Jump to content

User talk:Dedalus/Archive1

From Strategic Planning
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Eekim in topic Consistency


THANKS for adding the info about the Wikicon! I appreciate it. -- Philippe 12:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Where are we now?

Thanks for seeding that page! It's going to be very interesting to watch it evolve. --Eekim 22:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

About an edit

Regarding this edit: that is precisely how I'd like to see these handled all the time. Thank you for setting the standard on that. I really am trying to encourage a culture of tolerance and multi-lingualism, and your efforts will help with that. Thank you for setting a great example! -- Philippe

The picture at Where are we now

HI Dedalus:

I'm very concerned about the picture at "Where are we now" - it's very wikipedia centric, and the idea is that we're asking people to look just beyond wikipedia. Is there another illustration we could use? -- Philippe 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. The picture at Where are we now? displays all thirteen projects currently hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, with their thirteen brand names and thirteen logos. That is just all but Wikipedia centric. Maybe you feel the picture at Where should we go? a bit Wikipedia centric. Please, read the proposal:Brand name consolidation first. There I propose to integrate all projects within Wikipedia, unifying thirteen different brand names and logos into a single brand name and logo and creating a single, simple, short message to communicate. Outsider - the people who we want to reach - if they have ever heard of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia as one big project and they don't understand why the Wikipedia Foundation is called the Wikimedia Foundation. Dedalus 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
You're correct, I had them backwards. My apologies. I am uncomfortable using that picture while requesting input from the wider Foundation. I request that you remove it, with thanks for the work you've done. I'm happy for you to place any of the wikimedia logos there, but I'm not comfortable with the Wikipedia globe in that position. -- Philippe 20:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The pictures now illustrate proposal:brand name consolidation. The puzzle globe is the only trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation that is widely recognized the world over. All other images are superfluous. Dedalus 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think it's entirely appropriate to put those images at the proposal. :) -- Philippe 20:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletes

Thanks for marking those pages with {{Delete}} and putting {{Warning}} on the user pages of those involved. It makes it a lot easier when everyone marks the spam they see instead of just ignoring it. Gopher65talk 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the article: Sinhala

This sounds more like an advertisement to me. But it's better to get someone else's opinion too. Topic can be translated to "world's first and only multi-lingual Sri Lanka internet map". It's ending with contact information of the guy. The information in the article is about that map. That got nothing to do with strtegic planning, I believe. --Lee 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply


Hi, are you sure of this? This is our standard on normal wikis, but I thought they wanted to have all proposals in the main category, too. Nemo 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply


You say that we need to use English, but you write the welcome in Dutch. Thank you, but that's not very logical... Patio 09:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write anything, only subst'd a welcome/nl template ... en die kleine lettertjes zijn niet logisch. Toch eens gaan kijken wie daar voor verantwoordelijk is geweest. Voel je vooral vrij een voorstel in je moedertaal te plaatsen, we vinden wel iemand om het in het engels en andere talen te vertalen ... en zoiets laat ik degene met chinees, hindi, japans en andere niet-engels sprekers hier ook weten. Dedalus 10:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Al iemand die Fries-Engels vertaalt in gedachten? Want daar zijn er niet zo heel veel van. Wutsje 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ach, allicht is er iemand die Fries-Nederlands kan vertalen en dan vind ik ook wel een vrijwiliger voor Nederlands-Engels. Ik ondersteun de meertaligheid van deze site om zoveel mogelijk mensen de gelegenheid te geven hun ideeën en voorstellen zo helder en duidelijk mogelijk te verwoorden. Liever in hun moerstaal dan in zo slecht engels dat niet te vatten is wat ze bedoelen. Toen de nood aan de man was en ik een vertaler Sinhalees-Engels zocht, kon ik die ook vinden. En dat was vanuit een taal waar ik nog nooit van had gehoord. Dedalus 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Administrator Tools

Thank you for your very kind offer to serve as an administrator for this wiki. I'm creating new administrators today, and you're in the group that I'm giving the administrator tools to. I encourage you to use them rarely, and only after consideration. I prefer that pages be retained if there's any doubt as to their legitimacy. Please assume good faith on a massive scale. If you come across something questionable, please feel free to contact me, I'm almost always online. Please feel free to move proposals to the "Proposal:" namespace, but leave the redirect, for a while, so that if someone has put a link in their favorites, they can find their proposal.

With that said, also feel free to use the block button for inappropriate contributions (spammers should be blocked on sight) and anyone who is blatantly disruptive. The block template at {{blocked}} gives them instructions to contact me if it's an incorrect block. I will keep an eye on your use of the tools the first several days so that we both know that you're using them in the way that's calibrated with the other administrators. Please understand that if I contact you about an action, it's done with my thanks for your volunteerism.

Welcome, and please - again - accept my sincere thanks.


Could you upload it in Commons, so that it can be included from Meta as well? Thanks, Nemo 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Leaking Circle

I love your leaking circle systems diagram. Did you create it just from this data, or had you created something similar before? --Eekim 17:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I love to make diagrams, especially for evaluating performance of programs. Since May I kept thinking about relations between reach, participation and quality. The UN Telco report added new insights to me about important relationships between development, income, telephone use, computer use, internet use, but very relevant the significance of relative price. In the Middle Age the Kings of Spain showed off their wealth with palaces and gold. Nowadays the rich in the world show off their wealth of knowledge by building Wikipedia. We can do that because we don't have to walk twice a day several hours to get some clean drinking water. It is what Anthere dented or tweeted in BA: it is fun to do. Dedalus 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is a tremendous skill, and we're going to need more of these to help us make sense of the challenges and the tradeoffs. Your diagram reminded me of a w:Causal loop diagram. Are you familiar with those? --Eekim 21:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've looked at the link you supplied. Might have done that kind of thing in a distant past. Wikipedia had a period of exponential growth from 2001 until 2007. So, there was some positive feedback, something reinforcing going. Maybe even mutual reinforcing with another party or parties. We know what that is: search engines (like Google) supplying search results with links to Wikipedia on top. Erik Zachte figured out Google is involved in nearly half of all page views nowadays. The growth of Wikipedia did help the grow of search engines in the period 2001 to 2007. People come back to a search engine based on past experience: getting informative results. We could research areas and regions with low Wikipedia reach, how search engines operate there: do those search engine rate Wikipedia as high as for example in the U.S. or in Europe? The mutual reinforcing relationship between Wikipedia and search engines is a coincidental one, not a overtly conscious created collaborative partnership or alliance. The cooperative behaviour was tacit - no direct communication was needed. Except - some search engines got a live feed of all changes, for nearly nothing. Dedalus 15:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcoming Users

Hi, just wanted to drop a note to let you know that User:Mwpnl configured a welcome bot for us - there shouldn't be any need to welcome users manually any more. But watch for a malfunctioning bot, just in case, and block it if it's being bad. It's User:StrategyBot. -- Philippe 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: Welcome

Well, actually I signed up almost four years ago. :-) However, I didn't intend to remind you «to be nice to "newcomers"». Even if you consider newcomers the users who have not been around since at least... february 2005, I think that we don't have a problem only with newcomers. Nemo 18:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss major reverts

May I ask that you please explain the reason for the various edits in this revert? In particular:

  1. why move project governance out from under foundation governance?
  2. what evidence is there that ending anonymity will improve anything?
  3. why did you change "Instruction" to "Interactivity"?

Thank you for helping me understand your work. 06:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure I understand them either. My feeling is that this can only be a rough sort, by very general category. These proposals are as written, and their exact purpose is hard to pigeonhole. My feeling is that overcategorising is counterproductive and it looks silly to have more than just the two levels of headings. Three levels suggest a precision that just is not there.
        I also should note that improving content and extending coverage are fundamentally different things. We could easily have an extension of the coverage by a factor two for a drop in quality content. - Brya 07:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I (mistakenly) had the impression, based on edit summary, that multiple categories of proposals were removed from from the call for proposals template. Looking back I see there was only a reshuffle of several categories under different headings and a removal of a single category. The last one has been reentered. Please discuss the merit of individual proposals on the talk page of the proposal and not in the edit summary of the template call for proposals, because that would confuse me. And frankly, I don't have the habit of discussing reverts with IP addresses. Dedalus 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Um, no.

I was just really tired and stupid when I wrote that. I am indeed a native English speaker. >_> You know, I got an A1 in English for my Leaving Certificate.....I guess it doesn't show XD. I'll change the title, but there are better and more specific proposals similar to it already anyway.--Occono 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Hi Dedalus.

Thank you for taking an interest in that suggestion. The kind of thing that makes it worthwile for me to go on working here. I am assuming you want to know what I think of the table you created. Well, the overall design is more or less what I had in mind, except that I was surprised to see all the categories displayed on the table. Well, I don't know how you feel about that, but it looks problematic to me. I feel we achieved only to transfer the problem, as it were. So I made a little sketch on my own page -- Thamus joyfulnoise 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC) trying to illustrate how I see it working. Mainly, I am assuming that 5 categories are enough for any proposal to be in. I'm no programmer, and I have no inkling of the amount of work necessary to make that sketch a functional thing. I see the numbers in parenthesis (indicating the number of proposals in x category) as links. If you click on one, you get those proposals at the top of the list. Saludos, -- Thamus joyfulnoise 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Why, Dedalus, that is just BEAUTIFUL! Thank you very much. And what do you think of it? -- Thamus joyfulnoise 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I suppose you don't visit here much. I'm eager to know what you think about the table and wether you consider putting it to use. Thank you again for all the interest and the effort you put into this thing already. As far as I am concerned, great job. mmm, well, we still don't have the rankings, but I'm not so sure it's important. It isn't for me. All the best, -- Thamus joyfulnoise 22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The second version is better than the first. I tried to make the table sortable. Somehow that didn't work for this table. I felt disappointed in my own wiki skills. Special:LikedPages doesn't work yet, and I haven't found another way than manually collecting the reader feedback data either. Currently the best way forward is to have more category tags on the proposal pages. For example see this table for the tags applied by Brianna who isn't bold enough yet to apply those tags as categories on the proposal pages themselves. Dedalus 06:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wish I could help! Alas, it's beyond me,at least until I learn my wiki programming lingo. I haven't the least idea how to make it work, but if wishing could do it, it would be done. As it is, you did a lot already, and I can only wish you luck with it.

Convenor's resolution

Dedalus, Thanks for all the hard work that you did on the convenor's resolution. From day one, one of the things that we've identified as a key to success is adequately and appropriately discussing with the community what has happened here and providing documentation of it. Your proposed text does that very well. I wonder, though, if it's not written too formally. My fear is that the community will look at this entire concept and see "process creep". I think the resolution would be more effective if written in a narrative or prose style. Do you have a strong objection to this? -- Philippe 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Convenors were asked to edit and sign. Style choosen conforms to style at wmf:resolutions. Dedalus 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I'm not sure it should be a resolution. I'd rather see it as an interim report... Let's let content drive style, not vice versa. -- Philippe 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
My concept of 'edit' includes 'move' (renaming the article to for example interim report). Dedalus 22:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was working under the "be polite and discuss radical changes" principle. :-) But with your invitation, I'll do so... but it won't be until after the Call for Participation goes up. -- Philippe 01:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
<----- I've made some edits; I'd be interested in your input. -- Philippe 13:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Looking at this dif between my original version and current version I do actually see only some cosmetical changes and no radical change at all, except for a relevant addition by Serita which couldn't be inferred from material on this wiki alone. The way the thing has been treated signaled loud and clearly there wouldn't be a smooth transition from Phase I to Phase II, and a one week delay in the launch didn't come as a surprise to me, though no real objections to move on have been raised at all on this wiki. Dedalus 15:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Dedalus, ik vroeg me af of je wijziging op MediaWiki:Sidebar/nl effect heeft gehad. Volgens mij is het navigatie menu al goed, Fact base stond toch al in en gisteren heb ik dat vertaald naar Feitenverzameling door het aanmaken van Mediawiki:Fact base/nl. HenkvD 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Iemand zag Random Proposals niet in het navigatiemenu. Ik ben aan het aanpassen geweest totdat Random Proposals / Willekeurig verbetervoorstel wel zichtbaar is in verschillende skins en verschillende taalinstellingen bij voorkeuren. Daar was achteraf gezien een andere wijziging voor nodig dan een wijziging van MediaWiki:Sidebar/nl. Dedalus 18:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wat was die wijziging? Bij Catalaans zie ik Random proposals wel, maar bij Duits niet? Kunnen trouwens MediaWiki:Sidebar/nl en ook MediaWiki:Random Proposal/nl verwijderd worden? HenkvD 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Die twee verwijderingen heb ik gedaan. MediaWiki:Random Proposals/nl maakt dat ik "Willekeurig verbetervoorstel" in de navigatie zie. Vervolgens heb ik MediaWiki:Sidebar/de aangemaakt, en daarna MediaWiki:Sidebar/de verwijderd, en nu is bij de taalinstelling Duits wél Random Proposals te zien. Als u nog een onderwerp voor een proefschrift zocht, heeft u de probleemstelling al aardig geformuleerd, heb ik een experimentele oplossing aangedragen, hoeft u alleen nog een stukje theorie in te vullen. (Dus vraag me niet om uit te leggen hoe dit nou kan.) Dedalus 19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Bedankt. De praktijk is soms iets weerbarstiger dan de theorie. HenkvD 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for helping translate. This is a mulitlingual site. Could you help us with a transliteration or transcription of माहीतगार to a latin script? Hi I do have user account User:mahitgar which I maitain for beta version and User:माहीतगार I use for old regular version.Well why I am doing so, Actually Old regular version at mr wikipedia supports me with Marathi Language script.

Thanks and Regards

माहीतगार 04:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply Mahitgar, I had seen numerous edits by you, now I'm glad to know माहीतगार is the same. Could you set your signature to माहीतगार/Mahitgar? Dedalus 06:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Title of "State of the Wikimedia Movement" page

Hi Dedalus,

Barry from Bridgespan here. Wondering if I might ask your assistant. I've been building out the 'State of the Wikimedia Movement" page, but think that the title is mileading. I'm a bit of a Wiki rookie and can't figure out how to rename the page without losing the content, edit history and links. Would you be able to rename it for me. Something like "Strategic Planning Guiding Summary"

Any tips on how to do this myself would be appreciated.

Best, Barry --BarryN 00:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking care of the fix. Much appreciated. --BarryN 19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

General disclaimer

Good morning. It is me again. Can u delete General disclaimer and change MediaWiki:Disclaimerpage (project->wikimedia)? - Iniquity 01:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Updated. --Az1568 04:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I removed MediaWiki:Disclaimerpage. The link to the privacypolicy is in MediaWiki:Privacypage. Dedalus 05:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
O_o. General disclaimer = Strategic_Planning:General_disclaimer. I cant understand you) - Iniquity 06:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Delete General disclaimer, Strategic_Planning:General_disclaimer please. Text in MediaWiki:Disclaimerpage must be wikimedia:General disclaimer. - Iniquity 06:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fixed, again. Please keep MediaWiki:Disclaimerpage, there isn't anything wrong with it nor is it a duplicate of anything else. :-) --Az1568 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks) and can you delete pages? - Iniquity 06:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Np and done as well. --Az1568 07:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Hi Dedalus - I deleted the page that you created for the interview with Achal. We have been very clear with all of the interviewees that their words will not be editable. We'll need to continue doing those in pdf format. -- Philippe 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


OK, this made me laugh. -- Philippe 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply


The Original Barnstar
For your tireless work in the application process and for the countless dedicated hours you've put in to the strategy process. -- Philippe 21:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply


Hi Dedalus. Totally understand the goals in what you're doing, but I fear that we'll have a lot of inconsistency across the strategy pages. We didn't design them as Wikipedia articles but rather as something else altogether. Thus some conventions--like right-aligning charts--don't seem to work as well here, given that we have huge charts that cause text wrapping to be less than readable. Does this make sense? --JohnF 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remark on the charts, and on the remark I did make you do not respond. You have one question, "Does this make sense?". No. Dedalus 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dedalus, John is saying that it's premature to impose Wikipedia-style guidelines on strategy pages. I think he's right, but if we need to discuss this in more detail, let's move this discussion over to Village Pump. Thanks! --Eekim 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply