User talk:Fæ

Bet you never thought you'd get a barnstar from me...

		The Original Barnstar
		For your comment on the Wikimedia-l mailing list: "I find the idea of blocking dissenting voices repugnant and fundamentally against the Community value of openness and transparency. Dissent is not the same thing as disruption or being uncivil, I think the lines are becoming dangerously blurred in this area and we are in danger of seeing a super stupid dramafest being fueled." Best wishes, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) /// Carrite (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Surgical discussion

Hi Fae, it's vinesh from Imperial College here. Can I ask if you are available for an email thread to discuss the surgical instruments project we have going on and Toni approached you about? I tried to email you from this page, it didn't work. Could you please send me an email through my login? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnypatel (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fæ. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text RfC - proposed wording

Hi Fæ, Apologies for the interruption. I have a response to your kind comment drafted, but am vacillating on posting it.
It does, however, end on a positive, and I hope, productive note - I thank you for the kind, and wise, suggestion that an RfC be raised, and concur.
Given that I am partisan on the content matter, would you be amenable to reviewing or co-authoring the text for the RfC question?
I am considering:-
1. Should this article include mention of comments/opinions in LGBT newspapers (The Advocate, PinkNews) on the article subject & their speeches? 2. If included should this be: A. <proposed text>, B. <my revised text>, C. other ?
The C. other option is intended to be open-ended, to allow for compromise or better suggestions from editors as yet uninvolved.
Appreciate your thoughts and any reply. PS. It was pleasing to see criticising (not criticizing) in your comment. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I have some real life commitments today, but will probably take a look after that. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I suggest you add your best alternative to the !vote, however going for slight amendments to the text already proposed is the most likely way to get improvement in place. It is pragmatic to go for a simple yes/no !vote rather than give more options. Now back to those chores! --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)