User talk:Wilfredor/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello
.png){kind=logo}
Hello. I heard you were familiar with SVG files and how to do them ( :P ) you I wondered if you wanted to help me turn this ugly png to an svg. Thank you for your help. Josve05a (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Photo challenge Translations
Hello The Photographer,
please check that all links in your translation are working before you post it as a watchlist message. In order to do that, you normally don't translate the link itself, just the link text ([[link|link text]]).
Your translation
| es = Commons:Desafío Fotográfico: Duración de la votación Mal tiempo (Diciembre-Enero), Artículos de uso en el hogar (Diciembre-Enero) and Outliers (Enero). Envía tus desafíos a Curvas y espirales (Febrero) y Vestimenta (Febrero).
should be (only the links are changed, as I have no idea if your Spanish translation is good or not - as you seem to be even more prone to mistakes than I am, I did ask Ganímedes to check the translation - the message will after all be read by quite a lot of people ;->)
| es = Commons:Desafío Fotográfico: Duración de la votación Mal tiempo (Diciembre-Enero), Artículos de uso en el hogar (Diciembre-Enero) y Outliers (Enero). Envía tus desafíos a Curvas y espirales (Febrero) y Vestimenta (Febrero).
Perhaps you could ask somebody to check you message over before posting it on the watchlist page in the future (to avoid broadcasting e.g. links that don't work...)?
I hope I'm not offending you - I'm just trying to find a solution where you can help (which is appreciated as you were once more the first to do any Spanish translation), but mistakes are avoided...
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Anna reg: its not good practice translate links, you are right, i am sorry --The_Photographer (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Releasing emails to a private list
In another discussion, you asked if you can release emails sent to a private list, apparently for OTRS volunteers. There are various answers, depending on what "can" means. But, first, a conservative answer: consult with knowledgeable and experienced users, privately, before releasing any mail that was sent with an expectation of privacy. For your own understanding, it is essential that you be able to privately consult counsel and share with them what might be of concern to you, so do this in person, by telephone, or by private email.
A less conservative answer: such releases have been made, many times. I have never seen a user sanctioned for it. Wikipedia ArbComm used mails sent to a private list, in a case, very much against the interests of those who sent them expecting privacy. There is no policy prohibiting it. However, there may be agreements made as part of the list subscription process. Violating those agreements, if it is to be done, does not violate WMF policy, as far as I've seen. Often such releases, on-wiki, are deleted.
There is also copyright, but there is also fair use for the purpose of criticism and analysis.
It is obvious that release of such material can be harmful to those who wrote the mails, and possibly to the community, especially the OTRS community. However, that has historically been balanced by the necessity of exposure of problems. That is, if the community is possibly harmed by secrecy, this may trump the individual rights to privacy of the members.
So here is some advice going forward:
1. You may share list mails privately with individuals of your choice, for the purpose of making your own decisions and choices, being clear, in advance, that this is not for release. So get permission and agreement first.
2. You may wish to notify the mailing list involved that you are considering releasing mails, particularly specific mails, to allow them the opportunity to object before release. I would recommend that you also notify them that any new email sent to you by them might be subject to release, as a separate matter, so they should not disclose in any response to you, truly private OTRS information. You are no longer a member of OTRS, so they shouldn't be doing that anyway. Notice, about this, that you are not asking for permission, though if permission is granted, it could be useful. You will still make your decision with or without permission, I assume.
3. Odder, in particular, already has WMF clearance for access to private information. He has not betrayed that in any way. If something might be private data, as defined by WMF policy, my opinion is that you may share it with him. Do not do even this, unless there is clear relevance to the issues being raised.
4. Do not release those mails to the public without finding trusted support (privately or publicly) first. Do not treat this as an emergency, and be thoughtful, careful, and responsible. Be especially careful about strong judgments, like "shit hitting fan" or the like. Just the facts.
And good luck. --Abd (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Abd, would you care to explain just what your authority within WM projects is, such that you consider it appropriate to advise other editors, "You may share list mails privately with individuals of your choice" and that your advice actually has any weight of policy behind it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- My "authority" is as only as a WMF user with substantial experience (and my experience with on-line communities goes back to the 1980s, as a moderator on w:The WELL, and as a human being, being 70 years old with extensive business and legal experience, many children, and much training. That is, natural authority. I do not have any special authority as an interpreter of policy, and neither does Andy Dingley. The Photographer is free to follow my opinion, ignore it, or reject it. Is there a specific problem with the advice I gave him? It was normative, as to general human responsibility. I have, in fact, warned Andy Dingley about harassment of users, and his response was sarcastic,[1] so I assume that he reviewed my contributions to come here with this. That warning has no special authority, nor, if I told someone that they were sawing off the tree limb they were sitting on, would it have any special authority. I'm not the "mall cop" as Dingley asserted. I merely know how to call them, though I'm not planning on doing that.
- As to the specific advice given about sharing confidential information for the purpose of gaining advice, this is a basic right assured in society at large, and is routinely done by WMF users, who, of course, most of the time, do not disclose this publicly. In society at large, I have been involved in many situations where such information was highly sensitive, where there was, for example, possible danger to children, or, even where the consulting person had no sense of actual danger, but there was a situation where someone might think there was danger. In the example I have in mind, a family therapist disclosed private information received in therapy from her clients to her supervisor, to gain advice about whether or not to report that information to child protective services. That violated confidentiality, yet, of course, there are higher standards being applied. It is generally true that whistleblowers violate one rule in order to satisfy a rule at a higher order.
- Individuals may routinely consult counsel. That is legally respected where counsel is formally recognized by the state. The moral issues do not change if counsel is informal. If what I wrote violates or suggests violation of WMF policy, I would appreciate reference to the specific policy, instead of a general attack on my "authority." Again, if I erred, correcting the error would be important, for The Photographer's welfare. In the discussions on related issues, policies have been cited that explicitly did not apply to the situation, so there is much confusion on these topics.
- I could have advised The Photographer privately, perhaps, but decided that there are issues of public concern here, ongoing efforts to harass users who are standing for the rights of the community, and I know that if nobody defends them, the community loses. I'll cite Meatball:DefendEachOther.
- The user asked a question. I answered it. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Individuals may routinely consult counsel.
- I don't know of your local laws, but in my country it's an offence to impersonate a qualified legal counsel. In your demonstrably scant career at Commons (barely reaching double figures in File: space) you've appointed yourself as personal secretary to a bureaucrat who already raised serious concerns for their insistence of political point-scoring against the WMF, even against the clear benefit of Commons. In particular, they've decided that confidential information need not be held confidential by them because it's not a policy that they had personally signed up to (as opposed to merely being a damned good idea for the obvious benefit of Commons). For you to now be advising another editor to be free with confidential list material is concerning, as if they were unfortunate enough to follow your advice, I don't think that "Abd told me it was OK" is an excuse that would hold a drop of water.
- I have also yet to see the question to which the answer was, "another pageful of Abd's self-appointed and self-important posturings". As an editor here you are permitted to write such, but please don't think that it's answering an expressed need. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Andy, for confirming my impression of permission to write what I know or think. As to the question: it was here. I did not suggest that the user be "free with confidential list material," the opposite, I suggested caution. I am not responsible for the lack of comprehension of Andy Dingley. And I believe I'm done here, unless, The Photographer, you have any questions. I am accessible on my Talk page here, or privately by email.
- One more point. Suppose that The Photographer was removed from OTRS wiki because of suspicion of being the leaker (I have no information re that, this is merely a guess about the apparent unexplained removal). That would, then, leave him subject to no effective sanction for further leaking of mailing list or other email information, which he would have in his possession. He might also have IRC logs. In other words, like many mob actions, it would be stupid. Rather, a sane community would negotiate. But I'm not a member of the OTRS community, and it really is up to them. --Abd (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The user asked a question. I answered it. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Parc du réservoir Beaudet.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Boulevard champlain, Old Quebec, Quebec city.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tree in Plaines d'Abraham.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Parc du réservoir Beaudet 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Parc du réservoir Beaudet 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ministère des Finances Building.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|