User talk:Ucucha/Archive22

Archives

Leave a new message

Betelgeuse

Another article I am working on (with Sadalsuud (talk · contribs) is Betelgeuse - but it is an order of magnitude more technical than bio articles (the physics makes my head spin). I am unable to get fulltext of this one, can you?:

Title: RED SUPERGIANTS AS POTENTIAL TYPE IIn SUPERNOVA PROGENITORS: SPATIALLY RESOLVED 4.6 mu m CO EMISSION AROUND VY CMa AND BETELGEUSE Author(s): Smith N, Hinkle KH, Ryde N Source: ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL Volume: 137 Issue: 3 Pages: 3558-3573 Published: MAR 2009 Times Cited: 10

PS: Compared with many bio articles, have a look at the talk page to see how many articles popped up on web of science (groan...) - fascinating but a huge job....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Trapalcotherium

On 13 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trapalcotherium, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Triaenops menamena.

Great work! Little Mountain 5 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

	<font=3> Thanks again for your helpful review comments at FAC. Bull Run River made featured article today. Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for MN 4 (biostratigraphic zone)

On 16 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MN 4 (biostratigraphic zone), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 06:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A subject that deserves better WP treatment?

Largest rat ever found. It's Coryphomys, not quite your usual area, but wow: a 6 kg rat! :) Iridia (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is; my only scientific publication so far has been on a rat from a neighbor island, which is also huge. I might write on this one sometime; so much to do. :-) Ucucha 06:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Passer predomesticus

On 16 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Passer predomesticus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

Courcelles 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2010 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2010: italicize Chrono Cross. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Ucucha 14:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, before you it was Juliancolton who had that honor. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other reasons, too; that was the first I thought of. I needed to be fast to avoid an edit conflict. :) Ucucha 19:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review stub

Can you do me a big favor and review the stub I created called "Ectotympanic ring"? As you know, I'm not an expert in craniodental anatomy, and I had to "interpret" the definition from multiple sources. I realize that not only is the article a stub, it's also not very informative. However, I have nothing else to go on. Maybe someone will come along and tweak it someday. The most important thing is that I want the wording to be correct. Given that your rodents are members of Euarchontoglires, I figure you may need to point to this stub someday. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard of this thing, but I'll see what I can do. Ucucha 06:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Per a comment left by Matthewedwards at the Glee FL Nom (for Glee (season 1)), he thinks that recent changes make the article a better nom. for FA than it did before. Thus, two questions come from this:

The article now has more prose than it did before, and no longer summarizes Glee (TV series), which was one of his points. Thus, it stands out more as an article than it did before. Do you agree and should we consider moving to FAC, or can that even be done within a nom. without closing it?
So far, only Matthew and Peregrine Fisher (the latter without opinion either way, just that it's an OK nom.) have visited. I've asked a few regular FAC/FLC contributors for their opinions, of which none is given yet (and I don't know whether it will be). What is the best way to find people with constructive opinions? T.V. doesn't seem to be finding me many. I have listed the FL on the WikiProject page for the time being in a further attempt to gain opinions.

Just curious about your thoughts here. Thanks in advance. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season articles are usually FLs (see WP:FL#Episodes) and some of those have comparable text-to-list ratios to your article, but there are also some FA season articles (WP:FA#Media). Perhaps there is some system there; I don't see it. I think most would do fine as FAs; they certainly don't have as much list material as the usual FL. I guess it comes down on what you prefer.

You shouldn't worry too much about too little feedback; people will usually eventually come along, especially at FLC. Have you tried doing some reviewing on other nominations yourself? Ucucha 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have helped one nominator of another article with some corrections on his review; as for reviewing, however, I fear that my personal reviewing skills might not be to par with the standards in the community. I will give it a try over time, but I don't think I'm quite there yet.

Frickative might pop in here as well; she's the co-nominator of the Glee nom. and may have a question herself. Thanks on my part for your answer, I'll also ask her what she thinks. CycloneGU (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates/archive1

Hey there, mind revisiting this one? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The dab + dead link checks are much appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems FLCs generally have fewer problems in the links than FACs, though. I'll check VH's list again. Ucucha 05:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Miniopterus zapfei

Hi, Ucucha; good to see you again! I just wanted to let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Miniopterus zapfei you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll try to address any concerns. Ucucha 20:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the article, as I felt it easily checked against the criteria. I take this as a good omen; the first time I review a Good Article nomination, it succeeds! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for Miniopterus griveaudi

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some arbitration for you!

Ah, if only I was sarcastic! Humor me, please. ResMar 15:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things....

If you have any time, I noticed Florida mouse GAN needed a second opinion. Didn't know if you'd seen it. Also, Fauna of Australia has a bit of a headache - it is an old Featured Article that YellowMonkey and I have been chipping away at improving (though probably should go to FAR - given your expertise on furry critters, can you see any glaring errors in the mammal section and easy ref pickups? I am not so good at furry as feathered things...:( Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented at the Florida mouse GAN, and added another comment. There are a few problems in the fauna article, yes.

D'oh - I had a slow connection and didn't check :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the "Mammals" section suggests bats disappeared from Australia from the Eocene until the Miocene; I'm not aware of any evidence for that. Also, rodents first appeared in Australia quite late in the Miocene—which is important to mention, since the Miocene is relatively long.
In the piece about convergent evolution, I don't see why Eurasia and North America are specifically mentioned. I don't think the gray wolf looks much more like a thylacine than African jackals or some South American canids; anomalures look as much like sugar gliders as flying squirrels do; and anteaters are mostly South American.
There are (at least) five living species of monotremes, not four.
"Marsupials are characterised by the presence of a pouch in which they rear their young."—no; many marsupials don't have a pouch
There are eight (not seven) peramelemorphians in Australia, plus three recently extinct.
"The evolutionary origin of this group [peramelemorphians] is unclear, because they share characteristics from both carnivorous and herbivorous marsupials."—not really, as far as I'm aware. They're just an independent group from both.
The largest possum in Australia appears to be Trichosurus caninus, and Spilocuscus maculatus comes close.
There are eight Australian bat families now that Hipposideridae and Miniopteridae are recognized as families. (Both have been going back and forth for a while, but in the last few years they have usually been recognized as families.)
Australia has three (not two) endemic bat genera: Vespadelus, Scoteanax, and Rhinonicteris.

Four actually; I forgot Macroderma. (Scoteanax and Vespadelus were not universally accepted until a few years ago; that is probably the reason for the lower figure.) Ucucha 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The old endemics are represented by 14 extant genera."—I count 13; I have no idea what the 14th would be. (The number will likely grow soon, though, as Pseudomys is going to be split up.)
Calling Rattus "the rat" is confusing at best; many Old Endemics (the term is usually capitalized, I believe) are equally called "rats". There is also an eighth, unnamed indigenous Rattus species.
Rattus exulans only marginally occurs in Australia, but would probably count as another species not deliberately introduced.

Ucucha 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, saying that marsupials originated in Gondwana ("Origins" section) is a bit of a stretch, though perhaps technically true; metatherians (marsupials and their fossil relatives) were most diverse in North America during the Cretaceous.
The article is missing a lot of biogeographical information—e.g., the general similarity of the New Guinean to the Australian fauna; the relationship of the Australian fauna to that of other nearby islands; faunal regions within Australia. Ucucha 07:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. Okay, I can see the article is needing quite a bit of work...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. Ucucha 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eustrombus gigas peer review

Hi there Ucucha! It has been a while since Oryzomys antillarum, hasn't it? How are you doing? I know you are a very experienced editor here in en:Wikipedia, and an awesome writer no less. Would you be so kind as to help with the E. gigas peer review? In case you have time and patience, your opinions and tips would be greatly appreciated! Best wishes. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to take a look. I may not have much time, though, as I'm moving back into college soon. O. antillarum is one of the next items on the FAC queue. Ucucha 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank semi-spam

Thanks, congratulations, and good luck! Ucucha 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopropithecus

I have finished reviewing the literature sent to me by Sasata and feel I'm about ready to submit Mesopropithecus for FAC. Since you did the GAC, would you mind skimming over it again whenever you have time? The only lingering issue that I can see is the plethora of unexplained terms. In that regard, I may need some advice. I'm concerned that if I try to add brief explanations in parentheses, it may make the text unreadable. At the very least, can suggest which terms are the most important to explain? Otherwise, I think I've covered everything. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some unexplained terms that I think need explanation—I don't even know what a postorbital bar is, for example. Otherise, there are a few minor things:

I'll try to get to the terms... but again, I'm worried that the text will become harder to read by offering descriptions. I just wish I knew why this is always required of biology articles, but not of geology, opera, and other technical topics that I've reviewed at FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable now. Ucucha 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It had a narrower snout and a more gracile skeleton, similar to but smaller than M. pithecoides, making it more like the living sifakas."—are the comparisons here to pithecoides? It's not entirely clear.

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"M3 (third molar)"—M3 is conventionally only the third upper molar, but perhaps the third lowers are also meant here.

I wasn't sure if M3 meant permanent while m3 meant deciduous, but if that's the convention, then that's how I'll interpret it. It's been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deciduous molars don't exist (unless you're writing on gobiconodontids, which you probably are not). Ucucha 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't thinking past the obvious. Most of the sources I've seen seem to use lower case for deciduous and upper case for permanent, so that's why I wasn't sure. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think deciduous teeth are usually given with a "D" prefix (i.e., DP3, dp3), and sometimes just D/d for deciduous premolars. Rice rats don't have deciduous teeth, though, so what do I know. Ucucha 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but that's the impression I was under. There may also be different notations, depending on which field you're working in. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The average skull lengths by species are given in the "Species" section, and the ranges under "Anatomy and physiology"; that reads disjointed.

Before I fix this, I need to figure how to state it. I already give ranges in the latter section, and averages in the former. With the conversion, merging them could get messy. Any recommendations? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can give the ranges and average for each species in the "Species" section, and the overall range for the genus in "Anatomy". Ucucha 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds resonable. I'll try to take a look sometime today. I'll even try to do the same for the intermembral index. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

post-orbital or postorbital? (I'd use the latter, but perhaps primate anatomists favor the hyphen.)

Both seems to be used evenly in the literature, although in the primate literature, "postorbital" seems to come out on top. I've made it consistent within the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piping "hand and foot bones" to metacarpus and metatarsus doesn't seem right; those are only a few of the bones of the hand and feet.

The source wasn't that specific, so I simply removed the link. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 07:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-review! I will try to get around to reviewing your latest candidate after a short nap this afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got your first support. Great if you can have a look at Seorsumuscardinus. Ucucha 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

I've added everything you've mentioned, and Dispenser has fine tuned it and says it looks ready on IRC. Does it look about ready for publication? ResMar 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making some minor tweaks now. I don't use linkclassifier, but shouldn't linkclassifier.css go to your .css, not .js, page? Also, Innotata stated correctly on the talk page that the screenshot of HotCat is of the Commons, not the English Wikipedia version of the tool. Ucucha 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference isn't major enough to warrent removing the tool is it? The linkclassifier codon I forked from her tool description page. It's probably easier to add it to JS instead of CSS, because it's one edit and most people have a js but not a css (including me). Also, tell Visionholder I said hi :P ResMar 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I guess Anomie has it correct. (.js and .css are different, by the way, and if it works if you put it in one, it will almost certainly not work in the other.) The HotCat picture doesn't show what en.wp users—the target audience—will actually see when they use the tool, but the difference isn't major. Ucucha 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has the wp image I'd love for them to upload it. Anyway, does it look about ready? ResMar 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write of Ring-tailed Lemur

I'm getting ready to start the re-write for Ring-tailed Lemur. Since it is the most heavily studied lemur, this raises an important question concerning comprehensiveness. At what point do the details become "too much"? I'm sure there are plenty of detailed studies about diets, morphological measurements, etc. from numerous localities, so at what point do I draw the line? I'm worried that this article could rival Lemur in terms of size and depth if I'm not careful. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you already made a daughter article on vocalizations; perhaps a few more daughter articles are appropriate. Otherwise, perhaps look at the major secondary sources (LoM, I think there is a Mammalian Species account) for guidance as to what things to include. Ucucha 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic only changes

Yes you are correct, generally SmackBot will avoid making edits like that unless there is a more substantive change happening at the same time. However there are a number of reason (User:Rich Farmbrough/FAQ#Known reasons for SmackBot visiting an article it can't fix) why it may visit articles and make only less substantive changes. At the moment there is a fair amount of category lag around. Rich Farmbrough 12:59 29 August 2010 (UTC).

In this case, it seemed SmackBot was editing pages it had already (substantively) edited briefly before. Are you perhaps running two instances with slightly different code? By the way, you placed this message here with the bot account. Ucucha 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As SmackBot was still doing the same thing, I've now blocked it. Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem. Ucucha 13:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a number of things to try and disperse the lagged categories, including removing or reinstating a few rules as the reg-ex's appear to be timing out. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I hope it works. Ucucha 13:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dzungarian hamster

What to do about this? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs some improvement, of course, like all articles on pet rodents, which attract inordinate amounts of bad material. The best way to proceed is to improve the article with good sources, weed out the bad stuff, and carefully guard the article. Ucucha 09:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that White Russian is now Djungarian hamster. So, should the article be cleaned out and replaced with a redirect? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed the spelling difference. I think the best course of action is to redirect it to Djungarian and place a hatnote there. Ucucha 10:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. I'll look after it. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Argentodites/GA1

I've offered a review. Generally great, obviously, but a couple of thoughts that may improve the article. You clearly understand the subject matter far better than I do, so I'll trust your judgement if you think any of my suggestions are silly. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll have a look soon. (That picture is great, by the way; it made me realize just how weird the multituberculate p4 is.) Ucucha 09:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted, nice work. Have some more mice to celebrate! J Milburn (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization with a new twist.

Yes I know what your thinking, however the user doesn't want to change the capitalization instead wants to make the guidelines clearer, I thought you might be interested. Here is the discussion [1]. Look forward to your input. ZooPro 10:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it. As you probably know, I find these repeated discussions rather tiring, but I'll keep an eye on it. Ucucha 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human

It is a violation of principle to simply stop in to an article to revert it. Do you understand this? Use the talk page to do more than just note what you dispense with. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not; in this case, the revert served to improve the article. Please see WP:BRD, and note that I didn't just "stop in to" it, as I've been editing the page for some time. Anyway, I posted some more comments at the talk page. Ucucha 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is. You are a violator of principle by going to the article just to revert it without discussion. Thanks. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were a revert without discussion—it is not—I don't know the "principle" that is being broken; could you specify it? Ucucha 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep WP:3RR in mind, by the way. You just made your 3rd revert of the day on human; the 4th may get you blocked. Ucucha 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principles? AGF, BRD, Consensus, Collaboration, and Collegiality just to name three. I know what 3RR is, I was here when it was formed, in fact I was one of the first few to support it. Youre not working in good faith - don't edit an article unless you discuss things on talk. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More important than any of those is the protection of the integrity of the encyclopedia, I would reckon. (How I am violating BRD by carrying out the "R" part is unclear to me, by the way; as is how I am violating AGF without ever questioning your good faith.) Your accusation that I am "not working in good faith" is empty and false, and suggests that you need to have a closer look at my edits. I usually edit articles without discussing things on talk; it's much easier, and usually causes no problems. Of course, it is better to discuss contentious issues on the talk page, which is exactly what I have been doing. Ucucha 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucha wrote:"Of course, it is better to discuss contentious issues on the talk page, which is exactly what I have been doing." - Actually you haven't. You made three reverts to the human article before even looking at the talk page. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I reverted only once today, and justified that revert within minutes on the talk page. I did look at the talk page, and had been following the discussion for some time (in fact, I was the first to comment on your RFC). Ucucha 00:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was terse enough that it looked like it was part of the next author's comment. I still don't see where, until later, you participated in the discussion. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer. Ucucha 10:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey singles discography FLC

Hi Ucucha, so the FLC goes by smoother, can you please express specifically if you "Support, neutral or oppose." I believe I addressed the issues you had, so please express on the page. Thanks! ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk 18:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the overall quality of the list: I just do a few technical checks. (I'm somewhat sympathetic to the view that this shouldn't be a separate article, but I haven't looked at that issue in enough detail to offer an opinion on the FLC.) Ucucha 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just please eventually before it closes at one point, please express specifically if you can. Thanks :)--PeterGriffin • Talk 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you! Your link review helped Capitol Loop pass its FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 00:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, but congratulations. Ucucha 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Review for Hong Kong

Hi, thanks for you comments in the review. Now that review is over, I want to know if there are any other additional concerns or places that need further improvements. I would like resolve any potential issues if the article is to be nominated again in the near future. Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really looked into the substance of the article, but I think you should first try to resolve all of Elcobbola's and Nikkimaria's concerns. Then, it might be helpful to get a peer review, which can often identify issues that will end up problematic in an FAC. You may also want to ask some people who nominated other FAs on big cities (WP:FA#Geography and places) for help. Ucucha 01:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise! I'll go try that. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern mole

Can you merge the page history of this and its former title, Eastern Mole? The page was copy-paste moved, while Suzanne2009NYC was expanding the article for DYK (the article is linked from the main page as I type). —innotata 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll wait for a while; if I history merge, that means that for a short time, people will actually see a redirect pointing to itself instead of the article, if only for a short while, so I'd rather wait until it's off the Main Page. Ucucha 21:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha 00:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian Devil

Ucucha, this article is up at FAR. I have done a Web of Science search and have started fixing bits up (this one looks a big job!) - I was wondering if you could get the fulltext of this one as it is a key paper in trying to understand the pattern of its decline from mainland Australia. (Hey at least it's a furry critter!) Any other suggestions helpful :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent it (didn't even know Alcheringa was online now). I'll have a look at the article soon, but I don't know too much about Sarcophilus. Ucucha 11:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double revert?

Was that a double revert? see this. Hazard-SJ^Talk 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted on your talk page; sorry again for the warning. Ucucha 12:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
Message added 12:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Splat

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Firstly I'd like to thank you for you support of the DYK project in general. Then I'd like to note that you have created over a century of DYK articles. Well done! Personally I think you've got it bad. So many rats, a bat but no cats. I'm fairly sure that there is only person with a picture of rat teeth on their profile. Not only that you draw attention to the more interesting details of the teeth! I jest... as the wiki is all the more richer for your contributions. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I had hoped the fossa and its big brother would be close enough to cats. Ucucha 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

When reverting vandalism please make sure to check the page history to make sure you're not reverting to a still vandalized version as you did here[2], to this [3]. It makes people think your version is legitimate when it is in fact not and then the page gets reverted to you think your version is okay and subsequent vandal fighters also miss the old vandalism.--Crossmr (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that; I semi-protected the article because of the high rate of nasty vandalism. I know this problem exists (I always check pages on my watchlist that received several new-user edits over a day to make sure all vandalism has been reverted), but I don't think there's anything I can do about it in the program I am using. People shouldn't think the version I revert to is free from vandalism; it's not what the edit summary says and not what I claim. Ucucha 11:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your work contribution to Soricomorph Article catorization! As per your request, here is a picture of a | Hime Mitzu. Chrisrus (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What request? But thanks anyway, it's a nice shrew. Ucucha 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=User_talk:Ucucha&section=new

"Attention I like to keep conversations in one place, ... I'll temporarily watch, ...This is an illustrated talk page; please add any image (preferably of a rodent) that is remotely connected to your post...... and as a regular user. Best, Ucucha"

By the way, it's not fully a shrew. It's talpid; a True's Shrew Mole. I was able to get the copyright owner's permission to use the photograph, but I failed to get proper permission because because of the procedure I used was wrong, but they do want to give it to us. Maybe you could help. Please see Talk:Urotrichini, section titled "picture" to see where I went wrong. It's an excellent rare photo of a strange intermediate form of socomorph found only in Japan and they really want to allow us to use it if I only knew how. Chrisrus (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was related to some specific request. I think WP:PERMISSIONS may be helpful for you in getting the image. I suppose I must improve my insectivore ID skills, though I'm not sure whether there are even any differences in appearance between shrews and the various kinds of shrew-moles (though the tail of the photo you linked to sure does look odd for a shrew, I now notice—and my field guide to North American mammals suggests Neurotrichus also differs from true shrews in having a thicker tail). The shrew moles are an interesting bunch; I'll have a minor paper out hopefully soon on one of them. Ucucha 03:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing you don't have a day job yet, Ucucha. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people with day jobs prohibited from writing rambling pieces about shrew-moles, then? Should I have written about shrew-mice instead, like a good schoenmaker? Ucucha 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think anyone should write about them. What Exodus has to say about critters (in relation to the ark), well, if it was good enough for King James, it should be good enough for us. All this taxonomizing is highly overrated anyway, and as proof, I'll offer you that our cat and our dog get along very, very well--if that's not science, then I don't know what is. ;) Now, if you'll pardon me, I have to go teach my students intelligent design (that of The Aeneid, of course). Drmies (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't the world be a dull place if we couldn't write about shrew-moles or shrew-mice? New Guinea shrew-mice are ideal for the beginning rodent lover, because they hardly have any teeth. Ucucha 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--But...but...Ucucha...you're writing about them, not playing with them! And thanks, but we recently acquired a rodent to keep our cat and dog company--while the bitch doesn't look as bad as the one in the article, it chewed every sippy cup in the house and shows its affection by peeing. So you can keep all your furballs to yourself. And now stop Wikiing with your iPhone from the back of the classroom and pay attention to the teacher, even if Sociology 101 is mandatory and not your cup of tea. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone—back of the classroom—Sociology—mandatory—all wrong. Ucucha 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Alive

Hi, you're one of the admins that deleted the article for The Word Alive. They have released their debut, which is sure to chart at the end of this week. Can you unprotect this space now please so it may be created? The sandbox for the page has been worked on highly and is looking more than dandy enough to be created along with the fact that they can now being deemed a notable band per WP:N. • GunMetal Angel 02:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to the admin who most recently salted it, Peter; I noticed you also messaged him. I'm not inclined to judge whether your new version is good enough for mainspace, or to overturn the seven other admins who deleted the article, and you might consider DRV instead if Peter doesn't unsalt it (he's not very active, it appears). (And please do fix all those bare URL references in your sandbox version to something more informative.) Ucucha 03:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion, please

Hey Ucucha, can you please have a look at User:Peter bondo/ATP and tell me if the speedy request is justified? See also my note and a response at User_talk:Wuhwuzdat#User:Peter_bondo.2FATP. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and with Beeblebrox, who declined the speedy; it is not very promotional and does little harm in userspace. Ucucha 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate spam too, but this sounded too strict, and in my opinion there's a big difference between the user page and whatever is buried under it. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really

Haha, nice catch :) ResMar 20:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a beautiful volcano. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert Namatjira and William Dargie circa 1950.jpg

Hi there. Would you have the skills and inclination to crop this image for me so it is a little tidier? Original upload url at commons: here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also tilted it a little.

I think I addressed all your comments on Ambondro mahabo; could you have another look at the FAC? Ucucha 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will get back to Ambondro. I think its very technical nature still has me feeling uneasy about the first FA criterion. Will look again. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lagrivea

On 9 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lagrivea, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh!

Hold on a minute please, i'm gettnig edit conflicts as i'm trying to number and sort out figure text! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonstone (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'll hold off for a while. Ucucha 00:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, check it out now. I performed some oral surgery on the last para of "Description" - the sort of simplification that I'm sure makes professionals like yourself and Philcha wince. But really, I don't think the numbering stuff is needed for the lay reader. If you want it, try adding a footnote rather than keeping it in the text. How's it look? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not quite necessary, and indeed some of the literature (Martin and Rauhut, 2005, for example) hardly mentions the numbers. However, you misinterpreted the location of the facets in your edit—which suggests the previous wording was unclear. In fact, the supposed WF 5 is at the front of the talonid basin, behind and lingual to the distal metacristid—cristid obliqua, and WF 6 is at the back, in front of the hypoconulid.

I was also typing a response to you at the FAC, but since I'd be saying many of the same things, I'll keep it here. I think all parts of your comment there have been addressed now in the article (but see Rougier et al., 2007, pp. 18–19, 24, which is open-access; Martin and Rauhut, 2005, p. 422; and Flynn et al., 1999, fig. 2, if you want to read the background). As for the cristid obliqua, it's indeed a compound noun, and "cristid obliqua" is glossed a few paragraphs up. The distal metacristid and cristid obliqua are the line extending from the metaconid to the hypocone in fig. 2; I'll see whether I can add text there. Ucucha 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Two things. First, your way of expressing the location: "at the distal metacristid–cristid obliqua" describes it as a single object, but previously these are talked about as two objects, albethey linked. That is one reason I would prefer something like "at the two crests the distal metacristid and the cristid obliqua in front of the hypoconulid". But maybe your version is the only way to stay accurate. A query re Martin and Rauhut: is the implication that they are saying there is no evidence of a protocone? If so, need to spell that out. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the precise locations of the wear facets; they're really not that important, and they don't add much more precision relative to "at the front and back". The two crests are described separately by Flynn et al., but are continuous with each other, and I don't see in their figures how the two crests are separate at all. Martin and Rauhut do indeed suggest that australosphenidans may not have had a protocone; I've added a little. The reason I didn't add that in the first place was that the discussions about these wear facets are quite involved (Martin and Rauhut propose four different models to explain talonid wear in australosphenidans, for example, and Rougier et al. spend most of a page merely describing wear facets in Henosferus) and mostly peripheral to Ambondro; they would be more relevant to a more general article about the Australosphenida. Ucucha 01:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job - particularly impressed you were able to revise the figure to cover those other features. I've switched to support. Thanks for your hard work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wasn't too difficult in GIMP. :) (And it's really a very primitive figure.) Thanks for the support—it's been a positive collaboration indeed. Ucucha 02:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]