User talk:João Jerónimo~enwiki

Simple File System
(Was originally Paranoid, no?!, changed for logic and navigation purposes)

The article (Simple File System)is extremely light on detail, one sided, lacks technical information, and there are no references or sources from credible entities that comply with WP:WEB or WP:RS. Additionally, the article reads as if it has been written by someone who has involvement or investment in what is being written, thus clearly flying in the face of WP:NPOV and also coming close to WP:SPAM. The categorisations will stand and I will check back on this page in 14 days to see if it has improved. If there are no significant improvements which bring this article up to a minimum required standard then I will move for speedy deletion. If you're going to write an article on this, I would look at some other articles in this area such as NTFS to see how they have been written up and work from there. thewinchester 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple File System
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Simple File System, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Simple File System. Whpq (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

hi
Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Plot of portuguese election opinion pools after 2011 elections.png
Thanks for uploading File:Plot of portuguese election opinion pools after 2011 elections.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A request to update File:Plot of greek opinion pools 2011-2012.png
I really appreciate your upload of, but just kindly want to inform, that we really need the plot only to reflect the opinion polls based on the same calculation method. The problem is, that you accidently mixed the results recorded both by the "raw method" and the "predicted vote tally method", which in principle can not be compared or treated equally in a plot. Compared to the "predicted vote tally method", the "raw method" will per definition always record some relative lower percentage points for all parties (as it divides the "party votes" with the bigger figure "total of all responses", instead of dividing with the smaller figure "total of all valid votes").

To say it short and simple, I suggest the plot should only be calculated upon data delivered by polls using the "predicted vote tally method". Because this method emulates the same calculation principle for "vote percentages" as in the official elections (which of course then also will be OK to keep in the plot as a starting point and end-point). I have highlighted all the "raw method" polls with yellow lines in the article Greek legislative election, 2012, so that they are easy for you to indentify, and also omit from the next update you perform of the plotted graph. Thanks in advance. :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you are watching this page... I'd already noticed the wierd disproportion in party percentages and Undecided percentages between different polls, but I attributed it to some other form of distortion... then I thought that taking the average would solve the distortion and therefore was a fair solution for the unevenness. But now, looking with a bit more attention I realise that you are right...
 * Anyway, can't I simply change the scale of the percentages? For example, I could divide the percentage of each party in one of those polls by the sum of the percentages of all parties. - João Jerónimo (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess most people would indeed accept for the poll plot, if you just "change the scale of percantages" for the data from the "raw method" polls, as you suggest. This would however mean an implied assumption, that the group of "undecided voters" at the time of casting their vote will opt to vote with the same distribution of votes as the group of "decided voters". This is however normally not the case! And that is why the professional polling companies never make the kind of simple recalculation of votes (as you suggested above), but instead perform a predicted adjustment with "the likely votes" of "undecided voters", based on additional research. In example it could be the case in Greece, that 50% of the "undecided voters" in Greece would likely vote for SYRIZA, and thus we will get a distorted poll result, if we apply the assumption that "undecided voters" will vote in the same way as "decided voters". Therefore the "predicted vote tally method" will normally be better and more accurate to use. Even in those elections where the prediction of "votes from undecided voters" is characterized with a lot of uncertainty, it is always better for the polling company to do the scentific "prediction adjustment" compared to "no prediction adjustment at all". Thus, to be most scientifically correct, I prefer that we omit all opinion polls based on the "raw method" from your excellent plot (and avoid to recalculate them). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the things that way. By dividing the percentage of each party by the total percentage of "valid" answers you are nearly emulating the mathematics of the elections, where the abstentionists, blanks and null voters are just ignored. The only pitfall I see is that I don't know if it's reasonable to put "undecided" and "abstentionist" at the same foot... If people were not asked if they would abstain in the event of elections, then probabily the people that would answer "abstention" answered "don't know" instead. Don't worry, I will remove the yellow polls. But still answer.
 * I have another question: would it be good to upload the ODS file to wikipedia? And... I mistyped the word "polls" in the file name of the image, it needs to be fixed. - João Jerónimo (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree your "recalculation method" would correctly emulate the mathematics of the elections. And also share your concern if some polling companies does not ask the interviewed person, that he besides of answering "dont know" or mentioning the "party he votes for", also can answer that he "want to vote blank/abstentie". About our disagreement what type of polling calculation method is the best and most accurate one, I can only say that international research pointed out, that you normally get the best and most accurate vote prediction, when you use the "adjusted polling method" with an adjustment of "the likely votes" of "undecided voters" (based on additional research). The reason for this is, that the group of "undecided voters" does not represent the composition of the "average population". Typically the group of "undecided voters" have a large over-representation of "young people" with the age 18-30, who often vote differently compared to the older age group above 30 years. So there is no doubt, that the "adjusted polling method" is the best and most accurate one to use. Only pitfall is, that it is several times more expensive to conduct, and that different polling companies sometimes fail to make the same good predictions of "how undecided voters will vote by the end of the day", as their votes sometimes also depend on some "hard to predict" psycological factors. The very best thing to do, is thus normally to plot one graph only with data from the same polling company, so that readers can follow how the opinion polls from the same polling company develop during the course of time. But that approach (btw being followed by the article with Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010) of course require we have enough data from each polling company, which basicly is impossible to collect for the "Greek opinion poll" plot (where we only have an limited amount of raw data). So I think your new updated version is good enough (with the only suggested add, to perhaps also include an explonatory note beneath the plot (but as part of the plot file), that: All data points in the plot is calculated as the average of minimum 2 polling results, being published by several Greek polling companies within each time period, but all using the same "adjusted polling method"). :-)
 * Thanks for your fast update of the plot. In regards of also uploading the ODS file, I think that would also be a good thing to do. As we already have start point and end point included, it is however not very important to upload the ODS file. But I just think its always nice to have the source file uploaded. Anyway, I think you should also insert a link to the wiki article with the raw data for the plot in the "source field" of the file page. Best regards, and thanks for all your good work, Danish Expert (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

== A new requested for Greek legislative election, June 2012 ==

If you have time, it would be nice if you also create a new for the new article Greek legislative election, June 2012. In order to provide sufficient and good enough data, I suggest you do an automatic "recalculation" of those polls only presented by the unadjusted method at the yellow lines, and add them together with the adjusted methods. I found out (to my surprise), that most of the Greek opinion polls actually performed their own adjustment just by performing a simple recalculation. So that is why I changed my mind, that we can also accept it for our plot. :-)

I suggest we measure and plot the average opinion polls for the week numbers succeeding the May 6 election. Meaning we will have the following data points for the plot:
 * May 6 election
 * May 7-13
 * May 14-20
 * May 21-27
 * May 28-31
 * June 17 election

The reason for the last opinion poll date being May 31, is because Greek law forbids new opinion polls at the last working day 2 weeks ahead of any election. In order to decide into what time frame (data point) each poll belong, you should look at the noted "conducted date" in the wikitable, and then I suggest you pick the "average conduction date" to decide. Please let me know, if you have time to do the work. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time now. - João Jerónimo (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is okay. As I was quiet curious to see the plot, I now did it myself. And now also made an update to the format with the inclusion of the 17 June election result. Here it is Danish Expert (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Front photo of João Ferreira.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Front photo of João Ferreira.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January ( talk ) 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called João Jerónimo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name João Jerónimo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)