User talk:Femke

On holiday till the 21st, will take a bit longer to get back to you

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: climate change post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles She should not be given alerts for those areas.

This user survived a COVID-19 infection but continues to suffer health problems from it.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Hey Femke, Can you take a look at this: Talk:Carbon_capture_and_storage#Composting_or_trench_composting_of_prunings_and_crop_residues Seems important, but not mentioned anywhere here on the wiki. User:Genetics4good

To get CO2 atmosphere data from Wikidata, you'd use code like this: 414.72 PPM. It's not the most elegant haha, but it works, and it'd update automatically across all languages when you updated the numbers on Wikidata. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! It seems a bit low, I don't think the number is updated yearly now.. Will have a closer look later. Femke (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb Thanks - I just looked and it is the average for 2020 - but I could not find the 2021 average - if I find it I will update and check it comes through to here. To get it to work on another language I changed it to 414.72 ppm Have added to tr:Sera gazları - let's see if my change is approved without a year or ref in the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: You can add a ref like this: ^[1]. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

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]

Hi! I'd like to create a new entry into the system --Booknerd2021 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean you'd like to create an article, @Booknerd2021? Welcome! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing!

If you'd simply like to add information to an existing article, click edit at the top-right of your screen, write down your contribution using WP:reliable sources and click publish. Femke (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I would like to know how to edit the section at the very beginning that introduces the author and also the section where the author has a picture of themselves and date of birth, death and so on. I can't figure that out at all. There are errors in these sections that I'm interested in editing and I can't figure out how to access them. Thank you! --Birdonwall (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I assume you're trying to edit Emma Brooke. You have probably used the edit botton directly next to the section headings (Life/Works). You can also click edit on the top-right. That will allow you to edit the entire article. Hope that helps :). Femke (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when do I get my pay check. --I amn't real (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --Ur mom and ur dad (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back Femke (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

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]

	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. --Mahanga (Talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]