. GermanJoe (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that! The only info I have is from a different BFI website, which states 1900 was the year. I'll see if there is anything else I can come up with to doubly confirm. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything else in the official registers the French film industry site has only the production date. I suspect that this refers to the same film being released in the US in 1903, but I can't find anything that definitely links the film to that record. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The AFI-link is most likely the same movie, unless he made 2 identical films. Added a link for those details. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic news! Many thanks your thoughts, and for the tweaks to the file too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Ambohimanga

Hi Joe, thanks for taking the time to review the images and look over the Ambohimanga FAC. If you're all right with the rest of it, would you post your support? Summertime seems slow and reviewers are sparse, so there are quite a few articles up for FAC that I imagine will have to (wastefully) go through the process again from sheer lack of reviewers. Hoping to avoid that fate. Thank you, Lemurbaby (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lemurbaby, i am not really sure, i will have the time for a thorough review. But i'll try to have a look this weekend, if possible. Maybe you can ask a few other regulars aswell? (just a quick note, but it's best to avoid the "s" word, when requesting a review. Others may see that as non-neutral request to support - personally i don't read your post that way at all, but it's better to be safe with such things). GermanJoe (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The weekend came earlier than expected :) - hope, those comments are helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I've responded to all your points on the FAC. Thanks again for the thorough review. You were right about needing to break up and rework the layout section, which has been problematic for a while now. I think it's now much easier to read and understand across the board. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on non-free media

Hi. Since you're an experienced and recognizable name at FAC for media reviews, could you give me your two cents on the use of non-free media in Agharta (album)?, which includes covers of two album editions (original and alternate), a 30-second audio sample, and an image of the gatefold artwork in the article body. If I were to nominate it for FA, my feeling would be that the latter image might be pointed out, although I'm not sure if it's rationale is properly written. Since OK Computer had similarly non-free imagery and was passed, I figured this would be acceptable. But I'm uncertain right now. Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to check it over the weekend. At first glance an obvious point to consider is the cover usage, but i'll have to read into the article to check their context. GermanJoe (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:

• (not image-related) The GA-review seems to have been very short, not even mentioning any GA-criteria. I would have expected atleast a few comments and suggestions for minor tweaks. Suggestion: if you are aiming for FA, maybe it would be good to have another pair of eyes from a member of a music-related project look over the article for polishing.
• File:Festival_hall_Osaka02bs2400.jpg - OK, but only when the relief on the side is not an independent work of art, but part of the building design (Japan has no Freedom of Panorama for works of art, only for mere buildings).
• Sound sample - OK (the caption is a bit vague: i would remove the sample info (obvious) and the length (is in summary) and rather focus on describing interesting details of the sample itself).
• First infobox image - OK.
• Back cover design - OK (unusual, but the design is extensively discussed).
• Second infobox image - not sure on this. A cover for "identification" is already present, and the alternative cover is apparently not discussed in the article. Leaning to "not OK". See also the template documentation, which warns about WP:NFCC-problems with alternative covers.
• Some rationales could use a bit of cleanup, but that can be done eventually - no biggie.

Hope that information helps a bit with your preparations, if you have any questions or more information about the cover usage, please let me know. GermanJoe (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Sesame Street article

Hi Joe, since you helped out and reviewed the last Sesame Street article up at FAC, I wondered if you could review the most recent one up there now: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Format of Sesame Street/archive1. I need it done quickly, so that I can get into the finals of the Wikicup in ten days, something I'd really like to accomplish. I'd appreciate your assistance greatly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, wanted to let you know that I've addressed your very thorough comments at this FAC, which I sincerely appreciate. I think that I've copyedited it as your suggested, making it a much better article now. Could you return and access what I've done? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And again: I've started a discussion about a suggestion made during this FAC (User talk:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street Sandbox 2). There hasn't been any discussion about it, probably because no one is aware of it, so I thought that I'd try and elicit involvement. If you have an opinion, please go and express it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Amir Hamzah

Would you be willing to revisit the images (very quickly)? I dug up a free image of Armijn and STA, so I've moved Ilik down to the influences and put the two of them in the Java section. Basically, I'm looking for a validation that the images are free and an opinion whether the double image should be horizontal or vertical. Thanks beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(side rant)"PD-URAA-noformalities-unrestored" makes my head hurt. Anyway, that's not our problem for this nomination :). I'll add a quick summary to the FA-nomination to have all information in one place. GermanJoe (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks (and yeah, that's a doozy of a template). Thoughts on vertical vs. horizontal? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks fine for me. Just typing the nomination statement in a second window, lol. => And done. GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Danke, and a big "d'oh!" for forgetting PD-Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome, was just doing my Saturday morning Wiki-visit anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

God of War: Ghost of Sparta FAC

Hi, if you have some spare time, would you care to do an image review for the aforementioned article? --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JDC808. Reviews have been done, see nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Little Tich at peer review

Hello Joe, hope your well. I have listed Little Tich at peer review which I would love for you to take part in if you're able to. As well as your excellent prose review, the images will also need checking but I think they are mostly OK with the exception of perhaps two of which are questionable. Many thanks! -- Cassianto^Talk 08:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look. A few more articles like that and i'm slowly becoming an expert in music hall comedians :) (OK, maybe not realistically). GermanJoe (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, that can only be a good thing! Cheers. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent comments so far. Tim Riley has very kindly sent me a copy edited version of Little Tich which I have now copy and pasted over the existing article. It was only a light dusting, but seemed easier to just paste over the top rather than go through systematically and change. I realise this may have deleted your (if any) alterations in the meantime, so I will go back over and reinstate them, but incase I miss any please feel free to restore. Best regards and thanks again for your help thus far. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Help! I seem to be making a right old mess on the mistinguett image. For some reason the image will not show my cropped version; only when I upload a new version will it show the cropped version I want it to be. I only ever upload to Commons so I haven't experienced this before. Oh, and yes please, I think we will need to delete the old Commons picture after all so I would be obliged if you would do the honours as I might be liable to cock that up too ! Lol -- Cassianto^Talk 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not your fault, i have the same problem. Suggest to keep the current last file version "as is" and let the cache update itself sometimes. Note: I uploaded the image anew and am 100% sure, it's the correct one - so only the cached image display is wrong for now, hopefully it will settle itself after a while (an admin can delete the extranous versions later). GermanJoe (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Further clarification from an admin sought; check out the helpful Wiki guideline from within. Aside from that, how do the other images look? -- Cassianto^Talk 18:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Even Ctrl + F5 on FF does not work for me. But on Commons the images shows the correct version, only in en-Wiki it's wrong (going to clear my FF cache on a quiet day). Regardless, other images look fine after a quick check. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Me to. I'm using Safari which is just the same. Commons is fine for me too. Jujutacular has swept up after us and has assured me that it now looks ok and the cropped version is showing the most recent. Thanks for all your help and excellent comments Joe. See you at FAC! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. Would I be best to not use the Fripp image then? Do you think the article suffers with having too many images? I don't want to overdo things. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have brought this up at FAC ;), but yes. 2 concerns with the new image: How relevant is this doctor really for Titch? OK, he made a few visits, but following the article it doesn't sound like a really significant relation. The other point is: at the end of the article near "legacy and death" i'd prefer a more "personal" final image like his last home, a memorial image or a colleague from his final years. But that's only my opinion, feel free to disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That was initially my plan. I don't live that far from Finchley (30 miles-ish) and I was hoping to locate his grave and secure a picture of it. The Fripp image was just to fill a space until then really, but I will happily delete as it was just a test edit. If you have a look back at my previous FAs, they all end with an image of a grave; apt really as not only is a grave illustrative of the end of someones life, but also fits well with the "end of an article". I will try top get up to Finchley in the next week or so to do this as I don't think any free ones exist on the net. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Joe! The Little fella is now appearing at an FAC near you. I haven't got round to that final picture yet, but there is no sense in holding up the FAC for the sake of that. Any comments gratefully received as always :) -- Cassianto^Talk 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Hi Cassianto, i'll try to give this fine article another read over the next weekend. Not expecting any major issues, just want to be thorough in reviewing. A minor question occured while reading the source infos: Mary Tich is his daughter, can you elaborate on her role in writing the biography (maybe something is noted in the book's introduction?). Did she just provide basic information or did she participate in writing the book. If she was too heavily involved in the book, we may look at a minor problem of possible bias in her observations. Nothing critical, but something to consider imo. GermanJoe (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You are such a help Joe; thank you for your research and fixes at FAC with regards to the images. Mary was more of a source of information who ghosted on the book with Findlater. In my comments to Nikkimaria, I express a regret that I didn't cite "Findlater" instead of Tich. Which parts would you consider issues around her observations? -- Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Was the Rosherville image ok to use after that research? Also, Do you have any suggestions about the sound clip (last remaining issue)? -- Cassianto^Talk 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosherville: it's probably best to wait and see, if Crisco is content with the evidence (i would be, but it's not a clean-cut case). Sound clip: Do you know, how to remove the sound from the file? Alternatively, you could upload the file to Wikipedia under US copyright only - as far as i understand, US law views the producer/director of the complete work as copyright holder, whereas French law has possible separate copyrights for various parts of a work. But i am not 100% sure (sound is tricky). A final suggestion for the blackface image: if the image was in private property the whole time (aka not published) and anonymous, it would be PD 120 years after creation. GermanJoe (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I can pull the sound if needed. As for whether it could be copyrighted: my upload of A Free Ride (NSFW), which had a later soundtrack added, had to be deleted because the sound was not part of the original work and (since clearly added much later) likely had its own copyright. Deletion discussion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, I believe SchroCat is squirrelling away on this one, but if he becomes trumped by it then I would gratefully take you up on your kind offer. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Alrighty. Just give the word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• So much for "watertight" image preparation /blush. Many thanks for spotting those issues, Crisco. In fact, i am usually less strict on "proof for publication" (assuming, that most artists sell their work for a living :) ), but i totally missed the coloring and the sound bit. GermanJoe (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• No worries. Its just that I have had this stuff bite me in the butt before, so I wanted to be careful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tor

Glad to see you on Glastonbury Tor. The reason I'm there is I saw a plea on Eric Corbett's page from Rodw, who was initially asking Eric to take a look at it. It's not in a bad shape, if a little too technical, but with the right help, it may make at least B class I reckon. --Cassianto^Talk 18:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just surfing through a few articles - looking for something to do :). I can double-check the references (harv format should be OK now, but looks like some of them could use a bit more information, f.e. page ranges are missing for a few of them). GermanJoe (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit threadbare in places, but I have confidence in the primary editor to add more meat on the bones should he be asked. I have got past the first and (I think) second sections so far, but it will be a day or so before I can get back to it. By all means post here should you notice any issues or wish to give any advice to Rodw :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 21:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck thanks

Thank you for your Image check help, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

I've addressed your point about the image caption cites, and trimmed it down to just one, from three.

Perhaps you could revisit?

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. Looks like you are on a good way with this one, nice work. GermanJoe (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting, most appreciated. Just curious if you had an opinion on the merits of the article itself for the star? :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have only really checked the image situation so far in more detail and skimmed over the text. If you really need another review on the full article, i can have a look tomorrow. I always wondered about the American obsession with the F-word, maybe this article can shed some light on the topic for me ;). GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

With four (4) Supports so far, I don't think we need it at this point, but it's always appreciated. Up to you, — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, FAC nominators (myself included) are often insecure about our nominations, so hopefully it could only help. I do hope you find the article itself informative, and perhaps even watch the film, it is most educational and also entertaining! :) — Cirt (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just curious if you've had another chance to think this over if you feel this article merits the star? :) — Cirt (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i haven't had time for a proper full review - some other real life and Wiki-tasks keeping me busy at the moment. GermanJoe (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, thanks again for your help, — Cirt (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin

Greetings Joe, hope your good. I am reviewing Chaplin at GAN and I am getting to the end before summing up takes place. The images are the final step and seeing as I know very little about the legal side of things, I wondered if you could pop over and take a quick look. Best -- Cassianto^Talk 12:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cass, unfortunately i'll need a day or 2 to check those (pretty busy actually). On first glance you might want to encourage the nominators to check WP:GALLERY. While probably not part of the GA-criteria, the gallery of statues doesn't meet this policy - it's an indiscriminate collection with little encyclopedic value for each single image. The article would be stronger with only 1 or 2 memorial images: the most notable ones supported by sufficient encyclopedic background information. Some of the depicted statues aren't even mentioned in the text and most likely not notable at all. GermanJoe (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood Joe thanks for the reply. I will inform the nom's of this. Cheers Cassianto^Talk 17:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ealdgyth. Merry Christmas for you and your family too. GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	May 2013 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, SchroCat. Hope you enjoy some nice Christmas holidays and a Happy New Year. GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC favour?

Hi GermanJoe, I hope you're doing well. I wonder if I could ask a favour? Cassianto and I have Hattie Jacques at FAC, and I wondered if you would be in a position to cast your eye over the images for us? Most should be fine, but an expert's view is always welcome! Many thanks if you have time (on which point, it's only been running a couple of days, so no ruch on this). Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat, i am taking a few days off during the holidays, but should be able to have a look after Christmas - if nobody else steps up until then. GermanJoe (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Joe. Have a very merry Christmas! -- Cassianto^Talk 12:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Same to you, Cass. Have some nice holidays. GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria already took a look at the images. Grats on the successful FA to both of you :). GermanJoe (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Another FAC request?

Heh, you're in high demand! Hi Joe, you gave an image review at the Charlie Chaplin GAN and suggested you could also help at FAC. If this kind offer still stands, Charlot has now been nominated here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charlie Chaplin/archive1. If you could do the image review, that would be great (no rush though). Thanks and merry Christmas! --Loeba (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for you aswell, Loeba. Will look at the article after the holidays. GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, great work with the images. GermanJoe (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

Hello, Joe. May I bother you for your expert opinion on two images: File:Ralph_Richardson_trailer.jpg and File:Ralph Richardson and Michèle Morgan.jpg? I am working (in sandbox so far) on a major upgrade of Ralph Richardson's article and I'd like to use these two pictures, but I am not sure they will survive scrutiny at FAC. Our colleague Brianboulton has had a look and suggests that I consult you – advice that I gladly accept. I'd be most grateful for your thoughts. Tim riley (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into these for me. I am most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia

Hi, GermanJoe! A year ago, you reviewed the FAC about Elizabeth of Bosnia. I have nominated it again a month ago, but it has not attracted much attention. I have been told that a new nomination requires new reviews, and that it would be wise to ask original reviewers to comment again. I hope it won't be too much trouble. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The begging bowl is out again!

Hi GermanJoe, I hope all is well with you. Could I ask another review favour, please? I've got Kenneth Horne at FAC, and I wondered I'd you'd be able to work your magic on the images again? Not a problem if you're too tied up elsewhere. Many thanks in advance. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrather & Buys

Greetings Joe, with what do you know about the photographers above? They appear to be have been popular around the Victorian era and took a lot of theatrical photos for postcards and press releases. However, I cannot find anything on them on the web. I have used a few of their photos on Robey, but want to be sure that I am safe to do so before I get carried away. Any thoughts? -- Cassianto (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear bot, not being a MILHIST member, I am not sure, if I am really allowed to vote on those nominations :). GermanJoe (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

HarvErrors

I think you did not need to make this edit as most readers do not see the red warning message as very few will have set User:Ucucha/HarvErrors or a similar in "user:UserName/common.js" . -- PBS (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have it installed and it was driving me crazy ;). Just kidding - but as it makes no difference for other editors, it should be OK as improvement for the script users (it may also affect page load time for all editors, but i'm not sure about it). GermanJoe (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Credo

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• (answer sent) GermanJoe (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• all accounts used for now - on waiting list. GermanJoe (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi, are you an admin? If yes, I would like this file deleted, as it is a duplicate of a local file. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One is on Commons under a slightly different set of rules, both projects are separate (so no "duplicate" in that sense). A request for deletion is probably not worth the hassle - if you want to try, you can tag it with {{speedydelete|<Reason>}}, but I would just leave it there. GermanJoe (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. no, I am not an administrator. I get enough grief without applying for a formal position here. GermanJoe (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1

Since you were kind enough to comment on the problems related to the images used (which is now fixed) I would appreciate your vote. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't promise it, but if I have time, I'll take a look (rarely doing complete reviews). On a sidenote: the old lead image clearly was a professional portrait photo, but I like the new one better: it does look a bit more "natural" and less staged. GermanJoe (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I Agree on the image. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid, I do not know enough about the topic to contribute to the current very detailed discussion at FAC. But fortunately there are enough editors and reviewers interested in military history to offer their more knowledgeable feedback. If you really get stuck in the nomination, contacting WP:MILHIST for input (or a more topic-focussed A-class review) is still a viable option. In my experience they are a really helpful and constructive bunch of editors. GermanJoe (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Template editor

Per this comment, would it be useful to you to have the template editor permission added to your account? I can do it for you if you like. --Laser brain (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol, you are reading my mind. I was thinking about getting this user right for the last 2 weeks, as I was stumbling about several minor, but annoying roadblocks in templates. If you can do it, it would be great to have it for occasional maintenance. To be clear: I would limit myself to low-level bug fixing and uncontroversial minor changes. I already spend enough time on Wikipedia ;). GermanJoe (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Done—hope it helps! Thanks for all your hard work. --Laser brain (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, too. GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Monte Azul

3world Kid (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC) I want to thank you for pointing that out. I was not aware of that rule. I have added the template to the talk page. Actually, this is the first real translation from a German page that I have done, i.e. where I have used all of the content and format. Mostly the German articles I translated in the past were rather inadequate, so I used sources and some content but added much of my own and used my own words. I don't quite know how to handle situations like that. Sometimes I edited the German article as well because of its brevity or erroneous content. What I mean to say is that I don't owe the authors of those articles anything, as the content I put in English was mine. In other instances I created a German page at the same time as the English one with my own translated content. Perhaps you can tell me what I need to do in cases like that.

Hello @3rdWorldkid:, glad I could help. Attribution in such a situation is quite the difficult question. It depends, if you only took general thoughts and "inspiration" from the source article, or translated whole sentences or original phrases completely identical or very similar to the source. Trivial statements of facts (f.e. "Berlin is the capital of Germany") are not copyrightable, but anything beyond may need attribution. Note: if you only transfer a sentence or two, you can also "attribute" the original Wiki-article in your edit summary: just add something like "... translated from de-Wiki" to your regular edit summary for the addition. Larger chunks of translated content or whole articles should always be attributed with the template or a similar clear notice. WP:Plagiarism is explaining the different aspects of this problem - a whole lot better than I could :). If in doubt, add attribution to the talk page or edit summary (for shorter additions) - then you are on the safe side. GermanJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I slightly misread your 2nd question. I am not really sure, what to do when contributing the same content to 2 articles or to 2 different Wikis at the same time. Maybe another editor can answer this question. GermanJoe (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

William Rimmer

Well, as there was no mention of Britannica in the Rimmer Society′s site, I guessed that they had written the text. Sorry for any inconvenience.--The Theosophist (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Glad it could be solved that easily. GermanJoe (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good! Merry Christmas!--The Theosophist (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Merry Christmas to you too. GermanJoe (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth. Merry Christmas! GermanJoe (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Taiko FAC

Hey GermanJoe, Taiko is up for an FAC again after the first round of feedback. If you're able, let me know what feedback you have at the FAC page here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 11:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in to see if you have time to give this another look. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to have another readthrough over the weekend. But I need 1-2 hours of time and to be awake for it ;). GermanJoe (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

G'day GermanJoe, a formal welcome to Milhist! I know you've been around for some time, but good to see you on the list! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. As I was stalking the project anyway and am interested in the general topic, it seemed like a logical choice :). Glad to be on board. GermanJoe (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

IPA for name of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau?

• Hey. Know anyone who could contribute IPA for the name in the Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau article? Tks! • Serviceable†Villain 05:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, you could try WP:Reference desk/Language, I don't know much about IPA myself unfortunately. Reference desk is usually quite good with such questions - I have seen anything from Chinese to Spanish or Latin being asked there. Or maybe the de-Wiki help desk can point you in the right direction (de:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia? and its listed more specific other help venues). GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• tks. Happy Lunar New Year! • Serviceable†Villain 03:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra Park Aerodrome [Manchester]

Thanks for seeing to the embarassing typo ! 82.138.218.10 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome, was just surfing through a few articles cleaning up disambiguations :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

for the edit to Ian Hanmore; you type faster than me, evidently. I edit conflicted with you to do the same thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome :). Mandruss is usually really good in those things, but in this case they made a mistake imo. GermanJoe (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

Hello, Thank you for the advice about B class assessments, I will try and be more careful in choosing between B and C in the case of fairly good articles.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Willard Libby

Hi -- I know you're knowledgeable about images, so I was hoping you could answer a question for me. I don't really understand whether the tags on File:Willard Libby.jpg would allow me to use it in radiocarbon dating, which I'm planning to take to FAC. It looks like it's under copyright, so I assume I have to put in a FUR, like any other copyrighted file -- is that correct? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm like 80 percent sure, the image meets Template:PD-URAA in addition to being free in its home country, and should be safe to use. But I have been wrong with %&$&$%$ URAA-regulations before :) - and the image's background information is quite thin. If you really want to use this in a FAC, I suggest posting a request for more opinions at WP:media copyright questions and Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright (if the image is free in both countries, it could be moved to Commons - so they will probably help you out at Commons too). GermanJoe (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers -- I will ask at those places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I have tried to clarify the purpose of this picture in the image's FUR (to avoid possible future disputes with "minimal usage" arguments). Feel free to tweak the phrasing to clarify the image's importance and EV as much as possible (even in 2 articles) - more detail in "purpose" never hurts. GermanJoe (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- that looks good the way you have it. I've no doubt someone will say something at FAC if it needs further strengthening! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hannah Moskowitz

Hello Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I have this article watchlisted and was wondering about your edit [1]. Did you delete the deadend tag or did AWB delete it automatically? The article does not contain any Wiki-links (aside from categories and language links), so the deadend tag would have been valid to keep. Maybe an AWB bug? GermanJoe (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, AWB did that - not sure why. Perhaps it's a bug - I'll make note and look into it. Thanks for the alert. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: No problem. I suspect the "old" language tags at the end of the article, afaik they should not be used, now that Wikidata is covering that function. GermanJoe (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be my guess - AWB reads the template as depreciated, for whatever reason. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Those language links actually point to nowhere in the other Wikis (deleted or never existing articles). I guess AWB is viewing them as non-language templates for that reason (but the check algorithm could use improving obviously). GermanJoe (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Muddying the waters further - AWB added the tag to Paula Froelich. (It's been removed by another editor since.) It was legit when it was added. Odd. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: - I'll post a short request to check the Moskowitz change behaviour at the AWB board. AWB probably has a lot of "background" behaviour and special case checks, that regular editors usually don't know (or care) about. GermanJoe (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - quite frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin to frame my question. (It never ceases to amaze people when I tell them this, but I'm something of a Luddite. :-)) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015, recent edits

I see that you are deleting or moving a significant amount of content across numerous articles regarding External link per WP:EL. At least with regard to the Porn articles (even BLPs), unilateral activity like this without any communication is generally frowned upon. There have been Editors Topic banned and blocked at WP:ANI as a result.

Judging from your Contributions history, you are an experienced veteran Editor. So I'm not saying this as a threat, but to inform you of a situation that been problematic for some. By the way, Twitter links using the template {{twitter|}} are generally acceptable in porn BLP articles since they often point Editors in the direction of new content regarding the subject. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Scalhotrod:, thanks for letting me know the specific situation with porn-related articles - I wasn't aware of that. I'll try to check such articles more carefully in the future. However, WP:EL is very clear about the general policy in most other cases: spamming of multiple "official" links for the same topic is usually against current consensus. As such I don't consider my cleaning up of such situations as "unilateral". But like I said, I appreciate your additional background information and will take more care with porn-related articles. Do you have a link to this specific porn-related handling by any chance? Would help me to understand the complete situation. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for being so understanding. There has been quite a bit of discourse over the "application of policy" towards WP:PORNBIO articles. I agree that any BLP article should not be a WP:LINKFARM, but mainstream articles have the benefit of mainstream media coverage. This is not the case with Porn articles since the mainstream press tends to avoid Porn topics. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Links

These are the most relevant links, the rest comes from Porn Project Talk page discussion and ANI. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Structure_for_porn_biographies
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/suggested_outline

OK, no problem then. I certainly don't want to force such changes against discussed project consensus (and 1 link more or less isn't that critical - it's the big linkfarms, that are problematic). I'll keep that guidance in mind for porn-related articles, thanks for the links. GermanJoe (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There are other cases where deleting the twitter template isn't appropriate per WP:EL, such as on the Metrolink_(Southern_California) article, where the feed is a source of useful realtime information on train delays, etc. Please take this into consideration if you continue to target twitter links in general. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." (emphasis mine). The twitter link is easily available on the main page of the official site. But I am not going to edit-war about such a trivial issue, please check the current guideline before reverting such edits. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason it's called a guideline is because there are exceptions. As stated at the top of the page: "...it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." My thinking is that transport related information is likely to be accessed via mobile devices, and direct links to useful information seems appropriate (note that the feed is not prominently linked from the Metrolink mobile site). If you really feel like it's diminishing the quality of the article by being there, I'm certainly not going to war over it either, but it seems strange to remove that and not any of the other less-than-relevant links in that section, if your goal is EL cleanup (which is certainly a worthwhile goal). --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually assumed, that those other links would lead to significant background information, but maybe not :) (I'm usually only checking redundant social links and blatantly promotional spam links). But I agree, that the guideline has to be considered depending on specific situations - I am certainly not trying to remove all twitter or other similar links. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, and for the cleanup effort in general. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

welcome to AFDs

You're doing fine, in your nomination and participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent cities of Germany. You just mentioned it is your first full AFD, so I hope you don't mind me trying to give you some quick feedback, here rather than at the AFD, because it is off-topic. wp:AFD is indeed the correct process, not wp:RFD, for editors to consider the elimination of an existing article, with "Keep", "Redirect", "Merge", "Delete" being possible outcomes. RFD should be about deleting a redirect, or changing its target.

For most AFDs the goal of the nominator is to have the article deleted, and redirect is a compromise that saves the edit history. I think sometimes if your goal is merely to redirect, that an AFD is not necessary, it can just be done in editing, presumably with you merging any usable content to the redirect target. I wouldn't do it if I thought it would be controversial. And if I redirected an article and someone objected by reverting, then it would be appropriate to discuss at Talk page or to open a formal AFD, in order to bring in views of uninvolved others.

In this case, opening an AFD was better, because it turns out there are other views. Editor Piotrus for example voted keep, with good point that in German wikipedia there is Kreisfreie_Stadt, a point which has not yet really been properly answered (i may try to respond). And I "voted" Keep at first, too. It seems worthwhile to bring this one to the attention of a number of editors, because it seems useful to have the discussion about translations and what the related articles should say, and which is the better redirect target.

And, oh, you don't need to include a separate "vote" for delete up front, if you are the nominator. It's understood, and you should just put your full rationale for deletion in the nomination statement. There is wp:AFDSTATS which is a report about any editor's AFD participation, and that report understands properly that an AFD nomination is a "Delete" vote. Hmm, i see the current report about you shows that you are scored as "redirect" in this AFD in progress, reflecting your later "vote". It keys off bolded words. So you only need to "vote" explicitly if you change your mind from "delete", that shows me.

I appreciate your polite and informative and helpful interaction in the AFD discussion, and would welcome your participating in more AFDs. Pleasant, constructive participation is good, and matters, since AFDs by their nature are potentially/often negative experiences for article creators, especially newbies. They can be humiliating and mean, and drive editors away permanently. AFDs is the main area I have been participating in recently, and in general I hope to have an effect in reducing the negative impacts (e.g. by heading off AFDs from being started in certain topic areas, by increasing choice of alternatives-to-delete outcomes like redirect, by improving guidelines on AFD process). I browse in the new AFDs (linked from just below the top of wp:AFD, and in the topical categories Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation) and Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) (which are linked from wp:AFD#Categorized_discussions). Maybe I write too much, but, anyhow, welcome to AFD, and glad you're participating! --doncram 23:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the kind welcome, @Doncram:. Frankly the German version is a bad example (overly detailed, largely unsourced and with a confusing structure), but I didn't want to come across as pushing my own views for "delete" too much - everyone is entitled to their opinion and vote :). GermanJoe (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assouline Publishing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coach and MCM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's appearance, the coming Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

The Wikimedia Foundation has named its top priorities for this quarter (January to March). The first priority is making VisualEditor ready for deployment by default to all new users and logged-out users at the remaining large Wikipedias. You can help identify these requirements. There will be weekly triage meetings which will be open to volunteers beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Tell Vice President of Engineering Damon Sicore, Product Manager James Forrester and other team members which bugs and features are most important to you. The decisions made at these meetings will determine what work is necessary for this quarter's goal of making VisualEditor ready for deployment to new users. The presence of volunteers who enjoy contributing MediaWiki code is particularly appreciated. Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. 

Due to some breaking changes in MobileFrontend and VisualEditor, VisualEditor was not working correctly on the mobile site for a couple of days in early January. The teams apologize for the problem.

Recent improvements

The new design for VisualEditor aligns with MediaWiki's Front-End Standards as led by the Design team. Several new versions of the OOjs UI library have also been released, and these also affect the appearance of VisualEditor and other MediaWiki software extensions. Most changes were minor, like changing the text size and the amount of white space in some windows. Buttons are consistently color-coded to indicate whether the action:

• starts a new task, like opening the ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽ dialog:  blue ,
• takes a constructive action, like inserting a citation:  green ,
• might remove or lose your work, like removing a link:  red , or
• is neutral, like opening a link in a new browser window:  gray.

The TemplateData editor has been completely re-written to use a different design (T67815) based on the same OOjs UI system as VisualEditor (T73746). This change fixed a couple of existing bugs (T73077 and T73078) and improved usability.

Search and replace in long documents is now faster. It does not highlight every occurrence if there are more than 100 on-screen at once (T78234).

Editors at the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias requested the ability to use VisualEditor in the "Article Incubator" or drafts namespace (T86688, T87027). If your community would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace on your wiki, then you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.

Looking ahead

The Editing team will soon add auto-fill features for citations. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to contribute to the Citoid service's definitions for each website, to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections.

We will need editors to help test the new design of the special character inserter, especially if you speak Welsh, Breton, or another language that uses diacritics or special characters extensively. The new version should be available for testing next week. Please contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF) if you would like to be notified when the new version is available. After the special character tool is completed, VisualEditor will be deployed to all users at Phase 5 Wikipedias. This will affect about 50 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh. The date for this change has not been determined.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Please help complete translations of the user guide for users who speak your language.
• Join the weekly bug triage meetings beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. Contact James F. for more information.
• Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 19:00 UTC.

Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Translations are available through Meta. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Archaeological sites in Germany

Hi GJ. Thanks for your work on categories. I'm just trying to understand why you removed Category:Archaeological sites of Germany from e.g. Oldendorfer Totenstatt and Goldbusch. The comment says "redundant" but the remaining categories are not related to archaeological sites e.g. as children not are they synonymous. For example, a dolmen may or may not be an archaeological site. It depends if anyone's dug it up. Just askin'. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt, "megalithic monuments" are a sub-category of "archaelogical sites". More precisely: they are a sub-cat of "prehistoric sites", which is a sub-cat of "archaelogical sites". Taking "archaeological sites" in a wider meaning for "all sites of archaeological interest", the categorization makes sense - currently all prehistoric sites are categorized within the category tree of archaeological sites. That's a bit of a simplification of course, but categorization puts articles under simplified labels - sometimes the labelling is not entirely accurate or doesn't fit all cases perfectly. GermanJoe (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, GermanJoe,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran PR

Hi, I am Ssven2. I recently took this film article starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai to GA status and nominated it for FAC, but it was withdrwan due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, most if which have been resolved by User:SandyGeorgia and User:RHM22. Do let me know if you are interested in leaving additional comments at the article's 2nd PR. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Ssven2:, I am keeping myself busy with some other issues (Wiki and non-Wiki) currently, but it seems like the PR already has a good amount of constructive feedback anyway (and in all honesty, I am really not that knowledgeable in Indian cinema). I hope, all goes well with your next nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing chorale

BWV 167: the statement about the style of setting the closing chorale, chorale fantasia vs. the normal simple four-part setting, is based on the scores of the pieces. Should they all be included in the article? And/or the observation rephrased? Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Gerda Arendt:, first of all great work on all of those music articles (I wouldn't dream of contributing so many detailed articles myself). To your question: if the statement is just a simple comparison of those settings, it is verifiable with that primary material and doesn't need sourcing. But the statement is indeed a bit unclear (at least for someone with only high school music background). Tweaking it to clarify the intended "message" may be the best approach. But it isn't necessary to add all details here (imo), as long as the context is clear. GermanJoe (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

From what you understood, how would you phrase it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Did a slight tweak, feel free to revert if I misread the intended conclusion (or used the wrong term in that context). Removed the source tag (as an uncontroversial observation). GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

France's recognized regional languages

Could you help me with this argument, this user, Blaue Max keeps reverting a edit I made a while ago about France having recognized regional languages. I responded on the user's talk page about reading the articles about the Regions and Territories that have recognized regional languages. And that France doesn't have one official language at every level. But than the user uses WP:WINARS saying wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Which I was not reffering to when I said to read about the articles on the French Regions and territories that have a recognized regional language(s). Seqqis (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Seqqis, unfortunately I know little about this topic. But in general Wikipedia is not considered a WP:RS for "itself" in other articles. Wiki-articles can't be used as sources, "it is sourced in another Wiki-article" is no valid argument for inclusion. If you want to add information to a Wiki-article, you should also add a reliable non-Wiki source for it - a cross-reference or Wiki-link to another Wiki-article is not enough. Best discuss this issue directly with the disagreeing user, either on the article's or the user's talkpage. Hope that helps a bit, best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Media check required

Hello GermanJoe. Can you do a media check on Master of Puppets, an FA candidate of mine? The review page is here. Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Joe, can you tell me whether you're available to commit the media check, or should I contact another editor?--Retrohead (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAC just started, but I can do have done a media check now in the next few days so you have that point covered :). GermanJoe (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FAR pending for Germany article

HI Joe, the article Germany will probably undergo a FAR (long overdue) and I've told Sandy I'd look into it. Could use some assistance with this, though, if you're interested. auntieruth (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: thanks for the note - if you need some uncontroversial edits (ref cleanup or similar), I'll be glad to help. But considering some of the anti-German bias in recent discussions (a comment had to be rev-deleted), I'd rather not get too involved into any disputes about the article and took it off my watchlist a few months ago. I hope, you understand the reasoning to keep myself a bit distanced from this article; I greatly appreciate your offer to look into it and help to keep it on a high-quality level. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• non controversial edits will be fine. I wasn't planning a major overhaul, just some clean up. I'll let you know. auntieruth (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Care-O-bot deletion !vote

Hi GermanJoe, I wondering if, given the changes we've made to the Care-O-bot article over the past day, you feel that the article is salvageable? If so, you may want to update your deletion !vote. Shanata (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Shanata:, thanks for addressing the mentioned copy/paste issue. I'll try to fix some more issues (hopefully tomorrow). Some points, that could be looked into (if you are interested and have time):

• "Hardware and Software" reads too much like a product presentation from the manufacturer (not only the content, but also the table layout of the section). A short prose section summarizing only the main features would be more encyclopedic.
• As many additional sources as possible (found in AfD or elsewhere) should replace or support manufacturer references (SPS sources are OK for some common info, but the article shouldn't rely on them).
• All remaining info (if kept) should be double-checked against the manufacturer's website to avoid close paraphrasing.

On a sidenote, even if the article is deleted, it could be undeleted in userspace for more improvements (so efforts are not wasted). I am a bit hesitant to vote "Keep" on an article, that has been improved, but still has several substantial flaws (promo tone and content, SPS sourcing, possibly remaining minor copy/paste issues). GermanJoe (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

reply on your instruction about IES IPS Academy

I am not trying to advertise this college but i am trying to give some information about this college there is nothing any sentence on that page which prove that i am advertiser of that college BDKSH (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are really interested in adding neutral facts about this university, see WP:NPOV and WP:EL, use neutral language and provide reliable sources for your additions. That's really all that's needed for your additions in an encyclopedic article. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review question

Can you help me with an image review? Someone is asking questions that I don't know how to answer at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shah_Rukh_Khan/archive2. See the 'Image review' section at the bottom of the review. I know that you have okayed images from Bollywood Hungama in the past, which is why I am asking. BollyJeff | talk 17:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Bollyjeff:, if a reviewer has doubts about some of those images, the best (and easiest) way would be to post a request for an OTRS-check for all Bollywood images in the article at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (make sure to add a list of file links for all affected images to make the job a bit easier for the OTRS-team). Having briefly scanned all images, they all look OK, but it's better to ask the OTRS-team after concerns have been raised in a review of such images.

Some additional background information (please do not copy this information to FAC, it doesn't really belong there):

• The whole Bollywood image topic is a mess, as neither the terms of that permission nor exact criteria to check images have been clarified outside OTRS. If you want to judge the validity of such images by yourself, you can do the following:

• Read up on all OTRS-messages about this topic (link)
• Check for each single Bollywood-image:

• Has the OTRS-tag in image history been added by an OTRS-member (good), long-time Commons contributor (OK-ish), or by an inexperienced uploader (bad sign)?
• Does the photo show some kind of press event or similar PR-presentation? (a good sign - those images are usually OK to use)
• Is the photo about a non-Indian event? (questionable usage: should probably not be used, unless the Bollywood ownership is 100% certain by other means)
• Does the image show "screenshots, wallpapers, vacation pictures or promotional posters" as its main feature? (do not use such images).
• Does an image search on the Internet show image usages from other professional websites or is it likely, that the image was taken by a non-Bollywood photographer? (obviously do not use such images).

• Having checked all those points, one can evaluate the likely validity of those usages for themselves (errors may still happen, but at least the image was checked based on the available information).

I hope that helps a bit. The situation is very complicated and not clearly handled on Commons (some topic experts there may understand all details, but certainly not the average image user). GermanJoe (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Reflist style

GermanJoe, I saw that, with this edit, you changed the style of the reference list. I wanted to know if you are doing this with other articles, so I looked at your contributions and saw this. Why are you changing the style? The style you are changing it to is "old school" style to me (meaning that's the style I used to use years ago, and is the style that seemed more prevalent years ago; like in 2007 and 2008). Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Flyer22:, 1) "reflist" is not correctly supported by VE (and probably won't be for a while, if ever) and has identical functions with "references" when columns are not needed. 2) a WMF-developer claimed that "reflist" is (slightly) slower than "references" and might become obsolete (in a few years - maybe). Having said that, I usually only change the tag, when I am editing near the ref-section anyway (not going to change 4,000,000 articles :) ) and the column function is not used. If you are interested, information can be found in VE-feedback and Phabricator about that topic (I'd have to dig up the links). If you disagree I'll stop the habit; the improvement is only miniscule anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Source in Adrian Bryant

You removed one of the sources that I couldn't verify [2]. I thought it might be a photo of a newsclipping, and brought it up on the article talk page. What is it? Can you access and tell us what the other is, http://www.flickr.com/photos/66345461@N06/8089834801/in/photostream ? --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, sorry I missed your note on the talkpage. The Flickr-photostream is down (or a wrong link). But anyhow, considering the article's promotional history I still deleted the claim as disputed for a few related reasons: A Flickr photostream may be acceptable for simple facts and primary observations, but it is rarely a good source, especially for more controversial claims. Also, the claim is very vague and could be everything from "feeling slightly better" to "significant health effects" (which would be a medicinal claim in need of a WP:MEDRS source). And the text claimed, that he helped patients, however the stream supposedly was about 1 patient per source title. Of course the claim could be re-inserted, if it would be more specific and could be verified with a reliable secondary source. GermanJoe (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping you could verify them. I think it's time for an AfD then. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/enwiki/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/enwiki/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/enwiki/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Hi Joe, I noticed you nominated an article and then a week later proceeded to !vote Weak Keep, When you nominate an article you can't then !vote Keep as it wouldn't make a blind bit of sense ,
Anyway I've closed it as Speedy Keep/Withdrawn as I'm obviously assuming you had withdrawn - If you hadn't & want it opened let me know,
Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: My bad. Yes, I meant to say "(change to) Weak Keep" - or simply "Withdrawn by nominator" would have been a lot clearer. Thank you for the tip and for closing the nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :), No worries we all make mistakes - I've managed to cock up with 2 AFDs today so don't worry you're not the only one

Anyway thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ekkirala Krishnamacharya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ekkirala Krishnamacharya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekkirala Krishnamacharya until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quis separabit? 21:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing external links

What is the purpose of your removal of external links from many articles in the last day or so? External links are sometimes worthwhile, sometimes spammy. The pace you are editing at, and the lack of specific edit summaries, makes it hard to imagine you are looking at them closely. I have looked at only one of your deletions, and it was not a good choice. What's going on here? -Pete (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Peteforsyth:, please look into the editor's history, who added those links first. Indiscriminate spamming of such links by a probably paid editor is prohibited, period (see WP:LINKSPAM). And those links have been spammed - systematically and for a clear promotional or publicity-raising purpose. Having said that, useful links can be added of course after a case-by-case decision by uninvolved editors to add them; the default is to add as few links as possible and limit them to the most useful ressources for the reader (WP:EL). GermanJoe (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, after doing a little research I think perhaps you are talking about Guanaco55 who originally added that link. I don't doubt what you say, but without doing a lot of digging I don't see any pattern myself. The user has done a whole lot of stuff relating to ELs, but it's a mix of adding and changing, and it's not immediately clear to me that the ones added are all one business entity, etc. I appreciate your diligence, and I'd just suggest that if you could explain your reasoning in the edit summary (or on a wiki page with a link from the ES), it would be easier for others to understand what you're doing and help. -Pete (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll mark those deletions as spam then in the summary to make it a bit clearer to avoid misunderstandings. Some of the videos may contain useful encyclopedic information, as in your example, or are WP:ELMAYBE cases. That's up to article editors to decide case-by-case. Here is a link to some spammed domains, most of them connected or cooperating with PBS. GermanJoe (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree, at least in the case of Martin Bútora, that you seem to be 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'. Please discuss/ explain on the article's talk page. Thank you. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the self-reversion in this case. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi. I am the one who added the many hundreds of links which you have reverted. I was not paid to add them. None are from a commercial source. I deliberately added links which were funded and produced by public non profit entities (ie, PBS, MAKERS: Women Who Make America, Montana Public TV, Oregon Public TV, Freedom Collection, etc) because they represented an addition of significant and interesting content to the topic of the page. Many people find simple encyclopedic content enough, but others also enjoy seeing a short video about the topic as well, especially if it includes interviews with the notable person. Would you please explain your criteria to me why you reverted these links?Guanaco55 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Guanaco55: Hello, of course I'll try to clarify. Please see WP:EL, the criteria for including external links. "Enjoying to see videos" is not a sufficient criteria - otherwise we should also add videos from other providers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, not a directory of as many media links as possible. Two more quick points: I noticed in your edit history, that you added numerous external links to articles just a few minutes apart - frankly I do not see, how you could 1) watch the video 2) read the whole article 3) decide if the video is useful in 3-4 minutes per article. Indiscriminately adding videos without such a case-by-case evaluation of their content is spamming, regardless if it's well-intentioned or done with a possible COI. The second point: this problem has been pointed out to you as early as December 2012 on your talk page. You should have at least stopped those additions for a while and responded to the editor's concerns. GermanJoe (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. I am saddened, though. Many of the links which you indiscriminately reverted were quite powerful. Did you take the time to watch the videos one-by-one that I linked to? I will caution you: in your zeal to keep Wikipedia "pure" you run the risk of changing it from a collaborative community effort into a war-zone. Many thousands of Wikipedia editors have quit editing out of discouragement/disgust as a result of reversions such as yours...Guanaco55 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Have you watched all the videos and read all the articles one-by-one before indiscriminately spamming them? The answer is obviously no, as your edit history shows. If you feel that the current policy to restrict external links is wrong, start a collaborative effort to get it changed or clarified. Don't just ignore or violate it, because you don't like it. And as I mentioned, that concern was already raised 3 years ago - enough time to look for a "collaborative" solution. Wikipedia has several open venues to make suggestions for changes, instead of unilaterally pushing your viewpoint. I suggest, you stop spamming your preferred video sites and use those venues. Last I checked, ignoring others' concerns was not part of the definition for "collaboration". GermanJoe (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)