User talk:Femke/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello Femkemilene, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Femkemilene, good luck, and have fun. – Skr15081997 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infrared window, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absorption. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Femkemilene. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Femkemilene. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

nice

this was well done! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

revert

Hi, honestly I don't care what text describes the mechanism in the body of the article. But we can't put that in the lead and call it good. So the text I restored through reversion... I'm not attached to it at all. Just saying we need to write great article bodies and then summarize that material in the lead without adding new stuff to the lead. Change it up! I'll be digging into the details this winter perhaps. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

For me, having a mechanism(s) section and a contribution section is kind of illogical; they are almost the same except that contributions will have more numbers in it. Or am I missing something? I agree though you can't simply rely on lede. The reason I mentioned the lede is that if it was not mentioned in the lede (as before) it makes more sense to have it in the beginning of the article. Femkemilene (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What subsections should appear in the outline to make the best possible article is a separate question. You're into it, and into the sources. I'm not right now. Go for it. Thank you for your service! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh?

Something looks off in this edit. Did you forget to sign maybe? Or accidentally refactor someone else's words? See the last line of changed text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Thanks for notifying me. I hope it is more clear now. Femkemilene (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Deja vu

I feel that way often. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

cleanup barnstar!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your excellent work breathing new life into Sea level rise, making the 3-year stalled merge happen, and inspiring other eds (like me) to get off our butts to pitch in! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RS hunt

It's complicated! I'm starting to build a biblio of RS material. It's quite ugly right now, but I'll keep at it over time. Contributions welcome. Post to the talk page and I'll incorpporate stuff in a format that seems to make sense (at least to me) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Are you mainly interested in sources about the physical science? I'd was thinking about starting a similar list of good sources for effects and adaptation, are those suggestions welcome as well? Femkemilene (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is specifically looking into projections for 2100. However, I would be glad to add other topical sections as good ideas come up. At some point, we might have a discussiona bout what, if anything, merits adding to article talk (and later article talk archives) but for now it makes some sense (to me) to keep it in user space. My main objection is to understand what the RSs say about projections well enough to write sensibly about projections. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, clear. Will add stuff to the talk page when I have time. Probably won't have that much time in the next two weeks though :(. Femkemilene (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Femkemilene, I have enjoyed the high signal-to-noise ratio working with you at SLR. Seems like my wiki time lately has been consumed with the opposite, and so I'm going to move my RS hunting offline (using a reference manager instead of the text format of my sandbox). Learning the program will mean no Wiki writing for the forseeable future, but should I go to grad school its a skill I want to have already mastered before taking the plunge. In the meantime, I hope you manage to get SLR to good article status, and good luck with your studies! Since I've stepped back, there's some lead text I wrote you still have concerns about, I think. Have at it! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all the support and making my transition from the Dutch to English wikipedia so easy :). I had assumed a high signal-to-noise ratio was mostly due to the fact that climate deniers don't have a platform here. Hope you'll master the reference manager quickly and that you'll be be back soon. Femkemilene (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not retiring and will check in regularly. If you have any questions about process and procedure, give a shout at my talk page or a ping, and I'll be glad to help as I may, but in case you don't already know about it, take care not to WP:CANVASS for support. Got your thesis topic yet? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Femkemilene. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

FYI I tweaked a subsection at Talk GW where you had a comment. Please let me know if you object, or just revert. The explanation for what I did is now at the bottom of the thread, and the diff for what I did is here. Thanks for your attention. Season's greetings! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review

Hello Femkemilene,

Thank you very much for your thorough review of Climate change in Turkey. I will certainly go through it carefully and improve the article according to your suggestions. But rather than resubmitting it for good article review I have instead submitted Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. The reason for this is because since I submitted the first article the government has published much more information on the effects of climate change on Turkey but, I believe, is still obfuscating Turkey's main contribution to climate change. If you have time I would be very happy if, with your specialist knowledge and academic skills, you reviewed greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. As I know it is not yet "good" quality but am looking for improvement suggestions if you take it on and if you prefer it could instead be a "peer review". However if you are too busy it can wait in the queue for a different reviewer.

Thanks again for your help.

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thank you both for working on these! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that my priority is some offline work now (have to resubmit a paper soon) and there are another couple of Wikipedia things I've committed myself to. Keep up the good work! Femkemilene (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

page statistics

If you have not looked at this it might be of interest. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I was aware and do use it sometimes. I'm almost at 50% of the current article :). Femkemilene (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea level rise

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sea level rise 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea level rise

The article Sea level rise you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sea level rise for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your sustained focus and collaborative effort to bring Sea level rise up to Good Article status. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated appreciation :).

Why thanks for appreciating my appreciation....OMG, not this again.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea level rise

The article Sea level rise you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sea level rise for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

👏👏👏 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have recovered....

Great work on SLR. FYI, I've started a rather large project of my own. Over the years there have been various efforts to reform the way we define the content that we put under the article title Climate change versus Global warming. I think you know how we are currently doing that, but just to be clear it is explained at Climate change (disambiguation). Each time reforms have been proposed, one thing I have noticed is that the various sub-articles are in a chaotic state of overlap. This brings me to my current project. I have some new ideas for resolving confusion at the top level articles, but instead of pursuing it from the top-down I am instead trying to address issues from the bottom up. Even if the big picture reforms go nowhere, this work "down in the weeds" is worth doing in its own right! If you have time, please consider helping identify climate pages with extensive overlap. I have started such a list here. Please call others to my attention in this thread or at my talk page. The ultimate goal of identifying the more important articles with overlap is to consolidate and integrate them into a smoother story. Then these will become the building bricks for a new article, which you can also read about at the user page I just linked to. Thanks for any time you can share on this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not committing to anything, but that seems like a very important and useful project. My main motivation for helping with a project like that would be to improve updatability of climate related articles, which would mainly mean I would like a focus on cutting fluff in articles. I was planning to focus on the economic side of climate change for a bit, but maybe I'll do a bit of both. Femkemilene (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Updatability is one goal indeed. By eliminating overlap there is one place to keep up not 2 ... or in some cases 4 or 5 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding comments to the proposed merge. Would you mind if I formatted your paragraphs to a single comment? It looks like 2 or 3 editors having back and forth instead of just you. I'm tempted to add thoughts how to proceed here but that belongs at article talk. May I refactor your 2 or 3 paragraphs so its obviously all from you, before I reply? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course :). Feel free in the future to change small errors in my talk page contributions as well. Femkemilene (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking for help

Hi,

I was looking for some small help.Recently I created a new article en:Kithaab i.e. es:Kithaab-a play about women rights issues- which has been copy edited and is ready for translation in various languages. Looking for your possible help in translating the article en:Kithaab es:Kithaab to your Dutch language wikipedia. If you are unable to spare time yourself then may be you like to refer the same to some other translator to get it translated in their own respective languages.

Thanking you , with warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for writing the article. I'm sorry to say that I don't really have time for this project. Femkemilene (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

beat me to it

Real life calls or I'd have gotten around to this. I think I recall seeing sources that talk about RCC in two different ways. I haven't done resaearch compiling a bibliography for the overhaul yet. So I will describe what I think I remember, and my question is whether this is your understanding also?

The first way is best described in contrast to a smooth bell curve. At first some wondered if climate equilibrium would follow the smooth bell curve, and could be stabilized anywhere along the curve. The current thinking is more like stabilizing on different treads of an up-and-down-and-up-and-down stairway. Kick off a forcing and tipping point/feedbacks "runaway" to the next tread in the staircase.

The other way has more to do with human mitigation efforts, and the idea that if our own efforts are too paltry, accumulated warming + feedbacks could overwhelm our mitigation efforts and so "runaway" from human efforts at control.

However, I am trying to recollect reading from 4-5 years ago on the subject of feedbacks, and I'm a little fuzzy. Have you seen both of these uses of the phrase "runaway climate change"? Any other uses?

Thanks for your interest in these articles. Definitely moving in the right direction! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read quite a lot about feedbacks, dynamical systems and tippings points in the scientific literature, but had never come across the term runaway climate change. I think most scientist still think of climate equilibrium following a smooth curve which is less or more steep. Some might think it's a bit more bumpy/tread-like, but never completely. An example of the latter is that recent hothouse article (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252).

Googling runaway climate change mostly gives me results in the spirit of being overwhelmed in our mitigation/adaptation efforts. It is used as sort of a metaphor in that context I think.

I'm getting more convinced that this article should disappear and only small bits should be saved. A lot of synthesis and little direct basis in scientific, governmental, non-opinion piece reliable news articles.. Femkemilene (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Eventually, I see both of them finding their way to the new article I'm working on in user space. I think I pointed out a subsection to you once before (list of overlapping articles). The full thing and all my notes and commentary is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I like secondary sources! At ScienceDaily searching on _climate runaway_ yields several hits, which i have yet to review. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my typo. Feel free to do that anytime no one has answered... I'd just ask that you do such corrections as a stand alone edit, in the rare chance I disagree it will be easier to untangle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Lately

The signal-to-noise ratio Has been excellent lately. Hope it stays that way! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I really enjoy working with the three of us :). My partner might enjoy it a bit less though :P. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ganz richtig! One year, part of my Solstice gift to my other half was a Wikipedia hiatus. Watch for an email from me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice work you are doing, thank you! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Between the school strike, real life, and a surge in wikinoise, I am still trying to claw research time to continue the first merge I've taken on. Just checking in to again thank you for your contribs to this technical article and making it more comprehensible! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yw! In terms of wikinoise; I seem to notice some fatigue in your responses to others as of late. Try to keep making the distinction between beginner mistakes (split in climate change?) and soapboxers/forum type of people. For the first category, a softer approach might be fruitful. The second, don't let them drain you! I think we really need to nurture a bigger community for the climate change articles because they are horribly outdated. I'll be preparing for the People's vote march this weekend, so you might not hear too much of me now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

See email NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Renewable Energy

Hi Femke Nijsse, I have started looking for information to improve Renewable Energy, but I am having a hard time finding new articles that are good quality online. Do you have some suggestions as to where I should start looking? Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on renewable energy, so I'm probably omitting quite a bit here. In general, my preferred type of source is reports that review the scientific literature and government data. So IRENA, REN21 and IPCC WG3 are my best bets for general sources. The reports are often quite long, and so most of the information that is useful for us can be found in the (executive) summary. The IEA is quite a good source, but over the last 13 years their projections of solar energy have been horrible (a semi-reliable source for my claim: blog by energy scientist TU Eindhoven). Many of these reports are about market trends, geopolitics and mainstream techniques, so we also need a reliable source for emerging techniques I think. Probably best is if we find a scientific review article for this.

General

• REN21 global futures outlook. A bit speculative about the future, but good background reading into what a wide range of experts think
• IEA 2018 in depth look into bio-energy I find their claim that bio-energy will be the fastest grower in the next 5 years doubtful, as prices for solar and wind are falling, while bio-energy not really...

Geopolitics of renewables

• IRENA: Geopolitics of the energy transformation. I think we need to mention this is max one paragraph. Current article is about renewable energy, not about the transition to renewable energy.
• Scientific article about democratization of energy Max once sentence I think.

Energy system transition

• IRENA: Report about electrification. Also max one paragraph dedicated to this.
• IPCC report 2011 A bit old, but might help us for structure. Notice for instance that they have a separate chapter on renewable energy integration into the energy system. I think we should have that as well.
• IRENA webpage with key points.

Emerging technologies

• Review paper in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews from 2017.

I think the most important thing for us is to think about the structure of the article. I've posted some questions on the talk page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for invite

Thanks for invite to "climate change taskforce" but I want to concentrate on more specialist articles about the environment in Turkey because there are fewer people interested in updating them. Once the ones related to Turkey and climate change are in reasonable shape I hope to also improve the ones related to biodiversity in the country. I just occasionally tweak other articles when I don't have the intellectual energy to look at the Turkey environmentalism ones. Good luck with the taskforce. I hope with your revival of it some American will rise to my sarcastic comment on Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and update it. Comparison of the structure and contents of that and Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey would then help improve both articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/climate system at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Global warming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Climate Change ?!

I've seen that you (a couple months ago) wanted to breath some new life into the Climate change task force. Since I've had half a mind to do the same for a while now, and found some inspiration yesterday to get started on the task, I wanted to let you know :).

Also, I've seen that Dmcq proposed an "upgrade" to a wikiproject a couple years ago - so I've pinged them, and cheekily said I'd point you to their userpage for debate :P User_talk:Dmcq#Wikiproject_Climate_Change_?! . (See there for more detail! )

Kind regards Sean Heron (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that was quick :D (your response at the task force page) . Re - contratians: I guess either you're lucky or I read to many talk pages (and their archives :P). Scope sounds good, and nice to hear if you support the move to a Wikiproject! I just wanted to reply quick to let you know I saw it, but didn't want to spam the talk with my happy happy :) (rather wait to see whether / if others chime in ! ). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, @Femkemilene: Please don't forget to add your name to the support list for the new proposal Thanks!

Cadar (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Climate visuals!

I saw a comment you left a year back about working on updating climate-data visualizations; a lovely idea. (And something we might think about baking into data-image descriptions, so that bots can come by and list them by last update.) Is there a project page for such work? – SJ + 03:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Not meaning to butt in here , but I'm in agreement with both of you that Femke has identified a much-needed gap in project space. I've added it to our description under the list of relevant subject matter; it has mutated into one hell of a list, but I'm envisioning each of those broad subjects (or at least the most important and active ones) becoming sub-projects of their own with the ability for separate teams of editors to focus on whichever category they prefer. The main project would then become overview and generalised engagement with the project's overall remit, while also (hopefully) being able to rally extra editors to pitch in to knock sub-projects which are lacking into shape. So something like the visuals would be a prime focus for exactly that kind of scenario. Perhaps we could get a couple of good coders on board to help us develop bots to trawl and find and update content related to relevant media and take some of the basic load off the editors.

Cadar (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Just touching base

Hope you're having a great holiday! Ciao Cadar (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It was definitely a good holiday, thanks :). Got quite distracted by Wikipedia every time I woke up in the tent. This week there will be edits in the mainspace again! Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! I saw you kept popping in. Connecting to WP from a tent might just qualify you for WP addiction, have you considered that?

Cadar (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I completely admit addiction. Need to find some strategies of spending less time on it. But also want to continue the lovely work we're doing now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm also quite an addict, but there's no doubt that what we're doing now is important. As long as our responsibilities out in the real world don't suffer, it's all good.

Cadar (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene, to keep from thinking of Wikipedia while camping, just go somewhere with lots of mosquitoes and leave the tent at home. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert - climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Just sending this FYI to everyone recently in the topic area who doesn't have one in the last 12 months. And before I posted here, I sent one to myself too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Global warming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI turquoise text

FYI in case you didn't find it already please see Template:tq (TQ= Talkpage quote)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Now that I know what it stands for, I should be able to remember. I would swear I tried that combination though. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for the thanks at the proposal page... FYI, after you saw my comment I updated it with specific tangible housekeeping tasks. Since you already saw the original, I thought I'd call your attention to the udpated specific steps to make things happen. we could do it any other sensible way, of course. What do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

weird piping

FYI, drafting Climate system has long been on my todo list, but some years back I took a shortcut and added the 5 components to the climate article, then added the weird piping so we could say "climate system" in the text. Thanks for your abundant hard work where I thought about it and... did other things. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

cite format alternative

Deleted my own post and instead will say.... Scheisse! I was happy with this post last night, but today I looked in and found the rendering behavior under example 2 is not consistent. Sorry to be testing here on your user page. I'll go away and work on it elsewhere for a few days. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Just a warning I feel that I've done all of my wikignome activity for this year by trying to find consensus about the citation style and then mostly implementing it. I'd like to continue with editing figures and content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Understand! I've tried many reforms and finally accepted the dysfunction and moved on. If my slow movement to endorse the new approach contributes to your burn out, I apologize! I've been around long enough to really care deeply about doing things in a way that's easy for new editors to learn and maintain as the old guard fades away. Out of curiousity, did you and JJ talk about putting full citations inside the reflist template? That's a small step that I instantly understand, and seems to do two desirable things... gets the full thing out of the editing window when working on text, and easily tells us (in preview mode) when references are listed but never cited. I'm playing with that method at User:NewsAndEventsGuy/sandbox#Q if you want to peek in

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We did not discuss that no, and I do find it quite an interesting approach that I've never seen before. I raised my concern that the editor doesn't get warned of unused full-citations, but JJ indicated he wasn't aware of a solution of that problem. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Good morning/afternoon! Overnight, I had an afterthought. What replayed in my head was you mentioning "A warning..." and your comments about your waning wikignome patience. I don't really know if this is applicable, but in case you fear I might undo your hard citation work, no worries! Thank you!! As a practical matter, the challenges of teaching eds this new system and longterm maintenance may bring about a discussion to change the approach, maybe after AR6 is out and maybe never. It would need to be a group consensus and I have no plans to even start such a conversation. Though on other articles I may follow a different protocol, I will not be messing around with the new citation formatting you and JJ worked so hard on. Thank you!! Even if I don't really understand the technical details well enough to do it that way myself NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of climate system

Hello! Your submission of climate system at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Climate system

On 13 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Climate system, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that all five components of the climate system—air, water, ice, Earth's crust, and life—help determine Earth's average weather? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Climate system), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, Femke! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Event coordinator granted

After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have temporarily enabled the flag on your account until 2019-09-28. Keep in mind these things:

• The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
• The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
• Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! Salvio 09:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How mysterious! If you don't mind me asking, what's the exciting project? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm organizing a hack-a-thon at the university for early career scientists in science. Don't know yet whether there's any takers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, how fun. I hope you have a full house, and they pupate into fully autonomous committed editors! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Brexit

On 28 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Prorogation in the United Kingdom, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Andrew D. (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Ecosystem-based adaptation

I just wanted to let you know if your going to accept articles from the draft space, please remove any AFC tags after you move the page or use WP:AFCH in order to do it. CodeLyoko^buzz 00:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, should have asked about that. I didn't quite understand the condition under which I had to ask an admin to do something with the history of the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Chetsford (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

hooray! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw your plea for better protection of Thunberg's page. I'll be asleep or at work during most vandalism, but hope to help reduce the burder a tiny bit when/if the protection level drops again. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and anyway, Melanie is a great admin and is keeping an eye out, so it can always be ratcheted up when needed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Making climate change a dab

(moved from User talk:X1\)

Answering here, as Connelley has declared he doesn't want to spend time on this. I have indeed considered this as an option as well. My assessment is that we should think twice before making a page with over a million views a year a dab. More importantly, the wiki page on article naming states:

As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia:

1. f the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.
2. If the article is not about the primary topic, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated.

I think, from f.i. a google search, it is quite obvious 'climate change' primary meaning is the current warming + effects. As both global warming and climate change can refer to the current phenomenon and in a secondary meaning historical/general phenomenon, this problem of primary vs secondary is inherent to the naming of the articles. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered that climate change already has a dab page, but that CC is a page on its own right. Don't know whether this makes the puzzle easier. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Its no problem. I created the DAB myself last Feb, when first outlining my individual opinion how to proceed on this bigger picture. In part I wanted to help people find the right article since complaints were popping up with increasing frequency, and in part I wanted to be able to write climate change (disambiguation) in our discussions without creating a redlink. The content of the DAB can easily be changed as needed. Right now it merely repeats info that has regularly appeared in the hatnotes of the two articles. Femke, if I remember correctly, you're the only one who ever commented on my first action plan. Now that you hae so expertly launched the climate system article, I have created a streamlined outline. Its the same concept, I just made the presentation concise for folks who just want to read the "what" quickly.

User:NewsAndEventsGuy/One_way_to_redefine_articles_"Climate_change"_and_"Global_warming"

Do either of you (or anyone else) want something different in the big picture? If the general idea is good, can either of you suggest tweaks to make this basic outline better?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, but...

My preferred option is different from yours: I want both global warming and climate change to point at FA article, which I'd call climate change and have a separate page for natural climate change made from first half current climate change article. I see that your proposal has the advantage of making sure future references to climate change are correct and the disadvantage of an overly long name for our main article. I think your proposal is a substantial improvement to the current state of affairs. Are you sure human-caused climate change isn't better?

Also, notice I've already collected research on the use of the words global warming vs climate change in my sandbox proposal. How does your outline fit in with my proposal in terms of a phased discussion? I'd first like to have people agree that the current situation doesn't work and that climate change should (partially with dab or completely) point towards the current FA article. Then in the second phase I'd like to determine what to do with current (horrible) content of climate change and what the name should be of our FA article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(A) I could live with human-caused climate change

(B) As a practical matter, human-caused climate change is also long and awkward and our many uses in the text and other titles will inevitably gravitate towards the simple climate change (just as they do now).

(C) In light of (B) above, the shorter Human-caused climate change and longer Human-caused global warming and climate change have no practical difference. However, depending on the views of participating editors, it might be necessary to include global warming in the title to sway consensus. I'm less worried about this than I was before.

(D) In my experience, it is hard to herd cats and using carefully constructed survey/discussion structure might really help navigate the issue this time. I've tried this many times. In my experience, if the first 3 or 4 eds follow the structure most other people will too. But if the structure is ignored, often it ends up as a chaotic mess. That has usually happened when someone was opposed to whatever I'm tryhing to do, and I wonder if mucking up the structure is one way of gaming the system to thwart reform. This whining complaint is not specific to the climate pages, either. Returning to the issue at hand, however, yes, when we know what to ask let's dwell on the packaging and format of how we do the asking. Good idea.

(E) If I read this correctly, your top concern with my outline is having climate change go first to a DAB before most readers click through to the FA. The only reason to do this is to address concerns of editors who object on the basis of What if someone is looking for climate change in general like that article always used to be about? I do not care if we handle this with a DAB, but I do think the plan must account for it. As one alternative to a DAB we might address the issue with a hatnote at the revised FA.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I will likely not have enough time to give this its due concentration currently, so I moved it here from my talk page; which was started on William M. Connolley's User talk page. X1\ (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Norway Debate/GA1

Hello, Femkemilene. Thank you for taking on this review. I'm only looking in on an occasional basis at present because of real life issues which are very time-consuming. I'll keep tabs on the review and will help out where I can. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Good luck with the real life issues! I've always found it a bit weird that response to the review has to happen in approx 7 days, especially when the nominator has been waiting for months for the review to start. I'm probably going to put the review on hold, just let me know how much time you need to fix the outstanding issues. I'll try to make clear which things need happening for GA and which others I think might improve the article for another time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be able to let you know when you complete the initial review. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've made some changes as requested but there are some of your points that I cannot agree with, By the way, my real life issues are extremely serious as my wife's health has deteriorated badly. I can only come on here when she is sleeping. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear about your wife :(. The review shouldn't take much longer, but if it's giving you stress that you rather not have now, I can pause the review and come back later. I'll respond to your comments later. Some I agree with, others less so. Thanks for putting so much dedication in writing about this episode of UK history! Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if...

Sorry if I came across as too harsh at the poll. I do appreciate your consensus seeking efforts! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think by your clear answer, you may have prevented me to make the same mistake in our renaming effort, so thanks :). I'm not offended at all, but if you ever need to do a sincere apology that you really want to come across well, read non-apology apology#Ifpology. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That's good advice, I guess its a bit of an impatience driven thing. In person you can get info about how a person feels, first by reading body language and tone and then just by asking. Here, there is the time gap. Would it be better if I first asked if you were bothered by my approach? I suppose I'd like that if I were on the receiving end. On the other hand, its nice to be able to say things in a way that doesn't require waiting periods and going back and forth if it can be avoided. Thanks for the feedback NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For your growing barnstar collection

	The Global warming Barnstar
	For your dedicated labor, expansive knowledge, reasoned opinions, and helpful suggestions. You have projected the spirit of thoughtful and constructive collaboration that is supposed to guide us. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A well deserved award, but please see RCraig's talk page for comments about this barnstar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This is confusing

You made some concrete suggestions on the Talk page of Climate Crisis. I addressed every one of them. I was working with you. Suddenly you're supporting Zortwort's deletion of an entire section - made for reasons that I don't understand. He constantly talks about the scope of the article but nowhere does he explain, let alone discuss what he thinks the scope should be. I thought you were trying to work with me on this.Notagainst (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand your confusion and I'm sorry I'm contributing to it. I addressed some (as you said) minor issues with the article as you wanted some concrete examples. There is a bigger problem with the article though which is more difficult to explain and that is the scoping. Even when discussing the climate crisis as a lens, we have to discuss the framing, the reasons why people frame it like this (neutrally) and why this might not be helpful. Instead, I feel that the article cherry-picks those parts of large texts (such as IPCC) that use any language that can be related to the climate crisis, but with sources that don't discuss the framing itself but instead discuss the problem of climate change.

As a rule of thumb, try only using sources that discuss the framing of climate change as a crisis, and not those sources describing climate change. (this is a bit of a strict rule of thumb and exceptions can occur, but make sure 90% of sources are of this type). Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You and your fellow editors seem to misinterpret or ignore WP polices at your leisure. You were clearly mistaken in thinking that I had conducted OR. Having lost that point, then another editor comes along and deletes the entire section. Under Choosing the scope, it says: "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view."

In order to justify ignoring WP policy you try to make your case by distinguishing between lens (which is a way of looking at something) and framing (which is another way of looking at something). Your distinction between the lens and framing is akin to dancing on the head of a pin.

I find the process you and your fellow editors have adopted in this very disrespectful. You operate like a bunch of bullies in a schoolyard. Because you seemed willing (and more able) to explain things, I began to think you had more integrity than some other editors. But when it comes to the crunch, it seems you just run with the bullies. I am very disappointed in you. Notagainst (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) if you feel that aggrieved, it might be time to file at WP:ANI or WP:AE and make your case with DIFFS, but beware of possible WP:BOOMERANG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am saddened by the fact that my behaviour has been confusing. However, frustration and confusion caused by me and other are no reason to engage in personal attacks questioning my integrity. Would you be willing to refactor your comment removing this?

You state I was clearly mistaken in my suspicion you might be doing OR while not giving me time to think and reply to your comments. I'm absolutely not infallible and if you look at my edit history, you can see that I typically do admit when I'm wrong. I feel that you're not assuming good faith on my side.

In terms of scope, I do think, as do fellow editors, that it is necessary to restrict scope. We don't want to redo the article on global warming, but only selecting what is alarming about it (which could be construed as WP:Cherrypicking). If we did that, we'd make a POV fork out of global warming.

I've not consciously made the distinction between lens and framing. As NEAG suggested here, it is often useful to provide a diff to my comments if you're replying elsewhere, as I'm not sure what you're exactly referring to.

I've slowly been introducing the more recent perspectives on severity of climate change into the GW article, and that is the place that much of your proposed changes would fit.

If you want to have an outside perspective and a neutral arbiter, NEAG provided some links for help! I'm again sorry for how frustrating this process must have been for you. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the problem. You write: "In terms of scope, I do think, as do fellow editors, that it is necessary to restrict scope." Wikipedia says: "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view." If you and your fellow editors refuse to follow WP policies and guidelines, I am wasting my time talking to you. Based on my experience with the Climate Crisis page, going to ANI would just waste even more time.

However, you claim, that you "typically do admit when I'm wrong." Your claim that it is necessary to restrict the scope of this article is clearly incompatible with WP policy. Are you going to admit you (and your fellow editors) are wrong here....? If so, that will help me see that you are operating in good faith. Notagainst (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(((Wow.))) Having seen recent edit skirmishes on Climate crisis and arguments on its talk page, I see no "ignoring" or "refusing to follow" WP policies. The issues seem to revolve about the term "climate crisis" (the proper scope of that article) versus the seriousness of climate change or global warming itself (which should be in the GW article). —RCraig09 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What's incompatible is to restrict the scope expressly to promote a particular point of view. Restricting the scope of an article at all is not incompatible with wiki policy and is effectively the point of dividing things up into articles. If you can't confine an article's scope all you'd get is a bunch of gigantic pages full of unrelated trivia. Zortwort (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we let this thread be about behavior and relationships, and keep the article-improvement comments at article talk. (This would jive with the talk page guidelines, or WP:TPG). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I am clearly wasting my time discussing this issue with editors who, when looking at a forest, think the wood is separate from the trees - who then limit the scope by claiming we can only talk about the wood - but not about the trees - and then dance on the head of a pin pretending they haven't broken a very clear WP guideline which says: "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area (the wood but not the trees) is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view." . Apologies for the mixed metaphors. Notagainst (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We are indeed not going to agree on this, which is unfortunate. One more point to close the discussion off: we believe it is necessary here to restrict the scope, as we would break the policy to not have a POV fork. We are not ignoring the policy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

More dancing on the head of pin. What's POV about the trees...? Notagainst (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Please note that dancing on the head of pin is quite colloquial and difficult to understand for non-native speakers). The trees have been described neutrally in global warming. By only looking at the worst part of the forest, you don't get a balanced view. Note that we have articles about tipping poinst in the climate system that deal with specific bad outcomes from a neutral perspective. Not by looking at Climate Change from POV perspective, but by delving deeper into climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@NotAgaint, have you attempted any of the Dispute resolution options in sections 2 (Resolving content disputes with outside help ) or 3 (Resolving user conduct disputes) ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Coropuna and Quelccaya

Greetings,

since you did review Quelccaya Ice Cap, I figured you might also like Coropuna which is at peer review right now and which I plan to send to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates once this review closes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been overstretching myself a bit on Wikipedia and, depending on other users, might start a very ambitious renaming effort soon (climate change -> climate variability and change, and global warming -> climate change or something similar to solve the confusing scope of the current climate change article) & my scientific work might possible also be hectic. So I will most likely pass, or only contribute slightly. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If you have time on your hand, a review of good article nominee climate system might help this process. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at climate system, but my sense is that the choppy paragraphs - some of which are unsourced - are a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm.. When I wrote the article, I had everything sourced. I haven't kept as much as an eye on the article as I should have. I'll fix citations first! What do you mean by choppy paragraphs? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The single sentence and short ones in "Human activities" for example. I also see that Anthropogenic aerosols do not have a section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Will fix it. I hate single sentences in articles, so will fix them asap! :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've either provided sources for unsourced text, or removed it altogether. Made the section on aerosols & volcanoes focus more on human emissions & got rid over all single or double sentence paragraphs :). Also checked a larger proportion of the sources I copied from climate change. Ready for the real review. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Climate Change article structure goal?

6 months ago the plan was to have the global warming article merge with the climate change article, then turn the global warming landing page into a disambiguation page that could cover either the physical phenomena (climate change) or how the phenomena got renamed in the early 2000s (something like "How global warming was renamed to climate change"). Newsandeventsguy was cooking up a "climate system" article to put natural climate variability content in.

That all seemed like a fine idea to me but it doesn't look like it's moving forward. Do you have an overall target for article structure, or are you just making edits to improve each article separately? Do you see the articles as ultimately covering essentially the same content or not? Finally, how can I be most helpful to your efforts? Thanks!--Efbrazil (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

We've been doing a lot of work behind the scenes collecting arguments and evidence of why this needs to happen. You can have a look and comment in my User:Femkemilene/sandbox. NEAG and me have a slightly different structural goal in mind, but as I can see it, we both think each others goals are an improvement of the status quo. In summary: I want climate change to be renamed climate variability and change, the climate system article is a good article nominee, and global warming might be renamed into climate change, human-caused climate change or global climate change. Cleaning up the individual articles was quite useful in better understanding the sources and cutting out clutter. For instance, I've removed a lot of stuff about current climate change from the climate change article, so as not to have overlapping content.

If NEAG agrees, I might launch the first proposal (renaming climate change) next week. They're dealing with a set of incidents on the Greta Thunberg page now, but should be back soon.

In terms of usefulness, you can comment on my sandbox proposal if you want :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The ANI was put to bed in the archives, my current issues are real life demands. I'll try to spend my wiki time focused on the draft though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You spent so much time on that ANI, and it won't even be read? That seems unfair? Don't overstretch yourself! I'd hoped to have the renaming discussion for global warming finished before the 2nd of December (the day I hope it'll be WP:TFA as the start of COP25). Not sure whether I would want to postpone TFA or accept the out-of-fashion title. Quite content with content and figures now and really do want review to improve this further. My old schedule had end-of-August review, end September-begin November title discussions and rest of month for clean-up. So now that that doesn't work, I think there is less time pressure on my side. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just say I'm satisfied with the outcome. The goal of ANI is to prevent problems, not punish. To say the obvious there are real people with real feelings behind our screen names. The key issue in that case is a hard thing for anyone to hear, but I believe its been heard. And if it wasn't understood, then my report will resurface when that user manifests those behaviors next time. Either way, mission accomplished. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

NEAG: your idea differs, as far as I can see, from mine in three ways. 1) you want to delete instead of remove climate change. 2) you want climate change to be a disamb page and 3) you have preference for a different name for global warming. I think the first and the third are completely valid reasons of disagreement. I do think that if you look at some of the evidence in Q1.1 (specifically point 4), it's very difficult to argue that current climate change is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of climate change and should therefore either be the title of, or a redirect to, global warming. In the discussion [[1]] it seems clear that people want the article title to refer to a topic at max 10 times more than to any other topic. With my statistics, we're at 50-100 times more approximately, so I don't think we can argue ourselves out of it.

I'm okay with launching the proposal with the two other disagreements unresolved. If you, after reading my proposal, still feel deleting cc is the best option, could you make a new section under Two possible ways forward and my argumentation for renaming arguing in favor of that? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking... it can be launched whenever you like! Time wise I will be less busy in deep winter but I'm not special... full steam ahead. I'll try to study it this week carefully. I hope your hard work trying to organize the discussion will pay off ! Part of me thinks no matter how we approach this, it will be a bit like making stovetop popcorn without a lid. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your summary of my views,

• 1) you want to delete instead of remove climate change. is ambiguous. We are dealing with

• "climate change (title)"
• "climate change (current content)"
• "climate change (search string)"

I'm not sure which one you're talking about but I wouldn't describe my views as wanting to either "delete" or "remove" any of these. By the way, what's the difference between "remove" and "delete"?

• 2) you want climate change to be a disamb page Correction, I think it might be a necessary compromise but it is not what I want to do. Ideally, I'd like search string "climate change" and search string "global warming" to both end up on the article where we talk about AGW&CC regardless what title that page gets. But as a practical matter, I anticipate pushback from some eds along the lines of search string "climate change" has always led to an article that talks about the subject in a generic way and the search string needs to keep doing that. My answer to such criticism would be

(A) Why does it have to keep doing that?

(B) The climate change article sprung into being only when some editors got tired of the pissing contest over the scientific consensus in 2002 but without any real meaningful discussion

(C) Most people using search string "climate change" will want to read about AGW&CC, rather than the generic idea. For those who want to read more than our lead at AGW&CC, wikilinks, a hatnote, and "Main" templates etc will guide them to the correct articles for followup reading.

I think it would be best to handle search string "climate change" in that fashion, but I anticipate we may need to settle for a disambig page to satisfy the pro-status quo crowd.

• 3) you have preference for a different name for global warming I really want to put a crystal clear end to the "climate change" versus "global warming" saga. I think I'll support anything that will make an unquivocal end to that. As a matter of practical reality, I think the only way to do that is to use COMMON language meaning and put BOTH phrases in the title. Hence, Human-caused global warming and climate change. I'm not worried about saying "human caused" in wikivoice because that particular ship has sailed.

But last, how did we end up here instead of in the sandbox? No matter. I'll start looking at the many changes to the sandbox later today.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that with real life activities, I´d better postpone it until next Sunday. I´d like one snippet of information from you two. Using the criteria from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Google/Google Scholar search, you cannot conclude otherwise about the primary topic of climate change, right? I really hope that determining that will not lead to any disagreement, because it´s sooooo clear (to me..) Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the question "Do you agree that the primary topic of search string "climate change" should lead to AGW&CC whatever it is called?" and my answer (as above) is HELL YES! If that was not the question, please reprhase? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That was indeed the question, thanks :). I think we have the guidelines so clearly on our side that we don't really need to look for a compromise. When this distinction was made, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines probs didn't exist yet. I should sign off for a couple of days now. So we have only two topics we would disagree about, and I believe your options are better than the status-quo. I meant you want to remove content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think your title proposal conflicts with the fourth title criterion: Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Conciseness, below). But this isn't relevant until when we start the second discussion, which I plan to do a month after this one at the earliest, depending how busy review, and good article reviews are. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

To mull over on your short wikibreak, the way I would summarize our different approach is that I have concerns that preserving an article TITLE about "natural climate change" could preserve the confusion that I wish to dispel. I'd like to hold the content - of course - but under titles that do not contain the phrase "climate change", in order to end the confusion. Happy wikibreak! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but I see two important reasons to preserve an article with a title like that. A) to shut up those remaining climate deniers by telling them we DO have an article about climate variability and change in general (when they complain on GW talk page about climate has always changed and B) it's too big of a topic not to have an article about. I don't think there is a good article title for this article, but my splitting the words climate and change (climate variability and change), I think much of the confusion is stemmed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Recall in my original idea a year ago Step 1 was to create Climate system (thank you again) which could be a place to host much of the current content at Climate change. Please compare the TOC of the two articles. They're almost the same... variability, external forcing agents, responses. Climate denier "It's ALWAYS changing we should have an article!" US: "Yes indeed! We explain how the climate system changes patterns in the climate system article, and from there you can drill down into any of the details you like" I don't see why we need such a title, especially when the content of these two articles is already so overlapping. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The article will be about 1/3 - 1/2 of the climate system article, that's true. But do people expect it there? I'd say no. I want people to find information about this without having to ask at the most logical place. It's difficult to think of the best title, but I think my proposal is a reasonable title. Let's agree to disagree for now, propose both options at the same time and see where consensus leads. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to round out the other way... at climate system we could group variability, external forcings, and responses under a subheading at Climate sytem#Changes in the climate system. With the use of redirs and hatnotes etc I think folks will find what they're looking for either way, so don't see that worry as something that tilts the scale either way NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I've read the above and the sandbox, and have the following general ideas for you to consider (not to invite an argument against your already-good ideas).

1. Strongly agree that current warming should be covered by exactly ONE single WP article.

2. The best name for that substantive current-warming article: Global warming and climate change since WP follows common usage that has (unfortunately) confused and conflated GW and CC as literally defined.

2a. I slightly disfavor prefixing "Anthropogenic..." or "Human-caused..." out of conciseness and fear of the appearance of wp:promotion, but I would not actively oppose those prefixes either.

3. Content of the current Climate change article could be moved/renamed by consensus of knowledgeable people. History of climate change on Earth (or) History of climate change and climate variability on Earth (or similar name that more knowledgeable people can choose).

3a. "Variability" indicates a tendency or ability to change, rather than actual change itself, so I favor "...climate change" over "...climate variability".

4. Both Global warming and Climate change would be Redirects to the new GW and CC article

5. Of course: add detailed hatnotes to all involved articles. (Hatnotes are OK. Really they are!)

I'll now try to convey these ideas in the sandbox survey. Thanks to all involved for your dedication to this dauntingly huge project. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC) and changes RCraig09 (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the proposal and I second all the sentiments RCraig09 expresses here.

The key problem I see with "Climate variability and change" is that "variability" is really just another word for change for most people.

I like "History of climate change on Earth", except we already have "Paleoclimatology", which means the same thing. It would be tidiest if we could just rename the current article to something, but in the end I think it should be merged into the "Climate System" article (and maybe a few others). It's a shame that "Climate System" already exists, because the tidiest move was to have "Cliamte Change" be renamed to that in the first place.

I'm also fine with renaming the current "Global Warming" article to "Global Warming and Climate Change". I don't think we should call it "Anthropogenic Climate Change" as that offers an opening for deniers to say "what about natural variability?". The article needs to debunk the idea that current climate change results from natural causes. I'd probably prefer it was ultimately just renamed to "Climate change", but that can happen later on.

I am happy to push forward any proposal that you all agree with.--Efbrazil (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No time to properly answer. @Everybody: let's not do too much of the discussion hidden away in my sandbox. I'll launch the first step this Sunday, so only a few days away to have the discussion in the open. I'll see whether I can take more of your comments into account.

I did move parts of climate change when I wrote the climate system page. Note that climate system encompasses quite a bit more than only climate change (a description of all the componenets and a description of all the flows of energy and matter). In that sense, a simply rename would give a distorted type of history for that page. I don't feel like that was an option. Had to delete most of it later because the quality of the climate change article was just saddening.

@ Efbrazil: as I've spent half a year preparing this, I think it's most logical if I put forward the proposal. I'm now fully read in on all the guidelines and policies. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to let you take the lead on the proposal. I'll go on over and make edits to your sandbox now.Efbrazil (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Femke, there's no need to respond to what I've written above. Separately: I do want to urge that any formal process you initiate be much shorter and more concise than your Sandbox is now, as the process is still confusing to me. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm.. I don't see how the process can be made simpler than two move requests. (per 'streamlined' plan). Do you have a suggestion? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Femke: Sorry, I was only referring to the complexity and length of the User:Femkemilene/sandbox and User_talk:Femkemilene/sandbox pages themselves and their various surveys. Two concise 'move' requests sounds refreshingly simple! —RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Femke: I see you are removing my comments in the discussion area of the sandbox but keeping the vote I made in the first place. That's confusing for people to read on your sandbox page- it makes it look like I'm making unsubstantiated recommendations and not following your instructions. Can you please fix that or say how you imagine the "survey / discussion" thing working?Efbrazil (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

should have moved that to talk as well. I've got enough input for now and will launch on Sunday. further comments can be left at the talk page of the sandbox. sorry for confusion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I have suggested a different way to achieve the same goal, without navigating a jungle of endless-discussion quicksand. See User_talk:Femkemilene/sandbox#How_to_hit_Dec_2_(maybe) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

New wrinkle

I wonder how any name changes would impact ARBCOM's ruling in WP:ARBCC? Would we need to get their blessing? It's probably premature to ask until there seems to be a consensus to make a move. That way we could have the specifics when we ask ourselves (and/or the ARBS) "Would ARBCC need to be changed in order to implement this?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing in there that would impact this discussion (haven't read all details of course). Is there something specific you're worried about? As the discussions might be contentious, uninvolved administrator closure of both renaming proposals will of course be necessary. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

honestly, I've rarely looked at any part of that other than the first couple of "principles". Just noting that we should keep this in the back of our minds and ask if in doubt, once we know the consensus NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP... Nevermind.... FYI this (hooray!) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

extra sig

Hi, you might want to delete the extra signature under your paragraph d. That way, if some bloke (like me) starts to type a reply they won't break up your (a)-(e) comment. No biggie, just a minor housekeeping suggestions NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Prior discussion?

Frulichte Freitag! I don't think I recognize these eds, may I ask what prior discussion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Vrolijke vrijdag inderdaad! It's the last (March 2019?) discussion of a rename of climate change into climate change (historical). A don't recognize many of the names either, so wonder where it was posted. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

OOps, I keep forgetting you're Dutch in Deutschland, sorry! I think that discussion is the last one in this incomplete list. I wonder how they got word and decided to comment? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The English language doesn't help in understanding these two nationalities. You'd expect Dutch people to live in Deutchland, right? But then Netherlanders is too much effort to pronounce to be fair. Shall we wait a bit with getting more engagement? And what strategy do you think is best to avoid any suspicion of canvassing and/or spamming? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm one American who really does know the difference... I just assumed you were German when we first met and at my advanced age unlearning false facts takes a lot more repetition than it did a few decades back!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would not ping those individuals because I don't recognize them as climate editors and don't know how they were attracted to that discussion. There are two reasonable approaches in my view. Either

(A) just do what we're doing. Based on input so far, I'm sure we'll be able to compromise. Then when we really do make the switch or ask for help at Requested Moves, a bunch of last minute comments will pour in (maybe). Either way that will be great, we'll have input or motion.

(B) If you want to be proactive, then what I'd do is close the current thread and present a new one that is 1/3 or even 1/4 as long and attach a rootin tootin RFC to it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll wait until Sunday anyway, because I'll be gone over the weekend. There might be editors that are mainly active in weekends. If we don't have more opinion voiced on your proposal, I do think we need to request some more voices. A shortened version should contain only one renaming option + your option, unless the extra voices over the weekend make clear there is not enough support for either of the options. I'll think a bit more about the advantages of RfC vs RM. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

As you think about things, there's no reason to get more voices to overcome my opinion..... that's because if I was compelled to decide consensus based on the discussion so far, and the choices were status quo, merge, or climate change (general concept), my read of input so far is that I'm the only one really interested in merging, but climate change (general concept) has general support except for a weak IDONTLIKE. So if I had to measure consensus so far, climate change (general concept) is the winner. And stepping back into my role as a lowly editor I would be thrilled to take the latter out for at least a test drive, move on to the next step, and thank the blessed stars we didn't get 40 people dropping in to offer 68 mutually exclusive other opinions. I'm not saying be sneaky. I'm saying follow procedure enough and strike boldly when procedure allows. Or as the military people in my family say "perfection is the enemy of good enough". Hope you have fun or get lots of work done between now and Sunday NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

watch for email NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for edit and here is a preview of an idea I have for "Greenhouse gas emissions by xxxxx"

Hello Femkemilene,

Thanks for your recent edit on Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. But I don't want to waste the time of the people in the climate change taskforce who have a lot of subject knowledge. So I am just writing to let you know that I think most of what I need to do to get it to good article status is to make it more readable to people without prior knowledge. And I think I already know mostly how to do that and hope to do so in the next few weeks.

However once it has got past that stage I am thinking of asking the taskforce to look at it from the point of view of commenting to help me make it a useful starting point for other people (not me) who would like to copy and paste it to start similar articles on other countries, especially those which report annually (standard spreadsheets from Annex 1 countries) but are reluctant to clearly explain their emissions in prose. Perhaps this kind of project review is the Wikipedia process of improving an article to "A" class.

Regards

Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Climate system

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Climate system 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 Legobot, on behalf of Jo-Jo Eumerus -- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog Drive Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 2 reviews made a difference, as did your willingness to review particularly old nominations. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Climate system

The article Climate system you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Climate system for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jo-Jo Eumerus -- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A genuinely impressive article. Congrats! —RCraig09 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Global Wwarming and Climate Change Barnstar

	The GW & CC Barnstar
	For being an endless fount of largescale vision and micro-gnomity in the climate pages, and always striving for civil intellectual integrity when dealing with stubborn situations!! And let's not forget creating Climate system and being the main contributor all the way through GA status! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :). Barn stars always give me a big smile! Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Helpful?

Please see User:NewsAndEventsGuy/sandbox#zzz. Questions -

• Did you get a notification? This is a test of {{u}} when that template is used in a user sandbox. My goal is to play with the table in my sandbox and would rather not alert other editors while I am still in a "play around" mode (though if any talk page stalkers learn about it and want to talk, my talk page is always open to you!)
• My idea is to practice WP:OTHERSOPINION at this table, while trying to maintain neutrality and intellectual integrity as though I were an uninvolved editor making a contested closing. As I add any one editor, my plan is to ping that editor and invite them to ask for changes to the table so they are happy with my summary.

Example, @Femkemilene:, I've tried to summarize your views on the proposed rename of climate change to climate change (general concept). At least right now, the summary can be found here. If you disagree with how I summarized your views, please tell me! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Do you think this will help accurately determine WP:Rough consensus and lead to a good closing?
• Two practical matters... First - obviously - the table will only help a closer if the closer knows about it. There is no guarantee a closer will even look at it, but to at least tell a closer about it I will have to add a link somewhere in the main discussion thread. The other practical matter anticipates the questions "Why not put this at article talk?" and the answer is I want to keep it in my userspace so I can exert control over brevity. If users protest about how I write their views in WP:SUMMARY style, they can do so at any venue they like and I will gladly ask for clarification until I comprehend and once I comprehend I will gladly update the table until they agree I did a good job. This depends, of course, on cooperation by all involved.

Your thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

* I did not get a notification. IIRC, pinging only works if you also sign within the edit.

* I don't know enough about closing discussions and the experience to give a well-thought out answer to your question whether this is helpful for the current discussion. It might possibly come over as condescending? Your desire to exert control is understandable, but might lead a closer to suspect bias, even if people have all signed off. But on the other hand a summary with only points relevant to the current discussion is useful.

* The summary behind your name contains the statement that some people want climate change to redirect to climate change (general concept). I have not seen that proposal yet. The three tabled proposals (I think) are 1) redirect to disamb, 2) redirect to global warming and 3) redirect to effects of global warming. If I'm right, I think that's an important detail to have correct in the summary. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to imagine some eds will react negatively. Nonetheless if a closing is poorly done, an appeal would only be worth doing if we made the effort to package it for success, and that means succinctly summarizing the same sort of material. I'm just proposing to do it before the closing, to reduce risk of a poorly done closing and (hopefully) prevent the need for an appeal. But you're right, when people do not think with rigor and are confronted with the lack of rigor they do tend to react negatively. Some might supply new insights in their thingking and others may just take offense. I don't really know any way to avoid this bit of human nature or seek a good closing that doesn't apply these standards. Any advice? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been looking at the appeal system for RM. It seems that most RMs are done quite well, disregarding opinions if they're not well supported. Most appeals fail (as a consequence of good work probably). Before official appeal, a request has to be made to the closer to reassess. Dunno if that happens often and what the outcomes are. This is surely useful for an appeal, but maybe a bit premature for this discussion? I don't know.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion; Over the years I've put way toooooo much time into this particular issue to let yet another effort die from WALLOFTEXT chaos, without taking the procedures all the way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand. The situation in the Dutch wikipedia is even worse. We don't have a word for global warming, but to mimic the English wiki, we just made up a new phrase: warming of the Earth. A 2015 baby step discussion I started on the climate change page was met with denegatring (sexist?) hostility. The atmosphere here is so much better :). If we can solve this, it might quickly go to different languages. (climate system seems to have 2 translations already!). I suspect there is rough consensus now, but I will continue to discuss various solutions (of the narrow problem) with the willing people whose enthusiasms hasn't been kindled if we don't get relisted or it is determined that no consensus has bene reached. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

First pass is done, I know there are gaps and i will work gaps in a future pass. If you see text that is wrong or nuanced incompletely, please let me know! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Do remember for our next step that WP:NOGOODOPTIONS is our friend and that we should not create an impression of even the slightest support for then status quo (redirect to climate change (general concept). I don't see any support for that in the discussion. (But I'm sleeping poorly, so maybe I'm just blind..) Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Alas, sometimes I feel like civil Wikilawyers use WALLOFTEXT and shifting goal posts and VAGUEWAVEs to talk about everything at once to thwart progress. Either they are invested in the status quo or just do recreational stubborness for fun, I don't know. Perhaps I'm in fantasyland, but its my belief the rest of the bunch has tolerated that in the past because the status quo was not great but at least minimally OK. If we can pass the babystep and turn cc into a simple redir, I'm pretty sure it won't remain a simple redir for long.... a proper finding of consensus on the baby step is key to breaking the years-long log jam. But I also don't want to talk about timeframe and do want to keep a firewall between the logic of the baby step and the future redirect discussion. Otherwise, we'll tie ourselves down to the same old do-everything-at-once, and we'll sink the boat. That's why I'm using the expression "For however long the redir simply points at the same text under the new name" and that sort of thing. One babystep at a time! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I updated your entry in the summary table. Please let me know if it needs tweaking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Renaming process idea

Hi Femke. I've been thinking that Wikipedia's WP:RM process is designed to answer the question, "What is the best title for this article?" rather than "Which of two articles that could be at a given title should have priority?". If the current move process stays stuck, a possible way forward is to use WP:Centralized discussion to publicize a WP:Request for comment on the question of which article should have priority for being given the much-prized title of Climate change. The question merits a listing at WP:CENT, which will bring in fresh eyes and a more representative (or at least bigger) sample of the wider community and its readers. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have been anticipating a vigorous PRIMARYTOPIC challenge and an effort on our part to refocus on that specific topic. Let's do the focusing first among current participants. With that under our belt, we can propose in our existing thread to add {{RFC}} to our existing thread, and make another round of manual pointer DIFFS at the likely places such as WP:PROCC, Talk:Global warming, and WP:PUMP. But first let's try to do a succinct focus on PRIMARYTOPIC to see if we can agree among current participants. Also, I am working on a summary table of existing viewpoints. It is in draft form and I will open it for input/challenges in a day or three (after I annotate it with diffs and further content improvements on my own). But if you want to peek, it now has its own page in my userspace at User:NewsAndEventsGuy/CCRM-Table. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm quite happy with the response to our requested move. We not only have climate change regulars, but a lot of outside eyes. I think that some of them have found glaring omissions and inconsistencies in our articles (climatology, climate change (general concept)) itself, that are being addressed simultaneously with the renaming effort. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline (imported cornerstone of RM) does very specifically address the question "which of two articles that could be at a given title should have priority?". Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene, You are an incredible Wikipedian. The community couldn't ask for things to be in better hands. Thanks for all you do! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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 message

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 archived

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!

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)

Seminars

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 luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはFemkemileneたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to recent posting on global warming talk page

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)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN

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 deletion

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 Thunberg

Hello:

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.

Regards,

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)

Your GA nomination of Greta Thunberg

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greta Thunberg 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 Legobot, on behalf of CodexJustin -- CodexJustin (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Femkemilene, you added a comment on the talk page, but it's actually below a new collapsed talk section below the transcluded GA section. Hope it goes well, Esowteric+Talk 20:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not the first time that happened with a mobile edit.. Thanks for notifying! Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work

You are doing an awesome work in the Greta Thunberg article!! Thank you very much! Could you please help with the GT's article in the Spanish Wikipedia? Specially with the section "Controversias y críticas". Javiermes (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Por supuesto. I might not have a lot of time on my hand, with the English GT Good Article review taking place. Might have some time over the weekend. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Climate clock

Hey Femke, I saw you showed interest in the Climate Clock article. Perhaps you can review it and improve it where necessary ? Genetics4good (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Genetics4good, I don't think I can make time for that one, sorry :(. Maybe ask at the Wikiproject? Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greta Thunberg

The article Greta Thunberg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Greta Thunberg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CodexJustin -- CodexJustin (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Climate sensitivity

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Climate sensitivity 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 Legobot, on behalf of Stingray Trainer -- Stingray Trainer (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Climate sensitivity

The article Climate sensitivity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Climate sensitivity for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stingray Trainer -- Stingray Trainer (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Resource?

Thank you for thanking me for my rather dramatic copyedits. It's made me feel much more cheerful about the work. A while ago I re-wrote Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics; I realize you are not a new editor, but if you have any comments on it as a researcher I'd be glad of them. HLHJ (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Climate Change Agenda

How is it that you can edit the page for climate change, and no one else can? Why isn't there anything about how the science is flawed? This article is so biased it makes me sick. This page is pure propaganda. JFKelton (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

JFKelton: a lot of people can and do. The pages are semi-protected because many people like to add false information to them, but any person that has an auto-confirmed account is allowed to edit the page. If you plan to make big changes to the page, it is always best to discuss this first with all the other editors to find consensus. If you propose a change, make sure to use reliable sources, such as scientific articles, scientific reports, high-quality newspapers, university textbooks and so forth. For your question about the 'science being flawed', you might be interested in the FAQ's at Talk:Global_warming. If you feel passionate about the topic, it may be better to first learn editing Wikipedia in less controversial topics. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive

Harrias ^talk 06:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of climate sensitivity

Hello! Your submission of climate sensitivity at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 22:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Climate change

Hi, thank you for reviewing and correcting my edit at Climate#Climate change. What do you think of this edit? Again, please revert if you don't think it helpful. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

For me, the green and red lines are equally dark, and while red is indeed less dark than black, it comes over as odd to me to describe it in that way. I left a message on Efbrazil's page, and they're usually good and fast in responding, so let's go for a figure that is accessible on all pages, instead of improving the caption on only one page. So no red/green lines at all. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Climate sensitivity

On 15 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Climate sensitivity, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that if climate sensitivity is on the high end of scientists' estimates, it may be impossible to achieve the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Climate sensitivity), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tech I found useful for RSI

Hello Femkemilene,

Just noticed your mention of sideways mousing - which is obviously new since I had RSI quite a while ago. Hopefully that will fix it for you but if not you might like to try a headmouse and foot switches. At the time I found a cheap headmouse got too distracted by nearby windows so I had to get a very expensive one - but they may have improved by now. I found it very quick to get used to - unlike voice recognition which took ages to get used to my voice. No need to reply unless you need more info.

Enjoy your break

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. My work is making me get a sort of split and weird keyboard and a joystick type of mouse. We'll see. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Global warming date change

Hi, regarding this edit, you've changed my year edit back to 2006 from 1998 for that cite. I know that https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/98EO00206 shows on the left 2006, but the journal issue shows 1998 on the right hand side and when you click on the PDF link on the line below the 2006 date, it brings up what appears to be a paper scan that shows 1998, so I think the journal has their data wrong and 2006 may be date of first online publication, not original publication date. Or do you have 2006 from another source? Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My bad, corrected back and fixed short-cite the other way around. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on submitting a controversial move from global warming --> climate change

Now that the article is in good shape, I'm thinking maybe we pull the trigger on a "controversial requested move" from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". I'd follow this process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Controversial

In our (long) discussion on the topic, the straight rename was the strongly preferred outcome. See here for the table gauging consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_79

Strong support for the rename was from Efbrazil, Femkemilene, Mu301, EMsmile, Chidgk1, RCraig09, LeviBailey, Gabaix Opposition was only J. Johnson, NAEG

Further, in the past 12 months, the term "climate change" is being searched more than twice as often as "global warming". See: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=global%20warming,climate%20change

Thoughts? --Efbrazil (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm still (mostly) on wikibreak or semiretirement, so until further notice I'm officially in the "no objection to anything" category. That said, if I were active, I'd still favor, in descending order (1) "global warming and climate change" (2) "human-caused climate change" (3, reluctantly)just "climate change". I would be opposed to keeping the status quo just "global warming". I don't know how the rules would technically apply if a decision were made while JJ is on his community sanctions 3 month block, but if I were he and came back to find a change, I'd at least think about complaining over WP:GAMING. We know he has a strong opininion, maintained over years, so I think it would be wise to include him in the process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am also on a wikibreak, as long as I have symptoms of RSI. Voice dictation is about 10 times slower than typing. If a discussion is started, I would probably be stupid and join in any way. Even if I weren't on a wikibreak, I want to get the article into featured shape before anything else. The featured article review process will probably take something like a month and is necessary if we want to get the article on the main page. I further agree with NAEG that we should wait for J. Johnson.Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. It might make sense to change the name before being a featured article though, to make a splash. Is there a work list for getting the article in featured shape? Efbrazil (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Femke, I found that a File:Wrist brace.jpg helps with RSI.

Possibly, the broader participation of an FA review might bring up and hopefully resolve issues such as article naming—a renaming/moving that I agree is needed. Separately: no process should be delayed for months on account of one single editor, especially a delay consciously made out of fear that an editor, banned in part for conduct on this very topic, might subsequently use the proceeding to confirm an ongoing conspiracy theory disputing community consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My wife also has RSI and I used to. She uses a wrist brace when it flares up, but the most important things have been...

A sideways mouse: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FPAVUHC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And a split keyboard: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B004SUIM4E/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_TMZNEbBRYM7W7

Efbrazil (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. I have just bought a new keyboard, a 65 percent one. My mouse already has the option to use it sideways.

I meant to collect all the advise we got for the FA standards. I think the only remaining issue are:

• this sentence about bees may be undue weight
• citation standards (for instance, the use of the ps parameter, which requires a space before the quotes, and all short-cites need to be collected between ref tags.)
• the wording/terminology in the aerosols section is outdated, the terms indirect affects and direct effects have been replaced by clouds effects and radiation effects according to the 2013 IPCC report.

I'm not entirely sure, but maybe governments websites like NASA are not sufficiently reliable. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the name change should come before FA. That's simply because a name change will quite prossibly lead to substantial debate and text changes. Better to do the FA work after all that has settled. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

To make sure the process goes somewhere, we should then immediately go to the formal process. Which means, we'd have to choose which name change we propose. As there was slightly more support for climate change then for the long title, we should try that one first. The formal process usually has a very large participation, so that single user can not dominate the process. I'm still wanting to propose a merge between climate change (general concept) and climate variability into climate variability and change. I think that merge would solve the question of scope, overlap and the ugly name. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I take my leave. I'm not really here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

All good points, thanks! Femke- That merge seems like a great idea as a next step. I have the bandwidth to propose and execute the merge. You happy if I take the lead on it, or would you be too tempted to jump in and aggravate your RSI? Efbrazil (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. I think I can refrain from editing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Efbrazil: I wouldn't mind if we start the name discussion now (or possibly after implementing new mitigation section). I will only contribute marginally, but can point towards previous contributions. I'd like to work more on content, so not that sad if I have to play a secondary role here and come back full force to help the FAR. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good to have you back! I'll look to tackle this when I can dedicate the time, hopefully week after next. Of course if anyone else wants to take the lead before then that'd be great.Efbrazil (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)