Jump to content

User talk:Femke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Femkemilene)
Cute little zebra finch

Autopatrolled requests

[edit]

Hi @Femke, I know you often check the Autopatrolled list. I had some time today and reviewed the recent requests that had not been responded to yet over the past few weeks... I think there are four there that would warrant the permission and help reduce the backlog. Just a courtesy ping! P.S. My understanding was that non-admins are welcome to comment on requests for autopatrolled, but if my comments are undesired just let me know and I'll refrain in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dclemens1971: your input is always very well thought out, so super welcome. Have you further considered an RfA or AELECT run after the discussion on your talk page in February? I'd be happy to nominate if you don't have offers yet :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

I am no expert in that field; maybe you know if and how to incorporate stuff from [1] into Richard Tol? It is an interesting topic but far outside my wheelhouse. I did try to make some minor improvements to the article. Of course there is no hurry, enjoy your holiday first! Polygnotus (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A difficult article to write. I'm vaguely aware of more direct appraisal and criticism of his work. The criticism in the article now is indirect, about a project he was involved in. Which is not ideal for a BLP. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Unfortunately this part of science if very politicized by some. This was interesting. [2] Polygnotus (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Core Contest Finished!

[edit]

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

Interface administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

readded L235

Oversight changes

readded L235

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lisa McCorkell

[edit]

On 20 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lisa McCorkell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lisa McCorkell co-authored the first major study of long COVID while battling the condition herself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lisa McCorkell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lisa McCorkell), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025 Core Contest Winners!

[edit]

The winners of the 2025 Core Contest are announced 🎉. An great turnout with a impressive variety of articles and laudable improvements. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.

  • First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) for his systemic overhaul of the Political Philosophy article. What was once an unwieldy entry—dominated by a sprawling history section of nearly three dozen subsections!—is now an accessible and well-structured survey of a complex and often polarizing subject. We particularly commend Phlsph7’s global, inclusive, and comprehensive approach. He has once again demonstrated exceptional skill in handling core topics with clarity and balance.
  • Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) for their outstanding work on both Trunk and Flower. The former was reimagined from a ~200 word stub into a richly detailed and impeccably sourced overview—an effort truly worthy of its dedicatee, the late and much-missed Vami IV. Meanwhile, their improvements to the Flower article transformed an already strong entry into an exceptional one, now well on its way to passing FAC.
  • Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his major development of the Niamey article. The entry now proudly stands among the finest city articles on Wikipedia—from thirty scattered references to nearly 400 high-quality academic sources. We particularly commend his inclusion of numerous French-language sources and thoughtfully comprehensive approach to the topic.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea

[edit]

Hi Femke, I was wondering since you spent time reviewing Papua New Guinea for the Core contest, if you had any thoughts on the article that might still be in your mind. I know Good articles have been taken into consideration when assessing the impact of the Core contest, so if you think it's in decent shape I'd be comfortable submitting it given the extensive rework. Best, CMD (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put some thoughts on the article talk :). I think it's close, but some sections can do with being more easy to understand. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had very similar vibes about some of the text, which was one of the things that came up when I was digging into the article after I signed up and realising it was an even bigger cleanup job than I'd first thought. I'm not even sure I've fixed all of it to my satisfaction, but I've never been great at writing Culture sections anyway. CMD (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Femke, update on this for Core contest results, it got over the line after quite a thorough source formatting check. Thanks again for your message at WT:COUNTRIES which combined with the downgrading of the article to C-Class prompted me to take it on. CMD (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Impressive amount of work, for a country where sources are a challenge. I meant to continue giving feedback, but I either don't remember my feedback around mtau for the economics section or you've resolved them in the meantime.
@Generalissima, we're you hinting you'd like to see a future FA run with those formatting suggestions? If you go for it, CMD, I'd be happy to review at PR or FAC. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. I'm not unwilling to try for FA, but I do think it's a process where FAC mentorship might make it more efficient for everyone than me striking out on my own. CMD (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]
Hello, Femke. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Air pollution

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Air pollution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economist leader

[edit]

You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.

India needs to turn the air-con on https://economist.com/leaders/2025/05/29/india-needs-to-turn-the-air-con-on?giftId=846cf549-088e-4197-a1e1-cf478fda7661&utm_campaign=gifted_article

This was the one I cited before. Can't send you the one I now cite as have reached my gifting limit. Let me know if the quote I just added is not enough Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the sharing :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Air pollution

[edit]

The article Air pollution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Air pollution and Talk:Air pollution/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Management of ME/CFS

[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your work on Management of ME/CFS, which I am (unfortunately) finding quite useful. I'll try to contribute as well, spoons permitting <3 nicoo (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider nominating me for adminship this month?

[edit]

Hello, I'm approaching you because you gave some helpful feedback at my past ORCP and you're listed among the administrators willing to consider nominating others for adminship. I'm considering running in this month's administrator elections, but thought my nomination would be stronger with a nominator rather than a self-nomination. Do you think I would make a viable candidate, or am I getting ahead of myself? If the former, I would very much appreciate if you'd consider nominating me, and if not any advice you have to offer would be welcome.

Happy editing, Cremastra (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and lovely finding you here! You'd been on my list of people to vet for a while. Give me a few days (at a busy conference now), and I'll come back with an answer after looking more into your edits. Feel free to send me an email if there's anything you'd like to discuss in private before too! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, thanks. Cremastra (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I was talking about RfAs with Femke over the weekend and can have a look as well, if you want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 Thank you, I'd appreciate it. Cremastra (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: Initial vetting complete. I've sent you an email! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you prefer I respond here or via email? Cremastra (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Email might be easier? That way, we can more openly talk if any type of doubts come up. But if you prefer onwiki communication, that's fine too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do prefer on-wiki communication; I'm fine if any doubts come up here. Transparency is usually the best policy.
I'd mostly be interested in helping at WP:RFD, where I already regularly close discussions. That page has a chronic backlog and I frequently see old discussions with clear consensus to delete that I'm unable to help with. My other backend activity is mostly at WP:RM and reverting vandalism, though I've lately taken an interest in WP:CCI and copyright issues. The mop is very rarely useful at RM, but it has obvious applications with vandalism and copyright. I'm also an occasional new page reviewer, though that isn't one of my primary interests, but in future I might monitor the CSD categories. So in terms of how I'd be using the tools I'd be regularly deleting, occasionally blocking, and possibly in future revdel-ing for copyright concerns.
As regards the other questions: I'm interested in becoming an administrator because, as I said above, it is useful in my day-to-day editing. My best contributions to Wikipedia are probably my content work: in my first couple years I was mostly interested in writing new articles but in the last six months or so I've turned towards quality content and have raised five articles to GA. If I had to pick out a specific article, I'd probably point to Macrobdella decora, which I wrote from scratch about a common and interesting leech. Cremastra (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly ignorant of RfD discussions, so looking at your talk archives to see what more knowledgeable people than me think. The only time somebody objected on your talk, you listened to their request, but eventually stood firm behind your decision. So check on listening skills. You seemed open to guidance when you had started out helping there too.
There is always a need for more admins at CCI, and that will prove popular. I'm trying to rerun Novem's query [3] on your RD1 requests, but this seems to be very slow or I don't know how it works.
How come you don't have a up-to-date CSD log? It makes it easier for others to assess your readiness for the tools. I usually want to see >90/95% accuracy in CSDs, which I think is born out by the last 15 / 20 requests I found in your contributions. The last decline was possibly this G6 over a year ago, where I guess you intended to accept the draft before ToadetteEdit declined? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Femke. I tried to re-run the query and it didn't work for me either. I just made some changes to it and now it's working. Please try re-forking it, changing the name to Cremastra again, and running that. Should work now :)
Cremastra, quick tip. You may not want to mention much about CCI in your RFA unless you have experience there. My quick investigation hasn't found evidence that you've done a lot of work there (no CCI pages in your top 10 edited projectspace pages, no Discord messages from you in the #wpcci channel in the last month). Although please do let me know if I'm missing something. But I think you should be careful in your RFA to state that your "main areas" will be areas where you have a really good track record. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I certainly wasn't going to list it as my main point, since I'm really just getting started, but I'll take your advice. Cremastra (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I think it's fine to mention CCI. Listing it as a main area you'd want to work in would be a problem, but saying it's a thing that you're interested in getting involved in, but haven't gotten to yet, should be fine. Loads of admins end up doing things they didn't know anything about when they got adminship in the first place. The thing that would make it a red flag is implying that you'd get into using the tools there right away, without any previous experience. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of your RD1 record: 18 requests, all acted on, so you know what you're doing there. I'll try to give you a final answer tomorrow! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Cremastra (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite direct in your communication. On the one hand good, because we need clarity, but this can be experienced as curt. When people are aware you're an admin, curt communication can have more of an impact. Nothing that springs out individually as a red flag, but could you comment for instance on this question and if you would answer it differently with the above in mind? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be padded out a bit (add a "hello" and a "thanks", as these things never hurt). The capped "only" was also definitely superfluous. I've tried to implement a less brusque approach here. I'm definitely aware that I can tend towards curtness and generally try to keep this in mind when I'm commenting. Cremastra (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a nominator, I'm usually easier on the experience (as most admin work isn't all that difficult), and more strict on social interactions.
If I look over your edits over the last two years, I see a lot of personal growth in terms of not acting rashly and being kinder. That said, I think it's still a bit risky to go for AELECT now, rather than in a few months time. For instance, in this recent discussion, I think you could have more tactfully said 'this is not how Wikipedia works' to the IP.
But would love to hear @Ritchie333's take as well —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Thanks for the consideration. Cremastra (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that exchange, and a number of others where you were a bit snippy and not as helpful as you could have been. It's not an egregious problem, I just think people creating promotional content on Wikipedia are just clueless rather than malicious (cf: Hanlon's razor) and so snapping back at them isn't particularly productive. As an admin, it is important to keep the peace, but people will generally understand if you're being baited.
My concern more is with your AfD stats. AfD is a crucial area that people look at, because it shows fairly quickly if somebody understands core article policies and can explain themselves well. In your case, the log shows a lot of AfDs you started that ended in "Keep" eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pylas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granite Rock Co. 10 (plus saying "only of interest to trainspotters" doesn't sit well with me for a few reasons) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thai girl groups. Now, to be fair, these are all a while ago, and you can to some extent mitigate these with an answer to the standard RfA Q3 : "I have had problems with misunderstanding deletion policy in the past and don't indend to use my tools in this area". We had this problem with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2, and I think Primefac's had a pretty good career as an admin since then. So at the moment, I think your AfD stats are okay, but could be a little bit better.
I hope that's all helpful, and gives you food for thought.
As for a lack of a CSD log, consider User:Ritchie333/CSD log :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is helpful. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of CSD log is definitely a lack of accountability on my part. I turned the Twinkle function on once years ago to see if it seemed useful. I decided it wasn't and forgot all about it. I've turned it back on for now. Cremastra (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the objection on my talk about the RfD close: I would have been perfectly willing to relist, but Bunnypranav was fine with leaving the discussion as it is after our discussion. Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

removed NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

added L235

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

  • The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
  • Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • July 9–15 - Call for candidates
  • July 18–22 - Discussion phase
  • July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
  • The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Big Con (2023 book)

[edit]

On 11 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Big Con (2023 book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Big Con observes that big consultancies play both sides – advising the fossil-fuel industry while also shaping government climate policy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Big Con (2023 book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Big Con (2023 book)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

SL93 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Add experienced to text per discussion. I don't need to change the cookie for this, right?"

[edit]

Nope, you're good. The idea behind the cookie is, change it if you want people that have clicked "dismiss" to see the notification again. Each unique cookie # = unique way to track who has clicked "dismiss" for that particular notification. Hope that makes sense :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Air pollution

[edit]

The article Air pollution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Air pollution for comments about the article, and Talk:Air pollution/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
  • July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


help with speedy

[edit]

Hello. I saw your comment a few hours ago, and it reminded me once I had helped (a little) to a new admin to delete a page. But I cant recall who that admin was. The only two things I remember are: that admin was new with the tools, 2: I was sure that admin wouldn't take my help the wrong way. Was that admin you? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but possibly. I rarely speedy things, and then mostly G6s, when I mess up something myself. That said, I'm sure I could have used help in the early days with speedies (and probably still in the details)! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
found it. It was Valereee, but it wasn't speedy. It was unprotecting, and then protecting the same page again. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • July 23–29 – Voting phase
  • July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey sense?

[edit]

Do you get the impression there's some block evasion going on at WT:MED ? Bon courage (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have started a conversation with @Tamzin at User_talk:Tamzin#More_loutsocking_from_Dustfreeworld?, as they previously blocked DFW. Explains the knowledge of P&G abbreviations in combination with, let's say, odd interpretation of them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potrok Aike

[edit]

Greetings, was wondering if you could take a look at Potrok Aike and see if there is any work that need to be done before a hypothetical future FAC nomination. Seeing as some problems are better solved before the actual FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus: Unfortunately, I'm a bit overcommitted at the moment, as I've also promised to help with pre-FAC comments for Papua New Guinea, and would like to make progress on improving the understandability of our understandability guideline, and have two content projects I'd like to make progress on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Air pollution

[edit]

On 1 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Air pollution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that air pollution (example pictured) increases the risk of miscarriages, strokes and dementia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Air pollution. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Air pollution), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Femke&oldid=1303605421"