User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 1

Hi Philippe~ you deleted my contribution last week for possible copyright infringement. It was my writing and in my own words. I read your feedback after you deleted and learned that I needed to send you permission to use the contribution. Can I still do that and resubmit my contribution for Brill seminars?

Mary BrillMary brill (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

RfPP
Hey Philippe. I'm not sure if you realized it, but you were handling some standard RfPP requests on this account. I just wanted to see if you could possible switch to your other account for doing so, just to make sure that we don't think your protections were an official pp-office. Best, NW ( Talk ) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that after I did it - I went back in to change the signature to try to indicate that they were from not OFFICE actions... Short of undoing and redoing them, I couldn't think of what else to do. Logged the wrong account in.   Philippe Beaudette, Facilitator, Strategy Project (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen
Hi Philippe, I would like to let you know about a note I posted on the WP:ANI page. It is about the Gulen's biography you semi protected recently. Best, Wronghumor (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI User:Wronghumor was blocked today for being sockpuppet of User:Philscirel. Thanks for the semi-protection, made it possible to put up the non-biased version awaiting this block. Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User experience feedback/New features
Hi, can you unprotect this please? There's no reason for it to be, not based on any policy. Thanks,  Aiken   &#9835;   16:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a highly visible page, describing a set of new features for the Wikimedia Foundation. At this point, I'd prefer to leave the page protected.  The Feedback page itself is unprotected. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Highly visible pages are fine for move protection, but not indefinite full protection. Think of today's featured article, which is not usually even semi-protected. Please consider semi-protection. Good faith editors (like myself) may want to edit it. Thanks,  Aiken   &#9835;   17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I see your point, I'll tell you that my experience with pages linked from centralnotice is that it truly is best to keep them protected. "Indefinite" does not mean "forever".  I anticipate that the page will be unprotected at some point, but I'm uncomfortable doing it now.  For instance, because this describes features, it's best to keep the page stable in the description of what those features do, so that misinformation is not introduced (as, for instance, has been suggested to me in other places through a misunderstanding of the features).  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pages linked "globally" (with the exception of Contact us and General disclaimer) are usually not fully protected, so I've taken the bold move to lower the page to semi-protection. If you disagree with my action, you're more than welcome to change it back. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, I don't see a single instance of vandalism in the page's history since it was unprotected (or ever). The full protection really was overkill. Thank you for reducing it. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your quick response on my talk page. I've complained here, and hope that that IP will be blocked! --Hordaland (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo
Hello there. Not sure who to tell this to, so I thought you're a good place to start! There seems to be a typo on the page that the sitenotice points to: Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch. On the second bullet point, read the sentence "We have reorganized the editing toolbar to make easier to use" several times. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll let Naoko know.  :)  Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation account
I assume someone will be investigating this? Seems like something didn't work as it should here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that unblock, and NuclearWarfare has been deeply involved in the discussions around this account. He was also quick to question when, after he unblocked, something didn't feel right.  I just beat him to the reblock.  Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I saw all this go by and expect that this was some sort of email header forging; Not really asking after details per WP:BEANS. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper article
I thought you might find it interesting to see this article from the Grand Forks Herald. You're quoted in the article. Thanks! --Matthew UND (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, as are you. Great job, Matthew :)  Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent cleanup
Hi, it looks like you missed to remove one of the names on the last page you cleaned up (or possibly left it there intentional). Just dropped by to make you aware of this. jonkerz♠ 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorization
Hi Philippe. The category you added here is meant to be used for the mainspace only. Do you think you could remove it please? Best, NW ( Talk ) 01:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Just wondering if you could take a look at my question in that section when you get a chance. Thanks in advance,  Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 04:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

JzG
Yep, you would want to thank JzG for this. I used a custom version of Template:Blocked subject, which I generally find to be a fantastic template. NW ( Talk ) 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Images
I noticed that Facebook utilizes Wikipedia images. The first image on the top of an article will show up on a FB "Page" or as a pop-up thumbnail/icon at a link. I also noticed that when an image is added to an article, it doesn't show up on FB right away. Are the delays because the image needs some kind of approval? Also, if a FB "Page" has a title that is redirected to another Wikipedia title, will the image (from the article you are redirected to) show up on FB (seems to) ... and, if not, can an image be placed on the redirect that will? (even though it would not normally be seen on Wikipedia ... due to the redirect). As an example, I recently a created a redirect from "Tennis Majors" to "Grand Slam (tennis)". At FB a "Tennis Majors" link does not use the "Grand Slam (tennis)" image. On the other hand, "Sailboarding" which redirects to "Windsurfing" on Wikipedia (since 2008) uses the "Windsurfing" image on FB. I heard that Wikipedia doesn't have control over what Facebook uses, but that FacebookBot has something to do with it. Can you shed anymore light on the subject? J-klem (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FacebookBot pulls information from the API on a regular basis (a higher volume basis than most bots) so that the information on Facebook doesn't get too different from the Wikipedia versions. However, if there's one that needs to be refreshed manually, I can do it.  As to the redirects question: I simply don't know.  I will ask Facebook.  :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the info and for inquiring about the redirects. :) J-klem (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's automatic. The delays are to prevent excessive bandwidth from being wasted.  For existing Facebook Community Pages with Wikipedia content, content is refreshed within 24 hours after the corresponding Wikipedia page is updated.  A few Wikimedia Foundation employees have access to a tool to request immediate updates if necessary.  New Facebook pages based on new Wikipedia pages and redirects are created in a separate process every week.  After the next weekly update, a new Facebook page for "Tennis Majors" will be created that is hooked up to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Majors (with image).  The existing "Tennis Majors" FB link you mentioned is a generic page created by a user and isn't hooked up to the Wikipedia page.  Separately, we're embarking on efforts to clean up our graph so that duplicates like these will be removed. Hope this helps.  Facebookesun (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thanks! When you say "a new Facebook page for Tennis Majors will be created that is hooked up to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Majors (with image)", do you mean that the image from "Grand Slam (tennis)" will appear on FB representing "Tennis Majors" because of the redirect? J-klem (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it'll look the same as http://www.facebook.com/pages/Grand-Slam/105854112781793 but with the title "Tennis Majors".Facebookesun (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
You've been reverted at Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. There's a clear note at the top of the page regarding who may post there. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I was instructed to post there by the committee :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:WMF Legal
Hi. It seems you've created a role account (WMF Legal). Please add the account to the list at Meta-Wiki: Role account. I believe there's also a local category for such accounts somewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction between your statement and official WMF policy
According to wmf:Access to nonpublic data policy, "[o]nly persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access to any nonpublic data [...]". The purpose of this is "to ensure that volunteers who have access to nonpublic data covered by the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy are personally and legally accountable". So far the English Wikipedia, apparently with the exception of a handful of checkusers and arbs, has assumed that this policy means what it says and is taken seriously. Now according to your recent statement, if you "were ordered to disclose any such information, [you] would not do so". The following sentence suggests very strongly that you are referring to knowledge of real names, not just identifying documents. I note that you did not actually claim that you do not keep a record of the real names, but your statement has created the impression that users identifying to the WMF are not actually personally and legally accountable in any meaningful sense. It appears that at this point we need further input from you. Does the WMF's privacy policy need to be updated? Are there any checkusers who it would be impossible to sue if a valid reason arose? Could this situation arise in the future, e.g. due to lack of written records, after all WMF staff who know an editor's real name have left the WMF?

I do not care much either way, but the current impression in the thread WT:AC/N is that we have a very poor compromise: required personal identification but no actual accountability. Hans Adler 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the privacy policy was constructed to be the most restrictive environment possible, and that our execution of it could be less restrictive and not be in conflict, but I'll run it past our interim counsel and get another opinion. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)