User talk:Ucucha/Archive12

Archives

Leave a new message

Zoli and the pelicans[edit]

Now you can see the right link, I missed one letter... --Eino81 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying at T:TDYK. Ucucha 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dash script[edit]

Hi Ucucha. I've long admired the dash script that editors sometimes run to fix the dashes throughout an article. I've been coding the dashes by hand for years, which works OK but is slow. Can you tell me if the script is generally available and, if so, where it lives? I'm assuming it's something I could add to my javascript monobook. Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is User:GregU/dashes.js; you can add it to your monobook with the line:

importScript('User:GregU/dashes.js'); //[[User:GregU/dashes.js]];

I agree it's a great tool (although it sometimes catches false positives: I always check through the edits it makes). Ucucha 19:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've downloaded and installed it, and I'll watch out for false positives. Finetooth (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! The false positives are usually things with hyphens correctly in them that the script corrects to dashes (phone numbers like 617 123-4567, immigration form 1-51). Neither occurs (or should occur) very commonly in an article. Ucucha 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Finetooth (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin behavior[edit]

I think your admin behavior was civil and although I do not agree with the conclusion, you were not totally one sided. However, there are two issues:

How do I dispute the ranges in the map being less than representative? I would like to put a NPOV tag on the map for the 5 ranges give a distorted picture in my view. Can that be done?

How do I complain about the behavior of Fut. Perf. as an admin, said behavior havingbeen compared to NorthKorea by another user.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comment at File talk:Catholicpopulationsnew 2.png that your concerns were without merit; by now, three other users have said the same. I do not and cannot know what your motives were in bringing up this issue, but on their face they appear frivolous, and I do not think Future Perfect's warning was as inappropriate as you think it was.

I am not sure who compared Future Perfect to a North Korean judge, and on what grounds; your statement currently cannot be verified. Nevertheless, this is the fourth place where you bring up this comparison, and I would like you to consider how appropriate that is, bearing in mind our policy on civility and personal attacks. As for the best way to complain about his behavior, you already know the way to ANI, and I am sure people there will consider your complaint on its merits. Edit: I now see that that wording probably referred to the comment on your talk page by Suomi Finland 2009, who however did not directly compare Fut. Perf.'s behavior to that of North Korean judges.

Although your original complaint about the map was baseless, there may still be problems with it. A map that has 10% instead of 20% ranges would probably be preferable, and I am not yet convinced that the source it cites is reliable for Wikipedia purposes—it appears to rely on the Church's own data, thus using primary sources. Ucucha 20:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC) & 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues:

As you noted, the North Korea comparison was made on my talk page by another user. It is strange that NO ONE tells the other user not to use the words fraud/lie etc. and lectures me. I do feel like being in a world with less than adequate judicial system.

Could you please state and reflect what you said about reliable sources and ranges on the file page as well. Ithink your comment is fully valid.

History2007 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This North Korean judge strongly objects to having his true identity bandied about like this in, by now, five locations ([1] 2.png&diff=prev&oldid=344073177 [2] [3] [4]). If this goes on, I shall appeal to my admin cabal to intervene. 한국에서 악마의 심판 ☼ 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think admin rights are a joke? History2007 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have used the words PMAnderson used (diffs: [5], 2.png&diff=prev&oldid=343847317, and one at Talk:Catholic Church with the words "academic fraud" that I can't find now), but at all times he referred to your actions and he used words that, while strong, accurately described your edits as far as I can see. See WP:DR for a list of places where you can go with your complaints.

I have notified PMAnderson and Future Perfect of this discussion and would like to hear what they have to say before going back to the file page with my comments.

(Added after edit conflicts.) Future Perfect, I fully agree that it is inappropriate for History2007 to use that North Korea analogy everywhere. History2007, the appropriate response to some comments is ridicule. Ucucha 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea was not in my mind until someone else used it. He used the analogy first, and I do feel he was right. I had absolutely no intention of fraud in the discussion of the map and the accusation was unjustified. I still think the map's accuracy is unknown. You may disagree but fraud is too far. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such analogies, even if they are right (I don't think they are here), are rarely productive; they only serve to inflame a discussion. Please refrain from using them.

I'll stop discussing PMAnderson's comments now, as we're not getting any further with that. Ucucha 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly unhappy about the admin attitude of Future Perfect. Are you suggesting that in the Wikipedia world of justice the decisions of Judges (Korean or otherwise) should not or can not be questioned? Is an admin, once elected, subject to no laws? I would like to pick that up Mr Wales if necessary. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you come to the impression that I am suggesting that. "Law" is not a word we often use on Wikipedia, but admins certainly are not above the "law", as the list on WP:FORMER will tell you. Ucucha 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was useful info. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move "Ancient Pueblo People" -> "Anasazi"[edit]

Although you're an administrator I have to remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy. You cannot count votes to determine the result of a discussion. Please read that page move discussion on Talk:Ancient Pueblo Peoples! There is no justification for having this article named Ancient Pueblo People, because this name is purely conjectural. The scientific name of that culture is "Anasazi". Compare "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" and "Anasazi" on Google Scholar. This whole discussion is ridicilous, and it is a shame for Wikipedia that someone was able to move that page initially from "Anasazi" to "Ancient Pueblo Peoples". --bender235 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus. To move that page, consensus should have been achieved to move it, and I couldn't find such a consensus—you were the only one arguing in favor of the move. It is true that some of the arguments against were weak (like WBaldwin's comments about Google Scholar), which is why I closed the request as "No consensus" rather than "Not moved". Ucucha 23:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was the only one in this discussion because that article is not frequently visited. But if you look at the talk page, you see a number of people complaining about that wrong name of the article, and it have always been people like WBaldwin to reply with bogus arguments. It's really sad that no one else wanted to participate in this discussion. I even filed a third opinion request... --bender235 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can try again in a few months, and use other venues for notifying people, like requests for comment and relevant WikiProjects. Ucucha 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re reversion of edits[edit]

I am not contesting your reversion of the link url changes I made, but I did not understand your edit summary. Could you please elaborate for my benefit how the web sites want us to link there and why thats bad? Checklinks says that green links are liable to deteriorate over time. AshLin (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links belong to the AMNH and Elsevier. The AMNH page explicitly tells us to cite the page using the hdl.handle.net URL I used. The ScienceDirect URLs you used look a lot more likely to deteriorate (linkchecker calls them "crufty"), and I think the "linkinghub" part of the URL suggests that is where Elsevier wants links to go. It really doesn't matter much—the links are merely a courtesy, as the references are to actual paper journals—but I prefer to use the URLs the publisher itself seems to prefer. Ucucha 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. AshLin (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bowhead whale[edit]

I've closed the WP:RM as Move. I will now start deleting the target pages - If you are available, you can start moving the pages - if not I will move them once I done all the deletions. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might do some, but have a few other things to do. By the way, you don't need to separately delete the target pages, you can just move and then tick the "Yes, delete this page" box after checking the history of the redirect. It's a pain when the redirect has a talk page, because then you have to first delete that redirect or move the talk page separately. Ucucha 23:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to work on it now. I'll be going up from the bottom of the list; I take it you're probably going down from the top. Ucucha 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, started at top Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have met in the middle. Thanks for the help. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're done moving. Xqbot will have a nice job fixing all the double redirects. I'll post a notice at the project talk that people will have to fix all the articles to use sentence case, and might do a few myself.

Thanks for volunteering to close this! Ucucha 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetpotato bug[edit]

Thank you for your help there. :) I'm way out of my field! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, don't know much about insects. I also commented at the DYK nominations page. Ucucha 16:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse/rat[edit]

Someone I am apparently having a conflict with felt the need to leave this below your mouse/rat link. As an admin, do you feel the need to look into this? Or should I go to some appropriate board? The edits involve Langerado. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already brought it up at ANI and another admin has semi-protected the article. The guy has some serious problems with civility, reliable sources, BLP, OWN, and probably a few other pieces of alphabet soup. Unfortunately, it's probably difficult to block him, since he uses several IPs and it's probably not a good idea to block the entire University of Miami. I'll keep an eye out on the article and you should of course feel free to remove that piece from him from your talk. Ucucha 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you. Yes, I meant to leave you a note or remove this after I went to ANI, but had to run off to class--for Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Fascinating stuff! Drmies (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is; I read it in class last semester. Now they make me read things like "The Yellow Wallpaper". Ucucha 12:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roystonea regia[edit]

Thanks for fixing the taxobox. I just noticed that it had broken, and was trying to figure out which edit had broken it when, magically, it was fixed! :) Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it also took me some time to figure it out. This did it. It was due to {{Taxobox colour}} not accepting "[[Plant|Plantae]]", but that seems wrong, so the old revisions are now also magically fixed. :) Ucucha 13:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your featured and good articles and DYKs, and for Noronha skink; also for helping me out. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of DYKs and other contributions is amazing! Would you mind if I turned your list of interesting facts about the rice rats and suchlike into something like my more modest list (User:Innotata#DYKs)? I hope I can do the same as you for the freshwater whitefish, as far as DYKs goes, bit I probably won't, simply since I'm such a slow typer. Oh, and here's another thing I need help on: I can't find out who wrote the section(s) of MSW3 containing squirrels. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate it—it's always good to read that others are interested in my obscure-rat articles. I've considered making such a list, but was too lazy to dig up all the hooks. If you like to do that, feel free to. Good luck on the freshwater whitefishes; I see you've already written a few interesting articles there. And Thorington and Hoffmann produced MSW 3 on squirrels (or sciurids). Ucucha 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now at User:Innotata/Sandbox. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I'll move it to my page. But first there's a DYK update to do. Ucucha 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now, and also transcluded at my user page. It's looking great; I also added the pictured images. Ucucha 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the RM for Kraków[edit]

You concluded that "The result of the move request was: No consensus for moving to Krakow. If moving to Cracow is desired, please start another requested move." What did you use to assess that there was no consensus, please explain using the section WP:UE of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy how you came to that conclusion, or did you just count votes without weighing the evidence? -- PBS (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were people (like Atemperman) who argued that the accented version is in fact the common English name used in the most reputable sources, such as Britannica. Others preferred raw Google counts, which favor the non-accented version. I cannot seen in the discussion any consensus for one position or the other. Ucucha 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beckii Cruel[edit]

On 19 February, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beckii Cruel, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Indonesia[edit]

I remember I used to pester transhumanist about why did you start that when we already had a list but understood that it was a project to have consistent outlines throughout wp - I always thought it was ridiculously idealistsic as some country projects have such dissimilar subject coverage - so the lists lived in parallel idiocy for a while. I have asked some of the involved to take the talk to the project (and it will not be a 7 day limit thank you very much....:) - it might draw out a bit - as some of the more reliable eds in the WP Indonesia take time to respond - and I would argue this is not to be rushed - forks, spoons or whatever in consideration - we no longer have the style of editor on the project who is gifted with the attention span or available time to fix the issue - and I personally see no benefit in redirecting - and I even see the severe limitations of the 'list' as it is - you might wish to throw your 2 cents in the ring at the WP Indonesia project talk page seeing you have but a hold on things - Also I see no profit for anyone to take it to Afd. Satu Suro 14:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. The discussion doesn't have to be resolved in a week or two weeks, and it really doesn't have to be at the outline talk page. My role there is purely administrative: I want the edit-warring to stop. I am confident the Indonesia project will be able to get to a good decision. Ucucha 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second British Invasions[edit]

Thanks for the help and Info Edkollin (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve this for all your help so far this year...[edit]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For all the help and guidance you have offered, in the form of GAC/FAC reviews, category reorganization in WP:PRIMATE, and anything else I'm overlooking. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's been great working with you, and thanks for your many contributions to the lemurs. Today I went to have a look at the Microcebus that are in the museum here. They're really tiny animals, which shouldn't come as a surprise to you. There was one murinus, a couple of rufus, and a few griseorufus collected by Goodman. The color differences are rather clear. Ucucha 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember reading, genetic tests are starting to show that you can't rely on the colors for identification, but I'll confirm (or deny) that someday when I re-write the Mouse lemur page. However, if you think you can tell them apart, I'd welcome your opinion on this one: File:Microcebus rufus 001.jpg. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one gray murinus clearly stood out from the six or so reddish rufus. But of course, I don't know whether they were correctly identified, and such differences often break down when you have more material. That photo looks like rufus to me, for what it's worth. Ucucha 05:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

File:Alpha Capricorni.jpg		Thank You
		For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of February 2010, you're truly a star! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel[edit]

Can you think of something appropriate to say to the latest "oppose" comment. I can't, especially since it begins with "I favour splitting pages", which I don't at all, rather the extreme opposite. I might not want to do the actual merging (I expect there will be agreement on merging eventually) if there is a long and drawn-out discussion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. The references the user cited actually largely supported a merger. Ucucha 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of this debate now. Would you mind correcting Squirrel (disambiguation), though. Chrisrus has made it state that woodchucks aren't squirrels and has put itals on Sciuridae. I might make it worse, and I might start an edit war, so can you deal with it? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed everything now, at least on the main pages. Ucucha 05:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the dab, though it might still be reverted… Anyhow, have you noticed that the featured pic at the left was misidentified? I've gone and made corrections at most wikis now. The Cascade species is only separated by genes—and geography, which makes identification easy, if you have location information. I'll start with this and the other Callospermophilus species when I begin working on the ground squirrels, but first I want to move the chipmunks for my new navbox for the lot (can you move Least Chipmunk?). Also, can you delete Category:Caeciliidae stubs and redirect Template:Caeciliidae-stub to Template:Caecilian-stub? The two are confused and the separation is needless. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kays and Wilson, there are some subtle coloration differences between the two, with lateralis generally having more contrasting coloration. The coloration of this one looks more like saturatus than lateralis to me. But the location makes it rather clear that it is saturatus in any case. The chipmunk is moved, and I'll have a look at the caecilians.

I've been working on the squirrel dab page, but got distracted a few times. Note that your version suggests anomalures are sciurids. Ucucha 18:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it? Must have been another synoand devouring "unrelated". I'll leave the dab to you. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual word you used was "syoand", and the problem is gone, because your edit has been reverted by Chrisrus by now. The current version isn't that bad, except that is poorly formatted. I'll see whether Chrisrus will recognize the fact that WP:MOSDAB probably supports the version I introduced. Ucucha 19:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, sorry to be such a pest. Second, as you know, tribbldae would include the tribbles and their close cousins. So it's not exactly right to equate the tribbldae with the word tribble because, even in cases where we have no evidence of the existence of such close cousins, reason dictates that someone might dig up a fossil of an intermediate form tomorrow. So while I not only do not oppose but in fact appreciate what you are doing by merging these two articles, I would like to work on a compromise wording with you. Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to keep the discussion to the points where we disagree on the content of articles, and there are some points left open at Talk:Squirrel (disambiguation) that I would ask you to reply to. Ucucha 22:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innotata, are you in for another such discussion? Mole (animal) and Talpidae are separate pages, because desmans are said not to be moles, but Britannica says for desman: "either of two species of amphibious Eurasian moles". Merriam-Webster and the OED have more restrictive definitions for mole, but our definition of "mole = Talpidae - desmans" doesn't seem to get much support there. Ucucha 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would also equate Talpidae with "mole"—in this case, I've never heard of anybody saying anything otherwise. I'm perhaps a little extreme on this matching of common and scientific names—to me monkey is syonymous with simian, and we're monkeys. (But aren't we?) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it seems most sources do too. Would you also equate "mouse" with Mus and "rat" with Rattus? I hope to revise the mouse and rat articles one day, but I'm a bit torn between (a) making "mouse" and "rat" generic articles on rodents called "mice" and "rats" and creating separate pages for Mus and Rattus and (b) pruning all the non-Mus and non-Rattus content from the mouse and rat pages and making them really about the genera. I don't agree with you on the monkeys, since there at least general usage seems to be for "monkeys = Cercopithecidae + Platyrrhini", not "monkeys = Simiiformes". Ucucha 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mouse and rat are examples of terms which do not match any particular group; I think option a is greatly preferrable, especially for mice (from my perspective). The monkey example is a bit extreme. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict problems[edit]

I don't know what's going on, but Wiki doesn't appear to be handling edit conflicts properly... at least for me. We've already had one issue on Hadropithecus where your ref was deleted when I implemented the new layout, and now I just had a more serious problem on DYK. Any idea about what's going on here? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of thing happens occasionally, especially at high-traffic pages like DYK. The software isn't very good at handling edit conflicts. But there was another strange thing with that edit on T:TDYK: I also undid your edit [6], and my revision did get saved, even though the diff shows no differences, but the history shows I reduced the page size by four bytes. Weird. Ucucha 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]