User talk:Philippe/Archive 2

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Philippe (WMF) in topic Personal image filter

User talk page archive: 1, 2

WHAT!!!Edit

your blatant disregard for the freedom which entitles me the ability to write whatever I wish, is so appalling that I have resorted to this rather desperate means of reasoning with you. My page was wholly acceptable, maybe in your mind it was an juvenile attempt of humour, but let me assure you, you acted brashly and jumped to that conclusion. I have fully justifiable reasons for the contents of my page, and just because you are unable to comprehend the nature of the reasons it does not give you the right to delete my page without taking up counsel with myself beforehand.

kindly awaiting your reply ScottDandy22


i fully agreee this guy is a loser.... taking away my right to free speech.... probably american... ugh...

Sysop rightsEdit

As per your kind request on the RfA page, you've been granted a temp sysop flag on meta.wiki. Please note that your flag is limited in scope and should be removed if it is no longer needed. Thank you, M/ 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spectacular, thank you! I'll be turning in my sysop flag when the election expires. If I need it for something after that, I'll run as usual, of course. Thanks again. Philippe 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Javanese election noticeEdit

Done. Please see: this. Meursault2004 03:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Philippe 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Board elections pageEdit

Please fix the superscript tag on the July 28th date. The closing tag is missing a bracket "<".

"July 28th/sup> and August 10th 2009"

Thanks. Aude 22:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, and please accept my thanks. Philippe 03:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcomeEdit

Thanks for welcoming me onto the project. I'm really excited about having an opportunity to collaborate with you and the rest of the wikimedia team. I'll be posting the outline for my work on the "reach" section in the next few days and would love to hear any thought you have on it Sarah Sable66.92.12.110 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! You might think about creating an account under your name here on Meta, because then it'll be unified across the rest of the projects. --Philippe 20:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

page blockEdit

Hi Philippe, with respect to this block reason, was it a comment directed at previous editors? That's how I understood it, since new edits will obviously have to be requested to an admin anyway. In what concerns my edits, I believe they were useful ones and I couldn't find any strong reason to have that page protected. Regards —Capmo 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Capmo. I have no excuse, that was a poorly worded and very cranky page protection message. I have changed it. The page is protected because of the possibility having several version of the same document translated and all pretending to be "official" - this is one more safeguard to protect the integrity of the election. But there's no excuse for my behavior in that block message, and I apologize. --Philippe 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, I'm glad to hear it was nothing personal. I also now understand the reason behind the block. Regards —Capmo 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to meet you!Edit

Philippe, Thanks for the welcome. We just had our first training on wikis with Eugene on Friday, and we're all novices, so please feel free to give constructive criticism and share tips and tricks if there are best practices our team can begin to emulate.

On the project, I have a couple of different roles: I'm co-managing the bridgespan team with Serita Cox, working with John Fowler on building the "participation" fact base, and working with Eugene on phase II design (i.e. the working groups).

I'm really looking forward to working with you! Laura

Laura Lanzerotti 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!Edit

Hi Philippe,

Great to meet you too. Excited to already be working back and forth on the Wiki! On this project, I'll be helping Laura out on phase II design and also leading the formation of the "participation" face base.

Looking forward to it!

Best, John

--John Fowler

Vote struck?Edit

See this urgent request, and please respond to me via e-mail (thekohser at gmail.com). -- Thekohser 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)   DoneReply[reply]

Admin rightsEdit

Hi, you're now a full-time admin on Meta. Please add yourself to the list. Congrats, and kind regards, Majorly talk 10:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few random notes, for you.Edit

Dear Phillipe, I have been active here barely a week, so please forgive any naïveness on my part. I'm a noob, a newbie one to whom the vast world of WP jargon is closed, which takes me to suggest a lexicon for us poor Wp illiterates would be a precious help. Most probably there is one already and you are going to point me to it, but the fact that I ask (after a week of shooting across the WP world like a soccer ball) should be symptomatic. The other thing is navigation; today I finally found the icons at the botom of the page that allow me to fly from one wikiproject to another, thus saving enormous amounts of time, but why not have these icons, even if smaller, at the very top of the page, you know, for guiddy but well meaning people like me? :) Of course, you are going to direct me to the proper channels where you are supposed to leave sugestions of that sort, but I wanted to call YOUR attention to what I believe is an unbelievable problem of communication in WP: there's too much of it! in a sense, and consequently, too little, in others.

Example: the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Areas_for_Reform takes you to a place you must be familiar with; do you not have the impression that there is a certain duplication of efforts between here and there? The distinction between the intended purpose of both pages seems clear to me, and therefore it must be clear to most of the participants both here and there, but... is it?

Duplication of efforts seems to me like a waste of energy. Reading through proposals I find many that seem to me so similar to others that I have begun a process of leaving comments to the effect of crosslinking those "repetitive" proposals. The idea in my mind is that those people ought to think about joining their efforts. Again, I did notice a guideline asking people to read the other proposals before submiting theirs, so I know that you did think about this issue, but now it's not realistic to expect them/us to read - how many proposals by now? So, if what I am doing makes sense, could we recruit more people to do it?

Finally, I realise you must be unbelievably busy, but I was wondering wether you were familiar with a graphical novel named "The Tower", the work of the duo Schuitten/Peeters. If you are not, I can promise it will give you a couple of hours of sheer aesthetical delight, but you can also consider it work: it will provide you with an allegorical image of the present, or possible near future of WP. Enjoy. Saludos, 201.224.33.227 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Philippe, I relise now this commentary is misplaced here, should be on your strategy talk page, but it's very outdated now for the most part, feel free to delete :{ Thamus 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One IdeaEdit

Hello Philippe.

This is an idea: on the call for proposals list, we now have proposals arranged by category and then alphabetical order. A great leap from what we had at first, but as many proposals belong to more than one category, they get to occur on the list the same number of times as the categories they belong to. This, I feel, ads to confusion, despair (wow, that's too much to read) and generally bad economy. Please consider if this might not be a further improvement: On a table, arrange proposals alphabetically in the left column, indicate the categories they fall into in the right column(s). That would allow for current rankings to be posted too (we could actually have various columns, as needed, and the table itself may be invisible).

And Philippe, I see my proposal Proposal:Divide Wikipedia in the Restricted editing category. While I do contemplate certain very specific restrictions, I feel it's far from being the defining feature of the proposal. I can't move it myself (or can I?) so I am asking you to do it, or have it done for me. I feel it would be placed much more properly in categories to do with quality, or outreach, for example. I would be very much obliged indeed.

Number of eligible votersEdit

Just out of curiosity: How many eligible voters were there this year for the elections to the Board of Trustees? HannibalForever 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ConfirmationEdit

Hello Philippe. Is this request correct?. I need a confirmation from this account before I can usurp that name. Cheers, --Dferg 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is, and thank you :) --Philippe 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done - thanks & regards. --Dferg 09:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! --Philippe 19:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then, you can confirm also this on svwiki?! -- Lavallen 05:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed, thank you! :) --Philippe 19:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've informed the current user. Now we, according to svwp rules, have to wait for a reply for one month. Since he has done more than 100 edits, he has the right to refuse this.
But the account has been inactive for more than three years...
Best regards! -- Lavallen 08:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help, Lavallen! --Philippe 08:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid, I interpreted the rules wrong on svwiki. No answer after one month from sv:User:Philippe, means we can't help You with Your SUL-request. I'm sorry!
Best regards! -- Lavallen 16:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems rather backwards to me; for instance, wouldn't a lack of response indicate that the user is no longer associated with the projects? --Philippe 08:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was what I thought, but the policy of the swedish wikipedia, looks like this, no matter if we like it or not.
I recommend You to open a thread on the Village pump and see if we can modify the policy or make an exception. Feel free to write in english at the swedish Village pump!
I think there is good hope in cases like this. -- Lavallen 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CommonsDelinker and CommonsTickerEdit

Hi Philippe. I have started a conversation about the lack of these two functioning tools. User:CommonsDelinker has now been out of action for 6 days, and CommonsTicker since sometime in 2009. For the smooth functioning of images and the use of Commons, these two bots need to be fully functioning, otherwise we have the existing problem of

  1. Files being nominated for deletion and the relevant local wiki not knowing and able to enter the discussion
  2. Files being deleted are now not notified to local wikis, and with Commons having the tightest criteria, the opportunity to then transfer files that would be accepted on local wikis is not happening

So the purpose of Commons is now not meeting the local wikis, and all that is going to do is to encourage users to not put files at Commons, and as a local administrator I cannot see how I can helpfully recommend to then to put files at Commons in the existing circumstance. Are you able to suggest where such a problem may be directed in the interests of getting a robust and working set of tools. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will say that this is rather outside of my expertise area. Have you talked to the users who created those tools? I don't know who they are but could probably help you track them down. User:Bastique is probably the best contact for this, but I'll point him to this conversation. Thanks! Philippe (WMF) 18:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am seeing this as more a User Experience issue for WMF rather than issue than focusing on this as specific tools or to a specific wiki. Tools and programmers will come and go, so it would seem that there is a coordination and leadership role required here and that the WMF project needs some rigour about ensuring that tools that ensure the integrity and the interrelationships of sites are provided. billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYIEdit

Hello Philippe. As you handled the issue on strategywiki you may be interested in taking a look here as well. Regards, --dferg ☎ talk 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit

My thoughts from reading input at requests for comment/Global banners and reviewing some of the concerns from the last fundraiser --

  • an effective global-feedback tool is important - say a small link from all notices asking for feedback links back to a single discussion page/form
  • better templates are needed

Do you have thoughts on a good place to discuss effective templates? I'm not sure where the current defaults are being / have been constructed, or if everyone is cutting and pasting from previous generations of notices. (Note also that a single template may look somewhat different in different languages; a tool that allows easy visualization of all at one time, based on available translations, would be handy) SJ · talk | translate 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey SJ, you're final suggestion already exists. The global feedback link is an interesting idea, although I'm afraid with the volume of feedback it would generate, the emails might just get routed to dev/null rather than thoughtfully evaluated. I do agree that better banner templates are needed, though. That's one of the things that I'll be working on at some point. Kaldari 20:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightEdit

Hi, i noticed you edited MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright. This is a the footer displayed at the bottom of every page, thus I don't think the message you added is appropriate. Also, its one of the few raw html messages, so you have to use html, not wiki-syntax. Cheers. Bawolff 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Hi Philippe, I sent my Id last March, you can verify this here Regards!!! Esteban 14:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: HiyaEdit

Hey, I know about it :-) I just wanted to fully use CentralNotice - there was configured Board Election campaign with weight 50, so for me it meant that someone allow to use CN remaining 50. IMHO elections are important, but POTY2010 are also an important event in the Wikimedia Community :) LeinaD (t) 18:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal image filterEdit

Hello Philippe! Is there active discussion somewhere about how this is conceived / would be implemented? I recall the older page on mw.org, which seems sparse in detail in some areas and highly (over?) specified in others. It would be good to see some of the proposed implementations, and a list of concerns or issues and their responses so far.

Where in the timeline is there room for meaningful feedback - is that before or after a referendum?

Finally, we should get translators and ambassadors on board now to spread the discussion: this is one topic where it would be particularly unfortunate to have an English-only discussion.

Rock on, SJ talk | translate   04:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sj,
The concept for the referendum is that we actually don't want to focus too much on the finer details of the implementation, but just gauge the "mind of the community" on the concept (because, for instance, people may vote against the filter because they don't like the color of the font, or whatever - trying to take lessons from electoral politics here). But yes, the one at mw.org is the current spec. The idea is that after the referendum, we'll do a period for public input on the actual design of the thing, and then begin the build-out. We're having a FAQ written right now to address those. As to translators and ambassadors, I couldn't agree more. We have a list of translators from the previous fundraiser, plus we have Casey from transcom on the committee, in an attempt to ensure that we get things out as widely as possible. It's absolutely crucial that we get the word out in as many languages as possible, I agree totally. Sorry for the delayed response. Philippe (WMF) 03:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked a week ago if you could release the results and distribution of votes (number of votes) by language/project. Could you give me a guess when to expect this data to be available? --Niabot 08:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder. --Niabot 18:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I tried to take this weekend off.
I still do not have the results to release in that format. It's not native to SecurePoll, and Andrew is working with Tim to see what we can do. I don't have a time estimate for you yet. Philippe (WMF) 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the hell could be so difficult to check the database table for question results and the Wiki they logged in with? Thats a matter of minutes and if you are fast seconds. A simple database query, nothing special. Give us the plain table (no comments) and we create the graphs etc. on our own. I'm a little angry, because i can't see a real reason for this delay. --Niabot 07:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get that you're angry, and I'm sorry about that. I know you'll not be shocked to hear that I figured that one out on my own. :) But honestly, it's not that easy. First, we don't have access to the database tables, remember? We didn't host the election. Michael from SPI would have to give that to us. But second, I won't ask for that, and here's why: to do it that way would be to release publicly how everyone voted on this election. This is a secret ballot, remember? We have to be sure to do it in a way that doesn't backwards engineer the process such that people can figure out how users from small projects (who may be the only person fitting a particular profile for age of account and project, for instance) voted. We have a responsibility to do this in a way that still maintains the confidentiality of those people involved, don't you agree? That's why we're being very careful about how to do this. Philippe (WMF) 14:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said that you could leave out the comments. Additionally you could leave out the smallest Projects (< 50 participants, low numbers would be meaningless anyway [law of large numbers]). No one asks for the names, just for a simple table: Question 1, Q.2, ..., Name of the Project. That really can't be so difficult. I mean, i asked for this more then a week ago and it would be really interesting, since it can answer at least some simple, but still open, questions.
At the moment we only 5 distributions with "no correlation data" and the overall vote count. Thats all. The rest is the interpretation of the comments, that we can't and will not be able to check for our selfs. That means that the currently released data is pretty much useless for any kind of interpretation to help the overall progress. --Niabot 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't about the comments... it's about the fact that from the date of account creation (even anonymized to year) and the project from which they voted, there are enough data points to triangulate down the actual vote of individuals. It's not theoretical, it's actual. The suggestion you raise is one of the potential methods for dealing with these, and there are several. It's a matter of finding the one that's the safest for anonymization purposes. So you see, it's not about seconds or minutes on the table. In addition, the "age of the account" isn't specified natively in the SecurePoll table, so it's a matter of correlating this data with the main Wikimedia tables, and then dealing with conflict resolution and figuring out how to present it. It's just not as simple as a couple of database queries. Add to this the fact that everyone on this is either a volunteer or a staff member who's working under a full load already (when I took Saturday off, it was my first day off in more than a month) and you'll see that people are working in good faith, and increasingly harsh calls don't do much but frustrate people further. We all have the same goal here: we're working toward release of as much data as can be ethically released. But you've got to trust me when I say that it's just not as easy as a simple database pull. Philippe (WMF) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not make a request for any date. I requested the following table with entries (rows) in random order:
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Project
0 0 10 ? 0 wp-de
Nothing more and nothing less. I guess we can both agree that this would not cause any problem for anonymity, if you exclude projects with less then 20 or so voters. --Niabot 16:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it were only your request, sure. But I'm dealing with information requests from several people. I have to look at the data holistically. If I provide one subset to you, and another to someone else, can they be triangulated? If so, that doesn't work. Philippe (WMF) 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you tell me what subsets where also requested? Maybe i can support you in finding a simple way to avoid possible triangulation. --Niabot 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the offer of help. They can be found on the results talk page. Your assistance would be gladly appreciated. Philippe (WMF) 06:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If i see it right, than we have currently this kind of requests:
  1. Voting results table by project: Only projects with more then 20 users, projects with lower numbers will just be marked with "other projects", the number of this votes has to be larger then 20 users, to be included. Additionally i would recommend an shuffled order of the entries and no inclusion of the date)
  2. Overall distribution/number of votes by project; Can be directly computed based on the first table
  3. Results by date (not Minute/Hour): Since some patterns (Q1-Q5) might be unique, a table "date, Q1-Q5" would possibly allow to find a correlation to the project, but only for projects with less then 20 participants. If done in like in the first table no real correlation could be found, since it could be anyone from 20 or more users. If you can't follow me to this point (or disagree), you could still post time based graphs (daily/half daily interval) for the development of the results (five stacked block diagrams, with blocks over date). Every intervall (step) should include 20 or more new votes.
  4. Results by Editcount: Make a logarithmic scale (< 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, ...) and ensure that every range (e.g 50 <= x < 100) includes at least 60 votes. No need to append this to the table, because it would allow to break down the 60 users, by the 20 users of the previous section (rare case, but may not be impossible for special cases).
  5. Dregree of passion: A request that asks for the opinions/comments of extreme votes. Since you won't release the comments, you should take the out the arguments and list them within some categories (e.g. "censorship", "to protect my children", ...) and put on a summary for the main reasons. You should also state if and how many comments doesn't correlate to the voting pattern.
Summary:
Overall we can easily conclude that releasing a table with "day, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, project" would cause no problem as long we ensure that every day and every named project has more then 20 votes. I doubt that we have any day with less then 20 votes. If so, combine it with the next day. Same goes for the projects. All projects with less then 20 votes would be named as "other projects", which would have a total vote count of more then 20 people. Votes per day are randomized in order, or generally randomized.
As such you wont find any correlation based upon this data. I have chosen 20 as an arbitrary number. It may be 30 or 50. This table would allow us to answer the following requests:
  • Average votes by project
  • Number of participants per project
  • Vote count by day and development over time per project (or "other projects")
Date Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Project
08/30 5 7 3 4 8 wp-en
09/30 7 2 10 4 5 other-project
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The results by edit count will be released separately (no full table) and is not project based. As long as every step includes more then 20 votes there isn't any problem for five charts (Q1 to Q5) and one additional chart/table. Each of the five contains stacked bars for an edit count ranges (50 <= x < 100 or 100 <= x < 200).
Edit Count Question 1
? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20-49 15 22 23 25 12 32 1 10 22 12 17 11
50-99 15 25 12 25 5 32 1 10 21 12 17 14
...
As long no column has a sum lower then 20 anything is fine, since you can't find single correlations between date and editcount, which itself wouldn't be a problem, since it is not possible to assign a single vote to a single project with less then 20 voters. This will be five tables for Q1 to Q5
The additional table contains the number of total votes per range, without any correlation to the questions.
Any concerns? --Niabot 08:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is great, Niabot. I'll take a look at it more closely asap. Philippe (WMF) 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "Philippe/Archive 2".
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe/Archive_2
meta.m.wikimedia.org
CC-MAIN-2023-14
188806
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YPM2KULYWJ247JLB6CZSZF75JYOLE3L4
<urn:uuid:f8802d5b-178c-4a67-b693-d7b2d060d501>
2023-03-28T13:17:07Z
208.80.153.224
text/html
sha1:VY73HDV53XUHXM46T5YYQM73SC7FRNLW
<urn:uuid:8864751e-0c02-4568-9635-e7eed1034886>
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe/Archive_2
response
<urn:uuid:75060882-2318-4eae-a10a-3c6777c79a3f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-14
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-94
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/