User talk:GermanJoe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Rova of Antananarivo FAC

Hi GermanJoe, You were kind enough to support my last FAC on Malagasy cuisine. If you have the time, would you mind offering your thoughts on my second FAC on a Madagascar culture topic - the royal palace at the Rova of Antananarivo? Many thanks, Lemurbaby (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and check it during the next days. Interesting read at first glance. GermanJoe (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Earwig check

How can I get Earwigbot to check a FAC?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You can use this link to the toolserver http://toolserver.org/~earwig/cgi-bin/copyvio.py?page= (with similar function like bot, just without automatic mode) and enter the article name to check. The script looks for blatant copyvios in online sources. You may want to check a few book and online sources manually aswell just to be sure, when you do reviews (the script has a few technical drawbacks like linking to Wiki-mirrors). By the way i am certainly not implying, editors do plagiarize intentionally - atleast the vast majority doesn't. But apparently FA directors and Wikipedians in general got more sensitive to the topic lately. GermanJoe (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it wasn't obvious how to do it from the bot's page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Glenrothes FA Review

H GermanJoe,

thanks for the review on the Glenrothes article. I will try to address your comments shortly. I would greatly appreciate some clarification if I may on a couple of points before getting my teeth into improving the article to meet FA requirements.

-"The Mid Fife Local Plan is guiding ... 1,800 new houses. There are also ... and business parks." ==> Remove, unnecessary details for possible future events. I added this and was under the impression it complied with the "Wikiproject UK-geography/How to write about settlements" criteria? I will of course remove it but the advice given on the relevant page suggested Future plans could be included as an optional heading. I didnt feel there was enough information to justify its own sub-section so included it in the built environment section in Geography. I am happy enough to remove it if you feel it is not needed but it seemed to fit the running theme of the development of the town. I would appreciate your advice on this.

• Guidelines are up to your personal interpretation (to a degree). If you feel, those future projects are note-worthy and likely to occur, you should probably insert them. Personally i would advice against inserting "common" township renovations or projects (like every town has them). But if those projects are of special interest and not just "common" and will most likely happen, nothing wrong with adding a brief addition of them (try to avoid details, which are uncertain or likely to change in the future). Check WP:Crystalball for future events, which shouldn't be added or only added with care. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

- With regards to the reference to "Fife County Council ... Fife Council", prior to 1975 Fife Council was Fife County Council, but this changed following local government re-organisation. Similarly a name change occurred with the college which began life as Glenrothes Technical College, but was later renamed Glenrothes College. Should I explain this in the article, or just keep the names consistent as suggested?

• The article offers already a lot of new names, so any clarification would be helpful. I am aware, that's not 100% accurate, but maybe just use the most actual terms consistantly and ignore the slight name change in the past (many location names change over time and following every little nuance in naming doesn't help the reader). GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

- I was unclear as to your suggestion "The town had a[n estimated] population of 38,750 in 2008, making ..." ==> no formal census, need specific "estimated". Are you suggesting I use the recorded 2001 census figure for the town's population in the lead?

• You can use the estimate, no problem. My suggestion was to add "estimated ..." as qualification, so the reader knows immediately, that the value is not a formal census value. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If I can successfully address the points you have raised would you be happy to strike your oppose to the article gaining FA status? Or do you feel the problems are unlikely to be overcome in the timescale of the FA assessment?

Many thanks,

Mcwesty (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll adress your questions here, if you don't mind. But it would probably be better to add additional questions and comments for clarification on the FA page itself - to help keeping the discussions together on one spot, so other reviewers can read up on actual issues and thoughts aswell.

• I will reread the whole article after your changes, please update the status on the FA page, when you have addressed the points. Besides some issues with too detailed sections i found most article information well-written and comprehensive.
• Suggest, that you put the article on the GOCE-list for a copy-edit from the guild of copy-editors, that will help to find little glitches in prose and MOS aswell.
• Just curious, have you informed projects like WP:UK or WP:Scotland, WP:Cities or long-term editors of the article? If you feel, the FA process is moving too slow you can always send them a message and ask them as neutral as possible for their feedback. You may want to aim for atleast 3 supports and a review of all technical and prose basic criteria. GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the prompt response. I'll get to work. Mcwesty (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Germanjoe. Thanks for your help on this. Just to let you know I have a former High School English Teacher looking over the article checking for grammar and prose. I will be updating the article gradually following their advice. This should hopefully address the problems raised.

Mcwesty (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to access the FA chat page anymore. I am assuming the article failed to acheive FA status? I had hoped I would have more time. In any case I will gather my thoughts and wait for McWestys friend to review the article for grammer and prose etc. Hopefully then the article will be in a position to acheive FA status with minimum need for further amendment. Thank you for your time and effort. It is greatly appreciated. Yoostar (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You can always resubmit the article after a period of some weeks (see FA process guidelines), if you feel the article has improved enough in the meantime. If the article doesn't get enough reviews and supports, the directors have no choice but to archive the nomination after a while. Don't get discouraged, as the article has many good informations already. As pointed out, try to tighten the article's focus and general prose, if you have further questions or want to do another peer review for greater input from other editors, i'll be glad to help. GermanJoe (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Blackford County FA nomination

Hello GermanJoe—thanks for the help with the Blackford County, Indiana wikilinks. How does one have an automatic script that finds links? Lead link not in body—these are places where I have links in the lead, but do not have links in the body for the first time they appear. These are cases where I need to put the link back, right?. Multiple identical links in main text—assume these are places where I missed removing the extra links. (Exceptions: Renner Stock Farm and Renner, Indiana both link to Renner, Indiana; Converse, Indiana and Crumley’s Crossing both link to Converse, Blackford County, Indiana.) Duplicate identical links in main text—not sure what this means. Could the image map be the culprit for most of this?TwoScars (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello TwoScars, a few additional notes for linking:

• The script is an external, self-developed tool, so doesn't run in Wiki itself (unless i find someone willing to include it in the Wiki-environment). It checks and counts the articles raw ASCII text for links.
• "Lead link not in body" - i need to find a clearer phrasing for that :). The background is: per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to be a summary of the following article body. So, when the lead is a summary, most (note: not necessarily all) links would usually reappear somewhere in the body again, where the fact is covered in more detail. This is just meant as a warning information - some links may be missing, some may be ok (for example when you paraphrase lead information in article body). This is also a good way to check, if really all lead information is covered in main article body and the main article is well summarized in lead.
• "Multiple identical links" - you can search for those links by opening the whole article at once in edit mode and searching for "[[{link}", per WP:OVERLINK 2 links may be ok, but more than 2 are almost always too many.
• "Duplicate links" - see above, sometimes 2 links in body may be needed, sometimes not - the script can't decide that on its own. Those links are meant as checklist, likely not all of them are errors.
• The script ignores image captions, infoboxes, tables and templates by itself - the numbers count only links in "regular" prose.
• The script follows "1 link in lead, 1-2 leads in main text" convention, other editors or reviewers may interpret the guidelines differently (see the endless discussions on manual of style-talkpages ...).

Hope that additional information helps you, as said the list is meant as checklist, not as errorlist. GermanJoe (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• GermanJoe—I plan to withdraw my nomination for FA for Blackford County, Indiana. How do I do that? By withdrawing the nomination, I will have more time to address questions, comments, and concerns. I can then have another peer review in January, and re-nominate in February or March. I plan to change the notes and references sections to a style similar to that used by Postman's Park, and clean-up the wikilinks. I will also return the History section to the front, and move much of the discussion about communities from the Geography section to the History section. The image map needs to be near the extinct communities. I will also update the image map to include Winterhurst. Do you still think a legend needs to be added to the image map, or does the caption (which is now lengthy) eliminate the need for a legend? The only other image map I have seen in Wikipedia did not have a legend. Putting History first, but including the communities, will also satisfy a peer-review suggestion that background on the communities makes it easier to follow the history. Before I withdraw the nomination, I would like to get more comments. If you could provide more examples of awkward, vague or repetitive phrasing—I would really appreciate it. I plan to fix the sentence “As of the 2010 census, the county's population is 12,766 people in 5,236 occupied households.” That is an easy fix by eliminating the word “occupied”. It is intuitive that the population would be living in a household that is occupied, and the Census DP-1 report lists 5,236 for Total Households. I originally chose to include the word “occupied” because the 5,236 also corresponds with “Occupied housing units” in the DP-1, and I was concerned about confusion between households and housing units. There are 815 vacant housing units, making a total of 6,051. However, as long as "households" is part of the sentence (and not housing units), I agree that "occupied" is not necessary.

• You can post a request for closure at the article's FA talk page, asking the delegates to withdraw and archive the nomination early.
• The legend put directly into the caption should be enough to understand the image (even the background color description could be trimmed on second thought to shorten the caption, the colors for links are not that vital).
• I believe, another peer review after re-structuring the article (or maybe even a Good Article nomination?) is a good idea to get more feedback for improvements. If you start another peer review and need more comments, please drop me a note here - i'd be glad to help.

The article has a lot of good information and a solid base, so i am looking forward to see the improved version. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hello GermanJoe—I am still working on Blackford County, Indiana. Footnotes and some of your suggestions (and those of Nikkimaria) have been addressed. I will not work on the Wikilinks until the order of the content is finalized. I have not transferred any text from the Geography section to the History section, as nobody in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties agreed with that idea. You mentioned, in the Featured Article review, that "A quick check of further paragraphs shows similar problems with awkward, sometimes vague or repetitive phrasing (more examples can be provided, if needed)." Do you have some more examples of the problems? I would like to settle those type of issues before the next peer review (January?), so the review can focus more on order of the sections and which section or heading is most appropriate for the text.TwoScars (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, TwoScars. Good to see you still working on that fine article. I'll try and give the text another complete read-through in the next days and offer you some more suggestions for improvements. As you may have noticed i am currently not that active in FA reviews anymore, partly due to the way FA is handled at the moment by some of the delegates. Nevertheless i'll post a summary of actual pointers as soon as possible on your talk page, but will most likely not take part in any formal FA activities. GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, TwoScars. It doesn't look like i will have the time and energy to look through this article as thoroughly as i planned and would be needed for a qualified response - i am busy with other non-Wiki stuff at the moment. I suggest to ask other editors, especially native English speakers, for more prose tips during the next review. Best of luck with the article. GermanJoe (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope everything is OK. Thank you for the help already provided. It was good to get perspective from someone not already familiar with the topic.TwoScars (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faryl Smith/archive2

Hey; as you commented on the last FAC, I'm just letting you know that I have renominated Faryl Smith for featured article status. Your thoughts would be well received. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am on kind of a wiki-break at the moment and don't do FA reviews anymore after some problems. But i like, what you have done with the quote situation - it really has improved. As several reviewers already combed through the text for minor points and support your nomination, i have no doubt this nice article will pass this time. GermanJoe (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review for Scotland in the High Middle Ages

I have nominated Scotland in the High Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hi GermanJoe - I noticed you making a couple of comments recently about being on a Wiki-break after some problems with reviewing. I don't know what they were, or when they took place (a quick scan of your talk page didn't show anything revealing). However, if there is anything I can do to help resolve the problems or re-start your interest in reviewing, please let me know. FAR is always happy to see you! Dana boomer (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, the issue is not FAR-related (i should have made that clearer probably) and i will certainly pop in from time to time to check for interesting articles or minor stuff to help out. Sometimes it just seems (especially in new FA-nominations), that new editors are treated with only criticism, instead of trying to help them to improve in a more team-like manner. Obviously some first tries on featured articles are not ready for FA yet or need more work, but putting down such efforts without additional advice or encouragement is helping nobody. GermanJoe (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Madagascar article

Hi GermanJoe, Ages ago you offered to have a look at the Madagascar article when it was revised. I've gone through and reworked all of it. I'm still adding some details and cleaning up/adding references, but if you're willing to give it the once over I'd welcome any comments, edits or suggestions you might like to contribute. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A vital Madagascar-related article at FAC

Hi GermanJoe. I have a level-4 vital article up at FAC and it isn't attracting any reviewers. It's the biography of Rainilaiarivony, the last Prime Minister of the 19th century Kingdom of Madagascar, who carried the island to the modern age before being exiled by the conquering French colonial army. You always offer such helpful reviews. I'm hoping you'll take a look at it Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rainilaiarivony here if you have a chance. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Concert in Central Park/archive1

• In Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Concert in Central Park/archive1, would you please consider my comments starting with the phrase, "To follow up"? – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note, thinking it over and responding on FA-talk to avoid splitting of discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the right way. This note was an FYI. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Otto I

Hello GermanJoe. I am NOT planning on adding extensive work to Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor in the near future. I am continuing to review the German translation of the article (as well as other foreign language versions) but for the most part I feel the article as reached its desired status as far as information goes. Any editing you can do to further improve the status of this article would be greatly appreciated. In the near future I plan on performing major overhauls of the other Holy Roman Emperors and important German nobility. Thank you for your interest. - Rougher07 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

OK - i'll check in from time to time and try to improve some more structural issues like references. The content itself is great - thanks for translating it. GermanJoe (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call on the Family and Children section. - Rougher07 (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear GermanJoe, thanks for the review of my article BINDER (company) and your comments. According to your suggestions I tried to rewrite the article. It would be great if you could have a look again and give me some ideas on how to improve it further if you think it is still necessary.

Thanks a lot! Ket07 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Replying on your talkpage, as soon as i have reread the article. Regards. GermanJoe (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js

Thanks for the tip about User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. I have installed the script but how do I run it at an article? I don't see it in my toolbox. Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I see now that is runs on auto. Thanks again! This should prove quite helpful! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck with your FA-nom. GermanJoe (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies

Hi GJ, I've completed addressing your comments at this article's FAC. Would you mind going over and taking a look? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. A delegate at FAC has left a message at the FAC for Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies. The article looks close to being considered OK but isn't getting enough of a look. Would you consider revisiting with a view to whether or not you are a support? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, i'll try to take another look over the weekend. The article is a bit out of my comfort zone for a qualified review (lack of knowledge), but i'll give some general feedback. GermanJoe (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Cryptobranchus japonicus

I don't know what you mean by "Information template" in this context. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being not clear enough - was just referring to Commons:template:information as tool to organize image data. But it's only a suggestion, certainly no FA-requirement. GermanJoe (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Drowned God FAC

Hey there. Would you mind taking another look at this article? I've had another editor give a pretty thorough going over, and I think it's in good shape. Also, I believe part of the reason it looked to have some prose problems before was because I had just rewritten an entire section, with lots of rearranging, such that there were just a few mistakes with cutting and pasting text and things like that. Anyway, I hope you'll take another look and see what you think. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the notice. Will try to do another read tomorrow or over the weekend. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre

Hi, I've replied to your comments, so please take a look. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Again. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments

You made this comment on the Amphibian FAC page "fixed some anchors. "Coauthors" is a deprecated parameter (Last1, first1 ...) and harv-syntax is not active by default for some (most?) citation templates (ref=harv)."

Please could you explain for an ignoramus like me what you meant? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I should really try to avoid too much jargon, but it's just too easy to get into the habit - sorry.

• "coauthors" as parameter for the cite book-template is listed as "deprecated" in the template documentation Template:Cite book, so the parameter will either not work at all or may not be supported in the future. Either way such parameters should best be avoided (last1, first1, last2, first2, ... are a bit longer, but get automatically formatted).
• Adding "ref=harv" as parameter to cite book (and some other) templates creates a kind of "anchor" between short citation and long book info: the user can click "Stebbins & Cohen 1995" in the summary list of short citations and gets immediately linked to the long bibliographical info about the book.

Hope that helps, if my somewhat shortish FA comments are unclear, please ask anytime. GermanJoe (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a look at what you had done and I could see you had changed my reference to

• "curly brackets" cite book |title=Zoology |last1=Dorit |first1=R. L. |last2=Walker |first2=W. F. |last3=Barnes |first3=R. D. |year=1991 |publisher=Saunders College Publishing |isbn=978-0-03-030504-7 |ref=harv }}

I will use this as a template in future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

another constellation....

...this time Canis Minor which I have listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 - all input helpful as I'm feeling a little blocked on this one.... (can't believe there is less of interest than in Leo Minor....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was already wondering, when you were going to work on the next constellation. Will have a look. GermanJoe (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'ts funny how sometimes they click and sometimes they just....don't Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy Edit

Hello mate - just thought I would give you a quick heads-up. I have recently been busy and have not had much time to edit Wikipedia, so I may need a few extra days to finish up the copy edit of Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor. If you have any questions, just leave a comment on my talk page. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 22:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. No rush, so take your time, whenever it's convenient for you. GermanJoe (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again - I'm glad to say that the copy edit is finally finished. Sorry it took so long - I have been very busy over the past few weeks (not to mention it being such a long article). I will say though that I now know more about Medieval Europe than I ever thought I would haha. I also made a brief post on the article's talk page regarding the completion of the copy edit. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 05:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help - glad to hear, that you enjoyed the topic. It's a fascinating period. GermanJoe (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Greed

Hi, Thank you for your suggestions and I've got everything you've addressed taken care of. Do you think that anything else needs to be done with the page before nominating it for FA status?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, nice work with that article. I was only skimming through real quick the last time, but will try to take a closer look tomorrow. GermanJoe (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

PS - "tomorrow" broadly defined, sorry - i am a bit busy at the moment, but have it on to-do. GermanJoe (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check

Hi GermanJoe, We've got John Le Mesurier at FAC at the moment. It's mostly there, but missing an image check. Would you have time to oblige? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Some work is needed, but nothing unsolvable. Especially fair-usage needs strengthening and cleanup of the rationales. GermanJoe (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks indeed. I;ve addressed your points and think I've got them all OK now. As per your advice on The Times image, I've now removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1

Hi GermanJoe. This FAC is now the oldest. Would you mind having a look at the responses to your comments on it, and indicate whether you support it or not (if you normally do that)? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker67, i can try, but frankly that historical era is a bit out of my league for a qualified review, especially in regards to comprehensiveness and accuracy. Have you tried a neutral talkpage request for more feedback at interested Wiki-projects already (like WP:MILHIST and others)? GermanJoe (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'll do that. I just didn't know where you stood. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC: H. C. McNeile

Hi GermanJoe, I wonder if I could please request an image check on an article currently at FAC: H. C. McNeile. I'm reasonably confident of them, but there is always a possibility for errors in an area I'm never sure about! Many thanks if you have the time! – SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, i'll try to do a complete check this weekend. GermanJoe (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, some of them need more research and background information, see FA-talk. GermanJoe (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really getting much traction from Commons on this, with no responses at all. If we don't manage to sort this out then it is not possible for the article to go through to FA with the questionable status. However, no non-free image is allowed to be used (on the basis that there is a free image available). I'm really not sure I understand the logic of us having an image for which permission has been granted for Wiki to use, but we ourselves say that we are not allowed to use it; there is a logical disconnect there which I'm struggling to get my head round (and this is the same head that repeatedly banged against the wall when trying to get either sense or action out of Commons). If you have a better suggestion of how to sort this out in a timely fashion, I'd be grateful to hear it. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The nomination is still young, so there is enough time to think about it. Being "completely free without limitations for other usages" is unfortunately a core principle for uploaded images, which we won't be able to avoid. I'll post a request on the OTRS-noticeboard and ask for advice there. If all available images have non-free ("non-free" as defined by Wikipedia) or dubious copyright status, you can simply switch to fair-use as last resort, but this would require another upload to Wiki-server (Commons does not allow fair-use uploads). We'll get this sorted out somehow ;). GermanJoe (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks. If we've not allowed to use this image I won't be too worried: we'll be able to upload something much, much better than the current one, which is of fairly low quality anyway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OTRS noticeboard. Seems like the permission per mail is not "free" enough to be used under Wiki- and Commons-policies. The file is still up for a deletion discussion, but when the OTRS-volunteers checked the mail as insufficient, it will most likely be deleted - having no OTRS-tag was a bad sign to start with. GermanJoe (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're a few minutes out of date: it's been deleted already! I've uploaded a new non-free image. Could you check it's OK? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, those OTRS-members are quick - but when the basic permission mail is incomplete, there is not a lot to argue, i guess. The new image as fair-use is OK. GermanJoe (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks indeed for the review and follow up. The article looks a lot better with an image than is clear, even if it is non-free. Would you be able just to round off the formal bit of the FA review to ensure that no-one flags it up as a problem later? Many thanks once again! - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PD images in FD

Hello,

could you quick check the images on Fyodor Dostoyevsky whether they have correct licenses? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i'll try to check them during the next days. GermanJoe (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Detailed on the peer review page. GermanJoe (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A quick favour

I have almost completed my next FA list which is Theatre productions of Dan Leno and yesterday, uploaded a new lead image. I'm confident it is PD but just wanted to be sure it is issue free. It will be the quickest un-official review in history (or it least it should be). Could you pop over and take a look if you have time? -- Cassianto^Talk 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Added some source info and link. You should use Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown (assuming UK publication) instead the more generic EU-tag. Also you should add a brief sentence to the summary, that you did an enquiry to find the author, but found none. Make sure, it is not Howard Coster - according to the Wiki-article The Sketch, Coster did their photographs and had a long and healthy life until 1959 (failing 70 years for PD). GermanJoe (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks!. The wiki article on Coster gave an incorrect year of birth he was in fact born twenty years later in 1885 according to this reliable source. I am therefore confident that it is not him as he would have been twelve at the time of its capture and publication. I have updated the findings on both the image description, and Coster's article and have included a reference. I have eliminated Coster and therefore the photographer is still unknown through reasonable enquiry. I have also used the pd-UK tag as suggested. I think it all looks OK now. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me now - nice find about Coster. GermanJoe (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe and thanks again for your help from before. If you have time, could you do a review of Theatre productions of Dan Leno which we have now listed at FLC . Your help would be greatly appreciated. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I usually don't do FLCs (don't even know the specific list rules to be honest), but i'll take a look on that one. Please be sure to double-check anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a difference between FA and FLC in terms of the images. I think that as long as they go by NFFC and correct licenses all would be OK. I would treat it like any other normal FA. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

While i haven't completed the review yet, files File:Drury_Lane_1813_cropped.png (missing information about the original illustration like creation date and author) and File:Marie_Lloyd001.jpg (invalid license and unknown author, photographer - who holds the copyright, not the owner or heir) seem to be the most problematic. Just a suggestion, but if you could find replacements of similar quality for those two, it would speed up the review a lot. GermanJoe (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks. I have uploaded a new Lloyd image and I will try and contact the Drury Lane uploader with a view to putting the image back on once we have all of the correct details, but until then and not wishing to hold up the review, I have removed for now. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Image review at a recent FAC

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1 and File:Jevđević with Italians.jpg

You might be interested in the nomination for deletion of an image to which I think you gave the all-clear at this recent FAC. The listing is here. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, i'll think it over and try to add a comment. I asked for guidance on Wiki and Commons during FA-nomination, but unfortunately at that time nobody of the experts bothered to offer any assistance. The image certainly doesn't have complete background details, so we had to decide on the available info and the image's situation. GermanJoe (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Derivative works

Thanks for your image review on my Alben Barkley FAC. I used Luxo (talk · contribs)'s DerivativeFX tool at Commons to upload the derivative works. I assumed it would take care of all the messy details, since I don't really understand everything I probably should about derivatives. Luxo seems to be mostly AWOL, at least on Commons, but are you saying the tool is dealing with derivatives incorrectly? I need to do a few more derivatives for an article I'm currently working on, so I'd like to sort out the best way to do them so I don't have to do them over. What do you suggest? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to read up on that tool, no idea yet. Did it select the PD-tag automatically or did you select it from a list? GermanJoe (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You provide the name of the original file on Commons, and it's supposed to read the license for that original. Assuming it's a valid license, you tell what you did to the file, who you are, and provide an alternate filename, and it's supposed to do the rest. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the tool documentation by any chance (the user is called bilderbot on commons, but still don't see a documentation)? It seems like the tool just copies the same license from the original to the derivative - which would be a problem for all licenses, that describe a specific reason. General CC-licenses and other general language tags would be fine, but tags for specific reasons will cause problems. But that's only a first theory, i would have to check the documentation or ask Luxo. GermanJoe (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know if any documentation exists; if it does, I don't know where to find it. The old upload form for Commons specifically directed users to DerivativeFX to upload derivative works. I forsee lots of incorrect licenses if it is indeed malfunctioning. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask some other copyright experts, how to treat those derivatives. Exchanging the tag in some images is quickly done (depending on the amount of problematic ones). GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If Luxo's tool is on the fritz, I need to learn to do derivative works manually. Basically all the images I find at least need cropping. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 02:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

For some advice see this thread [[1]]. Practically speaking:

• If you make only minor changes like cropping or minor light adjustments, you don't create a new original work, so you don't need a "new" copyright. Just copy the tag from the original image (or use the tool and remove the "self" part of the tag).
• If you make major changes (or collages of several images), you create an original derivative with a new copyright. I would use the CC-by-sa-3.0 tag or the CC-version of the original file, if it has a CC-tag.
• The distinction between original and unoriginal works can differ from country to country, the above two points are just a general guideline, which should work for the US.
• You can still use the tool, no problem. Just double-check images following the first two points and edit the tag accordingly, you still save adding the whole derivative information text. GermanJoe (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense and is indeed practical. Unfortunately, Luxo's tool has failed to recognize a valid PD license in a few cases, as noted on his Commons talk page. If I were to upload a derivative work without the tool, do you know the preferred method of referencing the original (i.e. this is a derivative work of File X)? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess, that's up to your preference (as long as all vital information is included). Maybe just look on a derivative created by the tool, check what main tags it uses and use a similar structure for manually uploaded derivatives. So you have a clean and organized structure for all your uploads - i actually like the tools way of including the information, aside from the tagging problem. GermanJoe (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Other derivative images in the same article need the same fix too (i usually avoid meddling with licenses from active uploaders myself, it's their contribution after all). GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed them all now. Sorry for the delay. Real life has been really busy lately! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Joe, wanted to let you know that I've re-submitted Sesame Street research for yet another FAC. [2] Thought you'd be interested, since you reviewed its first FAC. I thought that both FACs failed due to lack of support, and it's kind of a strange article, so I'd appreciate your assistance. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Christine, i'll try to have a look. Did you complete step 5 of the nomination process - editing the FAC-list at WP:FAC? Seems like your nomination is still missing from this list. GermanJoe (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yah, I added it; it was a previous oversight that was corrected later. I've just competed addressing your comments there, so if you look at what I've done, that would be great. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Boston FAR

I responded to several of your concerns, but I would appreciate more clarification (in order to better tackle the issues so that the article does not go to FARC). Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 06:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pentawing, thanks for looking into those issues. I'll try to offer some more specific examples and do some uncontroversial improvements myself as soon as possible. Just a note, even at FARC the article will have a good chance at "surviving" FAR, when more improvements are done and the delegates see activity. It has a solid base and mostly great content, just needs to brought up to current standards again. GermanJoe (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Elekhh is satisfied with the work that has gone into the article and has no problem having the FAR closed. However, is there anything more that has to be done before we can get one of the FAR delegates to close? Pentawing^Talk 03:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The article has made some very good progress and is atleast close to a keep imo. I'll do one final readthrough tomorrow (on Sunday). GermanJoe (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Cry Me a River FAC

I just wanted again to personally thank you about the image review. You have my response on the FAC. Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

FAC Duino Elegies

I replaced the image of rilke with the PD issue with a commons image of a Pasternak sketch that's PD in Russia (pre 1917). Would this be acceptable? Are there any other issues you notice? Thanks for your assistance and your review, I hope the article can get your support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded on FA-talk (thanks for working on those issues so consequently), however i usually don't support on only partial checks like image checks. The article looks fine nonetheless - i suggest to ping the other three involved "full" reviewers, who didn't vote yet, and ask them for further input. Good luck with the remaining FA-nom. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate your keen attention to the article. You mentioned not being able to read something in Russian connected with the recent Rilke image, is there something you would like me to translate? Just let me know. Thanks again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lloyd

Hi Joe, hope everything is good with you. I will shortly be nominating the above at FAC, having worked solidly on it for the last few weeks. It is currently at peer review with the final batch of comments almost addressed. I wondered, if you could take a look at the images for me and leave some remarks. I am confident that there are no major issues (I have uploaded the majority myself), but you never can tell and I suppose its better finding out here than at FAC. All the best! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cassianto, sure thing. Will have a look and send you a message, when done. GermanJoe (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And done, see PR-page. GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for image review

Hi! Can I request you for an image review for the article Tripura which currently in FAC? Agreed that reviews in the fac have been very few, and the fac might die out soon, but thought at least an image review could be a good addition! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dwaipayan. I'll have a look later. (done) GermanJoe (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have tried to address your point on captions.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Norman Selfe

Hi GermanJoe, As someone who's commented on the Norman Self FA nomination, and now that the nomination is nearing the bottom of the FAC list with no new recent comments, I'd like to encourage you to make a statement of support/oppose or add new comments. I believe I have addressed all the current comments that have been listed there. This is the second time the article has been listed for FA as the first time was closed citing a lack of overt support votes. I'd hate for that to happen again. Sincerely, Wittylama 09:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit short of time, but i will try to offer some comments as soon as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Heart of a Woman FAC

Hi Joe, since you helped out at my last FAC (Sesame Street research), I thought I'd ask if you could help out again with my latest one [3]. Would you mind? It's been languishing for a while, so I'm drumming up folks to review it. I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, wanted to let you know that I've finished addressing your concerns. Your feedback about this article depending too much upon the sources' "voice" is profoundly interesting to me. And ironic--something I've recently talked about in my own reviews of other articles as well. I've come the conclusion that the best Wikipedia articles have the main editor's "voice", even though the content in them is supposed to be a synopsis of all the available sources about a particular topic. Often, articles are data dumps of every source an editor finds, often put in the order that he/she found them. My over-dependence of quotes comes from trying to avoid including my own voice in an article, and I'm learning that it's okay--and often very appropriate--to allow my own voice come through.

I'm not talking about inserting our opinions or original research; I'm talking about including my own writing style in the articles I write and improve. Sometimes that can be frustrating, especially as I've become an expert on the articles I work on. For example, in The Heart of a Woman, critics have talked about the last line of the book: "At last, I'll be able to eat the whole breast of a roast chicken by myself". I wonder if Angelou was thinking about the Etta James song, which would make sense because of Angelou's use of blue and jazz forms in her writing. Of course, I can't say that in the article, even though I've become an Angelou expert, because it's original research. If I were to ever write a book or article about her, though, I will. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree - it's probably the hardest part to stay close to the source information, and at the same time use it to form an "own", complete article. Despite some -hopefully constructive- criticism i really enjoyed your article and think, your work on Angelou is a great contribution for Wiki. GermanJoe (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate the feedback; that's one of the reasons you submit articles--to help with improving them. Yes, it was very constructive. Sometimes I prefer general feedback over the "Go put a period in the middle of that sentence." I mean, I follow those directions, but I'm always thinking, "Wouldn't it have been easier to just correct those silly, overlooked errors yourself?" I tend to copyedit articles as I review them, and explain it, especially if I think the editor can learn something. Hey, regarding the internal editor: I think that I'm using it correctly. Is there something I'm missing? Could you direct me to an explanation or a resource? I've always had problems with extra spaces, and have always thought it was my browser. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, if you feel like experimenting and haven't done so already, you could try out WP:WikEd. It is an alternative editor with a more comfortable interface (for my taste atleast), some more functions and has a better display of the text during editing. It is easily activated in your user's "preferences" settings in the "gadgets" list. If you are still using the "old" internal editor - i always thought it was quite bad at displaying special characters, blanks and similar. GermanJoe (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yah, I just checked it and sure enough, as I had thought, I already have wikEd. Hmm, I wonder what the deal is about the extra spaces? Maybe I can do some troubleshooting some time; it's obviously not all that important to me to have pursued it before, so it's not that big a deal to me. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd at FAC

Hello Joe, just a quick note to let you know of Marie Lloyds FAC. I think Nikkimaria has a hold on the images (she has questioned a few), but if you would like to comment I would be most grateful as always. Hope your well, --Cassianto^Talk 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

One quick note to the last image - Laura_Ormiston_Chant.jpg. While it's rather unlikely, that the image was not published for 30-40+ years after creation (it doesn't look like a "private" photo), it's still technically possible. If you have an image with more detailed background info, the easiest (and quickest) way out would be a replacement. GermanJoe (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, could you just check? [4]? Although I think I have cocked the upload up :( --Cassianto^Talk 13:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Publication 1893, nice :). I guess, the first one is also used in a book of the same period, but without proof of it this one is a lot better. GermanJoe (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages

I replaced the "jews" image with this - can you make sure the licensing is done right? I so suck at Commons crap.... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. The uploader is also the photographer, so no further tag is needed. GermanJoe (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check

Hi Joe, Could I ask a favour on the image front? Cassianto and I are putting another article together for a push towards FA in the near future. In the run up to that I've uploaded a set of images onto Commons that I think are all free. Before we have to rip them all out in the middle of an FA process, could you comment on them first? They are all in a gallery at the top of one of my draft pages. At the moment I don't intend to add any more to Commons as I think these should all be OK to pass, but your scrutiny would be much appreciated! All the best. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, i'll take a look. Please leave the gallery up a few days and i'll check the contained images. GermanJoe (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks. I'm leaving it up there until we finish the article, so it'll be there for a couple of week, or until whenever you've finished. Thanks very much for this: much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic: thanks very much indeed! I've tweaked the author field already and I'll have a look into note 1 to see what I can find out/understand! Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

God of War: Betrayal FAC

Hi, if you have some time, would you care to review this article? --JDC808 ♫ 04:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i am sorry, but i will probably not have time for a thorough review due to other projects and some real life stuff. Good luck with your FA, hopefully some more reviewers can look over it. GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just curious

Regarding Prometheus (2012 film) featured article review. I got external videos from The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). It comes from the main source. They come clean in copyright right? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

After checking 2 of those links, they are previews "approved for appropriate audiences", so should be OK. I wouldn't worry too much in that case. Obviously you should briefly check the situation and avoid blatant copy-vios or uploads from accounts with a history of illegal uploads. But even if you link such an EL unintentionally, it will just be removed later. GermanJoe (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO for some external link guidance and WP:YT especially for YouTube (and similar sites with only lax copyright enforcement). GermanJoe (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interested?

Hello GermanJoe! At Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Members I read, that you're interested and competent in German politics. Maybe and if you're interested you could be a help for this problem about a non-neutral article about a new German political party. More about the problems with the article you can read here at User The Banner's Talk page and here at the article Talk page. I think, user The Banner would be glad about a little help of political neutral contributors at the article page Alternative for Germany. -- Many greetings -- Kleiner Stampfi (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: Ich hätte Dir das auch auf Deutsch schreiben können, aber da wir hier in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia sind und ich den gleichen Text gerade noch jemand anderem aus dem Deutschland-Projekt geschrieben habe, belasse ich es mal bei dem Englischen. Wie gesagt kannst Du Dir vielleicht den erwähnten Artikel mal anschauen, falls Du Interesse hast. In der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia ist der Artikel mittlerweile nach langen Querelen halbwegs neutral, auch wenn es da regelmäßig noch Reibereien gibt. Ich bin vor einiger Zeit schon auf die englische Version gestoßen und habe jetzt wieder gesehen, dass hier in der englischsprachigen Version zwei oder drei politisch neutrale "eingeborene" Nutzer ziemlich verloren auf einsamem Posten stehen im Vergleich zu den Parteisympathisanten, die offenbar im Laufe der Zeit von der deutschsprachigen auf die englischsprachige Version rübergewandert sind und da kräftig Schönfärbung betreiben, nachdem sie in der deutschsprachigen Version Probleme damit bekamen, die sehr stringente und allgemein sehr aggressive SocialMedia-Strategie der neuen Partei auch auf die Wikipedia zu übertragen. Ob das freiwillige oder beauftragte Parteimitglieder sind oder nur Sympathisanten, weiß ich nicht. Zumindest aber sind sie nicht an einem neutralen Artikel interessiert, weshalb einige der hier tätigen Nutzer unter anderem deswegen auch in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia mittlerweile temporär gesperrt wurden. Ich will Dir aber nicht eine Meinung einreden. Falls Du Interesse hast, dann schau am besten in den Artikel und auf die Diskussionsseite selbst mal rein und mach Dir selbst ein eigenes Bild von der Lage. Soweit ich das gesehen habe, sind User:The Banner, User:Stonepillar und User:Kingjeff die drei User, die seit einiger Zeit gegen den Widerstand der anderen versuchen, da einen halbwegs neutralen Artikel draus zu machen. Vielleicht kannst Du Dich ja ein bisschen an die drei halten. Als Anregung könntest Du vielleicht auch in die deutschsprachige Artikelversion mal reinschauen. Da finden sich auch eine Menge Quellen und Aspekte, die sicherlich auch für die englischsprachige Version verwendet werden könnten. Wie gesagt: falls Du überhaupt Zeit und Interesse dafür hast. Ich bin zwar in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia nicht so zu Hause und kenn mich mit den Gepflogenheiten hier, die sicherlich etwas anders als in der deutschsprachigen sind, sogut wie gar nicht aus, aber ich werde zumindest ab und zu mindestens alle paar Tage mal hier reinschauen. Erreichen kannst Du mich bei Nachfragen logischerweise über meine Diskussionsseite sowohl hier in der englischen als auch in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia. -- Viele Grüße -- Kleiner Stampfi (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kleiner Stampfi, thank you for the note but i'll have to decline. While i am interested in German politics on a greater scale, i'll try to stay away from such "heated" topics. Wikipedia as a consent-driven project runs into problems, when articles are about such "emotional" topics and editors of various viewpoints cannot come to a mutual cooperation. The best advice, i can give, is to follow Wiki's core policies WP:RS and WP:NPOV as closely as possible. If an agreement can't be reached, editors have two options: either to step away from the mess or to engage in a usually prolonged dispute resolution (which may or may not lead to a solution). Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo GermanJoe, danke für das Lob, kann ich gut gebrauchen. In der deutschen Wiki sind di Schreiberlinge viel schlimmer, da wollt ich etwas über den erstaunlichen Gesinnungswandel des Herrn Lubbe schreiben (Interview mit FAZ u.a.), der plötzlich nicht mehr Deutschlands Austritt aus dem EURO will, sondern den der Südländer, da wurde mir gleich eine "Vandalismusanzeige" hinterhergeschickt. Was kann man gegen diese Unverschämtheit tun? Best regards--Stonepillar (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Stonepillar, wie ich schon erklärt habe, bin ich an tagespolitischen Artikeln weniger interessiert, auch weil es da erfahrungsgemäß immer viel Stress gibt. Solltet ihr bei dem Artikel nicht weiterkommen, hat Wikipedia natürlich jede Menge Möglichkeiten, um das mit der "anderen" Seite zu diskutieren, zum Beispiel WP:DRN. Viel Glück beim weiteren Ausbau des Artikels. GermanJoe (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded FAC

Hi Joe! Thanks for the image and media review that you've done on the "Cry Me a River", I really appreciated it. Can you also do the same on this FAC? Thanks again. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tomica, media check is Done, see FA-talk. GermanJoe (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check (follow up)

Hi GJ, When you have some free time, could you check a couple more images of Terry-Thomas? No rush on this at all, and if you're swamped with other stuff, please let me know. There are two new images which I've uploaded to Commons recently which I am fairly sure are OK, but just want to check a little more closely before I do too much with them! The images are:

• File:Terry-Thomas & Doris Day in Where Were You When the Lights Went Out.jpg

• You could add year of creation, if possible. Also, was this a promo shot?

• File:Terry-Thomas, May 1951.jpg

• The author reads more like "LLS ...", not LLC (terrible handwriting). Also a promo photo?

The source files have the reverse of the photographs also scanned, which should show the copyright (free) status clearly. Many thanks if you're able to have a look, but no problems if you won't get a chance. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Similar to the previous cases seems OK, but -generally- when you know any more details and/or background, feel free to add it :). GermanJoe (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that: I'll update as you suggest and see if I can find out any more as well. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet more favours being asked!

Hi GermanJoe, Could you have a quick look at this video, which I've uploaded to Commons. Initial advice was that this should be OK - it's a 1902 home movie, from someone who died in 1904 - but I'd just like a pair of reliable eyes run over it first, if possible. As always, no rush at all, just whenever you are able to. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• 3 quick points: "Date" should be date of creation. And, for a Dan Leno-newbie, was the movie first published in the US? (do we know, where in the US?) And, is the producing company or studio known (as staff of this company may or may not own copyright for some movie content, see Stefan4's comments - a movie can have more than 1 copyright owner for separate aspects). Aside from those nitpicks i see no general concerns about copyright here. Disclaimer: those are relatively general remarks, the finer points of movie copyright elude me. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops on the date - now corrected. I'm not sure the film's ever been officially "published" as such - it's a home movie, so there's no real "release date" as we now understand it, and also no company etc involved (as far as anyone can tell!), just Leno and his wife. It's a slightly odd situation, but given the age of the film, along with the lack of other factors (no producers etc) I think we should be OK. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, check template:PD-US-unpublished on Commons then. Maybe this is more fitting for the situation of being never really published. GermanJoe (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a much better option: I've updated the file accordingly. Many thanks, as always! - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image review on Kahaani FAC

Hi! Thanks a ton for the image review in the FAC. I believe you yourself corrected the discrepancies (detailed fair use rationale for the film poster, and appropriate US license for another image). Is there any other thing missing that we need to take care of? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, i changed the FA-comment already accordingly. All OK now :). GermanJoe (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kagame

Hi GermanJoe

I've fixed the two image issues you mentioned if you'd like to go back and check. I replaced the Virunga one in the end as I couldn't find the original that I scanned it from. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, seems like a good solution. Will update the status accordingly. GermanJoe (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Black Tern

Went to USFWS main page, entered "Black Tern" in the search box. The search results page has a "images" alternative at the side. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that'll greatly help with future digging in that area. GermanJoe (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

SheiKra FAC

I have either addressed or commented on all your comments on the review page.--Dom497 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have left responses on the review page regarding the images.--Dom497 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I just wanted to ask if you would be interested in doing a a spotcheck on the sources in the SheiKra article "for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing" (As Ian (the delegate) has said). I contacted him wondering if this was the only thing holding back the article from being promoted and he said it is. If you don't want to do this don't worry about it....we all have lives outside of Wikipedia. :P --Dom497 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dom497, i'd rather not do too many spotchecks. Users like Ian or several others have a lot more expertise in this area. But i wouldn't worry, it usually gets done by somebody (and i have never seen a FA archived due to a missing technical check). GermanJoe (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, its ok. Ian did a spotcheck today (I would refuse to do one as well :P ).--Dom497 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Beecham

Hi Joe, I have uploaded this which I just need checking over. It was first published in a US magazine in December 1947 in the US with an unknown author. The company lasted until the mid-1980s. I have used {{PD-US-no notice}}. Does this look OK? -- Cassianto^Talk 18:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just making sure, did you check the copyright registration database from 1947 for an entry for this magazine? If i interpret the law correctly, the notice could be anywhere in the magazine - so it may be best to check the whole magazine and the database aswell (or atleast the database, if you don't have the full magazine) to be safe. GermanJoe (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I do not have the magazine so I am unable to check this. Upon looking at the database (and unless I am incorrect in my search query), there seems to be nothing shown for 1947. Records only for 1967 onwards. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I found initial RCA entries in 1947 (see [[5]] and a few renewals at [[6]]. Now without knowing the exact magazine name or volume number (?), it will be difficult to pinpoint the exact entry (or lack of entry). GermanJoe (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, in light of that I think I will err on the side of caution. This period is so difficult to get images for and I have spent ages now looking about for alternatives. Unfortunately, all seem to be non-descriptive in terms of their origins and licensing. Oh well, it was worth the try! Thanks for taking a look. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. I agree, it's probably better to skip this one. GermanJoe (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto was looking into this to help me out, and I should like to say how very grateful I am to both of you. Tim riley (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help - it's good to see more editors care about this aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Images on Sholay

I am not sure if I made sufficient changes to File:Sholay_CD_cover.jpg to cover your comments in the FAC. Can you check and/or possible help me out? I am not strong on image policies. BollyJeff | talk 17:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Answered on FAC-talk (all OK). Good luck with the remaining FA-nom, it's a nice article. GermanJoe (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopra

Well, what really could be done to that image. What? I should remove it or its all right?—Prashant 14:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"De minimis" (sorry for the jargon) means, that the logos are technically copyrighted, but in this image they are not a significant, intended part of the photo (they are just "accidental" background). You don't have to change the image, i just noted it to explain the (legitimate) usage of copyrighted material. GermanJoe (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England...

Might I get your quick once-over of this before I take it to FAC? It'd be greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ealdgyth. Sure, i'll do a quick read today, or latest tomorrow. GermanJoe (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I meant for images mainly on this. Just to make sure all the images are correctly licensed. John and Eric have copyedited it... so I think the prose is probably close enough for FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, as German i am certainly not in their league regarding English prose. But medieval history is one of my interests anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, images look fine. There is only 1 minor problem with the map. I can fix the tags, but would need some background info: the SVG-map (created by Amitchell125) states, it's the SVG version of Norman_Conquest_1066.gif (created by Lumos3 with CC 3.0 Attribution). If the SVG-file is some kind of derivative (substantially based on the GIF), Lumos3 needs to be attributed as original author. If SVG and GIF are 2 completely separate maps just covering the same topic, an attribution would not be necessary. Was the GIF used to create the SVG? GermanJoe (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was the source of the background and the idea, so attribution is probably best. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, i'll tweak the summary accordingly. GermanJoe (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - please double-check the info briefly. GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Saves me a lot of frustration if I can get these pesky little things out of the way ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Begging again.....

I'm going to be taking Battle of Hastings to FAC in the not so distant future. Could you look over the image licenses and make sure they pass muster? (Any other things you see to improve it are most welcome also, of course. And I promise to pay you handsomely on the usual Wikipedia payment scale... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Should be all OK now (links for the battle map were broken, i replaced them with archive). Good luck with the FAC - and if you need further help, i am glad to assist. GermanJoe (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Terry-Thomas

Hi GermanJoe, Further to your much appreciated assistance with a number of images of Terry-Thomas, would you have some spare time to undertake a sources review on the article? We're at FAC now and any further help would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe, Nikkimaria already got sources covered - and is a lot better at this aspect anyway :). But i'll try to offer a few comments later. GermanJoe (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• D'oh - an image review would probably be what I was after! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another favour!

Hi GJ, I wonder if you would have time to do another image review for another FAC? No problems if you are stretched and don't have time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

2 quick comments (more later as full review) - i have nominated the Janet Jackson 2010 image for checking (it's the uploaders only contribution and i am not comfortable with the copyright notice and professional look of the original image). Secondly the video screenshot looks like a borderline fair-use case, i'll have to think about that (or you could replace it, if you have a good idea for another image in the video section). GermanJoe (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers GJ: I've swapped out the Jackson image for something more solid. I'll have a look at the video one and see if we can get a shot of the stuff that was questioned in court: there's a good deal of text to support a fair use claim for that, unless you think otherwise? - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My main problem with the video shot was, that it looked a bit generic and could have been described as text. You should aim for something more visually complex and connected to the article text (something that is discussed for the court aspect, and is not easily described, would be a good start). GermanJoe (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Swapped out for a scene I'm not I could describe in less than 1000 words! This is germane to the court case too, so I've moved it in line with the text. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My most recent FAC

Hey Joe, I appreciate all the assistance you've given me in my FACs, and for your general helpfulness and generosity to all editors who use FAC. Speaking of, I've addressed your issues there, so would you mind looking at this FAC [7] at your soonest convenience? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Christine. Updated the status accordingly - hopefully you'll find a few more reviewers, seems summer time and heat lowers attendance. I know, it does for me. GermanJoe (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

TD-Editor not saving?

Hi, I had no problem saving the modifications. TDE only modifies the wikitext in the edit box: after clicking on Apply, you just have to Save page... Is it ok ? BTW, I'm using Chrome and vector. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm stupid (or not enough coffee). It doesn't work with activated wikEd, i vaguely remember you mentioned that somewhere already - my bad. Deactivated wikEd -> seems OK. Thanks for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know about the incompatibility with wikEd. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 08:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Ltrlg if he could make it compatible. fr:Discussion utilisateur:Ltrlg/TemplateDataEditor. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 12:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be compatible with wikEd now. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 06:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you. A quick test with a few parameter changes and activated wikEd was OK. GermanJoe (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

I believe I have addressed your concern at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 and await your feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, but i am not sure, i did you a favor with it. Let's hope, that you can get the open discussion resolved somehow. GermanJoe (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on FAC2. I had agreed to remove the suggested file, but one of the discussants opposed based on this removal and wanted more content related to that file. I am not sure where we are right now, but I will ask Masem for advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC discussion about audio files

Hi Joe, I've temporarily removed them as it's not an issue I can personally fix, but I've dropped Jimknut a note, so hopefully he'll be able to sort them out and they can be re-added. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the note. I have the nomination watchlisted, if you or Jim have further questions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC image check

Hi Joe, thought I'd ask direct on this one. Batman: Arkham Asylum has drawn some image comments but if you could cast an eye over them yourself, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done - no issues. GermanJoe (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Joe! Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

French image

Hey Joe, hope things with you are OK. As you may or may not know, I am working on a new article which is coming along swimmingly. As with Lloyd, Grimaldi and Leno, the images are all PD as he was from the English music hall era, but I'm unsure of which licence to use for this one. It is a screen shot of a 1900 film recorded in France. Would this be OK to use? I'm not to sure of France, so I have guessed by putting the current tags in which you see now. Any idea's? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the "anonymous" claim would need some more evidence. The source website doesn't state the author, but that does not necessarily mean, he/she is anonymous. Could you provide some more background info for the photo? Was it common for photographs like that to be taken without author credit? The basic problem is, that the source website is not the original source of the photo - so we can't be sure, if the author is only unknown or forgotten, or if the original work was really an anonymous work without author credit (see also the Important notice in the tag, which points to that dilemma). GermanJoe (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done a bit of investigating and I have just discovered that it was made by a French photographer called Clément Maurice who died in 1933. The image I have upoaded has come from a recording taken at the Phono-Cinéma-Théâtre in 1900. This mentions that video and credits Maurice as the maker of the film. It can be seen here which credits Maurice in its synopsis. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice find. Suggest to add the link with the author info and a brief info to the summary, as the original source lacks the author detail. Makes it a waterproof PD-70. GermanJoe (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, much obliged for your advice. I envisage a month for peer review :) -- Cassianto^Talk 22:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)