User talk:Femke

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This user suffers from Long COVID.

Signups open for The Core Contest[edit]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

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

Thanks for your work on Myalgic_encephalomyelitis/chronic_fatigue_syndrome[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for bringing this page more in line with modern science. Many of the pages related to this illness are still riddled with psychobabble and inappropriate sources (psychiatry journals) but I was pleasantly surprised with this page. It's really great what you've done with it.Justpasding (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). It's nice to see the that the work we've been doing is noticed. My plan is to work more on the main article to bring it up to Wp:featured article. That way, it's allowed on the Main Page for a day. The main page also gets a lot of views compared to the smaller pages.

Psychiatry journals are not disallowed on Wikipedia. The reason I've deleted many citations to them is the fact the articles were more than 5 years old, which means they may not reflect current consensus anymore. For instance, they sometimes cite very old criteria such as Oxford, which NICE says should be retired.

If there are specific articles with very outdated sourcing, you can leave a message on talk:myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. I'm sure one of the article watched there can do an update. Or, keeping in mind WP:MEDRS (only citing recent reviews), be bold and improve the article's yourself! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your plan is really cool!!! Thanks for the advice.

I know psychiatry journals are allowed! I just mean since this is a neuroimmune condition they are not always an appropriate authority. For example, the section on NAC in Management of ME/CFS says that it has no benefit and cites a 2011 article authored by four psychiatrists and psychologists using Oxford Consensus. Cell metabolism is not their field.

I was bold and corrected it with links to more recent scientific journal articles which found it may have benefit, but I see today that someone has already reverted all my work and they claim it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS - I don't understand why as my articles are newer, reputable, and reflect the current science. A bit demoralizing. Wikipedia is a confusing place! Justpasding (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justpasding Thanks for being bold here! The citation standards for medical articles are quite strict. We're only supposed to use scientific review papers (that collate multiple clinical trials) rather than the clinical trials themselves. That's because single trials may be chance findings.

I recently learned that one in three clinical trials do this thing called outcome switching, which can hide cherry picking results from the trial. This is what the PACE trial did for instance. A review will look critically at the available evidence. A good review for ME/CFS drugs is the 2021 review Where will the drugs come from". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for explaining! I think I understand now. That review supports it so I have added it as a ref. I also added a second review which also covers it -Treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: all roads lead to Rome.

Widespread Outcome switching is a bit disillusioning. There was me thinking PACE trial was an outlier! Hey thanks again, I really appreciate what you're doing.Justpasding (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024[edit]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quick question[edit]

Hey, could you create a second delivery list for TCC? Wanting to get one going with the current participants names, so we can send them the notifications for the contest beginning. I can't create it with being an admin or template editor.

P.S. hope you don't mind I stole your TCC message for my own user page! Best – Aza24 (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me figure out how to do this again first :) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: You can find the empty list here: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/participant delivery list. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aza24 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

On 12 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some people with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome can lose the ability to speak? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), 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.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ Best practice[edit]

I see you use this source for many edits on the CFS articles, but I can't find access to it anywhere, including in the Wikipedia Library. Do you know of any way of accessing it, or are you able to email me a copy of the article for use in editing the article? Thx. sciencewatcher (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably accessed it via the University of Exeter. Happy to email you a copy if you send me an email? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, just sent you my email address. sciencewatcher (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it thx. sciencewatcher (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of a PACE trial page[edit]

Hi Femke, I wanted to ask you this since you are the wikipedia expert on ME/CFS :).

Do you think the PACE trial has enough notability to warrant its own page? It was obviously a big trial that came out with lots of media coverage. Then there were lots of publications and letters critiquing it too. Then there was the whole freedom of information tribunal fiasco and the resulting reanalyses. Recently an opinion piece by Monbiot in the guardian showed a perspective on the trial that wasn’t always covered by the media. It’s a 13 year old trial and still being talked about a lot, more about its controversies than it’s findings.

Do you think that fits the wikipedia notability guidelines? YannLK (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could serve as a nice way to get heavily cut down and reform the “controversy” subsection in the management of me/cfs article (which is a big essay about the pace trial) while keeping a similar amount of information on wikipedia. YannLK (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely far above the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY. And having it as a separate article allows us to summarise it in two sentences in our management of ME/CFS article. Currently, it gets WP:UNDUE attention in that article. In summary, good idea :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I created Draft:PACE trial. I’ll work on it bit by bit when I have the energy. I’ll try and keep it concise. (I had a look at the mepedia page for possible sources and that thing is a mile long 😂). YannLK (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femke, this was quicker than expected but I think I have a decently fleshed out draft. I’ve gone over it a few times and gone over sourcing.

Would you like to review it, or shall I submit it through the official wikipedia review process? I’m unsure of what would be better practice / what you would prefer to do in this case.

Just so you know there are multiple bits of the PACE trial section of the management page that are reused in the draft, and a couple phrases of the controversies page. This is obviously with the intent to shorten these sections once the draft is published. I will make a section in the concerned page’s talk pages when this happens. :) YannLK (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's coming along nicely :). I'll post some feedback on the talk page of the draft.

In terms of process, shall we do the following:

I'll give some feedback
You address feedback and submit through the official review process
I'll review it a final time and likely move it directly to mainspace? Unless somebody else comes along first and moves it, that is?

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Thank you very much for the help. YannLK (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi, sorry to interrupt.

I just want to request you something... Can you indefinitely block CriticallyThinking? He kept making very opinionated edits, especially with the latest Tom & Jerry film.

Sincerely, Scoophole2021 (talk). 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scoophole2021: I don't have the Internet to evaluate this at the moment, better ask at ANI, with WP:diffs. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please weigh in productively on the climate change speed discussion?[edit]

Please help us fix the article without a mountain of process by being clear with bogazicili that 1+1 does not equal 3. Removing a clearly false statement should not require a long discussion on how 1+2 equals 3 or how the article has changed over time or whatever else. I think it's going to require a lot of stupid process to get past egos and get this fixed if you don't step in with clarity. Thank you. Efbrazil (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Efbrazil. If I wasn't so overworked atm, I would have done so yesterday. I think the atmosphere in many of the climate climate articles has not been as good as it was a couple years back, and me moving mostly to other areas / being less active with long COVID hasn't helped, as we need people to propose concise compromises. The amount of text on CC pages is often too much for me to wade through, but I'll have a look now.

I think you can also play a role in improving interactions. It's sometimes said that experienced editors should typically abide by WP:1RR (or even WP:0RR. A revert can provoke a defensive reaction, leading to an overly long debate. If you wait for somebody else to revert, it usually sticks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Femke, I really appreciate your involvement, and I am very sorry to hear you are still suffering from long covid. I very much appreciate how you are able to get everyone to contribute productively. As you know though, that can take endless time and patience. That must be particularly challenging given your current situation.

My own approach is to always look for common ground, but I get impatient when I don't think that's being reciprocated. When the other side is driven by ego and simply wants to "win" and assumes the worst of everyone else it can be exhausting. I can snap when I get to the point of wanting to quit editing, because what I see is that the obviously wrong side will "win" simply by being a relentless asshole. But that's life, right? Efbrazil (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ways I try to shorten debates is to "compromise first". I'm less successful int that than before. Try to figure out why people say things, even if what they say isn't quite correct or you disagree with it.

It can definitely be annoying when others seem to assume the worst. The best way to deal with this is focus on content, and ignore the fluff on the talk page, and possibly write a kind and undnerstanding message on the user talk of the person who is not focussing solely on content. Assume good faith, usually people are driven by a passion for what they think is right, not by ego. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. I still can't quite believe he's passed away. Such a wonderful person with an immense legacy. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes! and 3 more TFAs to come soon - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics of places show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ME[edit]

Hi Femke, do you have a copy of "ME/CFS, case definition, and serological response to Epstein-Barr virus. A systematic literature review"? I think we need to be more precise about "antibody activity". Graham Beards (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's accessible via the Wikipedia Library (it's not prompting me to connect to my uni), but happy to send you the paper of course :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It won't give me access :-( could you email a copy? best, Graham Beards (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]