User talk:Ucucha/Archive24

Archives

Leave a new message

Re: WP:GA/recent

Thanks, that would have broken the bot. I'll take a look later. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, should be working now. I say "should" because it appears to be working, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! When the next GAN passes, I will check whether the bot noticed. Ucucha 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as was probably predictable, it wasn't working. But I've given it another go. More waiting-and-seeing is called for :P - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot hasn't taken up this one (and a few others after it) either. Ucucha 18:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More tweaks. More waiting :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Ucucha 19:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammering the prose

I know we tend to disagree, so I try to be as uninvasive as possible in my copyediting, but there are some points I must discuss:

"All are" seems equally problematic, since to me, it appears at first to refer back only to the species that were segregated from Oryzomys, which is obviously a problem. "Group" is only troublesome to us who are steeped in phylogenetic thinking. The casual reader, it seems to me, will immediately catch we are referring to Oryzomys and everything that was segregated from it (if THAT is an error I'm making, I apologize, but I still think "All" is a problem).
- I tried a different wording. We have the additional implications that some of the species that were placed in Oryzomys a really long time ago are not actually oryzomyines (many species of Thomasomys were described in Oryzomys, for example), although I think everything that has been classified in Oryzomys in the last century is actually oryzomyine. Ucucha 02:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm itching to introduce the second paragraph of the describing with a contextual "Skull anatomy is important in distinguishing [Group, prob. Oryzomyini?]" or similar. Any thoughts? (this would mirror similar "complementary contents" in, e.g. Hydnellum peckii)
- Not sure why that is necessary, and the fungus doesn't seem to have any similar text.
  - The entire first paragraph in "ecology" is essentially a retelling of a type of ectomycorrhizal relation that is not by any mean unique to the species. Similarly we expand a full sentences to distinguish the mushroom and the fungus. My idea is that most "normal" people expect to tell apart most mammals by direct observation (and in the vast majority of case, this is readily possible), so having half the section devoted to a rather mind-numbing (for an alpha reader) description of the skull is unexpected. A small line like that would be a great for context (and yes I know I've never pointed that out in other articles. My bad.)
    - But a "Description" simply describes the species; it isn't there only to identify the species. There isn't much for this one, but in better-studied ones like the marsh rice rat, I give a comprehensive overview of the known aspects of anatomy—but no one is going to identify a rodent as a marsh rice rat by its hematocrit value. Ucucha 03:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that the casual reader is entitled to wonder "What's so fascinating with the cranium of this rodent?" And the answer is simply "craniums are particularly relevant to (assuming) Sigmodontinae taxonomy", and as such that information seems eminently relevant to mention. Circéus (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The skull is important to mammal (if not craniate) taxonomy in general. The article does say that skull morphometrics distinguishes this species from others. In general, I don't think we should have to explain why some part of anatomy is covered: Hydnellum peckii doesn't say what is so fascinating about spore anatomy; Babakotia doesn't say why the dental formula is important; Banksia integrifolia doesn't tell us that flower anatomy is important in plant classification. Ucucha 13:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Thomas noted that "the occurrence of one of these reddish tropical forms [in Lower California] is a matter of much interest." Do you think that be relevant/interesting to note in either "Taxonomy" or "Origin"? (though he seems to be, by that statement, associating it with species it is not actually related to, if so, that assessment seems relevant for "Taxonomy").
- I think it's too vague, and superseded by more recent taxonomy. Note that the coastal western Mexican Oryzomys, which is also reddish, was also described only in 1897. Ucucha 02:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem.
~~I'm a bit confused by the last two paragraphs of "origin". Do they represent two distinct proposed origins?~~
- Yes, hopefully clarified. Ucucha 02:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circéus (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK question

Hey Ucucha, can you have a look here? I'm not sure I see the problem, but perhaps you do; if you could have a look at the sources and maybe tweak the hook I'd be very grateful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do; I've commented. What brings you to Troapel? Ucucha 20:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troapel? Is this your stomping ground? Dr. Blofeld sometimes sends me Dutch stubs from the many he generates, so it was pure change. Interesting story though. Have you seen the place? There is room for another article on the place--on the asielzoekerscentrum, or whatever it is called. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been there, but I don't doubt there's a lot to write about, and the AZC is significant. But of course, there are more important things to write about—Ekgmowechashala doesn't even have an article. Ucucha 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that broke my molars, so I made a stub--just for you. There wasn't much poetry in it, and I couldn't even really do something funky with this. I'm afraid its DYK and GA status will have to depend greatly on you. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't expanded anything else. I expanded a little, and will try to DYK it if I have enough time soon. In terms of weird names, I think its relative Muangthanhinius must also be a serious contender. Ucucha 00:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two references now testify to this "lemur"'s name being odd, weird, unpronounceable, etc. Surely that's enough to base a category on: Category:Animals with weird names. But Muanghanhinius won't be in it anytime soon: only two Gbook hits and a couple of articles, nothing I can do with that--it's matter for the real 'science' people. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. is a little younger, and hasn't had time yet to achieve E.'s degree of notoriety.

This source may also be interesting. And the specific name has nothing to do with love of Greek letters. Ucucha 02:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that author's great and justified hostility towards barbaric names, I am appalled to discover in his writing the embarrassing Greco-Latin bastard "multipolysyllabic". Ucucha 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--That was a good read. I like articles by grumpy old men. On a related note, this was interesting as well. It's a pity that the Burke Museum website has nothing more to offer on the topic. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed. I noticed that Ekgmo is now actually (though barely) over 1500, so we can DYK it. I was just writing up a nomination, but couldn't think of a good hook. Perhaps we should put something in the article about its name being terrible; it would make for a fun hook. Ucucha 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem (Japan)/archive1

A book has been created for this subject. The book will need some work, but it is my first one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jammer

Hoi Ucucha, Ik zie dat je tegenwoordig voornamelijk op en.wikipedia actief bent. Wel erg jammer voor nl. moet ik zeggen. Ik kan me er echter wel iets bij voor stellen, zeker nu je aan een Engelstalige universiteit studeert. Als er al niet zoveel Filipino's op de Engelse site actief waren maakte ik misschien ook wel de overstap. Het Engels heeft natuurlijk ook een veel groter bereik. groeten Magalhães (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dat is een mooie Phloeomys.

Leuk van je te horen. Ik kijk nog wel af en toe op NL, maar ik schrijf toch liever hier. Ucucha 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to notify and discuss or seek noticeboard consensus on unblock

Uchucha, it is entirely inappropriate and against administrator behavior policy to undo a block without discussion with the blocking administrator and/or on an administrative noticeboard, except in cases of gross errors. This was clearly not a gross error and several admins had indicated Malleus was acting improperly on the ANI discusion.

Objecting and seeking a new consensus, or discussing and then using administrator discretion are one thing. Simply undoing it without any effort to discuss first is a major breach of expected behavior standards.

I would like to request that you reapply the block and discuss to seek consensus on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMIN#Reversing another admin's actions says only that admin actions should not be reversed without "good cause" (among other possibilities); I think that good cause is there (namely, that your motivation does not hold water), and therefore I unblocked. Furthermore, you blocked for Malleus's actions in the ANI thread, not for his earlier comment to Cirt, and I don't see any other people calling these inappropriate, so your noticeboard consensus was nonexistent. Ucucha 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I had noticeboard consensus. You're (the reversing admin) supposed to SEEK noticeboard consensus - or at least noticeboard opinions - and notify. "...and seek some kind of courtesy discussion."

With an active ANI and me logged in, it was extremely disrespectful to do neither avenue of disucssion or notification.

There is not a presumption that the blocking admin was right. There is a presumption that the blocking admin had a good reason and thought about it. If you would please read the block comment again on his talk page, I had a good reason and I explained it in depth. You are not required to agree that the good reason is correct (obviously) - but you can't just blow it off and suggest there was no thought put in. That IS the definition of wheel-warring. Failure to discuss and particularly failure to AGF regarding the other admins actions are what the policy prohibits.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are, once again, misquoting: as you can see below, you left out the important word "usually". It's really quite simple: when you put something in quotation marks, you assert someone said those exact words. This is the second time in this incident that you are doing this.

It's also the second time you are asserting things that are not in the text you are interpreting; the policy says nothing about noticeboards.

I never suggested "there was no thought put in". Please stick to what I said, not what you think I meant. For the record, I have no reason to doubt you thought about it before blocking—I just think your thoughts were misguided. And your "definition of wheel-warring" is also at variance with the actual text at WP:WHEEL. Ucucha 12:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Ucucha, GWH has a point here. Per Wikipedia:Administrators:

Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.

Quickly undoing a block and not discussing it is not what is expected. Jonathunder (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a "ditto" of George and Jona here. Undoing a block like that was entirely inappropriate. Especially considering it then makes it practicality impossible for any other administrator to re-block, for fear of wheel warring. This means it's important that any unblocks are only done with extra consideration/discussion (because even if they aren't properly considered, it's still near-impossible to reverse them). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only means that the block cannot be re-applied without community consensus, which is a good thing. Ucucha 12:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block shouldn't have been undone without community consensus in the first place... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; You removed a BBC reliable source to prefer a primary source

Dear Ucucha, kindly note that in your revert of the article Salanoia durrelli, you seem to have deleted a reliable source from BBC and preferred it to a primary source with a note that read as follows, "no need for that; the description confirms that already and is the most reliable source." This might have been inadvertent. Kindly note that I have reverted your edit and now tagged the article as relying significantly on primary sources, that is, a research article written by the discoverers of the new mammal species which the article talks about. If you wish to reply, kindly do reply on my talk page. Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 02:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall, very kindly, reply here, because I wish to do so. Without the slightest hint of inadvertent action, I seem to have rid the article of a low-quality source, namely a news report, in favor of the best kind of source there is, a peer-reviewed scientific article. Ucucha 02:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ekgmowechashala

On 17 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ekgmowechashala, 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) 12:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Antrozoini: Simmons ref missing

"Simmons, 2005" appears to be missing from the references list. Circéus (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; added. Ucucha 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: BHL page links, I prefer to link an article title only to the first page (it can get pretty confusing otherwise IMO). I figure the site is not so hard to navigate toward the desired page, but that might just be me.

re: Koopman, thanks for catching that. I misremembered the part about two papers when looking up the refs. I'll add the Simmons 1998 ref mentioned if I can once you have the 2005 one added. Circéus (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's preferable to link directly to the piece you are citing, simply to make it easier for the reader. I don't feel strongly about it, though.

Simmons 1998 is actually two papers: Simmons (1998) and Simmons and Geisler (1998). I think I have at least one as PDF; I'll have a look. I'm still trying to determine what to include in the article: lengthy descriptions probably aren't too appropriate, given that its current incarnation is a molecular taxon. Ucucha 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting at least an approximation of the morphologic characters invoked for the group (you're lucky that you don't have to account for much evolution in the understanding of the group) would be useful, or at least mentioning that no such unifying characters are currently known (which is usually not difficult to ref. as the authors tend to make a point of saying so XD). Circéus (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll work on that. Antrozous + Bauerus apparently have a weird muzzle, but Rhogeessa + Baeodon are pretty much nondescript. On the other hand, there are some karyotypic similarities according to Hoofer and Van Den Busche (2003).

By the way, I don't think this is "a little". But it was generally an improvement, although I found a few things to tweak. Ucucha 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given we don't really write the same way, I expected more to get reverted.

Re: "further", we had just mentioned DNA only in connection with V-idae, so I assumed it logically couldn't have been the same data (or Simmons wouldn't have placed them as a separate subfamily), and to provide a more precise placement, it must have involved more DNA... It's a very common thing to happen as far as I can tell: an initial DNA study reveals something, but better/enlarged sampling later reveal a slightly different, more precise picture. "Further" thus seemed perfectly appropriate to me even without knowing all the specific minutia of the case. Circéus (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simmons (2005) cites Hoofer and Van Den Bussche (2001, JSTOR 1383686), who place Antrozous deep within Vespertilioninae (and sister to Rhogeessa). She says that "This group [Antrozoinae] may nest within Vespertilioninae, but its placement remains unclear; accordingly, it is here retained as a distinct subfamily pending further study." My impression is that she didn't want to retreat too far from her earlier position that antrozoines are a different family. The genetic evidence in all studies (Hoofer and Van Den Bussche, 2001; Hoofer and Van Den Bussche, 2003; Roehrs et al., 2010; and a couple of others) has in fact been remarkably consistent, in that every single one placed Antrozous and Rhogeessa sister (with Bauerus, if sampled). The reason I don't like "further" is that the previous data already placed Antrozous within Vespertilioninae, not only the "further" data (although, of course, the later studies have more taxon and gene sampling).

This is far more discussion than we should need on a single word, and perhaps too much dependent on an overly close reading of Simmons. I have attempted a different wording to avoid the issue, which also introduces the classification of Hoofer and Van Den Bussche (2003) (which I believe was published too late to be considered in Simmons, 2005). Ucucha 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I've edited to clarify that from the first studies the tribe was nested specifically within V-inae, which I think was the problem (the wording of Simmons' reason suggested the first study gave fuzzier results than it did according to what you just said). Circéus (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good; the only problem is that there is now more reffed to Simmons than she actually says. I'll put in an additional ref to Hoofer and Van Den Bussche (2001) when I'm done sorting out fossil antrozoines. Ucucha 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Grace Sherwood is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 31, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Sherwood was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. (more...)

Yea, we made it! Rather than trying to keep up with the vandalism during TFA, I just do a diff on the before and after versions, keep the good, and chuck the bad. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blanked wankers comment

Sorry, I must have edit-conflicted with you there -- thought I was just removing "wankers". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that happens occasionally. No problem. Ucucha 02:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Miliband

I wonder. It seems a little drastic to protect such a high-profile article over such a lame edit war. I've no problem with it, it is perfectly normal and within policy. But I'm wondering if you'd agree to lift the protection, and simply warn and then block anyone changing the contentious bits without talkpage consensus? As an uninvolved admin, I'd be happy to help enforce this.--Scott Mac 21:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded on the talk page that I'm open to doing that; we were writing at the same time. My only issue is a procedural one: we need to make sure people who edit the page know that they will get blocked for continuing the edit war. Perhaps make an editnotice? Ucucha 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is covered by your "warn and then block"—hadn't noticed that. No issues in that case; I'll unprotect. Ucucha 21:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Miliband

Hi, I think there is a consensus arisen in the discussion (as I see, now nine to remove and four to keep in the infobox .. religion = none) could you have a look and perhaps make the edit or opine as to where consensus is at/ Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Ucucha 14:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo ArbCom case update

I just wanted to let you know that ArbCom has moved the case to the proposed decision stage. The proposed decision may be viewed here and may be commented about here. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, NW (Talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All seems reasonable (though it's unfortunate that ArbCom is forced to resort to a ban); I have no comments. Ucucha 14:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver reviews

Not sure you should 100% rely on this. You repored DABs on my nomination yet they were fixed before the candidacy was started[1] (I try and always check toolserver reports before nominating). Not sure if the toolserver had cached a result or is playing up but, in future, it might be worth checking at least one link from the toolserver reports to check it is working properly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The toolserver's copy of the database occasionally has some lag; it should be no big deal, I think. Good that you're checking for technical problems. Ucucha 00:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Roger Waters

We could use your input on the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a look. Ucucha 21:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Antrozoini

On 24 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antrozoini, 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) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

Hi Ucucha. After extensive commentary, the FAC on Mauna Kea has been given a restart by Karanacs. I'm now a conom and noted you had been an early reviewer, so thought I would ask if you would consider revisiting and commenting on its current version. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to, if I have time. I never did any substantial review, though. Ucucha 02:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I've now hopefully addressed the last two of your outstanding concerns. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trocaz Pigeon

You were kind enough to comment on the Trocaz Pigeon FAC; could you have a look to see whether I've addressed your concerns or if you have further review comments. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conceptualization

I reverted you on Wikipedia:Conceptualization. The author isn't encouraging people to create neologism articles, he's pointing out the sort of absurdity that results from thinking about concepts in the wrong way. I don't blame you for not seeing that, it took me a couple reads to get what he was saying. Gigs (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after reading it a third time, I think you were right, and I've reverted myself. The author sure wasn't good at clarity. Gigs (talk)

With text like that, I always wonder whether I am too stupid to understand it or whether the author was too dense to make himself understandable. Ucucha 02:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive2

Hey, I'm contacting you because you participated in the last FAC. I have renominated Dustbin Baby (film) for featured article status, and I was wondering if you wanted to take another look. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in Article of Andre Geim, winner of 2010 Nobel Prize

Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:

- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml

- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf

- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/

- …

clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. BestAlexander468 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article, and (though I don't know the background well) it seems to treat his complex ethnic origins fairly now. What specifically is your problem with the current text? Ucucha 18:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This was a sock who was mass canvassing - User_talk:Beetstra#user_Russian.science_again) SmartSE (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor Attempt didn't work

You blocked Gavin.Collins after it was discovered that he had committed a lot of copyright violations. Sorry, I can't figure out how to find where the AfD that you posted this in has been archived to link to. The mentoring attempt has failed, this according to the mentor himself right here. Since you unblocked Gavin with the understanding that he was to work with a mentor on correcting the copyvios, which he has not done, I am requesting that you re-block him. Sorry if this isn't the correct way to go about making this request. I'm not familiar with the rules and procedures for this. Seanr451 (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll be doing any dispute resolution or similar things in the near future. (Besides, I only blocked him for copyright violations, and the mentoring seems to have failed on Gavin's idiosyncratic opinions about notability.) Your best bet is probably posting to WP:AN/I or asking Kww on how to proceed. Ucucha 11:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daydream (Mariah Carey album)/archive1

Hi Ucucha. Fixed, please mark your issues off if I fixed it. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

What happened to your userpage? No need for it any longer?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. Red is a nice color; it's like crimson. Ucucha 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a nice user page (trumpet slowly plays as a casket is lowered). ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good things come to an end. Ucucha 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're interested, I have a recipe for Chinese toffee apple.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Galápagos tortoise/GA2

I think everything's fixed now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look soon; no harm if it waits a little longer. Ucucha 02:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Request

Thanks again for putting a lid on the Megafauna Man's latest incarnation. I was wondering if I could get your help in redirecting Dwarf Panda and pygmy giant panda to Ailuropoda microta? The first two articles are basically identical, and it would be more appropriate to use the species name, rather than two not that commonly used common names.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The articles had almost the same content; I guess it went PNAS paper -> press release -> Wikipedia article over a few different routes. A few other Wikipedias also have articles on Ailuropoda minor, but the PNAS paper doesn't mention it; I don't have time to investigate that now. Ucucha 03:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems our friend who likes redlinked cats so much got a new IP range, by the way. Both this one and his previous one are on Java. Ucucha 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U notification

Since you are mentioned: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Somebody changed this species back to Spermophilus; can you reply? I don't know the details, but ITIS is certainly not the best source on such matters. —innotata 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Ucucha 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miniopterus aelleni

Hi Ucucha. I noted Fasach asked at the FAC about images. I have added an external link to a Musee Geneve announcement that includes images. Pls check that it looks OK. I will leave it to you to judge whether you think a fair-use case might be made for uploading the image, and whether you wish to do so. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it looks fine to me. Fair use is going to be controversial—especially when Fasach Nua is looking at the FAC—and probably not worth the hassle. Ucucha 05:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/archive1

There are more comments for you here. Please check back. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even fixed all the specific points I brought up; in any case I agree with Sasata that even when you fix some of those specific points, the prose in general is still below standard. Ucucha 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to be I did fix those mentioned instances. Listen, whether or not I have you support, please cross out what I've fixed, and if you don't have more specific instances, then please cross your oppose, unless there are specific reasons. And I don't mean, there are too many, because the "Music videos" section was the only section with those kind of issues. Anyway, I did a nice grammar check and I find it reads quite smoothly now (don't roll your eyes :P) so please, give it a chance.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ucucha. I wanted to let you know that an independent copy-editor (Legolas) has fixed up the article. Can you please have another look and see if I convinced you otherwise, or if you have any new comments. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corthylus columbianus

I came across this article (it wasn't even an article at the time) and did the best I could... Drmies (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a beetle, not a bug? I don't know much about all those things that don't even have teeth, and won't have much time for Wikipedia in the near future, with The Game tomorrow and all that. Stemonitis may well have something useful to add to the article, though. Ucucha 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting which one you're at--but H won, I saw. So congrats, I think. Yes, I'm pretty sure. As for the difference between beetles and bugs, you got me there, but I'm in good company. I didn't know you had such a teeth fetish--I though you liked rats for their fur and companionship. Either way, have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great cartoon, except that it is inexcusable to know nothing about bats. Yes, we won—how could it be different? American football is weird, though. Ucucha 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeell, you only won like the last 8 out of 9 or so. If you want to see a real rivalry, the Iron Bowl is almost here. You know people here plan weddings so that it doesn't interfere with the football schedule? But The Game must be fun too. One of my college buddies also went to Harvard and he loved it, and my wife used to watch Gilmore Girls, so I know ALL about it. Hey, more people know about bats than about John Keats or hooding--now what is more inexcusable? Drmies (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would rank those 1. Keats, 2. bats, 3. hooding. I saw people from Yale wearing T-shirts with a picture of Dubya and "Blame Harvard" and people from Harvard wearing shirts with Bush and "Blame Yale"; can you beat that down there in the South? Ucucha 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, here they would take the credit for Bush, at least for voting for him. Nancy Pelosi is the devil, these days. Those are funny shirts, I gotta say. Speaking of Keats, we have this movie laying around, haven't yet watched it. Oh, do you have the US address for Sinterklaas, by any chance? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Santa Row, Madrid, Alabama 36320. Ucucha 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article

Hey ucucha, are you able to get fulltext of this one?

[2] much appreciated in advance - Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Ucucha 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh well ....thanks for checking...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PDF sent. Sasata (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's good service. :) Ucucha 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I saw this thread last night and had intended to send it this morning. I wonder if we need a WP:TOL page for requests like this.... Hesperian 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could all watchlist the WT:TOL page I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have started listing things there for a more round-table participation (fingers crossed...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circassian diaspora

Hey Ucucha, I nominated this at DYK (following the suggestion of some bot), and only then realized that it was forked from another article. It already has some issues (see this), and now I'm not even sure it's eligible anymore. Advice? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it won't be eligible (I'm afraid) because there is a rule saying DYK articles should be completely new, not just copied from another Wikipedia article. Also, you'll need to use {{Copied}} to provide attribution to the original author(s) who wrote the text of the article (removed from Diaspora with this edit). Ucucha 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ucucha! Drmies (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]