User talk:Fæ

If you wish to contact me, please email me using this email form, rather than leaving a message on this user page.

Deletion request

Hi Fæ. I saw you recently deleted the page Fliter. Could you delete User talk:PauloHelene too please? See also here. Trijnstel 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Less sure about this one. Do you know what the wikia site linked is about? Unless obvious promotion I would tend to leave it unless the account does something else dubious. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers--Fæ 07:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Popups

Did you get it to work on this wiki? Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not sure what the missing element is... --Fæ 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence (BL)

Hello Fæ, I have seen this post advertised and believe I meet many of the criteria; my question is, since I am not so long-established an editor as some, would I (or others of similar standing) nevertheless be someone Wikimedia UK might potentially be prepared to endorse - or are you looking for someone with a history going back to year zero? Many thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis 08:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC) (User_talk:Maculosae_tegmine_lyncis)

Replied via email. --Fæ 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Annual Conference 2012

I'm writing to let you know that WikiConference UK 2012 is coming up, on Saturday 12 May 2012, in London. Some time ago you indicated that you are interested in attending the event. If this is still the case please help us in planning for the event by registering at http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/wikicon12. The conference will incorporate both presentations and talks about Wikipedia/Wikimedia, as well as Wikimedia UK's Annual General Meeting. It is free to attend. If you have any questions please contact Daria Cybulska on daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk or 0207 065 0994. Hope to see you there! Richard Symonds (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Train the Trainers

I am pleased to announce that the Train the Trainers event which you have expressed interest in will take place on the weekend of 9-10 June at the Wikimedia UK office, 56 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.

The timings of the training are roughly: Saturday 9:30 am - 6:30pm, Sunday 9am - 5pm. Light breakfast and lunch will be provided; we are also planning to go for a meal after the training on Sunday.

It is vital that you do not miss the start of the training session, so before confirming your availability please do make sure you can make the start time of the training.

We are able to cover travel and accommodation, including if you need to travel on Friday - an advance notice will be appreciated!

Please reply promptly by emailing daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk (or 0207 065 0994) and confirming your availability - places are limited.

If you are not able to attend this time, we will have another training in October, and you will be more than welcome to sign up then. Richard Symonds (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Board report

FYI, I've updated a couple of figures on Reports 30Jun12 after our conversation on Friday - the workshops have now happened, so we've got exact numbers rather than estimates. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Board meeting categories

Hi Fæ. Have you seen Category:Meetings and Category:Meeting agendas? You seem to be duplicating that category structure with Category:Board meetings... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware but I think we ought to gravitate to organizing Board meetings as a child of Meetings. Now we have staff, sub-committees and programmes to organize, all these things need to have meeting notes and minutes documented on-wiki; even if they seem scarce at the moment. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's true, and makes sense. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out my inadvertent deletion, some of glitch I think.Leutha (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi! Could you please make your talk page comments easier to follow? This edit, despite the summary "ce" (which I interpret as "copy-edit"), adds new content to a comment of yours from several days before and updates the date. Please post new comments - don't change old ones like that because it makes the chronology of the conversation very difficult to follow. The only way to understand what is going on is to look at the diffs, and it should be possible to follow a talk page without looking at diffs. (I also note that you tend to make a lot a copy edits - it would be easier to follow recent changes and page histories if you proof read your comments before posting them!) Thanks! --Tango (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

NP, I'll try harder to be clearer. The convention is that you can tack on information if nobody has replied yet, but these are not hard and fast working practices as the intention is always to avoid confusion. Yes, ce is a shorthand for copyedit. We could import conventions for talk page discussion, but we would become in rapid danger of attracting too many wikilawyers; and a handful of those is enough for any wiki. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Tacking something on the end five minutes later because you thought of something just as you hit "Save" is one thing. Tacking something on after several days is confusing! I've just seen you added something to your report to the board meeting with "ce" as the edit summary - adding content is not a copy edit... I don't think we need to import formal conventions, but just try to be clear about what you are doing! Thanks! --Tango (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi Fæ. I'm sorry that you were upset by the tagging of File:User Map sketch by Fae.jpg and other files that you've uploaded as copyright unclear. My intention was for that tagging to act as a prompt to those that have uploaded files to this wiki to clarify the copyright of their files using one of the templates referred to in the message. I'm hoping that most of the files can be clearly marked as freely licensed or copyrighted as appropriate. If you would be happy to clearly release your uploads under a free license, then would you mind posting a permission statement here, or update the copyright tags on the files as appropriate? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Library

Fae, I left you a question in January on Talk:Library. Please take a look when you get a moment. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just sent you an email about this. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Rev del

Hi can you rev del my IP in this history? Thanks in advance.

Sure, done. --Fæ (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Choose your favorite barnstar and place it here with my name on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User rights change

Hi, this is to let you know I have requested the removal of your bureaucrats rights on this wiki, which has since been carried out by a Steward, as per the existing policy to restrict bureaucrats rights to current board members and staff. Regards -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WMUK members survey

Hello Fae! I know from the water cooler discussions that you are one of a number of people interested in thinking about membership recruitment/membership generally of the chapter. I am today drawing a few specific people's attention to this as something I'm going to develop in the next couple of weeks. I'll announce on the Water cooler and mailing lists but I'm flagging it up to people who have been involved with membership matters or had strong feelings about last years survey questions - both non and current members. Please do throw in some thoughts or edit the questions as they develop :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Water cooler comments

Hi Fae, this is just a friendly note, nothing more. I'm not an avid follower of the water cooler, but I've been following it more closely over the last few days, and I really don't think your tone there is constructive. I often agree with the issues you raise, and where I don't, I can often see your point, but the way you raise the issues is with such hostility and what comes across as a presumption of malice towards the board and the staff severely damages your persuasiveness. The water cooler is a public forum, and a good place for discussing issues that are of concern to members, but it is not a suitable venue for repeatedly lambasting the chief executive, the chair, or the board as a collective. It is perfectly appropriate for members to hold the board to account, but there are standards of decorum expected of participants in a public forum, and I think any of your contributions fall well below that standard - for example hijacking threads to berate Jon about the decline in membership (the reasons for which are discussed on that very forum and have little to do with Jon's actions, so it comes off as more than a little disingenuous), making accusations against Jon and the board, and lambasting other members of staff who comment on a thread in an attempt to answer your questions (or undermining Jon by continuing to attack him while addressing his subordinates). None of those thing are constructive, and all make this wiki (and the water cooler in particular) feel like a hostile, adversarial environment. This is a great shame, because when you make calm, reasoned post that simply states your opinion on a matter rather than attacking Jon, Chris, or anybody else, you add significant value to the discussion. I would really like to see a return of the intelligent, articulate Fae I so respected when you were chair. Harry Mitchell (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I'll ponder it.

With regard to Jon's role as CEO, in terms of how charities legally function, and in terms of job description, he is ultimately and fully responsible for the operational performance of the charity, whether a particular performance measure is claimed to be under his direct control or not. The Charity Commission expects charities to appoint trustees that hold their CEO publicly to account against agreed and documented performance measures, the top level of which should be available for members and the public to review. Without this level of reasonable accountability, it would be impossible to judge if the charity was taking due care with donated charitable funds. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the Members' survey

	Survey Design
	Thank you for your contributions and making sure we consulted widely on sensitive questions - I am confident the questions were considerably improved by this :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Content of your recent post

Fae, sarcastic personal criticisms of WMUK staff should be avoided, please. They make no contribution whatsoever to our charitable mission, but merely drive volunteers and potential members away. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Spam deletions

When you delete spam pages, please remember to follow the instructions and remove the spam content from the reason field. You are the only admin I've seen on this wiki who leaves even spam URLs around, reducing the point of deleting the page in the first place. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:43, 5 April 2014 (BST)

I understand the logic, but I'm not aware of instructions for this, could you provide a link? --Fæ (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2014 (BST)

It's above the delete box you see when you click to delete a page, "Please clear the "Other/additional reason" box of any text quoted from the deleted page, especially if it contains private information or is potentially libellous." (bold in original). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 10:50, 6 April 2014 (BST)

Thanks for that, I thought you might have been referencing guidance I was unaware of. In this case I do not believe there was any inappropriate private or libellous information, I would treat those cases with significant caution. Though I try to avoid accidentally leaving possible spam links hanging about in comment fields, it is bound to happen now and then; I think we can leave the decision of how much of the deleted information on view in a comment to the individual admin's discretion. In some cases, leaving some information does help others to have more of an idea of what is going on and many of the "spam" links we have seen are relatively innocuous in that the domain owners are merely service providers rather than spammers themselves.

If this is an area you think we could do with better guidelines on, I would be happy to see something proposed. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2014 (BST)

Content of your recent post (2)

You have been warned before about using the charity's website to make personal attacks against individual staff members. This comment you have just made on the Engine Room is such a personal attack, and I have removed it. Please feel free to refactor your comments or to repost some more general comment if you wish - for example criticising the charity as a whole - but if you respond with any further bad faith comments about staff members you will be blocked. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2014 (BST)

I'll reflect on it. Your point of view on this seems radically different to mine and I am having difficulty seeing this as a personal attack but criticism of actions taken by the Chief Executive in that role. Consequently this, by definition, cannot be a criticism of the person.

It would seem slightly bizarre if any member of the charity cannot publicly raise an issue with regard to actions taken by the Chief Executive without the Chairman immediately suppressing it as a possible personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2014 (BST)

Here's a "refactored" version, feel free to suggest more refactoring:

I suggest that the trustees ensure this is part of tomorrow's agenda item "Board committee reports" when you discuss Reports_7Jun14/Governance_committee_report#Transparency. A quick vote of the trustees might ensure that the Chief Executive has no doubt that timeliness is an essential part of the charity's commitment to transparency.

--Fæ (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2014 (BST)

Retrospective 'improvement' of your posts

Fae, it's not proper for you to go back over your posts and retrospectively 'improve' them after other users have responded. It creates a false impression of the timeline. If you want to add later 'ps' postings as you have afterthoughts could you please do so at the end of the thread?

I have reverted the following seven posts of yours that you made on the Engine Room, sequentially over a 20-minute period, that appear to be designed to make your own earlier posts look better after the conversation had moved on: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2014 (BST)

Thanks. I intended these to be minor corrections. I'll amend the thread shortly as you appear to want it to be longer than it is. --Fæ (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2014 (BST)

Thank you. See the section #Talk pages above, where a very similar issue was raised with you back in 2012. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2014 (BST)

Really? That's interesting and a long time ago to research. What would have been nice would be for you to ask me to fix my edits myself rather than reverting me without discussion. To my eyes, there seems a very determined effort to create argument here where there need be none. The charity asked me to renew my membership and a few hours later I did. It seems pretty simple what the right thing to do here ought to be. It has been a busy week. --Fæ (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2014 (BST)

Please be very, very careful to stick to the exact truth. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2014 (BST)

That appears an odd comment, I am not sure why you would say something like that. I must be tired as it looks threatening and a possible allegation of something, however I'll write it down to being late and I'll look again at your words tomorrow at some point. --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (BST)

Could you two please behave in a more appropriate manner. This conversation isn't even going on in an area where a login is required, any passing journalist looking for a sensationalist story could easily pick it up and run with it. If they do, it'll be about as flattering as the New York Magazine's piece on the recent Wikiconference. Do either of you really want that ? 87.113.201.2 21:56, 13 June 2014 (BST)

Mac Minis

Hi Fae

At its meeting last weekend, the board of Wikimedia UK reviewed the agreement we have with you under which you hold the charity's Mac Mini on long term loan to support your work with us in making open media freely available, especially by uploading images to Commons.

The board has concluded that the use to which you put the Mac Mini up to June represented an excellent use of the charity's asset, and we are keen to ensure that it can continue to be used to the greatest possible extent to support future uploads, whether in association with the charity or as part of your independent work. As an obligation on your part to mark uploads with a 'supported by Wikimedia UK' tag may discourage you from using the Mac Mini for the benefit of the movement as a whole, the board resolved that we can best achieve our charitable aims by releasing you from the agreement and presenting the Mac Mini to you as a gift, to be used to benefit open knowledge in whatever way you think fit. We hope that as a result you will feel able to start using the equipment for uploads again.

This gift will not reduce the assets of the charity as I have a Mac Mini myself which I am currently using as a mailserver at home. I will be donating that to the charity to replace on its books the one you currently have.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2014 (GMT)