User talk:Mindspillage

Messages here may not get a quick response -- please use email (kat@wikimedia.org) instead of this talk page for faster response.

Good luck as a candidate

Kat, good luck. You submitted your statement 31 minutes after I removed mine. I'm glad you did. Dedalus 06:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So am I! -- sj | translate | + 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Good luck over the next two years. Sarcasticidealist 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My best wishes for the next two years. Congratulations and I hope to see you at Wikimania this year. Cheers, --Góngora _(T•ES) 21:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Woot! --BradPatrick 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Woot indeed! -- phoebe 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Poor thing :-) Well, congrats and keep on with the good thinking. Anthere

Congrats! --MaanMeis 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

I am very happy for your victory, I´m a new user in es wikipedia and i only want to wish you happiness and prosperity in the mandate, I only ask you to be benevolent and friendly and have good luck in the future Attentivly: NazcaiN

Congratulations!

Congratulations for win the 2009 Board Elections! Good luck! =) Tosão 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS for Esperanto ("info-eo")

Hi there.

I'd like to start a queue in the Esperanto language. (According to the page OTRS, you are one to contact about it. I am an administrator in the Esperanto Wikipedia, and I am monitoring and cleaning up the images there. Some of the people I contact, our only common language is Esperanto. Is this something you could please set up? Thanks... -- Yekrats 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

cross-wiki note

I left you a note re: recent minutes. We should be able to post Feb, and April only needs a few fixes. –SJ · talk | translate 08:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested an open meeting for later this week, before the next Board meeting. I hope you can make one of those times -- the last meeting was useful! –SJ · talk | translate 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia CAT

Hello Kat,

in order to unblock the situation of Wikimedia CAT chapter, we have clarified and simplified the proposal at Wikimedia CAT.

We would highly appreciate that you could take a look at it and kindly give us your opinion at Survey. If you consider so, you can also express your support.

Thanks in advance. --Gomà 10:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WM-CAT, Amical Viquipèdia

(I've Send copy by e-mail) Dear,
let me introduce myself: I am a Catalan Wikipedian who, not only dedicated to write articles, also spends his time to promote the free knowledge and wiki tools where and how I can. For this reason I associate to Amical Viquipèdia amd I support the chapter WM-CAT. All this from the beech firmer conviction altruistically and voluntarily, spending my time and money.

As a Trustee of the foundation would ask me to answer these questions:
In relation to me:

• What's wrong with me?
• What's wrong with the group of people who make WM-CAT?

Regarding the promotion of knowledge Wikipedia and the free:

• Why should I stop before a line indicated on the map as I can share with people the other side of this, that speak, think and feel like me?
• Why can I not, along with those who speak, feel and think like me, be considered equal to others who feel and think like me?

In relation to the Foundation:

• when the various Foundation's committees have become more important than community?
• why people's interested in promoting the same that foundation aims to promote become a problem?
• When the foundation vision and values have gone down in the background?
• When the foundation has grown into something that can ignore Wikipedia principles?

Dear SJ, maybe my speech will seem harsh, but this is a discourse that comes from the heart and mind of one, as you, is convinced of the validity of the project but at the same time he sees That a right as basic as it should be made part of a group equal than others are denied.

SJ: When the Trustees left to be bold?

Yours,

--Mafoso 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I leave the missage in my matern language in order to avoid translation errors (my english is basic):

Apreciat,
permet que em presenti : sóc un viquipedista català que no sols es dedica a escriure articles sino que també inverteix part del seu temps en
promoure les eines wikipèdia i el coneixement lliure allà on pot i com pot , per aquest motiu em vaig associar a Amical Viquipedia i dono
suport al capítol WM-CAT. Tot això ho faig desde la més ferma convicció, altruistament i voluntàriament , gastant el meu temps i diners.
Com a Trustee de la fundació li demano em respongui aquestes preguntes:
En relació a mi:
Que hi ha de dolent en mi? 
Que hi ha de dolent amb el grup de gent que formem WM-CAT?
En relació a la promoció de la Viquipèdia i el Coneixement lliure:
per què m'haig d'aturar davant d'una línia senyalada en un mapa quant el que faig ho puc compartir amb gent de l'altre costat d'aquesta
que parlen, pensen i senten com jo?
Per què no puc, junt amb aquests que parlen, senten i pensen com jo, ser considerat en igualtat de condicions que altres que senten i 
pensen com jo ?
En relació a la Fundació:
quan els diferents comitès d'aquesta han esdevingut més importants que les comunitats?
per què l'interes d'unes persones en promocionar el mateix que vol promocionar la fundació esdevè un problema?
Quan la visió i valors de la fundació han passat a segon terme?
Quan s'ha convertit la fundació en quelcom que és per sobre dels principis Viquipèdia?
Apreciat SJ , potser el meu discurs li sembla dur, però aquest es un discurs que surt del cor i la ment d'un que com vostè es convençut
de la validesa del projecte però que veu al mateix temps que un dret tant bàsic com hauria de ser el fet de formar part d'un grup en 
igualtat de condicions que altres es negat.
SJ: Quan deixaren els trustees de ser valents?

Question for current board members Re: May 2010 and Projects' Scope

I'm asking the same question of all current member seeking re-election. It concerns the "May 2010 'unpleasantness". In brief, Wales proposed that the board redefine all our projects' scope in a controversial way (specifically to exclude anything deemed 'pornographic'). Some board members strongly supported this idea, some opposed it from the outset, and some supported first and then opposed it after community feedback.

The question to you is pretty simple: which group were you in? Did you support or oppose the redefinition at the outset? If you changed your mind in May, when did you change your mind and what prompted it? Where are you on the issue now?

(I should say, how you acted in May 2010 is absolutely not a litmus test for me. Ultimately, it's how you're likely to act in the future that we care about.)

Long form:

In May 2010, Jimmy Wales announced and implemented a policy without prior community consensus. He made the following statement:

This is not merely the advice of one person. I don't intend to deadmin anyone - but I will. The order of operation here is going to be that we first [implement the new policy], and then we can open a broader discussion about [how to apply that policy]. I just don't want anyone to get the impression that we're going to have an open vote [on the policy]. We aren't. It isn't going to happen. This is not a democratic debate, this is policy. [1]

When pressed, Wales further clarified:

I am in constant communication with both the board and Sue Gardner about this issue, yes. I expect the board to issue a statement within a few days offering a general philosophical support for the serious enforcement of policy on this issue. [2]

Ultimately, the forthcoming board statement was quite clear that it no new policy has, in fact, been authorized. So my question is-- who was Wales in communication with, such that he believed his actions would be vindicated by the board? Who endorsed the idea that one individual, or even one handful of individuals, should be able to unilaterally declare a new policy of that magnitude?

The specific question over images isn't the "real issue"-- there's a legitimate diversity of views on that question. The big issue, to me, was that in May 2010, we learned some minority within the board had come to feel that board votes, not community consensus, should be able to redefine the projects and their policies in controversial ways.

In the interest of transparency and openness, perhaps the community should have learned by now who stood where during the events of May 2010. But given all the emotions running high during that time, it didn't seem prudent to actually ask. So long as board members didn't run for re-election, they had a good claim to "put the past behind them and just move on" with taking care of business. But now that the community has to decide whether to re-elect you, so I think that means it's time to for you to show your hand. Where were you on things and when?

Specifically:

• Where did you stand on this issue before Jimbo's announcement on May 6? Did you endorse or oppose his stated plan?
• Where did you stand on the issues during the interim when Jimbo was implementing his new policy? Did you endorse or oppose his actions?
• Where did you stand on the issue during the board resolution vote? Did you advocate for the resolution that was more in support of Jimbo's new scope definition, or did you advocate for a version based on the status quo 'educational' test?
• Do you feel differently now, or wish you'd acted differently, or have learned anything from those experiences?

Alecmconroy 07:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions to Board candidates

Hi Kat

Based on the statistics concerning the number of pages read in previous years' Q&As, I infer that few voters take them into account. Personally, I see it as a very interesting exercise despite the fact that we the candidates are also the main readers. I believe it is a unique type of debate among us that is especially interesting.

I have noticed that User Alecmconroy suggested a very interesting series of questions on strategic issues. They can be seen here: User talk:Alecmconroy#More questions for Board Candidates (or others). I see he also did a particular question to you, but I see he has not communicated directly this set of questions. Perhaps you find them interesting.

I wish you the best possible result in these elections and, if you agree, I suggest that we continue having this type of debate regardless of who is chosen.

Cheers and good luck.--Gomà 09:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your resume, please

I've found a controversy in your location: in the resume "Washington, DC" while at your local page there's some another place. Please clear what to remain in your resume.

To translate

Also I'd like you to inform us translators, please, how to pronounce your surname: /wælʃ/, /wɒlʃ/, or /wɔ:lʃ/ if you don't mind: it's essential for transliterating into some languages. Best wishes, Josh (JLincoln; w:User:JLincoln)/ 11:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(I didn't mean such doubling, I'm sorry!)

"passed the Virginia Bar" - you mean The Virginia Board of Bar Examiners? There's also a problem with an abbreviation. I couldn't find a common equivalent for OTRS. I'm afraid it'll have to stay as is. BTW, I don't think it's appropriate to add a straw - such as linkage - to a translation. Do you? Hope people'll perceive, will they?

Sorry, it's night here. Perhaps I'm a bit dull. Let's hope tomorrow. JLincoln 23:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your resume, please:)

I've found a controversy in your location: in the resume "Washington, DC" while at your local page there's some another place. Please clear what to remain in your resume.

To translate

Also I'd like you to inform us translators, please, how to pronounce your surname: /wælʃ/, /wɒlʃ/, or /wɔ:lʃ/ if you don't mind: it's essential for transliterating into some languages. Best wishes, Josh (JLincoln; w:User:JLincoln)/ 11:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Help compile Objective Data about the Candidates

Posted to all candidates talk page:

To aid in the fair evaluation of all the candidates, especially those not active on EnWiki, verifiable data about the candidates is being compiled. Anyone is invited to help compile the data since it is all publicly available on-wiki.

But since the people best qualified to help are the candidates themselves, it seems reasonable to ask:

• Which languages do you speak? (voter statement)
• Which projects do you contribute to?
  • For each, when was your first edit?
  • For each, how many total edits? (exact figures not need)
• Which projects are you an admin on?
• Are you a bureaucrat? which projects? when?
• Are you a CheckUser? Which projects? When did you start??
• Are you a steward? If so when were you made one?
• Have you served in a verifiable leadership role on a project? (e.g. Like EnWiki's Founder or Arbcom member)
• Have you served in a verifiable leadership role on at the Chapter or Foundation level? (Trustee, etc)

Are there any objectively verifiable facts that should be included in this guide but aren't?

(Incidentally, this document won't reflect my own personal values or wikipolitical opinions. Ideally it will come to exist outside of my userspace in some neutral, visible location. -- Alecmconroy)