Archives

Archive 1

Hello. I'm looking at the references you just cited in COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, and I can't see yet how you arrived at the figure of 46,370. Can you clarify please? Thanks. Capewearer (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capewearer. I added the figures for England & Wales (42,173), Scotland (3,533) and Northern Ireland (664). I haven't checked but the columns for England and Wales didn't add up to the separate figures last week but my email to ONS querying this hasn't yet had a reply. Chris55 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capewearer, I've now added all the death certificate values in to the templated table in the Statistics section. Chris55 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quinary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colossus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chris55. You have previously created a map that shows worldwide lung cancer mortality during 2012. I am currently in the process of updating "Lung cancer" because it is due to be "Today's Featured Article" soon.

I found maps for cancer mortality and incidence here. Are you able to create updated maps for lung cancer mortality and incidence in 2020 please? Are such maps suitable for Wikimedia Commons? I am unsure if these maps from WHO have a suitable license (i.e. CC-BY-SA). Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Axl those maps are getting a bit out of date aren't they. I had a look a few months ago to see if they'd all been updated as I produced several hundred at the time. I'd prefer to update them from the original WHO source rather than a secondary one. They've reorganised their data access (inevitably!) and it's a bit of a maze. Also I've changed computers since then so will have to recover my earlier procedures! I'll come back to you in a day or so when I've sorted it out. Chris55 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Axl, I've found the latest WHO figures which are actually from 2019: that's arguably better than 2020 which must be a rather untypical year. I'm almost finished reconstructing the map and will post it shortly. Unfortunately the year is part of the filename for those maps, which was not a good idea! Chris55 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waterways campaigners of the United Kingdom has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, back in 2016 you uploaded this chart about UTF-8 which is used on the UTF-8 page. However, the SVG is invalid according to the W3C checker, with 11 errors. I am more than happy to re-create and/or edit this image -- I'm just wondering what tools you used to make this chart? In the past I've used gnuplot to create SVG output which I then tweak with Inkscape as needed. What tools do you use? I'm going to look into what other Wikipedians do to correct SVG files that have errors in them. There might be a tool that can try and bring the SVG in line with the standard? MrAureliusR_Talk! 16:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrAureliusR good question. I created the graph using LibreOffice. But I don't remember how I might have attempted to convert it to SVG. If I open the original svg in Inkscape, it appears to be just a bitmap image not vector. The source says it was created by Inkscape. I could do it on a Linux laptop I had but I'd transferred to a Mac well before 2016 and I haven't been successful in creating SVG graphs from Numbers which I normally use now. So any suggestions will be welcome. Nor can I see Inkscape reporting any errors. Chris55 (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got around to taking a closer look at the image in Inkscape. For some reason, the layout of the document tree was very strange. The entire image was grouped multiple times, as itself. I had to select the entire image and "ungroup" about 8 times before I finally got down to the actual image elements -- but it's definitely SVG and not bitmap.

I made some small changes to the layout and also fixed the image so it passes the W3G validator with only a few inconsequential warnings. The edited file is here. Unless you have any changes you'd like made I will go ahead and upload this version after I hear back from you! :) MrAureliusR_Talk! 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just remembered, there was also a warning about the colour theme being inaccessible for colour-blind users. Perhaps we should change the colour theme to a suggested one? I'd have to take a quick look at what's acceptable. MrAureliusR_Talk! 12:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that'll be the red/green usage. Probably best to change the green. But at this point it'd be much better to update the whole graph: the figures 2010-21 are available on w3techs.com. Unfortunately they don't do the separation of files that are pure ASCII (whatever the header). So the blog numbers are significantly different. But since the 2008 transition is the most interesting part of the graph I don't want to exclude the earlier years. Not sure how to get round that. Chris55 (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some weird issues with the SVG rendering incorrectly in my browser, but rendering totally fine in Inkscape and GIMP. I made a colour-blind friendly version, uploaded here but it seems to be covered by a black box. I removed the white background (as SVG should have no solid background) but that seems to have made no difference. Does it show as a black box for you? EDIT: Nevermind, that seems to be some weirdness with 0x0.st, it renders just fine when I upload it to my website. MrAureliusR_Talk! 12:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the updated values go, I'm assuming you're referring to this table? I think we could group all the ASCII-like encodings together (ISO-8859-1, Windows-1252, etc) and then add that data to the existing data from Google (assuming they seem relatively consistent). You're right in that the 2008 transition is probably the most important part of the data. MrAureliusR_Talk! 12:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrAureliusR Yes it shows black for me too. That is the table I was referring too, but your fix doesn't work. ISO-8859-1, Windows-1252, etc contain ASCII as a subset and what the original Google blog did was to abstract all the pages that basically didn't have the most significant bit set anywhere. It's likely that even in 2001 many pages had UTF-8 set where they weren't actually using anything outside ASCII and that almost certainly still applies in 2021. The difference in 2010 was 60% to 46% so it can't be ignored. But how many ISO-8859-1 pages didn't have anything but ASCII? etc. I suspect that at least 5% of total files (maybe 15%) still don't and when only 2.5% aren't marked as UTF-8, that makes 100%+ error! Chris55 (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The UTF-8 percentages line up somewhat closely; but as Google stated in their blog post, different search engines were categorizing things differently. I'm trying to see a way to reconcile the two datasets, but the w3techs one shows 28.6% ISO 8859-1. If you consider this "ASCII" then the Google chart is still about 10% off, even if you don't add the other ASCII-compatible encodings from the w3techs... However, 2009 is much closer. It's possible that Google was doing year-end, whereas the w3techs specify January 1st. If you offset the data by a year, they match up quite a bit better, but I don't think we can make that assumption without confirmation from one of the sources.

I suppose the remaining options are leave it as is; create a second chart just for the years not covered in the original; or try and find a data set that covers the entire time period. Any thoughts? MrAureliusR_Talk! 21:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrAureliusR It's not a question of "ASCII-compatible". US-ASCII is a 7-bit encoding, all others are 8-bit or more. For ASCII, the Google figures ignore the declared character encoding, which is mandated for HTML. And they're both Jan 1 figures. The easiest option is certainly to produce a second graph with the w3techs figures. Is that a good idea? Chris55 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by ASCII-compatible is that they are backwards compatible with ASCII -- all values from 0x00 to 0x7F are the same. For English text encoding, the end-user can't see any difference whatsoever, which is why I think they tend to be grouped together. The important distinction for the article is UTF-8 versus the most common encodings over time -- and for English, they are all universally backwards-compatible with ASCII which is what matters.

Creating a new chart wouldn't be a bad idea. Which one of us should do it? If you make it, try and use the colourblind friendly colours I used on the updated original graph.

Cheers! MrAureliusR_Talk! 08:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrAureliusR How is this?

I've used a stacked format because otherwise all the smaller lines are on top of one another. But I'm not at all sure about your colour concerns. It seems that what the w3c is concerned about is colour contrast, not colour blindness. And whereas I've found plenty of 2-colour checkers, I haven't found the rationale for all this. Are we talking about Wikipedia:Colour contrast which points to the Snook's colour contrast check?

Btw, the web only allows ASCII-compatible files (in your definition). This is because the the main header <html ... has to be in ASCII to introduce the coding used. I hadn't realised how, at a stroke, Berners-Lee had banned EBCDIC and UTF16 from the web. It's quite something to outmanoevre both IBM and Microsoft! Chris55 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Figure 1 from Phillips 1958 paper.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you've put up a copy of weekly cases in place of weekly deaths in your latest update. pauli133 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauli133: Thanks very much Paul - stupid of me. Corrected. Chris55 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, Adding the population count is helpful thank you. Consider updating the population count source. The source cited for population count is ambiguous. According to Census Report, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2338356.pdf the total quoted in Wikipedia (17m) is for England and Wales only. Including Scotland, Islands and military the population was over 21m. JohnnyPFisher (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyPFisher (talk · contribs) You're quite right. I wondered at the time whether I should take their word for it, but the whole context assumed Scotland. But you've found an excellent accessible reference.

I'd have been happy if you replaced the total and reference. But since yours is a new id, it's easier for me, so I've done it. Chris55 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris .. yes .. as a new user, I might try my hand at less consequential edits first. JohnnyPFisher (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's been a data mixup between https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Covid-19_new_cases_in_top_5_countries_and_the_world.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Covid-19_daily_deaths_in_top_5_countries_and_the_world.png - could you take a look? pauli133 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, user:pauli133. File naming error. Now corrected. Chris55 (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Rutherford is a current GA nominee in need of copyediting and further original research. You've been a significant contributor to the article over time, and your assistance would be appreciated, if you are willing to help out. Doughbo (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gapminder world.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Perplexity.ai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Chris55 (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know that I've reverted this addition because the kind of "scaling" you performed there is original research and goes well beyond what's permitted by WP:CALC. There's no reason to assume that the proportions remained consistent between 2011 and 2021/22. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, though I'm not sure the figures have changed. My only defence is that I documented clearly what I'd done (and it will make a very small difference). But the second stage of the Scottish census is due on the 24th of this month so hopefully we'll be able to have a more or less definitive figure then. (Of course the Scottish figure will refer to a different year.) Chris55 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]