User talk:Cremastra

This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let them know if they did something wrong.

Hi Cremastra! Thank you for your help at CFD, sincerely. Every little bit helps!

I was wondering if you are aware of User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/CFDlister.js? It is a very handy tool: It makes it easy to add discussions you closed to WT:CFDW, where admins can make use of a bot to do the leg work for you. You are, of course, welcome to continue doing things manually—but I would feel bad if I neglected to mention this life-changing script :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was vaguely aware of it, thanks. I still prefer to do it manually if I'm able to; using Cat-a-lot is frankly fun, and I figure there's no need to create work for the bot if I'm able to merge it manually. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
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) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for closing the RM, but please also close the associated § Proposed moratorium discussion. Preferably, you would've closed it as part of the larger RM, but since you did not do so, please close it separately or amend your close. (Please note that if you do find consensus for a moratorium but no consensus for a specific timeframe, you should perform a WP:BARTENDER close.) Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: I was under the impression that the moratorium discussion was basically independent and should be closed separately. But if a close from me is necessary, I will do it shortly. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Not to rush you, but is this close still forthcoming? If you are unable to close this, that's OK, just let me know and I can make a request at WP:RFCL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was waiting for a confirmation that a close is necessary. To be totally honest, I don't really want to close the sub-discussion; I'd rather leave it to a more experienced closer or admin (RMs I'm used to, but more general RfC-like things I'm not). I've made a request at CR. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Half Barnstar

This barnstar is given to Cremastra and Timrollpickering for jointly taking care of the category moves from Category:Fair use Analog Science Fiction and Fact magazine covers to Category:Non-free Analog Science Fiction and Fact magazine covers and Category:Fair use images of video game posters to Category:Non-free images of video game posters. Thank you, both :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in September! - Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Femke. :) Cremastra (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that your nickname, in Greek, means hanger? Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pallikari No, I didn't! Interesting... I picked it from Cremastra because I liked the way it sounded. :) Cremastra (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about this plant!!! Nice to meet you... Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 00:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this move was not in the best interest of Wikipedia: 1. The City Hamm is by far the largest and most important muncipality or community with this name, the City does not use any additions to the official name.

2. There are at least another three, in numbers 3 places within North Rhine-Westpalia called Hamm and another 10 in Germany as far as i know of, so by creating a Lemma with "Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia" the Lemma became less correct as it was in the first place.

3. Many people have names deriving from their families places of origin, that should not be a reason to move a near 800 year old city with 180.000 inhabitants to a simply wrong Lemma.

I would suggest to reconsider the move alone by the said above reasons, but i would like you to think of this peace of mind, you surely would not move "London" to "London, Great Britain" or any other region that might fit more or less because their are several other smaler less important places in the World with the same name or at that because their are people living or dead with the surname "London" like for instance Micheal London, would you? No, you would most certainly not, i think you would make a note template in the article like the one there is in the Lemma London stating:"This article is about the capital city of England and the United Kingdom. For other uses, see London (disambiguation)." That would have been the most proper way to deal with the proposal for moving the Lemma to such a wrong Lemma, so please reconsider the move you approved.

As i'am a more or less inactive author by now, in the german and english wikipedia, i haven't noticed this move by know, otherwise i would have strongly opposed it.

Yours sincerely Gabriel-Royce (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel-Royce, in response to your points:

1. Please see the requested move discussion. I moved it according to my interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. If you think my interpretation of consensus was wrong, you are welcome to start a move review. This move was not my own personal decision, it was the implementation of consensus. I honestly don't care very much either way, I was just closing the discussion.
2. As regards 2 and 3: please consider reading WP:At and WP:Ptopic for the relevant guidance.
3. you surely would not move "London" to "London, Great Britain" of course not. Again, please see our policies on article titling and primary topics.

In short: this was not my own move, as you seem to be assuming, it was just my implementation of consensus. I want to make that clear, because otherwise we'll be talking past each other. My move, was, I believe, in line with Wikipedia's article titling policies.

Since the requested move discussion is now closed, you can start a move review if you disagree with my close. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Cremastra for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Cremastra for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cremastra (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cremastra,

You recently closed the discussion about whether the current article of perspiration should retain its title or be moved to 'sweat'. You closed the discussion with 'no consensus', which I respectfully disagree with. When counting everyone, including those who didn't directly choose a side, the result was evenly split at 50/50. However, WP:RMCI requires an evaluation of the arguments, so let's briefly review them: The opposers stated that they prefer one term to describes both the fluid and the process, and they rejected 'sweat' as too ambiguous, because it can also have several meanings based on its context. They also felt that 'perspiration' sounded more encyclopedic in line with WP:TONE to them. On the other hand, the supporters referred WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MEDTITLE, backed by Google Ngram, and argued for specifying the article either to the fluid or the process and not both at the same time, and aligning it with other articles that bear similar titles like 'sweat gland' and 'night sweats'. The deciding point is in my opinion the more personal feeling in contrast with clear rules and statistics.

Maybe you can explain your thinking. If you prefer not to change the decision, I would accept that and proceed with a move review unless you have another or better idea. –Tobias (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobiasi0 I'm a little busy right now, but I'll reply to this soon in full. Basically, I feel that the ambiguity argument is actually just as good as the MEDTITLE-based one – note that the article discusses both in the lead: is the fluid secreted by and In humans, sweating is primarily...

However, I am willing to re-think this close, so no need to take it to move review just yet. I'll get back to you in a bit. (If you don't get a further response in the next couple days, you're welcome take it to MR.) Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident in my close. You are welcome to proceed with a move review so that this can be subject to wider discussion/scrutiny. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

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) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]