User talk:Cremastra

Cremastra is out of town and may not respond to queries.

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

Hey, I see that you swapped hooks for July 4 at OTD, even though I already swapped them for 2025. Was there a reason why you didn't want to use that set? Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Nope, it was just that my brain was apparently on holiday at the time. Thanks for catching that; I've reverted back to your version, although I'll add the Starmer hook to the notes. Cremastra (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this close was a WP:BADNAC. The rationale for closure states that "Thus, opposing comments which apparently misunderstood the intent of the move and objected to Mangione being the primary topic were given considerably less weight, as they are not pertinent to this RM." First of all, the move was based on Luigi Mangione being a potential primary topic, something that was noted as incorrect by people in the discussion. However, multiple oppose !votes mentioned Mangione to refute the initial nominator but also added that the discussion was not in fact about Mangione but the name in general. It is not clear whether these were also ignored. The closing rationale also refers to the argument of User:Joy that this is not the best-known Luigi, but all of the presented articles, such as Luigi Pirandello, run afoul of WP:PTM. Overall, I believe this is a "no consensus" closure, as there is no agreement either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that does not run afoul of WP:PTM. We've had this discussion probably dozens of times already, and repeating this claim that readers don't look for people under their own names is still contradicted by many known examples (like the recent Tito, Charlotte, Orlando).

Also, I've explicitly said that the character is possibly the best-known individual Luigi (but that it doesn't matter as much as one might assume), so the above seems to be a basic misreading of my argument.

The matter of Mangione ostensibly muddies the water, but any closer needs to be able to discern that in the discussion, the original proposer clarified their mention of Mangione within the first few days, and they were not subsequently contradicted by further arguments, beyond a few assertions and opinions.

The idea that the WP:CLOSE process was not observed appropriately here would be much easier to ponder if this complaint didn't make this many claims that should be discarded per WP:CLOSE.

On related note, a possible procedural issue that I looked at here is that Cremastra did not address Thomasfan1000's idea to move the general disambiguation page to Luigi. This was an idea brought up late, in response to a comment by Zxcvbnm, and didn't get explicit traction. It might have been another compromise worth exploring, maybe by making a note about it and extending the discussion period a bit longer. Nevertheless, as there was no traction after that comment on June 21, and two other supports came in on 22 and 26, it was still within the conventional parameters of RM closer behavior to disregard it, as an idea that never went anywhere.

AFAICT Cremastra applied WP:RMNAC well here. After the change at Luigi, we'll be able to better measure to what extent readers engage with these articles in this particular case, and have a new RM in a few months time based on hopefully better data. WP:Consensus is a process of compromise that depends on the quality of arguments, and having more measurements will hopefully help that quality.

So overall this kind of a closure is a positive development that we should encourage. We should not dissuade it by arguing with closers who did nothing wrong. --Joy (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that Luigi Mangione was the primary topic for "Luigi", because, as you point out, that's a PTM. Mangione was used as an example of Luigi (given name) being the primary topic here. Some !voters didn't understand that, despite the nom's clarification. Cremastra (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand it. If Mangione and all the other Luigis are only partial title matches, how do they add up to primacy for their given name? What's the logic here? Mangione was used as an example of Luigi (given name) being the primary topic here. That makes no sense. A single person named Luigi is not an example of any such thing. And note that Joy does not agree with you about PTMs. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Luigi (character) § Requested move 13 June 2025

@Srnec: Because as various voters put it, the first name is very common in real life; it's frankly laughable that this very common name would be supplanted by a video game character. Very definitely not the primary topic by long-term significance Mangione is mentioned as an example of why the real life given name should be given precedence over the video game character. I do not mean to suggest (nor, I think, does anyone) that Luigi Mangione is actually the primary topic for "Luigi"; his popularity is merely evidence that the widely used and common given name is the primary topic here and has more long-term significance than the video game character. Joy does not have to agree with me on PTMs because we are not part of "pro" and "anti" blocs here. I see where the confusion is coming from, though. The base point here is in my closing statement: Supporters presented the argument that Luigi is a common first name and has more long-time significance, while the character is not the primary topic, given the evidence of pageviews and the reader navigation chart at wikinav.

This is like if there was a moderately well-known fictional character known simply as "Andrew". It is still clear that Andrew is the primary topic because of the countless people named David Andrew, who add up to give the name more long-term significance and make it the primary topic. Cremastra (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt mention the longterm significance criterion here, but your explanation is essentially overruling the character's pageview primacy by invoking the name Luigi's longterm significance. I think this would actually make sense and be fully correct if Luigi was a complete article in the same style as Spencer (surname). The problem is that its current state as a disambiguation page masquerading as a set-index list was ignored to make this decision, and there is the assumption that the article is inherently notable. In reality, it was split from the DAB page with no discussion as far as I'm aware. This split has caused a great deal of debate and confusion.

Tl;dr, your decision would be correct if the Luigi name article should reasonably exist; but I don't think it should. I think an AfD of the article should clear up whether it should even be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. WP:NAMEPAGE informs us we can have both articles about the name itself and index articles listing people with the name. Cremastra (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created another move discussion at Talk:Luigi as I have changed my mind about the deletion after doing some further research, and believe a move would be a better option, which may render this whole thing moot. You are welcome to state your opinion there as to whether it should be moved to List of people with the given name Luigi instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

कृपया इसे न हटाएं। तारानाथ परमहंस एक महान काली उपासक और तंत्र विद्या के जीते जगते उदाहरण थे। --TARANATH PARAMHANS ( JOYGURU) (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not responsible for requesting the deletion of your userpage. Also, this is the English encyclopedia. Please ONLY write in English on this website, so that we can actually talk to you. If you want to go to the Hindi Wikipedia, go to hi.wikipedia.org.

मैं आपके उपयोगकर्ता पृष्ठ को हटाने के अनुरोध के लिए जिम्मेदार नहीं था। साथ ही, यह अंग्रेजी विश्वकोश है। कृपया इस वेबसाइट पर केवल अंग्रेजी में लिखें, ताकि हम वास्तव में आपसे बात कर सकें। यदि आप हिंदी विकिपीडिया पर जाना चाहते हैं, तो hi.wikipedia.org पर जाएँ। Cremastra (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: UrielAcosta, who correctly tagged your userpage for speedy deletion. Cremastra (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cremastra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ctenodiscus crispatus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

হ্যালো --রিদায় (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For me to help you, you'll have to communicate in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. If you want to edit in Bengali, you can make your way to the Bengali Wikipedia. Thank you. Cremastra (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are well. You removed my comment on the talk page of Mario under the requested moves section. I believe you had no right to do so, however in order to avoid making the talk page messy, I thought I would write here instead. After your removal I looked at the personal attack section in order to see if my comments fell under the category. I do not believe that it does. I will list all type of comments deemed unacceptable in accordance to the clear guidelines:

1. Abuse based on gender, sexuality, race etc - the comment clearly does not fall under this

2. speculation regarding real life affiliations - again no

3. Political views - clearly not

4. Linking to external sources - no

5. Comparing editors to terrorism, dictators, etc - no

6. Threats of legal action, violence etc - no

Whilst I understand that this list is not exhaustive, which it clearly states, my comment as follows was: "If you find that amusing maybe you should find something more productive to do with your time. I see you have over 150,000 edits. Perhaps you should focus less on the quantity and more on quality of your argument."

I agree telling someone to focus less on the quantity rather than quality of your arguments can definitely be seen as a petty on my part but to call it a personal attack seems rather ridiculous. If I wanted to do the same I could claim the same editor calling me "emotional" above my comment is deemed a personal attack. I would also like to point out that the same editor has commented over 25 times on the requested move which I don't think should be allowed - but that is a separate issue.

Lastly according to the section on removal of personal attacks it says only the most serious types of attacks including outing should be removed. I think we can both agree this is not one of those cases. Even if you disregard all of my previous points the guidelines seem relatively clear on this.

Due for the reasons above I have reinstated my edit. Jasp7676 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least two other editors have interpreted it a personal attack. You chose to point out that the user has over 150K edits and then used that to suggest that the other editor is bad at forming an argument. ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack but is picking out that they have 150,000 edits and making that the basis of your insult. I am following the spirit of the policy if not the precise wording. Please comment on content, not contributors; this was an ad hominem attack and should not have been restored. Cremastra (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that's an insufficient and unsatisfactory response to you removing my comments. Claiming to follow the "spirit of the policy" on the basis of the "ad hominem attack" is a weak argument. "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." In what sense is this possibly a clear cut case? Also the context as to why I used the 150,000 edits as an example is because the editor had made over 25+ edits on the page which is clearly excessive, an important point which no one else seems to have raised. WP:NOTCENSORED Jasp7676 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable This is a clear cut case because you attacked another editor on the basis of a personal characteristic. WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to mainspace. I invite you to read WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Cremastra (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be serious - a personal characteristic?! I would really like you to take the time to read the comment again.

The comment reads: "If you find that amusing maybe you should find something more productive to do with your time. I see you have over 150,000 edits. Perhaps you should focus less on the quantity and more on quality of your argument."

This is utterly ridiculous. Are you seriously trying to suggest that having 150,000 edits is a personal characteristic in the same way as race, sexism, or nationality. I am genuinely shocked at this level of discourse that a 3 sentence comment, in which none of it is an insult in the slightest, is removed by another editor on the grounds of being a personal attack. I considered not bothering to take any action but your responses have amazed me. This is completely unacceptable and as the user themself didn't bother to take down the comment within 4 days or message me asking to take it down, I have restored it. I have no interest in carrying out an edit war or commenting further on this topic so therefore I will not be taking any further action. I really hope you respect my decision, genuinely think about whether this is really a personal attack, and leave it in place. Many thanks, Jasp7676 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least three editors have interpreted it as a personal attack. It certainly does not advance any argument that you made regarding the move itself. You are being disruptive. Drop the stick now. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so intent on having this comment restored? This is a relatively mild ad hominem attack compared to an attack on race, sexuality, or nationality, but it is still a personal attack and most certainly an insult. I am pleased you will not be edit warring about this. I thought genuinely as to whether this was a PA when I chose to redact it, and again when you asked about it on my talk page. Cremastra (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am one of the editors that interpreted the comment as a personal attack. I'd like to say that this comment is most likely an attempt to game the system, specifically by playing policies against each other. (Wikipedia is not censored vs. No personal attacks.) 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comment in question was any worse than Joy's comment that provoked it: Perhaps it's better that we don't approach this with such emotional language. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2025 (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/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• July 9–15 - Call for candidates
• July 18–22 - Discussion phase
• July 23–29 - 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 familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, 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 seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus 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.

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) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cremastra (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Cremastra (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few more days to get your nomination in there... :) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination of myself? I appreciate the encouragemnt, but this discussion has shut the door on that for now. Cremastra (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cremastra. Just wanna ask: you have page mover rights, right?

I just want to request an uncontroversial page move: can you move Talk:ENA: Dream BBQ/Archive 2 to Talk:ENA: Dream BBQ/Archive N, then move it back to the former without leaving a redirect? Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it, yes. If you want Archive N deleted, though, it's probably more straightforward (and orthodox) to tag it with G6 or G7. Cremastra (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could tag it with both. If speedy deletion is rejected, we'll just do the move. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged the redirect with both speedy deletion criteria. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive N just got deleted, an advanced page move is now unnecessary. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 22:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]