Busy with real life for at least a few days. Will only make time to respond to my ongoing arbitration enforcement request.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For your painstaking research and unflagging diplomacy that got us through the climate change renaming discussion. You are awesome! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit


Hi Femkemilene! You created a thread called Does Claire Wright meet notability criteria? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Femkemilene!Edit

Hello! Thanks for the links to particular dialogues!   I’ve been slogging through the histories of those interrelated pages, so I do appreciate the shortcuts to episodes you find noteworthy. I also popped in to observe the word fad is not pejorative, but simply synonymous with trend: to say a term is faddish is the same as to say it’s trendy, en vogue, au currant… all mean roughly the same. But if someone publicly impugns my good-faith use of the term, others might begin thinking it was used pejoratively!   Granted, a proposer is bound to read negative connotations into any counterproposal… nonetheless, I must ask you to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH also in my word choices. I do weigh them carefully! (Ephemeral was a contender, but while it captures the transience of something, it misses its surge in popularity.) Sorry to be brief, but I’ve generally avoided one-on-one talk on this platform, user pages, all that — from the outset I feared Wikipedia would turn political, that users would resort to gamesmanship, factionalize — and I’ll probably continue to avoid user spaces… although I now wonder if the cannier choice would’ve been playing the game from the start. Regardless, thanks again for the links! Cheers, Danopticon (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remember. I generally find user spaces a 'safe space' to receive advice from other users. I appreciate your worry about factionalization though, so I will remember to keep conversation with you in article talk space. I hope you don't get too intimidated by previous discussions. About the fad: from your contributions so far I can do nothing but assume good faith. I wanted to give an example of a word that might seem innocuous, but when tensions get high, are maybe better avoided. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Cool, and no worries about my user talk page, I wasn’t “warning you off” it or anything: obviously by design anyone can leave anything there, and perhaps there could be times there’s cause to. I was just explaining my own reticence. And who knows… I was happy avoiding such spaces, yet individual personal principle has never forestalled anything, and looking at Wikipedia today I see I could easily have gone whole hog the other direction to no greater lasting ill-effect. So I may yet switch around how I use this. Thanks for the kind words! -Danopticon (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi Femkemilene: You removed material from the Effects of Global Warming page claiming that "Seminars are not valid sources of information". Whereabouts on WP guidelines does it say that? It seems to me the source is the Professor not the venue at which the information was presented. And by the way - Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan has his own page on WP and is described on that page as "Victor Alderson Professor of Applied Ocean Sciences and director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego." I think that makes him a pretty reliable source. Notagainst (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we discuss this on articel talk? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luckEdit

Follow-up to recent posting on global warming talk pageEdit

I wanted to follow up with you regarding the post I made yesterday to the GW talk page. First, I want to thank you again for the welcoming and supportive way you helped me when I was editing the land-use-change sub topic. Regarding the post I made itself, I hope you weren’t offended by the emphatic language I used when I was mentioning the history of the GW/CC name change issue. But having experienced it first hand, I did have strong opinions, and was concerned that some of the earlier comments didn’t accurately capture what had happened. RCraig pointed out to me that (in addition to it being too long) the personal based reasoning I used probably wasn’t appropriate for this forum. So I’ll try to make sure I’m more objective and focused on the WP policies and guidelines in future posts. In looking at a few of your recent posts, I have a sense that you’ve been frustrated by some of the recent discussion, and I’m sorry if I added to that frustration, given all the great work you’ve clearly done for this page, and particularly since you were so supportive when I began working on this article. Hope your new year goes well.Dtetta (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was definitely not offended, and found the contribution quite insightful, even if it didn't fit perfectly in how we expect experienced users to argue. You didn't add to the frustration at all :). I hope to keep seeing you around in this new year. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claire Wright (politician)Edit


The article Claire Wright (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:


While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RaviC (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Claire Wright (politician) for deletionEdit


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) 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. RaviC (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Greta ThunbergEdit


The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Greta Thunberg has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You may find during the GA review that the reviewer will suggest that the Popular Culture and Honours and Awards section be rewritten in paragraph form to avoid becoming an endless list.Some awards are significant, others not so much.

Best of luck going forward with the GAN.


Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work! As for the lists, I mostly agree. The popular culture section can definitely be written in paragraph form. The honours list is often written in list form in GA, but might indeed need some pruning :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)