User talk:Femke

Your good article nomination of the article Endometriosis is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Strange Orange -- Strange Orange (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there Femke, I noticed that you are part of the people listing themselves as a WP:GAMENTOR. I have wanted to try my hand at GA review for a long time, but am somewhat suffering from impostor syndrome there. I have only one pretty small GA to my name, and I originally wanted to promote one or two more before trying to review, but working on my own content has been somewhat difficult recently for various reasons. I figured I would come to you because even though we have not interacted much, I think I remember you being encouraging on the matter. So after this very long-winded introduction, a few questions: do you think I should wait until I am more experienced at getting articles to GA before I move towards reviewing? If not, would you be willing to provide some advice as I go through one or two reviews, and if yes how do you usually approach that? In any case, thanks :) Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 18:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Choucas0! Happy to help. I've seen you say intelligent things around Wikipedia, so I have no doubt you'd make a good reviewer. With one GA under your belt, you have enough experience. Some people even start being active in the GA space first as a reviewer, before they feel confident to write their own articles. If you mention your reviews here or ping me to them, I'm happy to have a second look on things you may have missed or things you may be too strict on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words, they are really appreciated. I will give it a try then, and probably come back to you with a request to check a review in general or about specifics, depending on what I end up reviewing in the end. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 23:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for creating and running Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026. It's a lot of work, and I'm glad you're doing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! It's quite nice to focus on major improvements to articles and then move on once they reach B class. We've got a good team, so I do hope we can achieve this by the end of the year.

That said, I'm tempted to get endometriosis featured on the main page, with the hope it might ease the diagnosis journey of at least one person. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You did a good job with Polycystic ovary syndrome, and I'm sure Endometriosis would equally benefit. Staying on the theme, Premenstrual syndrome could also use some work. The main problem there is the overly expansive use of the label vs the formal definitions (e.g., as used in clinical trials). I'm not sure if the science has settled on Premenstrual dysphoric disorder; I haven't looked at the article (or for sources) in a long time, but I wouldn't be surprised if it needs work, too. Anyway – lots of opportunities to do good for the world.

BTW, if you're doing anything on the pregnancy/childbirth side, De Gruyter offers their entire Obstetric Medicine textbook (2022) to editors for free via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Having just looked at the childbirth article, I see there's a lot that needs doing to make it understandable and neutral. The topic terrifies me though. I don't know if I want to know what could go wrong before having kids myself. Psychological topics interest me less. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd mentally crossed that one off my list, because Gandydancer/Sectionworker had taken it in hand, but she's been inactive for a couple of years now.

I wonder if "what could go wrong" is, well, the wrong way to think about that subject. Glancing through the TOC, Childbirth#Psychological is in the wrong place (possibly in the wrong article), since oxytocin isn't a symptom of childbirth. I'm not sure whether having a main section for ==Vaginal birth== and placing ===Caesareans=== as a subsection of ==Management== is the right choice (it might be). As with most long articles, a superficial update could probably be done in a day or two, but I'm not sure whether a superficial update is really the best choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course it's unhelpful to think of things going bad with childbirth. And with my health being as poor as it is, it might not be something I have to worry about at all.

Good to know that it used to have some good folks monitoring it.

I've done a first pass at rewriting the lead: removing odd elements, repetition and updating the statistics. The rest of the article isn't as bad fortunately. You're right that that the psychology info is in a weird spot, but I'm not sure what the correct spot would be. Most of it fits in the article, I would guess without having read much of the sources yet. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking about the article, rather than any particular person. It would be easy to pathologize the whole thing: The first symptom is this, and the way it can go wrong is... At the next step, watch out for this rare complication... During this phase, be alert to... If you're doing advanced obstetrics training, you kind of have to cover all the ways things can go wrong, but I think the Wikipedia article should focus on the big part of the bell curve: it mostly seems to go okay, and consequently the human race hasn't died out yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

	Greetings, Femke. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Drm310
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Liquefied natural gas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

	Greetings, Femke. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: GoldRomean
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please remove your redundant entry, thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Worstbull_reported_by_User:Femke_(Result:_) It is redundant, it's hard to believe that you didn't take the time to check the page before reporting. Feel free to participate in the discussion of the Roxy_the_dog notification. Also it doesn't meet the requirements, your links are linking to irrelevant pages, there was no warning from you (while I *did* warn Roxy repeatedly, in the edsums, and on the talk pages). To be frank, I find this very suspicious. Worstbull (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It was fine. If other administrators see a problem with a noticeboard report, they can voice their concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey Femke,

As you may remember from my option RfA candidate poll last year, I'm considering requesting admin permissions at some point in the future and would appreciate feedback from other editors on my conduct. My goal in asking now is to leave myself plenty of time to address any concerns or make any necessary improvements before making a formal RFA. Specifically, I would appreciate any constructive comments about my editing history, conduct and areas where I could improve to meet the standards expected of admin candidates.

Personally I think I've done pretty well at improving since last July, but I want to hear from someone else. So far I have written 26 good articles, most of which are related to video games like Genshin Impact, and several articles I've written are going through the GA (or FA, in the case of the aforementioned article) process. I've also done my fair share of anti-vandalism patrolling, trying to help out newcomers as best I can, and participating in AFDs; I'd particularly like feedback as to how my conduct in these regards can be improved. I've also cut down on my previous participation on the drama boards, as people said I should last July.

Just to be clear -- I've only been really active on Wikipedia since around February/March 2025, so I'm not planning on applying for admin immediately. It'll probably be sometime later this year at the earliest. Any constructive feedback (positive or negative) is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 16:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gommeh! I see you've taken the advice on board from the optional poll, but still have a way to go.

• your recent record at UAA is spotless
• I see your record at RfPP is not as clean. It's more difficult to get right, but good to keep in mind admins will typically try the least amount of protection that can stop the disruption. Socking can be a reason for ECP, but if the socks are not autoconfirmed, semiprotection works too.
• For your AfD contributions, keep in mind that the expectation is that people do a WP:before to search for sources. Try to find if there are any WP:SNGs relevant such as WP:NSPECIES before you start a discussion or delve into one.
• At your FAC, I saw the spot check highlighted quite a few issues with WP:text-source integrity. While a few mistakes are not a problem (we're all human), the high number indicates you might not be careful enough.

In general, I would try to slow down the editing, so that you can be more careful. That way, you show you have the diligence required for admin work. Having access to the tools means you can mess up easily if you work too rapidly with more consequences for other editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I'm not planning on making RFPP a priority anyways, but it's good to know. I do generally do WP:BEFOREs, I think I might have just forgotten to do it then, or perhaps not looked in the right place. But I think I may need a little bit of advice - what would the best way to help me slow down be? I'm not sure how best to make that happen. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 01:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to say how.. Take the example of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Genshin Impact/archive1. Out of the 20 elements of the spot check, 11 came up with some kind of issue. Do you know how you ended up making this many mistakes? Are you using translation software that's not up to scratch? Did you not double check each time you added a sentence that it's fully supported? I often go back from what I write to the source 3 or 4 times to ensure the source fully supports the statements and there is no close paraphrasing. When someone finds that many mistakes, don't just fix the mistakes, consider them as examples and investigate + fix issues further. It might be that the issues cannot be resolved within the timeframe of an FAC, and that withdrawal is the best way forward. Normally, I'd say a spot check failed with this many instances of failed verification, but User:Jo-Jo Eumerus has not indicated explicitly that the spot check failed, so maybe the mistakes are more subtle than it seems at first glance.

When you nominate an article at AfD, it's good to give more information in your nomination statement. Write down how you've done your before. E.g. with your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 1 (Paraguay), search for a SNG in the first instance and write down how it would not meet the criteria of WP:GEOROAD (it did here, but that's beside the point). For articles where GNG applies, write down what you've done in your before (e.g. looked at the Spanish-language version and Googled), so that others don't have to repeat this. Writing down the steps means that you force yourself to do the steps well. It does reflect well on you that you withdrew the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I think part of it had to do with the fact that a decent amount of those sentences were added by someone other than me, so I didn't think to check them. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 11:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Having said all this though, do you think I've at least improved my chances of becoming an admin in the future as compared to July? I want to know if I'm at least on the right track, even if I still have a way to go. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Good to know that these weren't mistakes you introduced. I've certainly nominated articles at GA where I discovered issues with pre-existing text around integrity or close paraphrasing during the review. At FAC the expectation is that you've checked these sources, so that might be a good thing to keep in mind for for next time. It also means you can use Who Wrote That for your current nomination to double check for additional mistakes from other editors.

You've clearly grown as an editor, but there is still quite a road to go. You're enthusiastic and we need that in the admin corps, but that enthusiasm does lead to a higher number of mistakes than most !voters are comfortable with. That's partially experience, which you're gaining rapidly, but partially temperament, which is more difficult to grow in. I would recommend to focus on the things on Wikipedia that you enjoy most and do those well. Happy to give more feedback in around 6 months, whether for RfA or simply mentoring on how to become a more effective editor. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I just saw this comment. Frankly, I had serious misgivings about this spotcheck turning up so many things. But at times I don't quite follow through my thoughts and with some topics I am at times unsure whether it's me that doesn't understand something or the article text that doesn't match. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

	Greetings, Femke. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

	Greetings, Femke. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: GreenLipstickLesbian
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)