User talk:Cremastra

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

On 22 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schoenoplectus triqueter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Schoenoplectus triqueter (pictured) can grow up to 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) tall on stems less than half a centimetre (0.20 in) wide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schoenoplectus triqueter. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Schoenoplectus triqueter), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cremastra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2024 American strikes in Iraq, 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) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations page, #545. I was panicky that I would soon run out of nominations. I saw your valid nomination (that was basically put on hold at the time) and decided to implement it. I will update the information later today. I hope this meets with your approval and nothing has changed except the passage of time. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks. Cremastra (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 9 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this cookie. Thanks for helping out!

Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Cremastra (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your revert, I'd ask you to reconsider my total. Yes, it was still June 30 in my local time. I was unaware that it was UTC. The drive instructions did not indicate that (although, I guess it could be argued that I should have known that). Most of the points taken off in that edit were actually completed prior to the UTC time, they just weren't added to the total prior. More importantly, I pushed really hard to make the 2000 point goal, which in my mind was actually accomplished - I started the drive on local time and completed it the same. It may sound whiny to complain over a stupid barnstar, but the fact is that it was a goal - and one I really worked hard for. Drives are supposed to be fun. Setting a goal, achieving it and having it taken away on a technicality makes it not fun (and makes it less likely I'll participate at that level of effort in another one.) ButlerBlog (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your re-add of these. Thanks for the reconsideration. I hope I didn't come across as too curmudgeonly or whiny above. BTW, I made sure to have my timestamp settings display UTC from here on out. I'm not sure why I didn't have it that way before, but I do now for going forward. Anyway, thank you again and I appreciate it. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Cremastra (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cremastra, you replaced an orignial barnstar. Original barnstars are never replaced, only new versions can be added if there is none present. This particular barnstar template already has one, though not the greatest, this template can't be touched. Seek consensus to replace it @Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism, thank you. Jerium (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I was just following the info at WP:WPWPA Cremastra (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. - Could you update the WP:QAI with your curent name, perhaps? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cremastra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2024 American strikes in Iraq".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a brief reply to your comment, but I assume that you will want a longer explanation, so here's a start. First, from the GNG:

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
  • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

I think the reference to NOR is confusing, but my past efforts to re-write it (not to change it, just to decrease the confusion) haven't worked. The usual example is that you can't SYNTH two tweets ("I'm in city" and "I got married today") to result in "He got married in city today". But it's really the rest of the definition that matters:

• SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Obviously, an autobiography will "address the topic" of its author "directly and in detail".
• SIGCOV "is more than a trivial mention". An autobiography is "more than a trivial mention" of its author.
• The author needn't "be the main topic of the source material", but it is.
• A "book-length history of" the subject (any subject) "is plainly non-trivial coverage of" that subject. That is, if someone's written an entire book about a subject, we have achieved SIGCOV for that subject.
• A single sentence, on the other hand, is a trivial mention and not SIGCOV.

There is nothing in SIGCOV that's about who wrote it, who published it, whether it's primary or secondary, etc. The reason that the GNG wants "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", instead of just saying that "SIGCOV" and stopping is because you need SIGCOV+RS+INDY, and not merely SIGCOV alone. SIGCOV gives you a volume of information to work with. SIGCOV does not give you anything except volume, and volume alone isn't enough. Ergo, RS and INDY are additional requirements. If SIGCOV included those other factors, then we would consider naming them separately to be a pointless redundancy, and we would have left them out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I see. Thank-you for taking the time to write out an explanation to me. I was (quite foolishly) conflating WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed them from both Crystallography and Alloy. The tag does not indicate that the article is not notable, it indicates that it needs sources. Both very definitely do, there are expanses of unsourced statements. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. You are using the wrong tag, please use {{more sources needed}}. Cremastra (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one is OK but not the best; removing the tag was not. It is not as good as I know sources exist, but it would take time to search out all the best ones including page numbers (as many would be textbooks). The tag you are using would be appropriate if there might or might not be sources, i.e. for OR. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So as far as I understand, you want a tag that says "there are sources that can be used to expand this article"? In that case, {{refideas}} is your answer. Unless you have concerns about the notability of the topic, and I think you don't, then please don't use {{sources exist}} because it is miscommunicating what you are trying to say. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is not what I mean at all, the text that {{sources exist}} shows is exactly what I want. As an illustration take from Crystallography#Materials science

Crystallography is used by materials scientists to characterize different materials. In single crystals, the effects of the crystalline arrangement of atoms is often easy to see macroscopically because the natural shapes of crystals reflect the atomic structure. In addition, physical properties are often controlled by crystalline defects. The understanding of crystal structures is an important prerequisite for understanding crystallographic defects. Most materials do not occur as a single crystal, but are poly-crystalline in nature (they exist as an aggregate of small crystals with different orientations). As such, powder diffraction techniques, which take diffraction patterns of samples with a large number of crystals, play an important role in structural determination.

Every sentence is a true statement, but there is not a single source for any of them. Rather than going through and adding ^{[citation needed]} everywhere the whole article needs them. For certain {{refideas}} would be inappropriate. It is not "please add from this list" it is "almost everything needs a source, they exist but are not being used".

As I find time I have been adding here and elsewhere that lie within my expertise, but it takes time. In some cases such as Electron microscope I have been able to enlist others to help. If you are help to please do, that is what the tag is for. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for all your work; you certainly have the subject expertise that I don't.

Based on your description above, {{more sources needed}} is what you need, not {{refideas}}. Sorry for the misunderstanding – but {{sources exist}} is, I assure you, the wrong tag, because it turns it into a notability issue. You can ask at WP:HD, but they'll give you the same answer there. Cremastra (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If it does get flagged as a notability issue then I will suggest changing the text that is printed. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]