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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This user suffers from Long COVID.

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.

Hello, Femke. Thank you for your work on Outcome switching. Innisfree987, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for writing an entry on this important topic!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Innisfree987}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Innisfree987 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for your comments and the review of infectious mononucleosis.

Thinking more of the article, it has another big issue, which I am not sure if / how it can be resolved; While there are other causes mentioned, like CMV and some others loosely supported, the vast majority of the content and the sources are specific to the EBV infection. So it definitely cannot pass at this point and I shouldn't had nominated it. Still thanks for taking the time to review it and add these thoughts.

I think that, in medicine related content (one of the two I plan to focus on) I will try contributing to some other less structurally complex articles first before giving another shot to this one and trying to resolve the blocking issues (while probably still trying to do some smaller improvements/updates)

Thanks in any case! Konstantina07 (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Konstantina07. Starting with a simpler article can't hurt, no :). The criteria for a GA are that an article is broad. If some information on other causes is mentioned, but not complete or expanded upon, that's perfectly fine for a good article. Only when you go for a WP:featured article, should the text be comprehensive.

In terms of finding good WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, you can find links to PubMed on the talk page of the article you work on, automatically limiting the search to newer secondary sources (f.i. see this query for IM). If you make another few dozen edits, you also unlock access to WP:The Wikipedia Library. That may help you access more up-to-date reviews on medical topics. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes Sdkb The Night Watch East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Femke,

This ANI discussion is not about you but I mentioned your name so I thought I'd alert you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome for comments about the article, and Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Femke, Hello I saw you proceeded other user's request except my friend request on WP:PERM/PCR but you and any other administrators are not attention on my friend's request ; they are new on here but they are joined Wikipedia last 5 year ago and he obtained rollbacker on hiwiki and simplewiki, I think If you proceed my friend request, then they feel more happy ; please see
my friend's request. 😊 ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 04:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

On 18 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Outcome switching, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in nearly one in three clinical trials, authors engage in outcome switching, which can undermine the reliability of the trials? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Outcome switching. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Outcome switching), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]

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

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

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.

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]

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]