User talk:Traut

Comparison of netbooks
Please pay attention to the ordering of items when adding new items. The netbooks are obviously listed alphabetically; thus the Jupiter 1014a and the Mini 12 should not have been placed at the very top of the tables. Whatever404 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alphabetic is just one possible order. Personally, I feel that a chronological order would be superior. Since I added sortability, you may sort by alphabet yourself. For this special case: the entry had not been finished. You will see the gaps best when it is on top in order to add data (lbs weight, background color). Data can be edited best when you see the column headers just above. --Traut (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New color scheme for country charts
Thanks for this good suggestion. Consistent style could improve visualization across multiple figures. A couple comments:


 * I think there is too much green and yellow in this color scheme: 6 of the 13 colors, if you count India as a dark yellow. For colorblind-friendly visualizations, it is a good idea to limit using red and green together. Consider adjusting some countries to cyan, blue, or purple colors.


 * Instead of dashed and dotted line styles, use plot markers. Plot lines for 5+ countries often cross multiple times or nearly overlap. Dashed or dotted lines are a problem to trace by eye, since they are discontinuous. Also, dashed vs. dotted are a strain to distinguish. I suggest to use all solid lines and to distinguish them by markers in four groups: (1) no marker, (2) + marker, (3) × marker, (4) • marker. These markers are more easily distinguished, and with four groups instead of three, there are fewer countries in each group to distinguish by color.

Otherwise I think this is a great idea and that we should do it. Getreuer (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Yes, for red-green-blind people those charts are difficult to recognize. However, those colors where selected mostly from their flags, because this does give some intuitive association. If there's no blue within the flag, I would not choose blue. But there are plenty of others to come with blue parts. I disagree about dashed vs. dotted - they are most different. Concerning plot markers, that's a matter of taste. They are helpful for colorblind people and black-and-white prints. But otherwise I feel they look ugly and disturbing. --Traut (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Posting a chart in the wrong article
A few days ago you posted a chart with data from the pandemic in the Americas in an article covering South America which is irrelevant because the Americas =/= South America.

The US, Panama, Mexico & Dominican Republic are not located in South America. Weyyabiya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What's wrong about comparing South American states with other countries from America? --Traut (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Because North American countries are not located in South America. There's a clear geographical distinction between North America & South America. It's the same reason why data from China, South Korea & Japan are not covered in an article discussing COVID-19 in European countries or why data from Namibia, Chad & Madagascar are not covered in an article discussing COVID-19 in Asian countries. Weyyabiya (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The US is a South American country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_America#/media/File:COVID-19_cases_per_100_000_population_in_South_America.png

I know that Chile, Peru, Brazil & Ecuador are located in South America but who decided that the US re-located from North America to South America?

Because you posted in an article addressing data from South American countries why not only include data from South American countries? South America is a continent located south of North America. South America is also a continent that is composed of countries & territories including:


 * Argentina
 * Bolivia
 * Brazil
 * Chile
 * Colombia
 * Ecuador
 * Falkland Islands
 * French Guiana
 * Guyana
 * Paraguay
 * Peru
 * Suriname
 * Uruguay
 * Venezuela

Any country or territory not listed above is not located in South America and, thus, cannot be considered a South American country. Weyyabiya (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

viral illustration coronavirus
Traut (talk) thanks for your help! illustration is very famous in the world, it has been shared by many important newspapers (as the Treccani encyclopedia and from Wikinews of Russia). You are requested to check. It is important because for believers it was born as a real wish to humanity: god who defeats the molecular structure of the covid. it is one of the most significant and famous symbolic images.


 * If you feel the image is that important, put it to a vote. I've never read of this image. That it got viral is based on a wikipedia article that your wrote on your own - so I don't take that as sufficient prove. --Traut (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Traut (talk) italian newspaper Il Mattino https://www.ilmattino.it/napolismart/cultura/coronavirus_illustrazione_artista_campano_virale-5170287.html


 * You claim "very famous in the world". An Italian newspaper for an Italian artist does not sound that viral for the English / worldwide wikipedia. --Traut (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Traut (talk) I thank you for your answer! No, it has not been published only in Italy, also in France (Tribune Juive), in America (La voce di New York), in Russia, in Corsica, in Germany, in Saudi Arabia. The work was donated to all newspapers. the image had been published in the right section, that of culture. above was the photo of Bologna (therefore Italy) "" Those who can, put something in; those who can't, help yourself. "Bologna, April 2020." I think they are both symbolic and incisive images, which start from Italy and reach the world. an image that illustrates what we all want. Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for everything. A big hug

Reference defined in two articles
The ref name="UNESCO2020" was written in COVID-19 pandemic as y-m-d, while the same ref name was defined in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education as "4 March 2020..." which caused the error message. I could change how the dates are defined in the "...pandemic on education" article if you prefer. Thank you for reaching out. Regards & Best —Hammelsmith (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID
Hi Traut, the death figures on the UK chart have, until recently, been relevant to the previous day, so the data issued on 3 July would normally be posted for the record of 2 July. However, I find it difficult to keep up with the modifications and adjustments, almost on a daily basis, as seen on the .GOV website, so maybe the figures you've put in are correct. Could you have another look and check if it is in order? I had a quick look at the .GOV site and I can't find any changes to their protocol, so perhaps the death figure for 3 July does need moving back a day. Cheers, Arcturus (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Arcturus, the source for my data is always given. I use directly data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. It's usual that they do release today the data that was reported the day before. Since each country has a different point of time when they release their data, you will have no other choice. Concerning UK, they had a huge drop of case numbers on 1 July since they removed cases which where counted double, reducing their case numbers by almost 10 % within a single day. They have a very complicated and messed up system of counting by different "pillars", but adding up differently, mostly for Wales. So I do not use any numbers from UK directly.--Traut (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the way the UK government issues those figures is lamentable. I sometimes feel like giving up on using them. Thanks for the information about the alternative source. I'll have a look to see if, overall, it's a better source; I suspect it is. Arcturus (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID diagrams
I noticed that File:Covid-19 total cases per 100 000 population from selected countries.png and File:COVID-19 Active Cases per 100 000 population.png are almost a month out of date. Are you still maintaining them? Paradoctor (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I do. But data from ECDC was not only limited from a daily to a weekly release. They now skipped the reference date and thus have a weird jump at the change of the year. So I mave have to switch over to another data source. I'm just investigating about the problems of JHU data. --Traut (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the info. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation
Could I suggest that when you revert an edit, you check the correctness of the content? Here you added back a citation that contains incorrect fields. At any rate, I'd prefer if you discussed this particular addition on the talk page as it contradicts the data elsewhere in the article. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I do not recognize what's wrong about the fields. Do you speak about the references? Please explain what's wrong about . --Traut (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)