Jump to content

User talk:Femke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cute little zebra finch

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
  • Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
    • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
    • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
    • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
  • The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

  • Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LEADCITE

[edit]

Hi Femke, thanks for reviewing my review of a review! You actually responded to my mentorship request when I started which was so helpful to me at the time, so it's ironic in a good way that we are in this situation!

I thought I would split this thread from the GA page to avoid cluttering the review, but I'm interested in your take on WP:LEADCITE. I believe the relevant sentence is "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material", which I always interpreted to mean most uncontroversial statements, such as the ones in Kızılırmak Delta shouldn't have citations. I think this is the interpretation common at GAN, but I'm struggling to find evidence either way. IAWW (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leadcite can definitely do with a bit of a rewrite. The following sentence is more explicit "Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads.". At FAC, you see more people asking for citations to be dropped, but even then, it's not a must, and people successfully argue against it, even in uncontroversial articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'll bear this in mind going forward. Thanks for your input. IAWW (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Signature query

[edit]

Hi @Femke! You left a message on my talk page regarding the contrast of my username signature. I did respond there however I wanted to make sure the new hex I've chosen meets the requirements. This isn't something I have any knowledge of whatsoever, I only wanted to have a earthy colour! I understand you are busy so it is fine if you don't respond, just wanted to know if this new colour is all good! 11WB (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @11wallisb: this looks much more clear, thanks :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Thank you for letting me know about this! 11WB (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

readded Euryalus
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

readded AmandaNP
removed SQL

Oversight changes

readded AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
  • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled rights

[edit]

Hi @Femke

You were kind enough to grant autopatrolled rights a year ago, but it recently expired. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to reset please. I've tried to re-request on the specific page, but apart from someone modifying a double signature, nothing else seems to happen.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look over your new articles over the weekend :). Could you put a working link to your previous request, to remind me why I granted temporary AP? (the link there now is broken) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke
Looking at the responses now on the request page, it appears it was at the request of Dclemens1971.
I'm not looking to bypass the system, so maybe it should take its course.
MartinOjsyork (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

[edit]

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

I've definitely run into you on and off on the project, but not sure we've ever directly said hi. Nice to "meet" you. So it's not lost in the chaos of that Talk page. Any time you think an action of mine has been rendered moot or is otherwise not helping any longer, feel free to adjust. 99% of mine are "let's stop this disruption" and then figure it out wherever it was raised. Even if I disagreed with another admin's change, I would not see it as wheelwarring just a difference of opinion since we all want the same outcome. Have a great weekend. Star Mississippi 14:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you as well after seeing your heroic work at ANI, and thanks for the message. It sounds good to me. I'm not doing a lot of protecting/unprotecting, so want to make sure that it's done right. We've probably reached the territory of full protection being untenable now, but with the RfC not reclosed... Hope you enjoy your weekend away! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a lovely break, thank you
Look forward to working with you, hopefully in a less changing by the moment topic. Star Mississippi 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested assessment

[edit]

Thank you for assessing and closing Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk/Archive_4#RFC_on_name_inclusion. Finding an administrator willing to evaluate such heavily attended RfCs isn't easy. I have to admit I find it hard to go through such RfCs. If you're up to it, there's a similar RfC open at Talk:Killing_of_Iryna_Zarutska#RFC_on_name_inclusion. It's only been open for six days, but there's been only slight motion on it in the last two days. If you don't want to take it onboard, I understand. It's a lot to work through. I don't feel I can do it as I placed a full protection on the article a few days ago, and it feels a bit off for me to do that and close the RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and with ever-decreasing admin numbers, that is not getting better (reminder to myself that I should vet another set of potential candidates). That one seems like a sightlier easier close, so let's see if I can stay awake and alert long enough to close it today. I don't see why combining the full protection and close needs to be a different person, but I understand why you're careful (I was planning to remove full protect from the Charlie Kirk article, but Clover was faster). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not happening tonight, but maybe tomorrow before work. Have made some notes, but too tired to write a good summary. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! I prefer not to be the closer of the RfC in something like this. Just my protection of the article by itself caused incendiary accusations to fly. There's no need for me to add more fuel to that fire. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This one is tougher than I thought, will hopefully finish tonight. P&Gs have annoying ambiguity here, making it more tough to weigh contributions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I think you forgot to sign your close. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 12:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! A mystery closer on that page might not be the best idea .. Have now also reduced protection settings back to ECP, but for a month, which I don't I messed up.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thank you

[edit]

Hi Femke. Thank you for your comment yesterday at RfA Optional Poll ~ i have never known why using "here" as a link marker is discouraged, it has always seemed to me the logical thing to do. Now it's been explained in simple language even i can understand, i will endeavour more earnestly to avoid it. Thanks! ~ LindsayHello 04:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could be of help :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

[edit]

Hi - I saw you listed at WP:RRN, and thought I'd ping. I was an administrator back in 2006 (previous username I could share via email) and had it removed in 2016 due to a pause in my activity here. I've now been back and contributing regulaly for a number of years again. Mostly recent changes patrolling and other efforts. Considering trying for adminship again, and wonding your thoughts on pursuing a nomination. Thanks in advance. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZimZalaBim: excited you want to return to adminship. Of course happy to have a look. I'll try to make some time tomorrow after my weekend away! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied via email about my thoughts, as I always prefer to talk more openly about specifics. One page you might find useful is one on how adminship has changed over time: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Administrators. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

For doing a review and approving Ojsyork's autopatrolled status. Every little bit helps in the NPR queue! I appreciate your being willing to take a closer look. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dclemens1971. I always try to come up with reasons to grant, rather than come up with reasons to decline. We've sometimes been too strict at granting autopatrolled, requiring near perfection from candidates or a really wide range of experience from editors specialising in a certain topic area. Doesn't help the queue. If we really want to start making a bigger difference, we likely should have a monthly report or so with the most avid article creators. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

[edit]

Hi @Femke, I want to let you know I've reverted one or more of your contributions because they do not seem constructive. If you think I made a mistake or have questions, you can leave a message on [[User talk:|my talk page]]. Please note that continued vandalism may lead to restrictions. 45.121.212.189 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't reverted it so far. Which is good, as the sentence I removed was both a bit duplicative with the above 'see also', and an accessibility problem (screen readers hate it when you link the word 'here', as it doesn't give any information about what's behind the link). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question/qpq

[edit]

How are you? I wanted to set up a qpq- if you review the FAC nom of Hunter Schafer, I will give PCOS a full GAN review? HSLover/DWF (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing pretty rough at the moment: got a COVID infection, so only doing low-brain work on Wikipedia. Last two times it took quite a few months to recover, so can't commit to anything at the moment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you get well asap, much faster than these last two times. Also, inform me if PCOS is ever at FA or PR or needs a second opinion on GAN and I'll review it- the only reason I'm not reviewing it now is that it is rather large. HSLover/DWF (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but I did manage to cut it down to under 5,000 words, from its initial 6600. Don't think I'll bring it to FA. In the time to get it through FAC, I might be able to write a GA about net zero or endometriosis, which will serve our readers more than a polishing of PCOS. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a complex topic, makes sense it's big- could probably be expanded way more. Hmm, yeah. There really should be a option for there to be multiple reviewers for a long GA. HSLover/DWF (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Informally, there is. I've done joint reviews during meetups for instance and I imagine you could post on WT:MED to see if someone wants to do a joint review. What I sometimes do is dump comments on talk, and come back later for an actual review if I like the initial collaboration and have more time. You can see someone has already done a first pass of the article on the talk page that way. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Polycystic ovary syndrome is under review

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Polycystic ovary syndrome is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JWB

[edit]

Can you add my name there? Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON I was "RodRabelo7" but got renamed. Thanks, Yacàwotçã (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yacàwotçã , all done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on Special:Contributions/76.69.139.201

[edit]

This one is a longstanding issue; see Special:Contributions/184.147.21.0/24, Special:Contributions/142.126.240.0/20 and Special:Contributions/76.69.0.0/16; I would recommend you revoke TPA. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, @45dogs. All done now. If there's more of this on the range, let me know and I'll ask help from an admin who does understand range blocks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

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

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endometriosis

[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you removed a New Scientist quote regarding Endometriosis. Can I just gently probe the rational here? By way of mostly irrelevant context, in real life I am an immunologist and I think the treatment of Endometriosis in the UK and every other country I've encountered is somewhere between shocking and scandalous. Unfortunately many women will be turning to this article simply due to the poor treatment pathways currently on offer. The Wikipedia entry starts off quite well, but rapidly gets into the some dubious reeds, which I can't really downplay since there is reliable sourcing, and for decades it's really the only set of messaging that can be presented to patients. New Scientist put out a front cover story on Endo a few weeks back, and that was a fantastic development for a condition which is often hidden from public discussion. Underneath that was also probably the first set of genuine breakthroughs in this area in certainly 10 year, maybe 20 years. I thought the quote was useful to highlight that point, and unusually it's rock solid secondary sourcing, where it's difficult to avoid essentially primary sourcing. (The possible linkage with auto-immune conditions has been discussed for over 40 years). So I feel a little sad that the rarest piece of hope, from an ultra reliable source, has been downplayed here. Equally I'm sure there is another side to this? ChrysGalley (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ChrysGalley. Super cool you're working on endometriosis, and you actually know what you're talking about as an immunologist! A lot of the article isn't actually based on what Wikipedia considers reliable sourcing for medical topics. The ideal sources for medical topics are clinical guidelines and review articles that have come out in medical journals in the last five years. You can read more about these in our WP:MEDRS guideline (do give it a read!). So if you encounter a source that's decades (or even a decade) old, and you know the preceding text isn't correct, feel free to delete it.
As for the quote: I mostly deleted it as it had the tone of a press release. It came across as somewhat promotional of their research. In addition, we are typically quite reluctant in Wikipedia to name individuals in broad articles, as the who shouldn't be important. In these articles, we try to find the consensus and significant minority positions, which are both held by large groups of people.
I'd love to write more, but recovering from illness. I can't help in the next couple of weeks, but if you ever want to rewrite more of the endometriosis article, I'd be very glad to help. We have a lot of friendly editors at the medicine WikiProject too who are always keen to help! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am grateful for that reply. Yes, I am very much familiar with the MEDRS guidelines and I though I had gone carefully through them when I added that sub-section. It wasn't a press release, the writer (who is a specialist journalist) had spent something like 3 weeks on the topic. One of my colleagues was interviewed, repeatedly. I would be pretty sure it was a direct and accurate quote from that researcher who has nothing to promote except her team's findings. Hence my (slight) dismay.
I am keeping an eye on Endo, but the text, as it stands, isn't wrong, it just "this is what we feel we have to say since we have so little to offer". The danger is that women, who may have had the shock of their lives with the diagnosis, may go down this old material. It's just a matter of emphasis (so subjective), given how dreadful the clinical pathways are for this condition. Hence I was trying to redress this emphasis a bit via the New Scientist piece, after much thought and consideration of MEDRS.
By current NHS definitions this area isn't one where I can formally say I know what I'm talking about, since Endo is currently regarded as (mainly) belonging to gynaecologists. Hopefully the developments of the last year or so will move the condition more into the auto-immune/auto-inflammatory sphere, or even genetics, for everyone's benefit. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endo has been the token underfunded women's health issue for so long that I had expected the literature to have caught up more. You would think that it may be difficult to fix the structural issue of gender bias in funding (see this article), but that the poster child see a funding boost.. Not a great journal, but there is also the connection with me/cfs, in terms of the immune system: [1]
Typically, we're looking for review papers on scientific journals for medrs. I was kindly told off recently for including a news article from the Nature journal in our air pollution when talking about the link to dementia, as these news articles are not peer reviewed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't me started on the underfunding! If you ask 100 people to name chronic conditions, the only people who will name Endo will be anyone who has it (and maybe not even then), whereas with around 5 million women affected in the UK it's something like 15 or 20 times more prevalent than Parkinson's. And I should point out that I'm male. The peer review thing on sources like Nature / New Scientist / genuine broadsheet science journalists is interesting and perhaps silly. Peer review is needed in specific circumstances, and is not infallible, whereas almost anything that comes out of Nature is going to qualify for Wikipedia's broad philosophies. It's just up to half decent editors to leave out anything fringe-like and to project conservatively.
The same new processes on Endo are - I am almost certain - going to have an transformative application on ME/CFS. The linkages are starting to emerge - unfortunately Wikipedia:Too soon but hopefully we can dispense with some of the semi-witchcraft that ME/CFS quite cruelly attracts. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misti

[edit]

Greetings. I was wondering if you had some time to look over Misti and see if the issues in the past FAC review had been mitigated or resolved, since I remember you being one of the editors who raised them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a bit too much on my plate Wikipedia-wise at the moment, while still recovering from a COVID infection. Contentwise, that means I'd like to focus more on energy and women's health articles at the moment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Femke. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Femke&oldid=1319684218"