User talk:Cremastra

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

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

useless information of the day 😊

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]

Move Hamm to Hamm, North Rhine-Westfalia

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:

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.
As regards 2 and 3: please consider reading WP:At and WP:Ptopic for the relevant guidance.
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]

September 2024 GOCE drive award

		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]

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		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]

Perspiration discussion

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]

@Tobiasi0 Pinging again in case they want to take this further? No pressure, just checking in. Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

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]

Eltham

Similar to Neath, New South Wales Eltham, New South Wales is missing but I did create Draft:Eltham, New South Wales which we could ask to be restored which may be of interest to you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eltham looks good, and I'll see if I can do that next. Thanks. Cremastra (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just requested the draft to be undeleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cheers. Cremastra (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Neath, New South Wales

Hello! Your submission of Neath, New South Wales 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

Book review: The Editors

Humour: The Newspaper Editors

Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your interest in the Knowledge Equity Program. I am writing to invite you to outline a Signpost article on the topic, anywhere from your own views in an opinion piece to a neutral presentation of the publicly available info as a journalistic review.

Ping me if I can support. I can also talk off-wiki by voice or video if that helps to organize. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering writing a short opinion piece for the Signpost. Thanks for your encouragement. (I'd like to keep things on-wiki though, please). Cheers, Cremastra (u — c) 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October thanks

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 22–24 - Discussion phase
October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

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) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

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) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already voted! :) Cremastra (u — c) 00:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech moratorium

Thanks for closing that. May I ask you to add a "Moratorium is in effect until [date]" or somesuch to the closing statement? Counted from end of RM or end of moratorium discussion, whatever you think best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Sure. I had added that to the FAQ, but it makes sense to state it in the close as well. Cremastra (u — c) 20:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That I missed, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Cremastra! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]