Jump to content

User talk:Femke/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm!

[edit]

My extraordinarily high opinion of you and your WP work briefly plummeted :) I was genuinely really confused, haha... I'm considering either Romantic music or Concerto for the TCC (if I do enter at all this time)... any thoughts? Both are barely C class, and the massive list in concerto is especially worrying—it will probably have to be moved, or removed in its entirety! I thought about Symphony, but it seems to be in readable shape at least. Aza24 (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I usually try to read over my text before publishing to make sure it makes sense..
Both Romantic music or Concerto are in a terrible state, and VIT4. Romantic music gets 5x the viewership, and is less than a thousands words according to xtools. Concerto is a completely mess.. I wonder if a split is possible there, if a good list-criterion can be found (a bit like list of prominent operas, even if the existance of that list is a bit controversial). Two good choices, with the first a bit more core. Femke (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bella olivya (16:58, 20 April 2022)

[edit]

Merhaba --Bella olivya (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back. Do you have any question about editing Wikipedia? Happy to help! Femke (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation - Irene Goergens

[edit]

Heya! A while back you declined my AfC for Irene Goergens.I added some more references since then, and a tiny bit of content (there isn't much else to add) and was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider it now? P.S. I hope you had a good holiday Medarduss (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now! I will accept it once a technical hurdle is removed (there is a WP:redirect in the way). Femke (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missleading information in IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

[edit]

Hello Femkemilene, I've got a question. Reading IPCC Sixth Assessment Report I saw the Table "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report [26]" (Template:AR6 SSP table), which also gives a likelyhood of the given SSPs. However, as far as I knw, the IPCC doesn't state the likelyhood, and if I understand it correctly, the likelyhood is taken from source [27], a comment by Housefather and Peters. I find it deeply troubling that in this article findings from the IPCC and informed guesses in comments are mixed up, especially since I fear most readers don't understand at all, that the likelyhood isn't taken from the IPCC, but from a mere comment. In my opinion, this should be deleted, as it is missleading. The entry is about AR6, not some comment published two years ago. What do you think? Unfortunately I am not that deep in the AR6 that I could change that myself. Greetings, Andol (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it seems like these likelihoods are attributed to the IPCC and that the IPCC has failed to give probabilities here. The assessment by Hausfather is highly valuable imo, and should be kept, but attributed, and outside of the table. Femke (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding misleading information: The IPCC more or less refuses to talk about likelihoods of the IPCC emission scenarios: "the feasibility or likelihood of individual scenarios are not part of the assessment", Box SPM.1.1, WGI AR6. Many readers of the AR reports do not understand the difference between a scenario and a forecast. Therefore it is very much clarifying to give estimates (best guesses) about the likelihood taken from other sources. This will avoid a misdirection of Wikipedia readers, which are in most cases not experts in the lemma's field. Besides the Housefather paper, other publications from the International Energy Agency and the Carbon Action Tracker also suggest that a likely scenario such as Stated Policies/Policies & Action (meaning business as usual according to current state of the art) or Announced Pledges/Pledges & Targets (meaning already committed but not yet implemented policies to GHG reduction) will result in a median temperature rise of 2,6 K and 2,1 K in 2100 according to IEA ([1/3; 2/3] confindence interval 2,4 K – 2,8 K and 1,9 K – 2,3 K) and a median value of 2,7 K and 2,1 K according to CAT. This supports the view that SSP2-4.5 with 2,7 K will be likely, whereas SSP1-2.6 with 1,8 K (range 1,3 K – 2,4 K) needs more efforts than the pledges already in place. SSP1-1.9 with 1,4 K (1,0 K – 1,8 K) needs a stringent intensification of today's climate protection policies and pledges. But SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 are not likely at all (also because reserve estimations for fossil fuels do suggest they are good for 3400 Gt CO2): they may be useful for intellectual pastimes but are not relevant for practical policy discussions. I'll copy this thread to the relevant discussion page, so it will not get lost in Wikipedia's Vogonian information system. --Gunnar (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for your ongoing work with Antarctica after it was listed on Featured Article Review. I worked on the article long ago and appreciate the time you're spending in cleaning it up. Even if it doesn't survive FAR, your improvements help keep it at a high level of quality.

PS, I hope you're able to recover quickly from long covid! --Mahanga (Talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to drop by! I do hope we can save the article, as it gets almost 2 million pageviews a year. The bones are strong (thanks!), so I think it should be feasible. Feel free to suggest further improvements. Femke (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Anda Bordieanu

[edit]

Hi Femke, I apologise for bothering you but I would really appreciate your help. My name is Anda Bordieanu and I am writing my master thesis on Climate Change and Wikipedia. I could see you are a participant on the WikiProject Climate change and I would really appreciate if you could spare a bit of your time to have a talk with regarding your experience as an editor. Best regards, Anda Bordieanu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anda Bordieanu (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to chat. I'm having some health problems, which may make it more difficult to find a time I've got energy. Femke (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear. I hope it's nothing serious and that you will get better soon. Just let me know when you are feeling better. My idea was that maybe sometime towards the end of next week could be good. Anda Bordieanu (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Long COVID. I just came back from holiday so very tired from travelling, but should have enough energy by the end of next week again for a chat. Femke (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just recovered from COVID, so I totally understand what you are going through. Make sure you allow your body to rest, that's what helped me! I will stop bothering you, and I will get back in touch next week! Also, please let me know if you prefer to talk somewhere else, via email or any other platform. Anda Bordieanu (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Femke, how are you feeling? Would you be available for a discussion with me this week?

P.s. I want to apologise to you, as I just realised I missread your comment regarding Long Covid, and read it as "long story short, covid". Anda Bordieanu (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling okay. I don't have a preference for any particular platform. My email is enabled, so you should be able to contact me there if you'd like. Femke (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Claire Wright (politician) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claire Wright (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Wright (politician) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Czello 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrill GA

[edit]

Hello. Would you be able to review mandrill? Prepare it for FAC? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm having a bad week long COVID wise and too much to catch up on irl & on Wikipedia. Femke (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Get well soon. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gminkim (06:42, 10 May 2022)

[edit]

Can you make me a table in my user page? I'm editing by phone, so some features aren't available via phone --Gminkim (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a table on talk page. Hope that helps! Experienced user often use the Desktop version when they're editing from their phones, as mobile editing is quite limited. Femke (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!!🖤🙂 Gminkim (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, can you make me also a table at my User page?Please🤗☺️

[edit]

Help? Angellka Shurtschen (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Femke might be on holiday) Click "edit this page", then the down arrow to the right of "insert" then "table". Also thinking about the comment above - for people who rarely need a physical keyboard and mouse but do own a TV the Raspberry Pi 400 is cheap, easy to use and takes little space in a cupboard Chidgk1 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greta always pays a price for her well-deserved stardom

[edit]

Hello Femke. Upon returning to Wikipedia after a long break, I found that two years ago you had reverted a minor edit of mine. I had removed the funny mention of Greta Thunberg being "distantly related" to Arrhenius. My intent was that of bettering Wikipedia, in this specific case helping it depart from a tabloid tone - based on false references, too. The referenced source, a blog post, was crystal clear: the blogger had been stricken by Greta's father sharing his first name, Svante, with Arrhenius. Some overexcited Wikipedia author unused to citation, without even reading the source s/he was quoting, decided to describe Greta as a descendant of Svante Arrhenius. LOL. I am happy to notice that such a silly remark has finally found its way out of Greta's article. Thunberg is a gigantic personality, an exceptional woman, and a worldwide civil hero: she needs no tabloid-like tones in encyclopedic articles about her. I am sure you agree by now! 😊 Majorbolz (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (Peter, distantly related to the Apostle!)[reply]

Hello :). You're absolutely right I made a mistake there. In biographies of living people, we cannot use blog posts, even if they're published by experts. It wasn't clear that this blog had editorial oversight, so I should not have placed it back. (The article does support the statement though, as it later on states Greta is distantly related to Svante Arrhenius.. But that's irrelevant, as we shouldn't be using this source in the first place). Happy to see you back here. Femke (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

[edit]
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Muhammad2727Awani (20:51, 30 May 2022)

[edit]

Hello I just want to know that how should I add famous personality bibliography on Wikipedia? --Muhammad2727Awani (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Writing WP:your first article is very difficult. Try to add to existing articles first, using WP:reliable sources. Then, you can have a look at the WP:article wizard. Make sure the person qualifies for an article here. You're English is quite weak still, so you may be able to contribute better in your native language Wikipedia. Femke (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Laldi (11:47, 11 June 2022)

[edit]

hello --Laldi (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Laldi! Do you have any questions about Wikipedia editing? Femke (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courbet and Cubism

[edit]

Your remarks at Talk: Gustave Courbet are counterproductive. There has been no "discussion" because the editors who preside over this page have offered nothing in the way of evidence that the section on "Courbet and Cubism" is inappropriate, though they have insisted for years that it should be removed. No reason has been given, and you know it.

Your insinuation that I "insulted" any editor on this matter is, in fact, a covert ad hominem against me. Now deny it.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said that unless an editor does as you'd like (engage further), the 'sit on the website like an incubus'. Maybe I misunderstood, but could you explain how that's not an insult? Femke (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Engage further" would be to provide source material, as requested, that can discredit the "Courbet and Cubism." None, thus far, has surfaced. This, then, by dear Femke, is your understanding of an "insult." Nonetheless, you have demonstrated, for posterity, the tactics of the Wiki Establishment (WE). --CerroFerro (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion seems to be more about placement, rather than inclusion. So I think it's rather logical that people don't provide source material. I don't remember interacting with any of the editors involved in this dispute before, and I don't have a stake in the dispute either, so I'm not sure why I would even want to deploy "tactics of the Wiki Establishment". Femke (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wmuk board

[edit]

Have you spotted the call for nominations for the wmuk trustees? I would be happy to support your application if you were willing to stand. — Rod talk 18:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen it, but not able to take on any more work at the moment. Still not quite recovered from COVID (80% there, month 9), and getting some extra responsibilities at work.. I do hope somebody from the community stands, was quite disappointed last year that neither me nor @Firefly got enough votes. Femke (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description in Eglish

[edit]

@Femke: wil je hier eens kijken of de vertaling alsook de wikilink in het Engels correct is? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb het verbeterd :). Femke (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Flemish

[edit]

@Femke:, can you take a look at https://vls.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuusje_gebruker:Femke, you might wish to inform the visitors in Flemish. If need be, I wiould be more then happy to assist you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there / Alsdaar beantwoord. Femke (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soup for you!

[edit]
Please Share the chicken and vegetable soup and toast I am having for for lunch in rural Victoria!

On the climate tipping point, I was impressed when you took a breath, worked out why you were upset, and re-engaged. Really well done! Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). Always love a good (vegan) chicken soup when recovering from illness. The tipping point article has caused me some frustration (not to the point where I've been upset, but still). It's a technical topic, but attracts a lot of non-technical editors using lay sources and passion. Best way forward is to clean it up and bring it to WP:GA status. Femke (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tipping points in the climate system

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tipping points in the climate system 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 Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Femke, we're almost there. I hope you're recovering from whatever you had... If you could write a couple of sentences to fill out the lead, so that it mentions the main sections of the article, I'll close the GAN. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tipping points in the climate system

[edit]

The article Tipping points in the climate system you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tipping points in the climate system for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pv-magazine.com still on spam blacklist after more than a decade

[edit]

Hello Femke,

I see you just edited an electricity article. Some years ago I and many others made several unsuccessful attempts to get pv-magazine.com removed from the spam blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (the line is \bpv-magazine\.com\b). But I gave up after spending a lot of time trying. I don't have any COI by the way.

Don't know if you feel it might be worth your time and the aggravation of you making a request?

Chidgk1 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really worked with spam blacklists. I see the website clearly indicates press releases and sponsored content vs their own analysis, which indicates that it can be used. Their nonsponsored content doesn't raise red flags with me. Do you know why they were blacklisted? Femke (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Over 10 years ago one of their employees cite spammed some Wikipedia articles with their content. So the original ban was correct in my opinion. Shortly after a new editor took over and wrote to apologize and ask for the ban to be lifted. After that many Wikipedians tried to get it removed from the blacklist but it was always refused - for example in 2018 a reason given was "because the site contains mainly scraped material, for some material it is unclear where it is coming from." I gave up trying in 2019. If it is likely to cause you stress then don't attempt it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
looked into it a bit more. Consensus seems quite strong that this should remain blacklisted, so you'll need new arguments to change the consensus. Probably the best you can do is provide evidence of good editorial standards (unique analysis that doesn't benefit specific organisations, corrections issued, way to report errors and so forth). I still have very limited energy, so can't help you further.. Femke (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Wind

[edit]

I have nominated Wind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Save Award

[edit]

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Femke! Your work on Antarctica has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Antarctica (estimated annual readership: 1,800,367) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciated both :) Femke (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tipping points in the climate system

[edit]

On 3 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tipping points in the climate system, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Amazon rainforest may change into a savanna once it passes a tipping point? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tipping points in the climate system. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tipping points in the climate system), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 6,986 views (582.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks

[edit]

Are the ducks on your user page Black-bellied whistling duck? I see these daily and enjoy them greatly. Good luck with your adminship! Jacona (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today I learned that yes, they are black-bellied whistling ducks (according to Commons). I've never seen them myself I believe (maybe in a zoo). Thanks :). Femke (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MarkRJeffery (22:34, 16 August 2022)

[edit]

Hi, I attempted to make a couple edits to the Pro Tools wiki today, which focused on the contributions other people (not myself) who developed software components for the earliest versions of Pro Tools. As someone who was employed by the company, I know first hand "who did what". There are web citation sources that also establish the same history. It appears that my changes were automatically rejected. I suspect this is due to my attempted to write about myself in this same context a few months ago. I endorse the principle that people should not write about themselves. However, these current edits were solely oriented toward documenting the contributions of others. If you can let me know why my "submit" was rejected and what steps I can take to remedy the issue, I would be grateful. Thanks, in advance. --MarkRJeffery (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! First of all, have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and specifically WP:DISCLOSE? It advises you should disclose your COI at the talk page or your user page (or in each edit summary, which is more effort).
I'm not entirely sure what happened. What was the web source that you wanted to add? Some sources that have been used for spam in the past cannot be added to Wikipedia articles. If the source was a WP:reliable source, you can make an WP:edit request at Talk:Pro Tools, asking that another editor review the proposed edit. See also Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests. Femke (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to admin-corps

[edit]

Welcome to the admin-corps.

If you have any (technical) questions or doubts, please feel to ask me, or any admins. Most of the admins are very co-operative, and helpful, ProcseeBot and not all of them though. See you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A baton for you!

[edit]
A baton for you!
Continuing the tradition originally started by Tamzin for DanCherek's RfA, I'd like to pass the baton to you as Wikipedia's newest administrator. I didn't personally participate in your RfA, but I'm positive that if anyone has 200 people vouch for them, then they're a true help. Good luck, and long live the baton! DatGuyTalkContribs 09:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). Let's hope I'll be passing this one along soon. I see there is a flurry of activity at WP:ORCP (and a few positive ones in the recent archives). If there are any admin hopefuls watching here, the current bunch of RfA voters seem to be kind and constructive :). Femke (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

[edit]

Hi Femke, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for both your landslide nomination and for your place on WP:RFX200 - an excellent achievement, so well done! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin help pages are most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck! Acalamari 08:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and good luck! :D — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Let the fun begin. Feel free to ask for help if you get stuck. Schwede66 09:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Welcome to the mop-corps :) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Femke, for running and for an admirable, even enviable RfA. Look forward to seein' you 'round the pedia! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for successful RFA! Thingofme (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Femke! the wub "?!" 11:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful adminship! (And I think you will be satisfied for topping 200-for a second I thought you didn't. :) ) Sarrail (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Congratulations, am sure you're going to make splendid use of the mop, . . dave souza, talk 12:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats Femke! :) firefly ( t · c ) 15:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats for becoming an admin! Well deserved, Sadads (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
August songs
Always happy to help :). That is, after all these buttons start being less scary :). Femke (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gefeliciteerd Femke! Leuk een moderator erbij die ook nederlands spreekt en uiteraard schrijft :-) And now to switch to English, we are after all in the English wiki "Congratulations Femke! Nice to have a admin who also speaks en writes Dutch," also nice that that is appreciated. Greetings from, Drummingman (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping on Notice Board

[edit]

Thank you for pinging me that I had put my comment in the wrong section. That was quite a long thread and I didn't realize it had added other sub-sections. I really appreciate the gentle shepherding.  :-) Squatch347 (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's a very chaotic discussion indeed. Femke (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hi, Femke please review my pending changes review request, I also have rollback permission i will be very happy if you provide me this tool. Thank you $tar Anonymous (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should have time tomorrow to have a look. Femke (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed...

[edit]

... that you have received the mop. Sorry to have missed your RfA, but congrats on the new role, and thanks for all you do around here. Rosiestep (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to drop by! To be fair, my RfA was nicely hidden behind two others, so easy to miss :). Femke (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation limit

[edit]

Hi @Femke! I was assigned the event coordinator right and I have a couple of questions.

  1. In an event of 80 new participants, what is the limit of account creation for an event?
  2. When is the appropriate time to create an account for participants, is it okay to create an account for participants within a week before the event?
  3. While in a training session we experience peer-to-peer blocks and sometimes open proxy blocks even when VPN's are not set. If an event coordinator creates an account for new participants, will the issue of peer-to-peer and open proxy occur? Thank you and I look forward to your reply.

Olugold (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Olugold. An event with 80 participants is impressive! Good luck. I had an event once with 15, which was very hectic already. I hope you have more support out there :).
  1. There shouldn't be a limit, I don't think.
  2. It's absolutely fine to create accounts a week in advance. If you want to assign them the confirmed user right, do make sure they're actually present.
  3. When account creation is disabled on a certain IP, this cannot be overriden even if you have the event coordinator or IP block exempt user rights (which is a software problem, phab:T189362). So if you believe the event will take place at a location that has such blocks, ensure the accounts are made in advance. I'm not quite sure what you mean by peer-to-peer blocks (I don't know much about blocking). I'm not knowledgeable on blocks in general, so you may get a better answer at the WP:help desk.
Femke (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Femke for your elaborate and prompt response. For the event we will have upto 5 facilitators, then other experienced editors will help out too. We also hope to split the event into 2 groups. Olugold (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

[edit]

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the suggestion! Also I actually created a page and suggested some changes, but then I put it on deletion. After I found it was unnecessary , as an article of a similar name existed. Lord kai07 (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord kai07, what do you mean by 'put it on deletion'? Can you link to the deletion discussion? The template you added is meant for discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga. Did King Thor have a similar discussion? Femke (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My humble apologies but I don't remember it properly. I created King Thor (Earth 14412) because I wanted to create a character page. But soon I find out there's another page named 'King Thor. So I simply moved all of my contents to the king Thor page and put a proposed deletion on the 'King Thor (earth 14412), but I don't remember anything else. Thanks for reading.Lord kai07 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I've removed the template. In the future, you're likely better off using WP:TWINKLE, a gadget that automatically puts the correct templates on talk. The King Thor article likely needs more independent sourcing to show it qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Femke (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sir the problem. There aren't many independent sources abi the specific topic. The character is mostly covered by comic book sites and the publishing company+marvel). I tried to put as many sources as I could. But it's difficult to find other sources Lord kai07 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no need for formalities like sir on Wikipedia! (and keep in mind that a lot of editors aren't male, so that sir is inappropriate). If you cannot find more independent sources, the article may be redirected again. I don't have enough knowledge of these comic book sites to make a judgement call here, but the sources by the publishing company do not help establish WP:notability. Femke (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

[edit]

Just dropping-in to say that I am not just impressed but amazed by what you have accomplished in your young life. Your parents must be so very proud of you. It is probably my being a grammy that makes me more aware of these things, plus having a granddaughter who is now a Junior in college on an equestrian scholarship wondering what direction she wants to go. Keep up the excellent work, and thank you for all you do!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's so kind of you to say! Parents are proud (which parents aren't), but they'd rather I call them a bit more often than spend all of my free time on Wikipedia :). Seems like a wonderful thing, such an equestrian scholarship. I've been wanting to pick horseback riding back up for a while now. You keep up the excellent work at the NPP School! Femke (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Hi Femke!

I was assigned the event coordinator right some weeks ago and I tried using it for the first time but was restricted. An IP block pop-up shows each time I type in a new username. My IP is not blocked though, the block shows up only when trying to create an account for attendees. Any idea on how to resolve this? Thank you so much. Olugold (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's very annoying. I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer you to WP:help desk or WP:AN, as I don't quite understand this myself. Femke (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the issue is that Olugold has a Wikipedia:IP block exemption, but the new accounts wouldn't have that exemption. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too Clayoquot! Definitely, the new accounts won't be exempted. Olugold (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Femke! I appreciate your swift response Olugold (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Femke:! I checked again and it worked:)
Thank you so much! Olugold (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Honoris United Universities

[edit]

Hello @Femke

I created the subject draft here with the guidance of Jimfbleak who deleted an earlier published version (not by me) here. I'd be grateful if you took a look at my draft for review.

NOTE: I am currently the Wikipedian-in-Residence at the organisation and created the draft only because i was unable to find a motivated independent editor to help. Thanks OtuNwachinemere (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :). I'm very busy at the moment, so I'll help you with the bureaucracy so that you can find another reviewer. First of all, please read about COI as a Wikimedian in Residence. Writing about your organisation isn't part of the standard activities for a WiR. You need to add both a description of the WiR position and a paid editing declaration on your user page.
With that out of the way, and if you believe the article is ready for mainspace, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. You can speed up the review by adding WikiProjects and by putting the three sources on the talk page that best show how the draft meets WP:GNG / WP:NCORP. Femke (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response @Femke. Like i said earlier, I did try without success to find an independent motivated editor. The WiR is well defined in my alt account @OWilsn. Will add the Submit button to the draft as you have suggested. Thanks for the assist. Best. OtuNwachinemere (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will still need to declare the paid editing on this account @OtuNwachinemere. Showing the topic is notable is the biggest hurdle for getting your draft accepted. I see it was declined initially. You may want to remove information based on sources related to the topic (such as the press releases, or articles derived from press releases), and if possible, add more sources that meet all of these 4 criteria: independent, secondary, significant (say more than 50/100 words), and reliable. Femke (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Femke :),
To declare paid editing, one has to have been or expecting to be paid. This is not the case here. My WiR status is clearly defined in its respective account. I made sure to mention it to you in the review request.
The original article was live previously but was deleted because it read like an advert. I contacted the deleting editor and afterwards they suggested i work on a draft. Apparently, you and Mako003 don't think its notable. I think that is the much i am willing to go. I have now moved on to other pressing matters. Thanks for the help really. OtuNwachinemere (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I haven't checked the sources myself to see if the sources currently in the draft show the topic is notable, I was just hoping to give some more pointers after the decline.
If this is done completely in your free time, you're right that the paid editing declaration would not fit, and that a normal COI declaration (which isn't mandatory, but strongly recommended) suffices. Femke (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Climate change

[edit]

Hello, Femke! I'd like to ask for clarification about the Climate change article. I had a debate with FinancialCents, but somehow I couldn't understand the concern regarding NASA. Unless I am completely wrong, the NASA ref simply states "Climate change" and "global warming" are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Our WP article says this almost verbatim, but previously also distinguishes the difference between climate change and global warming. Therefore, I'm unsure why FinancialCents argued that our article misrepresented NASA, but am I missing something? If so, could you please point it out? Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang 03:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
I don't think you're missing anything, @VickKiang. It's an annoying situation when the most common definition of a word (generic cc) differs from the near-universal use (human-caused cc).
A tip for dealing with an editor who tends to write WP:walls of text: try to write less. Your time is very valuable, and a detailed reply is unlikely to generate more understanding here. Shorter replies also ensure the conversation can naturally die out if it's not leading to any concrete improvements / proposals.
I'm too tired to think of the best way forward here, but I know @Cullen328 is keeping an eye on the dispute as an uninvolved admin. Femke (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, VickKiang, I agree with Femke thst "annoying" is a good description and I have warned that editor to refrain from disruptive editing. Let me know if things get out of hand. Femke, I hope that you feel better soon. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Just noting (also pinging previous participant) that FinancialCents has started another discussion at the Teahouse (IMHO not the best place for content disputes), stating that I was able to begin a discussion, but the conversation quickly became controlled by few editors in an antagonistic fashion, with problematic misinterpretations and misrepresentations. I did visit past history and a comfortable number of editors had voted for the correct representation. The controlling editors are claiming the NASA sources assert entirely the opposite of what they do state, plain as day. This is clearly a bias, right at the beginning of the article, beginning with the title. It is even possible the bias could be politically motivated, I'll abstain from this discussion to avoid another dispute. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VickKiang, I have commented at the Teahouse. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

[edit]

Was it you that I was on the call with for the web team office hours yesterday? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was me indeed :). Femke (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was very nice chatting with you. And I see you're one of our newest admins, so congratulations on the mop! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). It always nice to hear the behind-the-scenes processes of the developers. Impressive to see how much research goes into every choice. Still not convinced it's ready, but I'm hopeful it'll be within 6 months. Femke (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

[edit]
Blueberry perhaps? Thank you for leading the effort to improve AfC messaging! S0091 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I can always appreciate digital pie!
I'll wait till the article creation at scale discussion is closed for the other SNG messages (not followed it closely, but seems a change to the SNG/GNG relation is on the table). Next on my list is the pre-submission template, which does not mention notability now. Femke (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, waiting for the results of the RFC makes sense. I also note the pre-submission template does not mention Your first article. S0091 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Here's one I made myself -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
YFA is >5000 words long! Most of the current links (eight(!) in total) under "How to improve a draft" are as well. People won't notice these links due to banner blindness + having to uncollapse, but if they do, I'm sure their reaction will be TLDR..
I hope that pie was a delicious as it looks :). Femke (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a "high quality reliable source" for science articles?

[edit]

Hi Femke. I'm wondering if we have a guideline that says what a "high quality reliable source" is for science articles, particularly climate change. This is a term I've seen you use and I think it's a useful concept. My first thought was that WP:SCIRS covers it. It occurred to me to try to retitle it Identifying high quality reliable sources for science and try to get consensus around making it be a guideline. But after taking a quick look at this recent discussion on RSN], it may need more work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think the term HQRS is only used formally in the FA process. Usually, I take it to mean sources complying with WP:scirs.
There is a trade-off between increasing sourcing standards, and increasing our editor base, given that many HQRSs are difficult to access for lay people, or difficult to read, I don't think we should make SCIRS a guideline for all of science, as we'd exclude too many editors. For a few branches of science (climate science and genetics come to my mind), misinformation can cause real-world harm, just less directly than medical info. For those topics I wouldn't mind SCIRS being a guideline. That would at least help me in arguing why the guardian is usually unsuitable for climate science info. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create article

[edit]

to contribute Wikipedia articles Xiimaaye571 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need any permission to contribute to Wikipedia articles. Almost all articles are editable to brand-new accounts. When your account is four days old, you can start editing most articles that are protected. Femke (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New articles can be created in draft space by new editors. See WP:Your first article. It's generally best to first make small edits to existing articles. Femke (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Hi, I am not able to directly edit the source page when I click the edit button on top right, rather it automatically prepares an editing interface in the preview mode, I have to manually switch that each time. Also, I am not able to create articles or upload images. Gan Favourite (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you automatically enter the WP:visual editor, rather than the WP:source editor. You can change this in your preferences, under the editing tab.
Good news: you should now be able to create articles or upload images, as your account is not brand-new anymore. Before you start writing, please read WP:your first article, as Wikipedia has quite strict rules about what type of subjects qualify for an article. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks.--Gan Favourite (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Femke and talk page watchers, I thought this might be of interest to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Warn_users_when_adding_an_external_link_in_body_text_in_articles Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
One year!

cat treat --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exiting, a halloween cat. I wonder if that makes it more, or less scary to our birds. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hey @Femke, following up on our discussion about link color. I was hoping to work out some thoughts here before adding more comments to the phabricator task.

I believe there are two values we care about:

  1. contrast between link color & background color
  2. contrast between link color & body text color

What I believe you are saying is: if faced with a tradeoff between these two, the first, contrast between link color & background color, is more important than the second. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to have:

  1. contrast between link color & background color (AA)
  2. contrast between link color & body text color (AAA)

Instead, we should have the reverse (AAA on the first, and AA on the second). Given that, we should aim to darken the blue link color (#3366cc) slightly, thereby increasing the contrast between link color & background color, while decreasing the contrast between link color & body text color.

However, I have not yet been able to find such a blue. For example here are two blues that have a AAA contrast with the background color:

  • #2252B3
  • #3344dd

But both of these blues fail the contrast test with the body text color. So is your suggestion: pick a blue that has AAA contrast with the background color, even if that means it fails the contrast test with the body text color?

Thanks, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok actually I think I was confused about something, with the updated color (#3366cc):
  • contrast between link color & background color (AA)
  • contrast between link color & background color (A)
Link to result. So we are leaning in the right direction, we have more contrast with the background than the body text. I think the only other option would be:
  • contrast between link color & background color (AAA)
  • contrast between link color & background color (fail)
AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex. I very much appreciate you posting to my talk :).
I believe there are three accessibility needs we need to meet
  1. AN1 enough perceived contrast between link colour and background colour
  2. AN2 enough perceived contrast between link colour and body text colour (16% have trouble with the new colours)
  3. AN3 enough perceived difference between visited and unvisited links. (7% have trouble with the new colours, notably those with red-green colour blindness)
My initial proposal was to meet the AAA criterion for the contrast with the background, but it's impossible to meet need 2. Some colours already have sufficient perceived contrast at AA (this has 1:4.5 contrast and is easy to read, This also has 1:4.5 contrast, but is much more difficult to read ). When you're around 1:6, even quite difficult-to-perceive colours like the new visited link colour are okayish.
  1. So one solution I see is to go for a link-background contrast value to go to 1:6, and the link background colour to 1:2.5. This works well for the blue colour.
  2. A second solution is to find a better purple that easier to perceive at lower contrast. There are plenty of better-to-perceive purples out there, like the one above, but the challenge is to find one that's (a) not ugly and (b) that can be distinguished by colourblind people from the blue links.
  3. And a third solution is to be AAA-compliant on link colour with background in combination with subtle underlining.
I know that the solution combi 1+2 does not line up completely with the WebIAM guide (they are vague on how colour value can help or hinder accessibility). WebIAM does indicate that it's exceedingly difficult to find accessible colours if you need to meet accessibility need 3 as well (distinction between various links). As such, I think we have to compromise, and in that compromise prioritise accessibility need 2, and do better with accessibility need 3. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: H:Colorblind give some pointers about a choice of colours to meet the third accessibility need. It's generally not great practice to convey information with only colour, but if you do so, ensure that the colours are in different "groups". Don't combine purple and blue (just like should not combine red and green). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so I think we disagree about the choice of a blue link color. As I said before: if we have to compromise, I think it's more important to have higher contrast with the white background (which I see as a fundamental readability concern), and slightly less contrast with the body text. In the end if people can't read a link, it won't matter that they are able to distinguish it from body text. #3366cc makes the compromise in the right direction (more contrast with the background, at the expense of contrast with the body text). As of yet I don't see a convincing argument for changing away from #3366cc, but am happy to continue engaging on this topic if you think there's something I'm missing.
As for the visited link color (assuming we keep #3366cc for default links) are you suggesting we make it darker or lighter? Can you clarify exactly what you're suggesting, with specific hex values included? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main argument against the colour is the user testing. What percentage of people saying they struggle with a colour would be a failure for you? For me, for such a basic function, that is more than 2%. We have 16% saying they find the colours too light, and half of those express a clear accessibility failure.
I disagree that a compromise has already been made. The required contrast is a function of element size. Because a link colour to background is about an entire word, the required contrast is less. To read a word, you have to be able to distinguish individual letters.
Under the assumption you are mostly concerned with accessibility need 3 (AN3) (difference between the link colours), and not need 2 (given your preference not to change the blue), I've done the following:
The colour at the end of the exercise was (#B54583). If you don't like it, it's really easy to play with different colours in the colourblindness simulator I linked. The colour just about meets AN2 for me. That said, I have good eyesight. Most people for whom AN2 was not met struggled with both colours.
If you dislike the more pinkish colour (or if you test it doesn't work well against the red of nonexisting articles), another direction is teal/purple. It's quite pleasing to the eye I find. Happy to suggest colours that meet AN2 in my view too, but I won't spend time on it if the test given for AN1 is a red line for you. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate the amount you care about this, and that you want to find the best color. However, reading your reply does not change my mind that #3366cc is the best color choice at this point. Respectfully, why I don't find your points convincing:
  • The amount of community members who gave feedback about the colors is far from enough to be statistically significant. We use this kind of feedback to flag issues, and guide our decision making process, but unless we do proper research (or data collection) we don't use the results in the way you are attempting to.
  • Community members are highly biased in this case, so they're not the population we would do this kind of accessibility research with.
  • In this case the WCAG has clear guidelines, and a provided tool via WebAIM, so we should defer to those rather than self-reported opinions.
  • If I understand correctly, you are suggesting using orange or pink as our link color(?). Firstly neither of those colors have a higher combined contrast than #3366cc with the background & body text (which you can see on the image below), and secondly having a non-standard link color would possibly present an entire new group of usability issues.
Again, I have yet to see a (blue) color recommendation from you or anyone else that has a better combined contrast with the background color and the body text color than #3366cc. If you are able to find such a color that would be interesting (though even still the marginal improvement might not be worth the change). I feel confident in the WCAG recommendations, and the WebAIM color contrast checker as the best tools for making this decision. I don't think we should try to invent new tools or reasoning in this case.
Color contrast results for discussion with Femke (3366cc, 0072B2, B54583, D55E00)
As a side note, if you haven't come across this page yet it's an interesting read:
https://webaim.org/blog/wcag-2-0-and-link-colors/
AHollender (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to agree to disagree on the contrast. I think it's wrong to solely rely on WebAIM's tool, without considering their wider advice ("For many of us, some of these combinations are not very readable. That is why 4.5:1 is the minimum required by WCAG..").
What test are you using for colourblindness? I'm proposing either blue (unvisited) and pinkish purple (visited), or teal (unvisited) with purple (visited). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are considering the wider advice. All of the colors we've been discussing are above 4.5:1 when contrasted with the background, which is what is being discussed on the page you quoted from. So I think you might be taking that out of context a bit. If anything, I think it supports our perspective that contrast with the background color is the top priority, if a compromise has to be made. You are suggesting some colors that have a lower contrast with both the background and the body text, so I think we're misaligned on the fundamental goals.
What are your suggested colors for visited link colors given #3366cc as the default link color? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I fiddle a bit more with my proposed colour (I was focused on the hue, didn't fiddle enough with the contrast), I get #B04280 for visited link colour (WebAIM link checker). Now at 5.33 with background white. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow

[edit]

Hi there! I noticed a couple of weeks ago that you apparently have some thoughts on the workflow towards article creation by new users. We've been working on this for a while already and it might be interesting to have your input. If you're interested, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll let you have more details when I have the results of our talks with the devs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YGM :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Non-vegetarian, Requesting inputs @ WP:DUE

[edit]

An input request about 'Indian Non-vegetarian food culture' @ WP:DUE Bookku (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]
Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, interstatefive  00:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
This year I'm thankful for 12 new admins to add to the admin corps. Thank you for volunteering to take on more responsibilities on the project. We're lucky to have you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of pending changes reviewer user right

[edit]

Hello. I'd appreciate it if you could revoke my user right to review pending changes. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for helping out with this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this academic paper be retracted and if so how?

[edit]

Hello Femke,

Congratulations on your promotion to lecturer and I have an academic question.

Perhaps not related to source-text integrity but your message on my talk page and recent edit on individual action on climate change got me thinking. Feel free to move the rest of this to the talk page of that article if you think other people might be interested.

I don’t know if you had time to read Talk:Individual action on climate change#Problems with the having fewer children action but after that I emailed Seth Wynes but he did not reply, perhaps because I am not an academic. However academics and others have criticised the paper. It seems the only way it could be removed as a Wikipedia cite would be if the paper was retracted? As the article has source-text integrity I think but I think the underlying source is wrong or at least out of date. If you have time perhaps you could read it and perhaps Murtaugh and Schlax (2009) at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008001003?via%3Dihub and see whether you think it is still valid now. I have pretty much given up on trying to change that article as it was getting too frustrating and time consuming. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So far it is proven more stressful than I thought it would be, but I hope to be more active on Wikipedia when I'm settled into the job in a couple months time.
Scientific papers are rarely retracted. That basically only happens in case of fraud or major errors. When people publish something with questionable assumptions, or something that turns out later to be wrong, it is not retracted. not all verifiable information needs to be included though. A quick glance at the article gives me no reason to mistrust it really, even though I'm hesitant to add any numbers for a primary source.
I often give up on improving articles when the discussion becomes too time-consuming. There's loads of other places on Wikipedia that need some TLC. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your fast and tireless reviews of requests for pending changes reviewer. May you be blessed with good health to continue with such and many more constructive efforts. Best Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure adopted

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Seasons Greetings

[edit]
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]
Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DraftCleaner script may be causing citation issues

[edit]

Some changes that DraftCleaner apparently made to Sea level rise caused errors in some citations. I thought you should be aware of this possible issue before you use it again. Cheers for a COVID-free 2023! —RCraig09 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, will take more care in the future. I really wish that the diff view was better at displaying large sets of minor edits, so it's easier to check what has happened when you run scripts like this. Maybe that'll be my wish for the meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2023... —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed

[edit]

Hey Femke. Might want to give your alt extendedconfirmed. There was a GARCloser bug earlier that was caused by an article your alt was delisting being extended confirmed protected. Hope this helps :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 1995 Quebec referendum

[edit]

1995 Quebec referendum has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the individual GAR as "Keep - no consensus" and set this a community review page. As a participant in the previous discussion, you are invited to comment on the community review page. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway

[edit]

Hi, re this close: what's the Category:GAR/69 for? It doesn't exist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's automatically added by @Novem Linguae's GANReviewTool. The 69 stands for the 69th archive. It seems like the script updates a template when a new archive is made, but no new category is created. Can the tool also make that category? Do we need these categories? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Sure, I can update GANReviewTool to add some wikitext to the category when it adds an article to it. As to why these categories are used, your guess is as good as mine. Although I will note they correspond to the GAR logs, e.g. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 69 –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAR needed at Reptile (Mortal Kombat)

[edit]

Hi, could you open up GAR reassessment on this article, it seems like it has been like this for years without being updated. The reception is too short + multiple unsource sentences. 2001:4455:689:B100:1567:343E:48B8:479D (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA promotion

[edit]

Hi Femke, I noticed that your close of the East Timor GAN moved the GA tag inside the Wikiproject banner shell. I was wondering if the tool did that or you edited it manually? CMD (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was the tool. Not sure if that is expected behaviour.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permissions

[edit]

Hi Femke! I posted a request for pending changes reviewer permission a few days ago, but I do not believe it's been reviewed yet--I did see some people who had posted after me already received decisions. I'd really appreciate you letting me know whenever you have a moment whether my request can be granted. Thanks so much! Ppt91 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is laziness on my side. I saw a copyright warning, and wanted to have a closer look before making a decision. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate it. Ppt91 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Femke! It has now been 18 days since my permission was granted for a trial period and I was wondering if my activity has been sufficient to grant permanent permission. I've been active in addressing pending changes, including providing explicit reasons for reverts and engaging with users in cases of vandalism. Moreover, I've also been active as a rollbacker, using both Twinkle and Huggle to revert vandalism, and feel that I have sufficient experience to be granted this right on permanent basis. Of course, I will be happy to wait longer should you decide more experience is required. Thank you so much! I appreciate your taking the time to look into this. Ppt91 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done :). Thanks for taking the time to talk with new editors! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

[edit]
The Article Rescue Barnstar
For being a source of consistent reason and sound logic at you-know-where. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You-know-where does make it sound ominous 🎃. GAR and FAR are places where there is always a risk of the atmosphere derailing, as people aren't happy when their projects are taken there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!!!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your participation and help at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. It wouldn't have been such a success without you. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

[edit]

Hi Femke! I don't know many admins, so please excuse me. I'm having troubles for a week or so because my ip address was blocked, even though it's a provider's one and I didn't see any vandals using it. IP address: 147.235.204.62. Internet Service Provider: Bezeq- THE ISRAEL TELECOMMUNICATION CORP. LTD. I tried to get IP exemption, but my email to check users got unanswered. Do you know what can I do about it? The IP is dynamic and I can't do anything with my provider, but I was never blocked and don't know all the policies about it. Artem.G (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the interruption, but I once had the same problem, which I resolved by turning off the VPN in my Norton 360. This may not be your problem at all, but I thought I'd suggest. Good luck! —RCraig09 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: I sent an email yesterday, not sure you got it. Per WP:IPECPROXY, this is best left to checkusers. The IP was blocked by User:ST47's bot, I believe in some automated fashion. ST47, could you have a look at this? Thanks! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got, Femke, thank you! I've sent an email to ST47, will wait for h to answer. Artem.G (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Femke/Archive_3&oldid=1155452920"