User talk:Ucucha/Archive9

Archives

Leave a new message

DYK for Synthemiopsis[edit]

On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Synthemiopsis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special occassion holding areas?[edit]

Hi. Is there any special process for setting up new special occasion holding area dates at TT:DYK? I couldn't find any mention in guide, rules or unofficial guide to DYK. --Soman (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can just add a date at T:TDYK, no formal process required. Ucucha 11:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --Soman (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js[edit]

I can't get it to work. I've added it to my monobook and cleared cache, but am unsure how to get it to work. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a link under "Toolbox" at the left with "DYK check" when you are on an article or on TT:DYK. Can you find that? And you are using monobook and not the beta skin, are you? Ucucha 22:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, and have got it working. I think i've figured it out. CHeck the first few things I do please :) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked in detail, but it looks like you're doing fine. Ucucha 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How has Wikipedia changed your life?[edit]

Where is my DYK hook? Anyways would you like to share your experience with fellow Wikipedians? --Saki ^talk 08:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting... we've got rather a large backlog currently, so it may take rather more time than it usually does. Note that there are many hooks older than yours which have received no review whatsoever yet. As for your page, it looks interesting, and I may write something there later on, but am a bit busy at the moment. Ucucha 08:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movereq[edit]

Hi! I see you closed the move(?) request at Talk:Kūnyú Wànguó Quántú. Just wanted to remind you to remove the {{movereq}} template when you close discussions, so that the pages don't remain listed at WP:RM. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly it was intended to do was unclear to me too, yes. Thanks for the heads-up; you'll see that I did do that properly in the other RMs I closed recently (I hope so, at least), but I missed it here, probably because the {{movereq}} was not on a separate line. Ucucha 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Greater) Spermophilus[edit]

I think I've moved all those that don't need an admin, so the rest will have to wait for you (it would require too much explaining if I asked somebody else). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much explaining, yes. I'll do it, just not now. Thanks for your work in moving the pages! Ucucha 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beluga Whale[edit]

Hello, Mr. Ucucha. I saw on Talk:Beluga whale that you stated that the name of the species was "beluga," not beluga whale. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there is a species of fish named "Beluga" (I'm sure you've heard of Beluga caviar), thus, we should not name it beluga, but Beluga whale. I hope you understand, Mr. Ucucha. Regards, Belugaboy535136 ^talk 01:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. It's quite possible for two species to share the same vernacular name; in this case, we can deal with that on Wikipedia by having articles titled beluga (whale) and beluga (sturgeon). Regardless, this discussion should take place at Talk:Beluga whale, not here. Ucucha 07:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Posterolateral palatal pits[edit]

On January 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Posterolateral palatal pits, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Can you take a look at my DYK nomination that's above Alan Parastaev? I would normally not ask this, but it's been almost two weeks. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is bad at the moment. I won't have time soon but I will probably have time for reviewing the oldest DYK noms on Sunday; I guess yours will be among those. Ucucha 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having some unexpected free time at Philadelphia International Airport. :) Ucucha 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Template_talk:Taxobox.
Message added 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim1357 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hunter-Schreger band[edit]

On January 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hunter-Schreger band, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Ivar Hippe[edit]

Why has my DYK nominated article been removed? I'm asking you since you reviewed it. --TIAYN (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently in preparation area 2, and will be on the Main Page in a little more than a day. By the way, your question is covered somewhere at the top of T:TDYK. Ucucha 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help :D --TIAYN (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Day request[edit]

Hello Ucucha. If you are online can you take a view at this request? Thanks in advance. Calmer Waters 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choate (law)[edit]

Thanks for the little fixes. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ucucha 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zygomatic plate[edit]

On January 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zygomatic plate, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK Project (nominate) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Abrotrichini[edit]

On January 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abrotrichini, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pebble-mound mouse[edit]

On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pebble-mound mouse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One minute late, I think. Ucucha 00:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD locked page[edit]

I have actually deleted that article. That last editor has had their user page deleted and is not an admin. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted. Thanks for telling me about that template. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The DRV appears to be handling things correctly now. Ucucha 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Royal Family[edit]

UCH UCH we are scaaaaarrreeeeeddd. READ THE NOTICE ON TALK PAGE.... ifthey teach at Harvard /MIT how meaning of justice but doubt it Goldor (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do teach proper punctuation. Would be useful for you too. Ucucha 04:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hook removal[edit]

Hi Ucucha, I created the article Cincinnatus Leconte and put it up for DYK awhile back. I saw that it had been put into the queue for DYKs and just looked to see when it might be popping up on the main page since I was making some adjustments to the article, when I noticed that you had removed the article from the queue. It had been the lead hook (it's a pretty good one I think, and related to Haitian history so very topical) and you replaced it with something more relevant for Australia Day. That's fine obviously, but from what I can tell the Leconte article seems to have been booted out of the queue entirely in the process. Would you mind sticking it back into one of the other queues? I'm not all that familiar with how this aspect of DYK works but I assume that would be fine. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in Template:Did you know/PrepExtra and it's now progressed to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Someone still has to fill that set, but it's still in the queue, though it will take about two more days before it will get on the Main Page, I am afraid. Thanks for reacting so amicably. Ucucha 13:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha, I missed that somehow. Thanks for your reply, and no worries on the delay of a couple days. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jews[edit]

Hi. There's been more discussion at Talk:Jew, but nobody has provided a good reason why the article shouldn't be moved. The discussion at WP:ANI seems to have died. Do you want to move the article, or should I? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it sucks that you guys moved it back without waiting for admins, as you stated you would - you waited, what, one day? Low. A Sniper (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None were forthcoming—not everyone takes as much interest in the page title of a particular article as some editors do. The RM was valid and validly closed; its result should be carried out. And could you please at least move the talk page back to Talk:Jews? The current situation, with the article at Jews and the talk page at Talk:Jew, is good for no one. Ucucha 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already conceded that what is done is done. I'll wait a bit and then see if there is any interest by the usual editors to change it back to Jew, so it is consistent with Hindu, Christian and Muslim, and maybe there will be a clear consensus then. You can move the talk page wherever you want it. A Sniper (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Malik has already moved the talk page back. Ucucha 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rodents[edit]

Thanks Ucucha, i knew the project was active but have left it up to the editors of those projects to change the status. Cheers Zoo Pro 04:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Good that you're doing this; I suspect a few others will fall off. Ucucha 04:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Ucucha: Thanks for correcting my too-hasty reversion about the chimp. I had checked the history and the chimp had been called "he" for some time, so I thought is was a valid reversion. I had just checked the Washoe and saw it said female. But I also checked an external link to confirm it. I was gonna revert my edit when I saw you beat me to it. Ges, I wish folks would use the summary blocks but . . . Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, good to hear you were also checking the facts. Yes, edit summaries would be nice, and I guess this kind of edits is more often wrong than right. I had already checked the edit, so I was a bit surprised to see you reverting it. :) Ucucha 13:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ucucha, you raise an issue that I have thought about--some way to indicate that an edit, especially from an IP user with no summary, had been checked by some responsible editor. Sorta like the way new pages are checked as being reviewed. Maybe next year! Pinethicket (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the Dutch Wikipedia, all IP edits are "patrolled" in the same way as we patrol new pages. Don't know whether there has been discussion on that here. Ucucha 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Thanks -- now that's what I call fast service! Smartiger (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mammals Notice Board[edit]

In line with the recent upgrades to WikiProject Mammals a bulletin board has been created to keep all members up to date with the Project, consider it similiar to the Wikipedia Signpost however focused on WikiProject Mammals. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist in order to get the latest information about WikiProject Mammals. Kind Regards - Zoo Pro and The Arbiter^★_★^★

Brian Boruff[edit]

Ucucha, I am writing in regard to the page Brian Boruff. I understand that you had proposed the page for deletion because it doesn't meet notability guidelines, but I am hoping that you will reconsider this, as Brian Boruff is a senior director of a huge multi-national corporation. I will be adding more authoritative sources in the next couple of days, including an article from The Economist. Thoughts? Also, will you be responding to this post here on your talk page?

173.81.119.250 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)JamesMythology[reply]

Thanks for your answer and for your contributions. Being a senior director at such a corporation is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia: he should be significantly covered in reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia—this may be different from what you would usually consider reliable). An article in The Economist would be fine, if it does more than just mention him in passing. Please do add the sources to the article, so that it is easier to consider whether they are sufficient. Ucucha 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Cleomenean War[edit]

Hey, Ucucha. I completed the maps for the Cleomenean War article a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, Kyriakos has not made an edit here in 2½ weeks. Since the article was close to FA status, I thought I'd take up where Kyriakos left off - only I don't know what the next step is. Do I resubmit the article, or do I restart the nomination process? No clue. Thanks for any help, MapMaster (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC generally requires that the main contributor (co-)nominate an article. However, if the main contributor just vanishes, I don't think there will be a problem with re-nominating. Have you tried e-mailing Kyriakos to ask what is wrong? It seems he has been quite irregularly active since late December (due to vacation?), so perhaps he'll come back at full strength soon. Ucucha 04:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will send him an email. I do see from his contributions that he is prone to taking a couple of months off at a time (e.g. October and November, June and July last year). Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup notes[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you've been adding WikiCup disclosures to several FAC nominations. Please note that quite a few are incorrect, as most of the articles were worked on substantially before January 1, when the cup began. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I am replying to this at WT:FAC. Ucucha 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambitious...?[edit]

One (well several) of the most fun experiences I have had here is/are working up some monster articles for FAC - these include lion and vampire - I thought you might be interested in working up Black rat or Brown rat at some point. Both are fascinating. Brown rat was a subject of a collaboration at some point. TimVickers is also working on cat and I am sure would be happy for some input. Do you have any idea on the Felis catus vs Felis domesticus issue? Is tehre a paper which discusses it? See the cat talk page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you! I am planning on doing the black rat soon (see a thread above here or perhaps already in my archive). The brown rat and the house mouse are in slightly better shape already, but I might work on them anyway. It is very different from writing on animals like the oryzomyines and the Noronha skink, where I can basically use every single substantive paper that has ever been written on an animal. Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758, is undoubtedly technically correct, as I commented at the cat article. I don't think I'll have much input on the substance of that article, though. Ucucha 14:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can thoroughly recommend it. There was something nice about getting stuck into a grand high profile article such as lion...come to think of it, Common Raven, which was the first bird wikiproject collaboration was similar. It is a quite a different focus from gathering every single reference, and the fun starts when one gets varying facts and figures and having to decipher strength of source...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! Now, if you'll excuse me (for sticking my nose in here), I'm going to go back to banging my head on the Lemur article re-write I've been working on since July... – VisionHolder « talk » 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already got a bit of conflicting refs with the black rat in different field guides—if I recall correctly, Australian black rats have sleek hair and Californians have shaggy fur. Good luck with the lemur; I hope it'll be an FA one day and let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Ucucha 04:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It will go from being an article to a topic, so when all 8 or more articles are written, I'll let you know so that you can look them over. And good luck with your rodent work! (I love rats.) – VisionHolder « talk » 05:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?[edit]

Hey Ucucha, thanks for the cleanup, again. Yes, I just saw that my previous protection from teenage IPs has run out, and I wouldn't mind a renewal on my user page. I'm going to be checking on your rat and mouse articles, just to make sure the prose doesn't get too poetic. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done—indefinite. Such checks are certainly necessary: Calomys cerqueirai must be more inspiring than a mill, and I should keep an appropriate encyclopedic tone. Ucucha 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hey, weren't there three of these rats, the holotype and the two paratypes? (You'll appreciate this: I don't know what those words mean.) And all were caught in Capitão Andrade, as far as I can tell from that dense taxonomical prose. Also, I wanted to ask which specimen was infected with Taenia, but Bonvicino 30 clears it up: it's the holotype. I'm not going to tweak that Ecology and behavior paragraph, cause I might say somethin' dumb. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all—you are quite right, but omitted the important fact that there are also at least two from Lagoa Santa. This Taenia tapeworm guy was only in the holotype, yes. There is also Hepsilon, but I haven't yet figured out what kind of nasty parasite that actually is. There is quite a lot of them in this poor mouse, though. It turns out I did make an error in that section, which is now corrected. I also tried my luck today at diversifying the subject matter of my articles, with a shrew and a worm, but the source for the shrew didn't really tell much about the animal and I decided to not even try deciphering all the weird body parts of the little worm. Ucucha 17:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text question[edit]

Hello U. I had tried adding alt text [1]. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the spaces killed it. Sorry for not checking that. I am now reviewing the alt text and will post further comments on the FAC. Ucucha 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I learned something new. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's finish this... (categories in WP:PRIMATE)[edit]

There has been no feedback aside from the comments on Cfd and UtherSRG's general nod (with comments made at Cfd), so I think it's safe to proceed. I don't know if you've noticed, but I updated my version of the shceme to reflect the Cfd discussion and some of your comments. I also addressed some of your other comments in the text below. If we can iron out those last 3 points (about Sakis, "Spider monkeys and woolly monkeys", and Lorids) and anything else—coming back at a later date to categories by geographic location and age—then I'll look into getting the ball rolling through umbrella nominations and category creations. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. It's probably safe to proceed; we can just clear up the remaining points of uncertainty at WT:PRIMATE. A bit of a pity that the monkey cat isn't going to go. I see the point for keeping it and don't find it convincing, but there's little point in arguing it. Ucucha 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once you comment on those 3 items (mentioned above) that I responded to previously on WT:PRIMATE, I'll try to iron out the final details and start submitting the umbrella nominations. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you commented on the saki, Atelinae, and lori cats yet. I'll see what I have to say about the popular culture stuff. Ucucha 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did reply. They are in the first bullet list above WT:PRIMATE#Do not depopulate categories. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I replied again, and I don't think you replied to my replies (said he, replying). Ucucha 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I don't know how I missed your reply... twice! Anyway, I've replied as well and made changes. The ball is back in your court... and hopefully for the last time. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]