User talk:Patricio.lorente

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Patricio.lorente, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

Hallo Patricio.lorente, und Willkommen bei Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Diese Seite ist für die Koordiantion und Diskussion aller Wikimedia Projekte. Vielleicht findest du es nützlich unsere Regelseite zu lessen. Wenn du daran interresiert bist, etwas zu übersetzen besuche Meta:Babylon. Du kannst auch eine Notiz auf Meta:Babel hinterlassen (bitte lies die Anleitung am Anfang der Seite bevor du schreibst). Wenn du willst, kannst du mich auf meiner Diskussionseite eine Frage stellen. Fröhliches bearbeiten.

Bonjour Patricio.lorente, et bienvenue sur le Meta-Wiki de Wikimédia ! Ce site a pour but de coordonner et discuter de l’ensemble des projets Wikimédia. Il vous sera utile de consulter notre page sur les règles de Wikimédia. Si vous êtes intéressé par des projets de traduction, visitez Meta:Babylon. Vous pouvez aussi laisser un message sur Meta:Babel (mais veuillez d’abord lire les instructions en haut de cette page avant d’y poster votre message). Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez me poser vos questions sur ma page de discussion. À bientôt !

Olá Patricio.lorente! Seja bem-vindo ao Meta! Este site/sítio é dedicado à discussão e à coordenação de todos os demais projetos da Fundação Wikimedia. Talvez lhe seja útil ler a página contendo a nossa política (em inglês) antes de começar a editar. Se tiver dúvidas, sinta-se à vontade para me fazer perguntas em minha página de discussão, ou deixe uma mensagem para toda a comunidade na Babel, a versão do Meta da Esplanada. Boa sorte!

Hola Patricio.lorente! Bienvenido a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio es para coordinar y discutir todos los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia. Tal vez le sea útil leer nuestra página de políticas (en inglés). Si le interesan las traducciones, visite Meta:Babylon. También puede dejar un mensaje en Meta:Babel (pero antes de hacerlo, por favor lea las instrucciones situadas en lo alto de la página). No dude en preguntar si tiene cualquiera duda, o pregunte en mi página de discusión. Buena suerte!

Ciao Patricio.lorente! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Ciao Patricio.lorente, şi bine aţi venit la Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Acest website este pentru coordonarea şi discuţiile tuturor proiectelor Wikimedia. Este folositor să citiţi pagina despre politica noastră.. Dacă sunteţi interesaţi de traducere, vizita-ţi Meta:Babylon. De asemenea puteţi lasa o notă pe Meta:Babel (vă rugăm citiţi instrucţiunile de la începutul paginii înainte de a posta acolo). Dacă ai întrebări, nu ezita să mă întrebi pe pagina mea de discuţii talk page. Editare cu succes!

Helló Patricio.lorente, és üdv a Wikimedia Meta-Wikijén! Ez a weboldal az összes Wikimedia projektet érintő ügyek megtárgyalására és koordinálására szolgál. Hasznosnak találhatod elolvasni az irányelveinket (angolul). Ha szeretnél fordításokat végezni, látogasd meg a Meta:Babylon-t, vagy a Meta:Babel oldalon hagyhatsz üzenetet (mielőtt ide írsz kérlek olvasd el a lap tetején található utasításokat). Ha szeretnél, nyugodtan kérdezz tőlem a vitalapomon. Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást! Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást!

Здравствуйте, Patricio.lorente, и добро пожаловать на Meta-Wiki Фонда Викимедиа! Этот сайт предназначен для координации и обсуждения вопросов, связанных со всеми проектами фонда. Для начала Вы можете ознакомиться с нашими правилами. Если Вы заинтересованы в работе над переводами, посетите Meta:Babylon. Вы также можете обсудить различные вопросы на странице Meta:Babel (пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с инструкцией сверху, прежде чем писать). Если возникнут вопросы, не бойтесь задавать их мне на моей странице обсуждения. Удачи!

Hola Patricio.lorente! Benvingut a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundació Wikimedia! Aquest lloc està fet per a coordinar i discutir tots els projectes de la Fundació Wikimedia. Potser us serà útil llegir la nostra pàgina de polítiques (en anglès). Si us interessen les traduccions, visiteu Meta:Babylon. També podeu deixar un missatge a Meta:Babel (però abans de fer-ho, llegiu les instruccions situades al principi de la pàgina). No dubteu en preguntar si teniu qualsevol dubte. Si cal ho podeu fer en la meva pàgina de discussió. Bona sort!

Patricio.lorente, 你好!歡迎光臨維基媒體元維基!這個網站是為協調和討論所有維基媒體項目而設。我們的政策頁可能對您有用。如果您有興趣協助翻譯工作, 請參觀Meta:Babylon。你可在 Meta:Babel 留下口訊 (張貼之前請先讀該頁上指示)。若有問題, 請在我的討論頁問我 。祝
編安!

வணக்கம் Patricio.lorente, விக்கிமீடியா மேல்விக்கி! இற்கு நல்வரவு. இவ்விணையத்தளமானது கூட்டாகச் சேர்ந்து விடயங்களை விவாதிப்பதற்கென உருவாக்கப் பட்டது. விக்கித்திட்டங்கள். நீங்கள் எங்களின் பாலிசிகளையும் பாலிசி பக்கம் படித்தறியலாம். நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்பில் ஆர்வமுடையவராகின், Meta:Babylon ஐப் பார்வையிடவும். நீங்கள் Meta:Babel இல் குறிப்பொன்றையும் விட்டுச் செல்லலாம். (பக்கத்தின் மேலேயிருக்கும் அறிவுறுத்தல்களை வாசித்தபின்னரே அங்கே செய்திகளை இடவும்). நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் எனது பக்கத்தில் செய்தியொன்றை விடவும் talk page. உங்கள் ஆக்கங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம்!

  • Boas contribuições. --Slade 14:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Gracias...[edit]

por tus correcciones aquí! Hasta luego, TheWolf 09:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your untagged files[edit]

Sources and licenses, please?

Jusjih 23:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

candidate statement - please clarify[edit]

Hi, I am translating your candidate statement now, and I don't know how to translate "Wikipedia takes...". What does it mean? Ofrahod 08:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ofrahod: I mean this kind of scavenger hunt and free content photography contest like "Wikipedia takes Manhattan" (which I think was the first one). In our case, in spanish the literal "Wikipedia takes..." doesn't sound that well, so we called them "Wikipedia invades..." (like Wikipedia invades La Plata Natural History Museum").Patricio.lorente 09:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. So in my translation I will do something similar to what they did in Spanish. Thanks! Ofrahod 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, Patricio.lorente, is this you? Lotje 13:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions to Board candidates[edit]

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 have given my opinion, but I see he has not communicated directly to the candidates 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 09:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Help compile Objective Data about the Candidates[edit]

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)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for recognizing my contribution to FDC. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations on being elected to WMF board for the second time from Chapters/thorgs. Best wishes--Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why Did You Support Granting Private Information of Editors to Anonymous Administrators?[edit]

Dear Mr. Lorente,

I am dismayed that you and the rest of the board of trustees approved an "Access to No-Public Information" policy that allows totally anonymous administrators on the English and all the other Wikipedias to see the IPs and other potentially personally-identifying information (browser version, settings) of volunteer editors. Even though not usually immediately identifying in itself, this information can obviously be used as a stepladder to identifying through tools like Geolocate and TraceIP, as well as supporting indicators in websearching other clues from the editor's edit history.

Would you please inform me the factors that led to your support of the non-identification revision to the policy? Why would you have done this?

For your reference (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy) "[t]his policy has been replaced by a new Access to non public information policy, which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014."

I don't deny that Wikipedia's administrative participants in some cases do constructive work, in policing clear vandalism for example, or reporting to the WMF the rare cases of threats of violence. But access to personally-identifying information is not needed for that. If there are cases where volunteer administrative participants do somehow need that information, it should be entrusted to identified individuals, not anonymous usernames like "Wizardman" and "Beeblebrox" and "Dord" and so forth. Authorizing checkuser and the other tools to anonymous participants is going to attract, and has attracted, exactly the wrong kind of individuals. It's emboldening, frankly, creepers and cyberbullies. And those who participate in Wikipedia as if it were an online computer roleplaying game, without regard to the fact that those they choose to sniff and snoop (and pursue) are actually people as opposed to a computer game's NPCs (non-player characters).

Have you ever been snooped and sniffed, cyberbullied, websearched, by some creep online? I have, and it's not nice. I think if you'd been treated that way, and really understood the reality of the cyberbully culture, that you'd stand up now and reverse your support of the WMF's granting of these invasive privacy-violating tools to wholly anonymous and thus unaccountable administrative participants. Is that what it's going to take for you to change your mind? Somebody has to do it to you?

Please respond as to why you supported granting access to IP-invasive and potentially personally-identifying tools like checkuser to anonymous administrative participants.

Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WMF board resolution on user rights process[edit]

Please urgently get this topic/resolution scheduled for a meeting, discussed and voted; and express your opinions on the noticeboard. Thanks for your work, Nemo 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Chair[edit]

Solo pasaba para felicitarte por tu elección. Jmvkrecords (Intra talk) 04:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Congratulations and best wishes.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
¡Gracias, Jmvkrecords! Thanks, Arjuna! :) Patricio.lorente (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yo también quiero felicitarte, es un orgullo tener a alguien de tu capacidad en ese puesto. --Jaluj (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't sign up to the wikimedia-l mailing list just to send this mail, so here it comes...[edit]

With all respect, but - presidente - I think we have all understood that James' expulsion was legally OK. I, by the way, do not think that we were in need of additional explanation regarding this part of the story.

I am, however, a little startled that once again the effects of such an action in (y)our online community have not been adequately addressed. Someone who replaces James physically will be found within weeks, maybe months, but isn't it clear that with this action and this "explanation" the "working together" ideal seems unmasked yet again, after a couple of clues we were gives that superprotect etc. would not happen again and that the relation between community and WMF was finally improving? And isn't it cristal clear that restoring confidence will take longer than this couple of weeks, maybe months? You won't be able to replace your dedicated community, if it is fed up once and for all.

Yet another thing: I truly hope that this was not the end of opinion pluralism in the board.

best regards, con todo respeto, → «« Man77 »» [de] 16:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! As I stated in the email I sent today, difference of opinions is not a motivation -at all- for this decision. I myself had (and will have) differences with Board's decisions in sensitive topics. Just take a look to past resolutions and see who voted what. We not only respect different voices at the Board: we need them, we encourage them. This is not about that. Best regards, Patricio.lorente (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
So after the superprotect disaster, where the Board failed the community in a massive way, the board once again decided against the community and for the bureaucrats, at least that's what's emanating from your non-messages in the mailing lists. The community matters far more then the WMF, which is just a service entity for the community. Why is the board so anti-community? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You are just wrong. I belong to the community, I am a wikimedian. Patricio.lorente (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You were already board member as the board denied the community backing against the putschists in the superprotect disaster. That decision was a decision explicitly against the communities and for some rough-shot programmers. Have you apologised yet for this massive failure? Anyone, that voted there against the community has lost his/her right to proclaim him/herself as being part of the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yikes, that's harsh. FWIW, I strongly disagree. Not to minimize the importance of either the superprotect disaster or the current situation, but to say that these actions mean that Patricio or any other board members are no longer part of the community is unreasonable. --Yair rand (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Re your statement to Wikimedia-L 2015-12-31[edit]

Hi Patricio. Thanks for your email to Wikimedia-L on behalf of the board, unfortunately, I find it inadequate, bordering on naïve and dismissive, and from the Foundation completely sub-standard to the Wikimedia's ethos. Please would you look to address the following components in a follow-up email to the list, or here, I mind not which it is.

The election of James was clearly an indication of the community's vote/expression of their desire for more openness and more information. That should have been evident, and the first that the community hears that this is not a viable option is his sacking from the Board. Do you believe that the removal of a board member is the first that the community should hear about issues with one of their nominated representatives?

The Board's decision does not specifically mention a breach of any of the component of corporation law, Bylaws, nor of the Code of conduct policy.

  • Does the board find it suitable that there is a specific decision without reference to one of those components as a reason for removal?
  • Or is there just a general feel that the person could not work with the board?
  • Was there discussion about the community's expectations to the base issue for which they were finding that the (removed) board member was recalcitrant?
  • Will the Board be able to better specify the pertinent aspects so that the community is able to better judge current trustees and future candidates? [At this time, there is nothing to guide the community, and that is not feasible for future elections.]

There is no mention in the Trustees previous minutes of the discussions about confidentiality, specifically or generally.

  • Does the Board not think that these sorts of discussions, especially as relate to a serving board member, are irrelevant, or of less pertinence to the community?

You mention in the email the fiduciary duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in this decision. Umm, would you please extrapolate on that rather ambiguous statement. My understanding of fiduciary [1] seems to be somewhat different. If you have a specific definition of the duties please would you get WMF Legal to point to these so that we do not argue at cross-purposes.

[To note that I am neither for nor against James. I have no specific issue with the board exercising its rights to remove a board member, though, when they do, I do expect a reasonable and informative response.] I understand that sometimes hard decisions need to be made, however, I expect them to suitably justified. I have some (growing) concerns over the direction of the Foundation, and the Board's response in this case just gives me more reason to question the approach and direction. The community expects as much openness as reasonably possible, this attempt fails in my opinion. The response seems to be an email to try to extinguish a fire that has already burnt. The risk management undertaken by the board with regard to a formal proposal seems pitiful. There seems that there was no plan to how a response could be managed, and that seems another example of naïvety and short-sightedness. If there was no plan in place, then why would it be put to the Board at that time?

That the community is expected to sit back and relax while the board fumbles for a reply, to the point that the "one unified reply" is unable to even be managed by all board members. So, in short, the Board has mismanaged their board meeting and their response. Some Board members have been unable to manage themselves to even follow the Board's directive afterwards. Who or what is right?

If this is not the appropriate forum to get these responses, then please direct me to the appropriate means to have these matters addressed. I look forward to an informative response or a directive otherwise.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Patricio? Silence?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Open Wikinews Thai and voyage Thai[edit]

Please Open Wikinews and wikivoyage Thai Please [2] --Pitpisit (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)