User talk:Philippe

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

User talk page archive: User talk:Philippe/Archive

Contents 1 Sysop rights 2 Javanese election notice 3 Board elections page 4 Thanks for the welcome 5 page block 6 Nice to meet you! 7 Hello! 8 Vote struck? 9 Admin rights 10 A few random notes, for you. 11 One Idea 12 Number of eligible voters 13 Confirmation

[edit] Sysop rights

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)

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)

[edit] Javanese election notice

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

Thank you! Philippe 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Board elections page

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)

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

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

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)

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)

[edit] page block

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Nice to meet you!

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)

[edit] Hello!

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

[edit] Vote struck?

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

[edit] Admin rights

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)

[edit] A few random notes, for you.

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)

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)

[edit] One Idea

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.

[edit] Number of eligible voters

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)

[edit] Confirmation

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)

It is, and thank you :) --Philippe 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - thanks & regards. --Dferg 09:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Philippe 19:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Confirmed, thank you! :) --Philippe 19:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for your help, Lavallen! --Philippe 08:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)