User talk:Jdm64

Welcome
Hello Jdm64, and and welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your note at New user log. Thanks for introducing yourself.

You mentioned that you've been using Wikipedia for a long time, however, you didn't say whether you'd been editing. So, if you are new to this, here are the introductory links that I offer to newcomers.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style (formatting questions)

If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, add a question to the Village pump, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. (A note on process: Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date.)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! &mdash;ERcheck @ 21:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WoW! That was a fast reply! Thank you for you input. I have edited before, but thank you anyway for all the helpfull links! I don't have any questions now, but I was having a little trubble tring to make a Dynamic table with varable width (Like the ones on my user page). Jdm64 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

9813×3281???
Hi! I've read your post on my talk page about the dimension of the image I've uploaded. Now it is really a problem, at least for me... The dimension of the image are due to the fact that when exporting the image (I'm using Microsoft Visio) i've specified the resolution so that while zooming it is possible to read the contents of the diagrams. If I specify the requested dimension (3840x2400) and the definition (even an extreme definition such as 2000x2000 pixel/inch) the result is jpg of the right dimension but such that if I zoom I can't read anymore. If you want I could send you the image 3840x2400 but I think you will without any doubts agree with me. If the words can not be read the image is useless. So what can I do? Moreover I've uploaded also another huge image on this page: Assamites. Thanks! Bye! --Eldar Featel 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your answer! Obviously I have a 1024x768 monitor as many others and I agree with you when you suggest me that a so high resolution make very difficult understand the relationships among the blocks. As soon as possible I will try the software you suggested me and I will upload a better image (either for fpsengine and assamites). Thanks again! Bye! --Eldar Featel 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your test on October 5
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page October 5 on Wikipedia! Your test worked, and thank you for reverting or removing it yourself. The best way to do tests in the future would be to use the sandbox. You can look at these pages as well: how to edit a page, the tutorial, and how to write a great article. All of these pages are good places to start. Again, thanks, and we hope that you will like Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PS3 Web Browser


Here ya go. I edited out my IP and Domain as you see.. You can use this as you wish. Anything else, feel free to lemme know.

This is using the system update 1.10 as well, not the original 1.0.. Had to update before it would connect through the browser.. Oddly.

Cjpluta 05:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Genesis Chess
Hi, When I saw the article I was worried about Conflict_of_interest and Verifiability, but I proposed it for deletion because of Notability. A mention in Pritchard's encyclopedia of chess variants would help (a mention no http://www.chessvariants.org/ would not be enough I would think). The chess variant does seem to be very new, and I would be very surprised if it was already notable. If you think it is notable, then you should try to find independent sources to back this up. (see again Notability). Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

friendly note about the user page
Howdy! Could you please have a look at your grammar on your user page? English is not my mother language, but not all of your commas seem to be at the right place, the sentence starting with "All the software" sounds funny, and the following are obvious: "s~'ve use\>~&d~; s~currently pursuing~am &~" Best regards: bkil (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Operating system usage share.svg is missing ~4% of its data
Hi -- the OS pie chart is currently created with the following data: 65.96, 22.76, 5.01, 1.13, 1.12 That's only 95.98. In order for this to be an accurate representation, you need an "Other" slice, equal to 100 minus the sum of all the other charted data points, or 4.02 in this case. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a hard one. The chart is using the median values from the listed sites, so the "missing" percent is cause by the so called "rounding" error in trying to get a better estimate of each os's share. That's why it doesn't add up -- for one reason. Secondly, some of the sites don't go into as much detail. For instance, W3Counter only lists the top 10 and OneStat is even more pathetic with only listing 5! I would be open to adding an "other", but because it's based off the median value and the percentages are known to be inacurate from the given sources -- I would be hesitant. Case in point I'm fairly sure that Linux's share is larger then all the other non-listed OSs, but we're missing ~4%, so, something's wrong. If you can convince at least one+ other person then I'll change it. Right now, the chart is just reporting the median source data which shows that there's some statistical inconsistencies. Jdm64 (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, with the chart below, we're really only missing a maximum of 2.02%, not ~4%. And since the total for windows is given in the table, the missing part might be even 1.22%. I think this is within the margin of error to not list an "other" slice in the chart. Jdm64 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's ignore the origin of the data for the moment, and consider what a pie chart is normally used to represent, which is percentages of something. The expectation is that we're showing all of that thing, that is, the pie represents 100% of whatever it is we're looking at. If instead, we only show some parts of the data, we might get a chart like this:


 * [[File:Window Washing.png]]


 * ...which shows two data points that are themselves accurate and are clearly labeled. However, the impression it conveys visually is that Vista is a smashing success, which may not be strictly the truth. The point here is that it would be quite unusual, and actually misleading, to use a pie chart to display less than 100% of the data set.


 * I know this is a more extreme example of something being left out than the chart currently in the article, but that's kind of the point: in the current chart, it's even less obvious that something has been left out.


 * Also: the data points are listed to two decimal places of accuracy, implying hundredths of a percent precision in what's being displayed, but when they hit the pie chart, the slices are actually off by as much as 2+%.


 * {| class="wikitable"

!Data point !Actual value !Displayed value !Off by
 * XP     || 65.96% || 68.72% || 2.76%
 * Vista  || 22.76% || 23.71% || .95%
 * Mac OS || 5.01%  || 5.22% || .21%
 * Win 2K || 1.13%  || 1.18% || 0.05%
 * Linux  || 1.12%  || 1.17% || 0.05%
 * }
 * Win 2K || 1.13%  || 1.18% || 0.05%
 * Linux  || 1.12%  || 1.17% || 0.05%
 * }
 * Linux  || 1.12%  || 1.17% || 0.05%
 * }


 * Also also: the Net Applications and median numbers in your chart above appear to be off. From the article, the numbers appear to be:


 * {| class="wikitable"

!Source !Vista !XP !W2K !Mac !Linux !Total V/X/2/M/L !Missing !"Median"
 * Net Applications || 24.35% || 61.54% || 1.06% || 9.81% || 0.99% || 97.75% || 2.25%
 * W3Counter || 16.03% || 69.09% || 1.75% || 5.52% || 2.11% || 94.50% || 5.50%
 * AT Internet Institute || 28.90% || 62.18% || 1.20% || 4.59% || 1.24% || 98.11% || 1.89%
 * OneStat || 21.16% || 72.02% || 0.54% || 3.66% || 0.47% || 97.85% || 2.15%
 * Median || 22.76% || 65.64% || 1.13% || 5.06% || 1.12% || 95.71% || 4.29% || 2.20%
 * }
 * OneStat || 21.16% || 72.02% || 0.54% || 3.66% || 0.47% || 97.85% || 2.15%
 * Median || 22.76% || 65.64% || 1.13% || 5.06% || 1.12% || 95.71% || 4.29% || 2.20%
 * }
 * Median || 22.76% || 65.64% || 1.13% || 5.06% || 1.12% || 95.71% || 4.29% || 2.20%
 * }


 * Note that in the bottom line, the key number is not the median value of the missing data in the individual data sets (2.20%), but how far off from 100% the displayed data is (4.29%). This is not a "margin of error," and it's not completely inexplicable; for the Net Applications data set, for example, they list 14 other operating systems besides the top 5 with a measurable share.
 * I think part of your concern is that the "other" slice would be larger than either the Linux or W2K slice. It is perfectly normal in charts of this kind for "other" to be larger than other explicitly reported data.
 * What isn't normal is for a pie chart not to add up to 100%. There is definitely something wrong if this is the case.  If the problem is that the data isn't considered to be accurate, then the chart shouldn't be reporting anything -- and certainly not to a reported precision of .01 percent!  If the problem is that the chart isn't intended to represent the full data set, then a pie chart is not the proper format.
 * Sorry for making this so verbose -- some of the level of detail here was to verify to my own satisfaction that I wasn't heading in the wrong direction... . Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that a pie chart is to add up to 100%. But my main concern is still what percent for the "other" to be. I think that, even though it would make the chart correct, 4.29% is two large given the data set that we're pulling from. All the sources (except W3Counter which seems to be off) shows the "missing" section at about/less than half of the 4.29%. Henceforth, we would be making up data, a whole 2.09% of non-existent percent. If all the data in the chart is from the median (which it should be), and then we throw in an "other" just to make it add to 100% then we're being inconsistent. To be consistent we should do one of the following:


 * 1) Leave the chart how it is. Wikipedia is not to make up their own data, and an "other" category is clearly not represented from the given sources. The use of median is still justified because we're reporting the four sources to begin with, so combining them using a median would be consistent for a summary.
 * 2) Add an "other", consistent with the median "other". This would more closely add the chart to 100%. Yes, we're still about 2.09% off, but as the other categories use median -- all the categories should use median. Even though 4.29% adds the medians up to 100%, the median of the missing data from the sources would be over represented by a larger percent.
 * 3) Add an "other" of 2.20%, then distribute the remaining missing percent. The other of 2.20% would be consistent with what the data we have is reporting. But we're still missing percent. Henceforth, each OS would get a percent of the 2.09% proportional to their size (ie. XP would add 1.37% or 65.54% of 2.09%).

But, still it's your opinion against mine. We need about 4+ people total for a vote of consensus. I vote 2 then less strongly 1. Jdm64 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Browser marketshare
I just restored the numbers to their original values used to create a chart. Whether medians or means should be used - is a separate question, but the numbers in the legend should be the same as the ones used to generate chart in the first place. Wikiolap (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what your chart for months in the future would look like should the medians add up to more than 100% (as it is possible for them to do so).Thorenn (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it would not look much different because of how the chart is calculated. The pie chart command of "R" can take any set of numbers and turn them into a chart. So, it takes the sum of the numbers and then calculates the percent based on that. So, it wouldn't matter that we're giving it percentages over 100%, it just sees them as numbers to sum up and create percentages from (percentages of percentages). It will look correct if that's what you're worried. Then in the legend we can just display what we want. Jdm64 (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a week into December at the time I am writing this and all the usage data has been updated to November; would you mind updating your pie chart for November? I'd do it myself only I am not adept in R let alone SVG graphics in R. Thorenn (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. But, because of adding iPhone, the words are close together. Also I had to find a color for Win7. I choose purple. If you have a better color scheme -- Do let me know. Jdm64 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think its great you updated File:Operating system usage share.svg but I was referring to an update of File:Web browser usage share.svg. Since my this is under the section Template:Browser marketshare I assumed you would have understood I meant to ask you to perform the later action but I guess I needed to be more specific since these discussions can be long and we sometimes lose sight of the topic (sometimes literally). Thorenn (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, wasn't thinking straight (getting over the flu). Ok, it's updated. Although because there's only 4 sources used to calculate the median, the chart is a bit off. The other amount is large because all the sources that are used are not adding up to 100%. The Counter and W3Counter are off by 5.77% and 7.85% -- which is huge! I'd suggest we add the sources listed as "other sources" to level off the median. Jdm64 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know there are fewer usable sources now but that doesn't mean the median should be leveled off with irrelevant sources. The other sources are relatively outdated so adding them in would not be representative of the November browser usage share. Also 2 out 3 of the sources were Europe only and 1 of those was excluded already for that reason. If more sources are to be considered they need to be global and reliably update at least monthly otherwise the medians would be heavily skewed in scope and/or time which would be a worse situation than not having them at all which is as it currently stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorenn (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like you got your wish; a new source has been added. It seems to be global and monthly so I have no qualms about it being used in the summary table. Hopefully this new data will level off the median and result in a reasonable "Other" value. Thorenn (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, updated the table and the other and opera are back to where they should be. Jdm64 (talk)`

Now that TheCounter has been removed this chart will need to be updated to reflect its absence since the medians have changed. Thorenn (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just to remind you of the need for a February update for this template and its associated graph. Thorenn (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Usage share of operating systems
There is a poll Talk:Usage share of operating systems. You might want to comment. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. --Jdm64 (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
As advised by ItsZippy at Dispute resolution noticeboard‎, applied to Mediation Cabal. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Jdm64: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Jdm64,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Web browser usage share Q42008.svg


The file File:Web browser usage share Q42008.svg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, no information on an encyclopedic use, no information about source of data"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jack Hibbs
Hello, Jdm64

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Chaotic Enby, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Jack Hibbs, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Jack Hibbs moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Jack Hibbs, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)