User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive3

From Strategic Planning

Archives: 1 2 3

Please leave messages below this line

Blocked template

I noticed that you were trying to use the {{blocked}} template with a reason for blocking, rather than just a time. So I added that feature, just for you;). The reason is optional, and comes right after the length of time that the block will be for. You can see correct usage in the link to the template above.

You know, it just occurred to me that this wiki has a license that is compatible with Wikipedia, so I could have just copied a template from there. That would have been... easier:P. Gopher65talk 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually happier doing it this way - there's danger in being toooo much like other projects, you know? It tends to bring with it some associations of tone and text, and I really think we've done a great job with tone here, because people are generally very friendly. So I like yours better :-) Thanks for the reason parameter! -- Philippe 00:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Golden Barnstar
This barnstar is in appreciation of all the hard work you've put into this wiki and for being such a helpful and friendly user. Thanks! Tempodivalse 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, thank you! It will be on my user page. :) -- Philippe 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pt-br no more

Several people sent e-mails and write summaries of the issue, things like "we really need separation?", As you can see: [1].

As I put new arguments and did not get answers, and was subsequently shelved. I decided to be daring, I will remove all pages en-us, because only they are causing problems, the creations are taking the server unnecessarily, in addition all pages en-us, the pages are copies pt. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely disappointed in this action. There has not been sufficient on-wiki discussion as to draw a consensus and I have made my viewpoint exceptionally clear. You are not acting with consensus in this matter. Rodrigo, I am personally disheartened at the use of the tools with which you have been entrusted. It is unconscionable to me that you took this action and then notified me, knowing full well how I feel about it. You could easily have notified me in advance and we could have discussed it. I am very disappointed. I will discuss with Eugene the best way to proceed as we move forward. -- Philippe 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that we evaluate the new arguments on September 5: [2]

The problem is that it can become a snowball, I know you have many things to do, but I expected more than 20 days so that you at least read the new arguments. There was no feedback and the pages increased.

I value greatly the discussion, but did not have more dialogue, I was hoping the good will of some editors to at least say, "I still think we should keep the pages in Brazilian Portuguese." But it was not what happened. They sent me emails saying that I was wrong separating pages pt page pt-br, (I just do not put my email here because the people who sent them were asked to not publish because they are personal).

The processes must be dynamic and what is not happening is that, I also could not have come here to talk with you, just done, but in awe of you I'm putting my position, I think we have discussed, but was filed discussion, no opinion.

Sorry to disappoint you, really, but waiting a decision from above, I do not refer in any way a wiki. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 17:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo, I spoke with Eugene about this a few moments ago. He has responded at here. He also agrees with me that for the purpose of this wiki, we are not opposed to having both pt and pt-br. This does not and should not set precedent for any other wiki. Accordingly, I've reverted your changes. -- Philippe 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered here. Please read carefully, I'm beginning to believe no more in this project. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. I'm very sorry if you're beginning to lose faith. Let me ask you this: what is the danger in having two version of the pages? Assuming that they are virtually identical, as you say, what harm is done? The two communities can inter-relate, because they are virtually identical. It's not more difficult to find things, because the search features read both versions. There's no precedent set, because we're clearly stating that. What harm is done? Rodrigo, I'm trying very hard to understand, but I don't see it. I need you to work with me on this. I also need you to understand that in the end it may not go the way you want it to - sometimes we have to acknowledge that a thing isn't perfect, but we can live with that and still contribute. I'm going to be out or a couple of hours but I will look for your response when I get back. I'm happy to talk to you about it then on IM or by IRC. -- Philippe 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm online on IRC.
Losing multiple users, as they get tired of editing twice, or even lose because several other discussions are separate visions elsewhere, are just small examples of what can happen, and any friction that may arise.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are comments that can be made about any two languages, though.... I'm on IRC in #wikimedia-strategy. -- Philippe 00:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipe, I first want to apologize, I'm under too much pressure in studies, have little time for editing, and many things that delay the process annoy me enough, I sometimes see as neglect some attitudes, I am no longer active on Wikipedia, by Because of the uncooperative attitude of the people. I tried to solve the "problem" in a quick, because I was expecting any opinion on the matter after I reformat the arguments, but did not occur for 22 days, clearly was not the best solution, but it was the best solution I have found the time . Like I said, I know you have many things to do, not only here, I did not get more of your time or Eugene to solve a thing, which in my view, had a simple solution. </ br>

Note: Do not understand what you mean by "feel strong". Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. I do not quite understand your previous message, is to wait for Casey? I hope you read my previous message. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 01:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal letter 2

Will there be a new update of the appeal letters, because there are now new ready versions? --Goldzahn 08:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, later today, I hope ;) -- Philippe 08:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sitenotice are ready, but the rest of the text is not. You could publish at least the sitenotice --Goldzahn 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're just doing your job

But perhaps you could take time off from greeting users who have been here for years, and actually go and look at what they've said and write up some constructive criticism. You know, not all of them, but do try and help out, instead of... doing whatever it is you're doing. CompuHacker 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks soooo much!

Thanks for always being so supportive and positive! It is very, very appreciated! Oh, and keep doing your job! Whatever it is your doing... :) Serita 04:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer now

Hi Philippe.

I know we've bother you a thousand times in the mail list, here, and I even sent you a personal mail, but again: the page still holds poorly or untranslated text, specially at the "Volunteer now" button in several if not most languages.

I don't know if you are handling these updates personally; please let me know if it's someone else I need to contact.

Thanks, MarianoC 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano - I know it's frustrating. The process to get those translations updated requires accessing the server, and Eugene is the one who can do that. Unfortunately, he's traveling. We have a file prepared for him, and once he's back we will be ready to update. -- Philippe 08:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Care to send it to the list? Some are eager to see the changes committed, while other might find out they still have time to complete it. Cheers, MarianoC 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the sidebar from the page Landing page into this template and I changed the color from yellow to white. If you like the template maybe it can be inserted into the task force pages? --Goldzahn 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great! :) I'm going to add some stuff to the sidebar tomorrow, but it shouldn't interfere. -- Philippe 04:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I wish to usurp the username Philippe on fr wikis. -- Philippe 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Getting women

onto Wikipedia. Maybe we should add this to the banter: So, have you edited Wikipedia lately?
Hmmm, my signature didn't come over to MyPreferences. (martingugino 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, signatures are local wiki based, I think. Heh, I don't remember the "getting women" comment but it certainly sounds like something I'd say. :-) -- Philippe 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username @de.wp

Hi Philippe, i've just renamed you at Regards, — YourEyesOnly 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Philippe 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

Please look at Expand reach within midsize and under-connected populations. There is the Localization Task Force. At Emerging strategic priorities, there is no such task force, but a Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern & Western Europe task force which doesn´t exist so far. --Goldzahn 22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Goldzahn - it turns out that "Localization" will be the revised version of the "Sub-Saharan, Eastern, & Western European" task force. Obviously, we need consistency in titling; I'm going to look at all of that tomorrow if Serita hasn't already done so by then. Thanks for bringing it up! -- Philippe 03:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've calmed down now, thank you for explaining the welcome template decision thoroughly. I will say that I shot off that message before I realized that the welcoming is simulcast in 20-odd languages, which is MUCH more useful than I had first seen. If the template is added through some automated process, is there a chance that it could look to see if the account is a unified login and, if so, check to see how many edits on various other wikis have been made, skipping the intro (or maybe going to a "You seem to be a <insert wiki here> regular; Srategy.Wikimedia is a wiki centered around the planning of strategic goals, concepts, and ideas in the Wikimedia project, which includes Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and many more..." type welcoming) if the user has over, say, 500 edits or something (A criterion that I, most ironically, would actually not fit; Being a lurker has gotten me accused of being a ringer called in at the last moment). Anyway, got a bit carried away, thanks for explaining it, and I think I'll go apologize for the snippishness of my comments on Wutsje's page now.Riffraffselbow 02:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thought I'd call this to your attention. I don't speak the (Slavic?) language that most of the page is in, so I think the eyes of a native speaker should probably be involved…or should the whole page just be deleted? -Peteforsyth 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. :) I think perhaps I'm missing something, could you expand on this for me a little? To my eyes, it looks like a translation in progress from English to Serbian.... but you're probably seeing something I'm missing. Thanks! -- Philippe 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the part in English, near the bottom of the page? Look for the word "douche" -Peteforsyth 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, thanks for the compliments :) I appreciate all you guys are doing in this process. -Peteforsyth 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I totally missed that. Thanks! -- Philippe 22:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same paragraph is on this version: Call for participation/Appeal letter/is
Crap. Someone played games with the source, clearly. Yep; that's a problem with a bad source paragraph. It looks like it was vandalized and they just grabbed it an pulled it over. I corrected it on is and deleted sr, beacuse a native speaker told me it was in bad shape anyway... -- Philippe 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of translation without any announcement

Hi. You have deleted this page with comment "Translation compromised significantly". This translation was not finish and relly not perfect, but quick deletion (without any announcement) is really really wrong thing. I am native spaker (sr) and with you action you have an hour's work destroyed. And my trust. Thanks & bye. --Kaster 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaster: I'm happy to restore the work that you did, and certainly apologize for the trouble. The problem is, the source document had been vandalized, and you were working with a very very bad source. Rather than take the chance on it getting published, I decided to delete it, knowing that I could undelete it and we could look at it together. I'm sorry that you were offended. -- Philippe 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Circular letter

Dear Philippe, thanks for the latest update. Now I find there are a few details that might deserve clarification.

  1. The page that is most updated on the works, seems to be Emerging strategic priorities, can I send prospective volunteers there to be updated?
Art: Absolutely. That's a great place to start. But probably even better would be to send them to the guiding papers, which are more of an overview.
  1. The Task Forces are planned for a 3-month period until Dec. 2009, while the strategy project is going to last for a year. What's going to happen after the Task Force advisory part? What can I tell our users and readers about the 2010 stage of the project?
After the task forces finish their work and report out, we begin a "synthesis" phase, where we take the work of the task forces and their recommendations (and undoubtedly some of them will conflict with each other) and begin to distill that into a written plan.
  1. What part can subject area advisors play after the task forces are up and running, and how will they be needed in the course of the program? Simply said: can I go round and say to prospective advisers: Please keep applying because you will be needed until the end of the project?
Yes, you may safely say that. We will call on subject matter experts initially to help the task forces with gathering data, but I anticipate a very real need to continue to call on them throughout the process. Even more importantly, though, we are beginning to see a host of ways that we can use them, even after the strategy project is finished. This database of experts will become a primary resource for the Foundation, I hope.
  1. Who is going to run that next stage after the Task Forces are finished? The Selection Committee? The Board? A new Committee?
The Board will appoint a committee to begin to look at the reports of the task forces, and undoubtedly there will be a massive need for community interaction there. This will be the hairy phase when conflicting priorities are hashed out and the community will likely advocate for their favorites. There will continue to be large scale involvement by Bridgespan Partners, as well as the Foundation's own strategic planning staff.
  1. Could you send us a new circular once the next stage is sorted out?
Absolutely. Thank you for the reminder.

Thanks a lot, - Art Unbound 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work! -- Philippe 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last question: is the volunteer website going to stay online? for how long? Is there any other way for volunteer experts to apply? - Art Unbound 23:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we have no plans to take it down anytime in the immediate future. -- Philippe 02:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

task force confusion

Hi, Having task forces rdr to Emerging strategic priorities without further information is confusing. Are they equivalent? if so, who is coming up with these questions, and aren't these super big areas for one individual task force to take on? If they're not, then merging of what seems like parallel but not equivalent pages is confusing; and doesn't reflect what was on the task force page for ages. I think everyone interested would appreciate more clarity; wtf is an 'emerging strategic priority,' anyway? :P best, -- Phoebe 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a task force for each emerging strategic priority (and in some cases, more than one). I could probably delineate that more clearly if it's confusing... the list of task forces is included in the ESP page (below each Emerging Strategic Priority is a list of the task forces that will be applicable). Emerging Strategic Priority is "consultant speak" for "no kidding, this is an area to pay attention to."  :-) -- Philippe 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think it needs to be delineated more clearly; and probably explained what is going on and what the timeline will be (who is coming up with the priorities? can the list be added to or edited? what about the task force list? etc.) Even though the links to the task force pages are right there in the text, it's not super clear; maybe having a separate, explanatory page about task forces and their role (so splitting priorities and task forces back out again) would be helpful? I can work on this, though I don't have the answers to my own questions :) -- Phoebe 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added this quick explanation; rvv if untrue, obv. -- Phoebe 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, and helpful. I'll take some time in the near future to add to it based on your above questions. The answers, though, are: priorities were created by Bridgespan and users from this wiki based on the research that was done; it's a wiki - of course you can add to and edit, but be aware that it should be well documented, etc... cuz it's still a wiki and someone can revert too; task force list will at some point become set in stone, because people are being assigned to them, HOWEVER: there is no reason not to create a task force on your own, this wiki is available for that use, and we'll support it as best we can). -- Philippe 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

task forces

I added in the notes section of the landing page a welcome-text. I don´t think it is a good text and I think someone should write a new one. In the section task force members I wrote "group´s facilitator", I took that from the page Emerging strategic priorities. You will find there: "The Selection Committee will ask one participant on each Task Force to serve as the group's facilitator" Does each task force member know who the "group´s facilitator" will be? When will the Selection Committee ask? A lot of questions, but the welcome-text depends on the answers. I hope you could answer the questions and write a new welcome-text. --Goldzahn 06:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Goldzahn - I'll take a look and see if I think there's any need to clarify your language. :) -- Philippe 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals about data

Hello. I have decided to write you after reading your last announcement in the Spanish wikipedia. I'm interested in Category:Proposals for data-related features, for example Proposal:A central repository of all language independent data: I think that a Wikidata project, or whatever the name may be, could be a vital part and great help for all Wikimedia projects. But after reading so many unconnected ideas about data (here and in Meta) with no apparent evolution, I'm worried about if/how this will be managed in the Wikimedia Strategic Planning project. I would like to know about the real possibilites of Wikidata becoming true, and when could that happen (as I'm about to begin work on some data auto-processing ideas for Wikipedia which would become obsolete with Wikidata) and if the work of creating all the required software and configuration to hold the project would depend on "base users" like me or on the Wikimedia Foundation itself, if the idea is considered useful (as I think it is). I would like to help in creating a "unified" proposal and making it real, if the chances are good. Maybe I should ask these questions somewhere else, if so please guide me and sorry for the inconveniences. Thanks in advance for your comments. -jem- 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -jem-, and welcome! I'm pleased that my messages to the various wikis are doing some good. Your input on wikidata and data based proposals would be wonderful. It's important to note that at this point, we totally expect random, disassociated proposals. We're in a "brainstorming" phase, where all ideas are welcome. As we go forward, various task forces (based up on the Emerging strategic priorities that have been identified) will begin to look at those ideas and other resources and start to plot a coherent path. If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to submit your name to as a potential volunteer for a task force. Even if you are not officially "placed" on a task force, though, you are very welcome to fully join in the work of that task force. I hope this gives you some idea where to start - if you have other questions, I'm glad to answer them, or to point you to someone who can do a better job than I can. Welcome to the strategy wiki! -- Philippe 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I've read that those volunteers "will be asked to spend up to 10 hours per week", really too much for me at the moment. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this subject and specially on the ESP 3.2 - Expanding Content Task Force, as it seems it will be responsible for new projects, and maybe I'll contact you on the IRC office hours. I hope to help somehow in the process, eventually. -jem- 09:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

office hours

I am full of questions this week :) any objection to putting the link to office hours on the main page, next to meetups? -- Phoebe 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None. Makes perfect sense to me. Have at it! :) -- Philippe 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation-request on the de.wp

Hi Philippe,

after waiting some times, your translation request at the de.wp is finished. See here. I hope, you have seen it yet and forgotten to notice, that you have read it. Greetings from Germany. --Quedel 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Archive

Is there a procedure laid out to archive past proposals that have either been rejected or withdrawn? Proposal:Retirement_of_long-time_editors was withdrawn by the original contributor, and I'm not sure what to do with it. Gopher65talk 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not laid out, but it should be. I've been moving them to their current title plus (done), so Proposal:Retirement_of_long-time_editors (Done) if they were actually accomplished. I suppose we should have something different for those that are withdrawn without being done. Maybe Proposal:Retirement_of_long-time_editors (Closed), which would allow for deprecated, merged, withdrawn....? Then I've been adding [[Category:Done]] to them and pulling them from all categories except for proposals. But again, that doesn't seem exactly appropriate. You want to figure it out and make a recommendation? I may not check my talk page again tonight, but I'll check it tomorrow and respond then at the latest. -- Philippe 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's feasible, but I was thinking that we could create an archive namespace. So when a proposal exited the process, it would be moved from Proposal:<Name of proposal> to Archive:<Name of proposal>. Proposals that weren't resolved, either because they were denied or because they were withdrawn, would be marked thusly: Archive:<Name of proposal> (unresolved).
Again, I have no idea whether or not that would work. That's just my two cents. Gopher65talk 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating idea. Let me talk to some tech guys and Eugene and see if they have any alternative suggestions. Worst case, we could just create a Category for them, couldn't we? [[Category:Archive]] or something? -- Philippe 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how we do it on Wikinews. Add a template saying "this page is archived", and it auto-adds the archived category. But there we want people to be able to read the old news articles via google and non-WMF linking, so we leave them in the main namespace. That's news though, so I don't know if that's an applicable example.
The reason I suggested a new namespace here was because I was figuring we'd want to keep the proposal namespace as clean and time-relevant as possible — both for the current round of proposals and future ones. Gopher65talk 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we still want to find a way to move them out of the regular proposals list, though that could be done by removing [[Category:Proposals]] and adding [[Category:Archived Proposals]]. Hmm, i like this. Let me look for more graceful solutions, but I'll move towards some published system fairly quickly... next 24 hours or so. -- Philippe 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's (at least for now) use {{ArchivedDone}} and remove all the categories except the language. I'm sure someone will come up with a niftier system, but this will work until then. We should have another one for "Archived, because it requests existing functionality". What else? -- Philippe 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5

Thanks for the welcome!

Indeed, thanks for the welcome! I've been reading a lot of content here, and I have a feel for how to pull large chunks of the technology proposals together in a cohesive strategy. I'm writing a document about it, and I'll throw it over to you when I'm done. Other than that, best of luck with the endeavour! All the best, Gazimoff 04:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]