User talk:Ucucha/Archive30

Archives

Leave a new message

Cronopio dentiacutus

I don't know if you've already seen this, but it struck me as very you- a new mammal species has been described from South America. I'd normally not mention it, but it's receiving some high-profile press attention. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't heard of it yet. It's interesting because it's from a period that wasn't well-represented previously in the South American record, and it's a member of a strange group of mammals, the dryolestoids, which were fairly rare in the Jurassic in the Northern Hemisphere and then somehow became the dominant mammalian group in South America during the Cretaceous. Ucucha (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

Would you be able to peer review the Giraffe article? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time at the moment, but will drop by if possible. Ucucha (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article promotion

Congratulations!

Thanks for all the work you did in making Voalavo a Featured Article! Such a mysterious creature. (There's probably one in the image at left... probably...) Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to comment on another Featured article candidate... or perhaps review one of the Good Article nominees, as there is currently a backlog. Any help is appreciated! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk)

Talkback

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Plarem's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FA nomination

Hi, Is there any end to the FA review process? After six weeks and eleven reviewers, including Sandy Georgia and Karanacs, I'm concerned that editing Australian Cattle Dog will become a circular process, changing and re-changing to suit the style of the last reviewer. Marj (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one has been difficult. I'll to through FAC again within the next few days and probably promote or archive that FAC. Ucucha (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Hey Ucucha, are you still thinking of chiming in at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Homo_floresiensis/archive3? If not, it will likely be delisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not; at least, not until this semester is over. Ucucha (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination

I would like to make one quick nomination of former FA article Emu. I feel most of the reason it was removed have been solved. LittleJerry (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to wait for two weeks after an article that you nominated at FAC has been archived. Also, you should post at the article talk page and at the talk pages of major contributors to the article to make sure that they're OK with the article being nominated. Otherwise, good luck! Ucucha (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am turning to you as a delegate for leave. LittleJerry (talk)

Even in that case, you'd have to post at the article talk page or at major contributors' talk pages. However, I think it'd be better to sit out the two-week waiting period, which you could use to get some more reviews of the article and make some improvements, so you can be sure that it'll be ready for FAC. Ucucha (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of that article, trying GAn first may be a better bet since it should make it more FAC-ready. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has never been through the GA process. Double-checked the history. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that is already FAC-ready. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK submission

Hey Ucucha. No suikerbrood yet; I'm waiting on the parelsuiker to come in. I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Not Afraid--did you know there are 311 in the category, one of which mine (anonymously, haha, but you'll know)? Anyway, I'm going to pass on this one, but it may well be a matter of taste so I thought I'd inform an acknowledged master of good taste. Well, he wasn't home so I'm dropping you a line. Please have a look, or pass it on to someone who cares. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concepts of "rap song" and "interesting" are mutually exclusive, so I don't think my opinion would be welcome there. Ucucha (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So judgmental...maybe you could check out "Us" on Death Certificate. Anyway, do you know where the editor can get someone else to look at it? Drmies (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:DYK, perhaps? I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Ucucha (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You are simply outstanding. Keep up the great work, and don't stop unless you absolutely, positively need to! Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 16:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

...guess what I just put in the oven. Half an hour from now... Drmies (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was undercooked a little bit, but still, it was delicious. Our dinner guests loved it too. Well done, Frisians. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fryslân boppe. That sounds good. Here things are unusual; the campus has been occupied. Ucucha (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed! I had one slice--the Americans ate the rest. So, you have the week off? I hope someone is feeding your lab full of rats. Anyway, excitement looks really good on the History channel, but once you get into the real world it often sucks, even if it's for the right reasons. Oh, if you can get my kids a free ride through that college of yours, I'd appreciate it. They did both love suikerbrood. Happy days Ucucha, and enjoy your time off if you have any. Remember, one day you'll be old like me and you'll miss having time. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't have time off (legend has it that this university never cancels class for any reason); there's merely heightened security [1]. Ucucha (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that's certainly exciting! Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User talk:RetiredUser12459780

This is most certainly not non-controvertial, and if memory serves, not part of the vanishing process. TCO vanished under a cloud, was subsequently accused of sockpuppetry (behavioral evidence was exceedingly strong but the CU data didn't back it). Despite the fact that TCOs move was botched (he is apparently User:RetiredUser12459780 and User:RetiredUser1245643169), and raising this in the past hasn't gotten anything fixed, we can at least try not to botch it any further. I'm not sure what prompted you to make the deletion today, but I take strong issue with it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear in my deletion message. TCO's talk page for some reason got moved to User talk:RetiredUser1245643169, and still exists there. My bot placed a message about an upcoming TFA on the talk page you mention; I didn't see much point in messaging a vanished user, so I deleted the message. This is the only deleted revision on that page.

I've now moved the talk page to TCO's actual vanished name to avoid further trouble. Ucucha (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ziegler's Water Rat

A new article - Ziegler's Water Rat - needs some help to ...be at Template:Did you know nominations/Ziegler's Water Rat Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs some work. I commented at the DYK, but won't have time to improve the article itself soon. Ucucha (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Featured Article Candidacy

Hi, Ucucha. Since you're one of the FA director's delegates, I thought I'd invite you to help.

I nominated 1689 Boston revolt for FA about a month or so ago, and Magicpiano is probably the main contributor to the article's current form. Fifelfoo, another editor, raised some questions during the review. The question is directed to delegates, so I thought you should check this out. We're wondering what to do next. DCItalk 01:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at the article, I spotchecked a limited number of sources, and found minor problems. Using this as a sample, there would be an implied, or expected rate of similar problems in the unchecked sources. What ought we do? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best if someone (including the nominator) goes through the sources to make sure there are no other minor issues like that; it's easy to make such errors, and we want FAs to be free from them.

Fifelfoo, thanks for the spotchecks you've done on several FACs; DCI and Magicpiano, thanks for your work on the article. Ucucha (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA delisting - Barack Obama

Please give me your opinion.

Obama is a FA. Someone is removing edits saying that it is a FA so they can do it. They are removing good stuff. Because of this, people are abusing the FA designation as an excuse to remove information.

People are also edit warring, which makes a FA not a FA. Maybe if it is not a FA, then people will cooperate to make it one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=460853530&oldid=460852350 (see Fat&Happy's comments where he gives an excuse to remove well written text on the guise that it is a FA). Jack Paterno (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article to not be an FA, you should nominate it at WP:FAR (following the instructions of that process). I can't fault Fat&Happy for that edit, though; the text he removed used unformatted references, and is that storm in a teacup over Skip Gates really notable enough for Obama's article? Ucucha (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people at the Obama article have a difficult task and my sympathy. As requested at AN/I, I was one of a few admins who went over to help out for a while when things got particularly bad. I don't agree with them 10 out of 10 but they do a good job and it would take a serious issue for me to want to push them aside.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to jump in a couple of days early

Indian Head gold pieces will probably be promoted next time through, there is ample support and no outstanding issues I'm aware of. I'd like to nominate Walking Liberty half dollar, which will wrap up that series. There are still a couple of coin articles at various stages of review, but I've pretty much moved on to a series on William McKinley, with Mark Hanna about half written. I hope to take home my second president by summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Ucucha (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I'm on a very slow connection, so only promoted the one that Ucucha was recused on ... I didn't get any farther today, didn't look at the coin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I don't expect any drama, and so it should all be the same in a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:ExpandTemplates

Hi, maybe you remember the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#Bot_to_convert_from_citation_templates_to_non-citation_templates where you expanded the Citation templates. I have a similar problem, but I'm not really sure how do you managed to change the templates to the "hardcoded" markup. Can you explain me the steps? mabdul 14:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the wikitext of the article, first replace <ref> with some temporary placeholder, like <REPLACETHIS>, then run the text through Special:ExpandTemplates, then replace <REPLACETHIS> back with <ref>. Ucucha (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1689 Boston revolt and absence

I am wondering how things are looking for 1689 Boston revolt in regard to its FA review. I am going to be absent for a few days from the website, so am curious as to how things appear. Thank you, DCItalk 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, it would be best if the sources get checked a little more. It's close, though, and one of the other delegates may decide to promote it. Ucucha (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis on relevence

Ucucha, I mention some of your work in an analysis on Wiki writing patterns. I absolutely would NOT want to make you sad. If you disagree or curse me...that is fine. Just don't want to bring low feelings.

I absolutely think you are a smart biologist and a strong writer. (And like totally appreciate your protecting picta!) I do criticize the coverage of obscure mammals.

See here: PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles

Peace. 69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it. It's fair; I tend to write on obscure topics, where it's easier to find all the sources and less time-consuming to compile them.

I do see a few specific issues in your analysis, though they don't seem to have much of a bearing on the overall point. I don't see how Drymoreomys is heavily reliant on mtDNA; genetic studies do not suggest at all that Voalavo gymnocaudus is not a valid species, though they may endanger the validity of the genus Voalavo; Myotis alcathoe is actually on the Red List, though Myotis escalerai is not. Ucucha (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. Will fix.69.255.27.249 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c is that these specialised articles are landmark efforts in collating hitherto inaccessible material for the general public, and one of teh best things we do here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that what Wikipedia has achieved - by inviting anyone to contribute anything they know about in a freely available way - is truly extraordinary. Geometry guy 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adiantum viridimontanum

So, speaking of obscure FAs, I think I might like to be part of the "problem" just now. You reviewed this article for GA recently; now that I've added the distribution map, do you think it's worth tossing in for FAC? Choess (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yes. If you're confident you have seen all or most of the reliable sources available (I will check at FAC :-) ), then go fer it. Sasata (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Let's strike a blow for flowerless plants! I'll take a look later too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: go for it. Geometry guy 01:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, give it a try. I think the article is in good shape; as Sasata says, you should just make sure there's nothing substantial known about the plant that's not in the article, which shouldn't be difficult for an obscure species. Ucucha (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hat in the ring. Thanks for your encouragement, everyone. Choess (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFA Images

Don't think the bot should be putting non-free images on user talk pages. CTJF83 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be non-free images in TFA blurbs in the first place. If the bot's input is incorrect, I can't guarantee the output to be correct either. I'll look into adding a check, though; that'll be somewhat difficult, because the bot doesn't currently even process the blurb other than finding the article name, and I'll need to figure out a way to determine programmatically whether an image is free or not. Ucucha (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good news is, someone found a free image CTJF83 21:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Ucucha (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend

Are you planning to go through, or should I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, feel free to. Otherwise, I can go through tomorrow morning. Ucucha (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see how far I get on my tree today, and possibly go through later. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Tree of Life in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tree of Life for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding article

Hi Ucucha, I am in the middle of expanding 1740 Batavia massacre in an attempt to bring it from GA to FA, and User:Drmies has told me at his talk page that you have good access to scholarly articles. I am looking for "1740 in Batavia", by W.R. van Hoëvell. The article was originally published in TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR NEDERLANDSCH INDIE, 3DE JAARGANG and published in 1840. As interlibrary loans are out of the question (I live in Indonesia), would you be able to scrounge up a PDF or something similar? It's a 110 page article, so it should be extremely useful for fleshing out the article if I can get my hands on it and not go crazy reading through gtranslate. Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on Google Books here. Not sure whether you'll have access to that in Indonesia; if not, we'll find another way to get it to you. Ucucha (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I can download it. I'll try converting it to scanable text and working from a G-translation of that. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me know if you need help understanding anything. Dutch spelling has changed quite a bit since 1840, so Google Translate may not do well. Ucucha (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'll keep that in mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are up to it, but the letter from Governor-General Adriaan Valckenier from page 493 to 496 in the above source would be great to have in both languages in wikisource. As I'd also like to try and quote it directly, do you think you would be up to a transcription and translation? If not, no problem. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona FAC

Ucucha, could you peek in at this? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to meet all the checks, so I promoted it. Ucucha (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucuchabot glitch?

Just wanted to let you know that Ucuchabot added the notice about the upcoming TFA on the talk page of Cogan House Covered Bridge but did not put a notice on my talk page. I knew about it when DaBomb87 move protected the article, so it is not a big deal, but I thought it odd that I was not notified as the sole nominator at FAC and major contributor. Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes its edits for some reason just don't go through; not sure what the issue is. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ucucha (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something I only just noticed on your profile

Wait, you're Dutch? Een mede-Nederlander? : P That's the first time I've come across another Dutchy on Wiki, heh. Cheers, Auree ★ 03:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ik ben een Nederlander (though currently transplanted to the USA). We're not the only ones here: User:Drmies, User:TheDJ, User:Edokter, User:Kim Bruning, etcetera. Most don't tend to work on hurricanes, though. I see you are from Curaçao, so I guess it makes sense that you're more interested in hurricanes. My sister actually lives on Bonaire; I was briefly on Curaçao last summer when I visited her. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how'd you like it there? Bonaire is awesome too. It's like a more peaceable and nature-oriented version of Curaçao, so it's an awesome place if you're looking to relax and explore. And yes, tropical weather is a prominent factor here, so it eventually sparked my interest as a I writer. I'll be moving to good ol' Nederland next year, voor m'n studie zeg maar. I initially hoped for a scholarship in the US, but those are pretty hard to get here. Auree ★ 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it, and I hope to go back, perhaps next summer. I've done quite some work on fossil rodents from the ABC islands, like Agathaeromys, and perhaps I'll be able to go look for more. Good luck in the Netherlands! Ucucha (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, that is actually really interesting! Great work on the article, too. I've considered becoming archeologist/paleontologist before, and fossils still intrigue me lots. I remember looking for rocks with shell fossil prints by the sea when I was a kid. Thank you, and keep up the good work with your own studies Auree ★ 04:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can you please explain why you closed the FAC discussion for hip-hop dance. Just now I was about to update my response on the discussion page to let my reviewer(s) know that I had finished making all the ce changes so that they could revisit the article. I left a message on December 9 within Nikkimaria's comments saying this. But I went there and discovered that the discussion had been closed and archived. I saw nominations on the FAC page that were older than mine. Why was this one closed before they were? I honestly don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm just surprised because I was literally just about to go leave a message on the discussion page telling everyone who replied that the ce issues had been addressed; ce was a big issue, so now that the grammar/mechanics are improved I thought the reviewers may change their o to s. Is it because every response started with "oppose"? Please respond. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple reviewers see serious problems in an article, we will usually remove the article from FAC, because it's better to resolve those problems off FAC. If you wait for a while and nominate again, you may have more luck at FAC. Best, Ucucha (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myotis nattereri/escalerai

Hi Ucucha! I don't know exactly how this works, but I would like to congratulate with you for the page on Myotis escalerai (if I understood well you did the main work on it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myotis_escalerai. I'm working on the M. nattereri group and I found your page very complete and accurate, but, as you know, the study on that group is still ongoing. If I could help you with something about the group in the Western Palearctic or the species in particular, please don't hesitate to contact me (although I have no idea how editing in wikipedia!).

Again, congratulation and thank you for your work,

Bye! --Murciep (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, I wrote virtually all of the article on M. escalerai. If you would be able to somehow get me chapter on M. escalerai in the book Ratpenats. Ciència i mite, that would be great; I haven't been able to get the full book and have worked on the basis of incomplete Google Books previews. There's also a very recently published article on the group (doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2011.11.004) that I've yet to fully read and incorporate. I wonder whether the lineage that group found on Corsica is the same as the one found in Italy by Galimberti (2011).

I've also been wondering what to do with Myotis nattereri tschuliensis (I know that's not quite Western Palearctic). There seems to be good evidence that it has little to do with M. nattereri itself, but only Benda's paper on Syrian bats actually declared it a separate species. Ucucha (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't have the catalan book, but I think I could find it. We have been working with Italian samples too (also from the South) but we didn't have the possibility to compare them with Corsican samples, at the moment is one of the unsolved points. The taxonomy of the Eastern lineages is actually a complete chaos. There are very few available samples for genetic studies and the morphology is so misleading! If I could find something about it, I will let you know. Would it be possible to talk with private messages? I think you should be able to send me private message from my user profile, if I did it well. An other question, do you know why it is not possible to go from the english page on Myotis escalerai to the spanish one (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myotis_escalerai) and viceversa? could it be because in the spanish one the name is not in italics? The Spanish version is not so complete and so updated as your one, but it would be nice to have them connected, don't you think? --Murciep (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, and good luck sorting out those issues.

User:Smartse just fixed the issue about the English-Spanish links by adding the interwiki link. Wikipedia doesn't have an inbuilt private message function; however, you can e-mail me using the "E-mail this user" link to the right. Ucucha (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal sovereignty in the United States

Marshalls usage of England instead of Great Britain could allow the decision to be challenged. That's from Tribal sovereignty in the United States but the Menominee Tribe v. United States, which was passed as a GA, does not mention this. It is true that England did not exist after 1707 but was Great Britain and the text sounds plausible but I can't find a source. You worked on Menominee Tribe v. United States and I wonder if you know those sources well enough to find this fact. Alatari (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only did a GA review on that article; I'm not familiar with the subject myself. However, the IP's change sounds like original synthesis to me, and a fixation on irrelevant detail—I doubt the union between England and Scotland did much to change English/British policy in North America. Ucucha (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Well, his change is enticing enough to interest me into finding a source. It's going to be obscure unless it was something that just came to light recently. I'll revert, place a copy on his talk, ask for a source and see what happens. Alatari (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a footnote and I'll get to see the book it's from tomorrow. Alatari (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links script

I was about to use it just moments ago here but the script didn't appear in the toolbar. It looks like your script only works in the article namespace ("0", I guess); is there a way I could use it to weed out extra links in the draft? HurricaneFan 25 — 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the code to also show the link in NS_USER (which is 2). I suppose I could just show it anywhere; not sure. Ucucha (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jivesh Here

Hi Ucucha. I think User:Two Hearted River already did those and I made the necessary changes. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It doesn't look like he completely checked images, though, so I'd like to see a more comprehensive image review. Ucucha (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive3? I'll give it a look. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a comment, but I assume it's a different FAC? Which one needs attention? J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hmm... it is the same FAC we are talking about. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subst message

We're getting a subst message in the FAC promoted and archived pages ... I'm not gonna subst them, and don't know how to make that go away ? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's from this edit. I've fixed it now, I hope. The message should simply be removed from all FACs where it appeared, which I'll do now. Ucucha (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- so glad you have that knowledge, since it's Greek to me. I was just finally, after two weeks off due to funeral, sitting down to promote when I found a TCO adherent mucking around in Tourette syndrome, and I have no intentions of reading (during Christmas and while I'm still trying to catch up from the time away) the 50 pages of new journal reviews that have been waiting three weeks for me <grrrr ... >. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as busy any more right now (school is over for a few weeks), so I'll be happy to run through FAC a little more when necessary. Good luck dealing with the Tourette stuff! Ucucha (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★★★★★★★★ Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 ★★★★★★★★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And It Feels Great To Know That There Are Good People Like You Here To Guide Us. Cheers. :) - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jivesh, and merry Christmas to you too! Ucucha (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thanks :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar finds many hits for "South American Foxes"

Given all of these: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22South+American+Foxes%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33, where should this link South American Fox go? Chrisrus (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every combination of an adjective and a noun that appears in some scientific papers needs to go anywhere. This term can apparently refer not only to Lycalopex, but also to species like Cerdocyon thous and Dusicyon australis. Ucucha (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, contrary to what had been stated, Walker's calls its section on these "South American Foxes", and these other papers seem to call them that in just the same way; specifically not in a simple "adjective + noun" way like you might say "Australian birds" or "Dutch cats" but to refer to specific animals a la "Ethiopian Wolf" or "Indian Wild Dog", it's been used as a techical term in reference books and scholarly journals. So that part of what you said doesn't apply.

On the other hand, what you say about the the Falkland Islands wolf and the Crab-eating fox is a point well taken. If they have been called, not in a simple "adjective + noun" way, but specifically as species named "South American Fox" as for example is done with "Ethiopian Wolf", that is a point well taken, so please if you would point me to a paper or reference book that does so, because a disambiguation page or some such might be in order, as I may revert to your edit with apologies. Chrisrus (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1644/08-MAMM-A-113.1 calls C. thous a South American fox, and so does doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01901.x. doi:10.1086/650166 seems to be referring to D. avus and D. australis as South American foxes, but isn't very clear. On the other hand doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01901.x does equate Lycalopex with "South American fox" (which should, in any case, be lowercase). I think I reverted yesterday mostly because the source that was then cited in the article did not at all support the claim, but there are better sources for this common name for Lycalopex than I thought. Ucucha (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this post, your position on this matter seems to shift as if you had written it in progressive stages as you were going through the WP:RSes. In conclusion, is there some disambiguation of some sort needed? Chrisrus (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly for Cerdocyon; not sure whether that's worth it though. Ucucha (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Ucucha! My name is Tomica and I nominated "Rehab" for featured article like nearly two months ago. A lot of users commented and helped me with and currently has like 5 supports and 1 oppose. The FAC has been non-active like maybe for a week. Btw thanks for the prose edit, but since you are a FA delegate, can you tell me what will probably happen with it. Thank You ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now going through FAC looking for articles that can be promoted or archived. There's a good chance I'll promote "Rehab" soon, but the result of the spotcheck is concerning; perhaps you should ask Nikkimaria to revisit and to assess whether there are likely to be more issues with the article. Ucucha (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will ask her. Thanks!:)— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I bet you saw) Nikki responded on the FAC. I think that there is nothing else from the spotcheck. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 13:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil beds

Hi Ucucha. I'd like to renominate John Day Fossil Beds National Monument for FA, but there's no point in doing that without first addressing your concerns about comprehensiveness here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Day Fossil Beds National Monument/archive1. The problem that I face is that hundreds of articles have been published about the fossil finds in north-central Oregon, and I don't know which one(s), if any, summarize the paleontology any better than the National Park Service documents that I've cited already. It's not that I haven't looked, though I've certainly looked only at a tiny fraction of all possible material. Last month, I attended a public lecture by Josh Samuels, the current chief paleontologist at the park, and he mentioned nothing not covered in the article except for the recent find of two fossilized teeth that are the earliest record of Castor canadensis in North America. I subsequently added two sentences about this find to the "Geology and paleontology" section of the article. I realize that a lot more could be added, but if I add it piecemeal like this, culling bit here and a bit there from articles that are narrowly focused, I'll be doing something that approaches original research or perhaps synthesis, deciding on my own what is important enough to include and what is not. I don't think I should do that. On the other hand, I'm stuck. I don't see how to proceed. This is especially frustrating to me because I care deeply about the park and the article. I've made many trips to the national monument. I was a volunteer ranger there for a month in 2006, before I became a Wikipedian. I conversed with Ted Fremd, the chief paleontologist at that time, as well as with the resident paleobotanist, Regan Dunn, and the chief preparator, Matt Smith, both of whom have since moved on. I met the rangers, some of whom are still there, and went with them to visit places like the Clarno Nut Beds. I took hundreds of photographs, returning to get better shots after I bought a better camera. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get the article promoted to FA, but I'm not certain what that might be. I have access through JSTOR to articles through about 2010 (but not generally from 2011) from 12 journals related to paleontology, and I can get at most anything else in other ways. I'd appreciate any specific advice that you might have about how to proceed. Finetooth (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finetooth, thanks for writing and good to see that you haven't been dissuaded from working on the article. I don't think we have any other good articles on paleontological sites, so it's good to see some work being done.

I have worked on fossils from Southeast Asia, Europe, and the Caribbean, but not from North America, so I'm not intimately familiar with the literature. However, I think you may be able to find some more material in academic books, such as ISBN 978-0231130400, which has quite some discussion on the John Day fossils (for example, from p. 178 onwards), though it is focused on chronology. ISBN 978-0-521-78117-6, and its sister volume published some time ago, will have a lot of information on exactly what mammals were found in the beds. However, if I were you, I'd try to focus not on listing exactly what species occurred there, but rather on what is unique about these particular sites and what we've learned from them.

The beaver bit is good, but you gave it the wrong species name—it's the extinct species Castor californicus, not the living Castor canadensis. I already mentioned the paper that was recently published about these fossils in the FAC. The note in that paper (doi:10.1666/11-016.1) on page 933, I think is a good example of the kind of content that would enhance the article: immigrants which came in to North America at the time appear earlier in the John Day faunas than elsewhere in North America.

Let me know if you need help getting access to sources, including the ones I mentioned above. Ucucha (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I will pursue these leads and see where they go. Finetooth (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slowly preparing some new information to add (though not so much) to the fossil beds article here, in my sandbox. Feel free to improve it or add it to the article however you wish. I'm going to take a look through some more of the sources to see if there's any other information about paleontology that I can mine from them. Other than that, I look forward to the next FAC once these matters are settled. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1

Hello. There's quite the vicious debate going on at the aforementioned FAC. In the absence of Sandy, who was mentioned here, would you mind taking a look? Thanks. --Rs chen 7754 21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's becoming a mess. I've posted there to hopefully solve the issue at this FAC at least. Ucucha (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your reasoning for closing this as "archive"? Imzadi 1979 → 11:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste error; I'm sorry. I've corrected it now. I garbled this one too: it's also getting promoted. Ucucha (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just looked at the edit summary and was curious. Imzadi 1979 → 11:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something I Noticed

Hi Ucucha. I know you are very busy. Do you still remember I told you last time that spotchecks have already been done for "Single Ladies". Then you asked for an image review... well this has been done three days ago. But this still says that "Single Ladies" needs spotchecks. Spotchecks have already been done; Instead of writing Spotchecks, User:Two Hearted River wrote References that don't support the text (not exhaustive). Remember I also gave you the name of the user who did it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't think that was comprehensive enough of a spotcheck, but I suppose it should be OK. I'll be promoting/archiving again soon, and will then see again whether I'm satisfied with the FAC. Ucucha (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope Christmas proves to be lucky for me. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I express you my heartfelt thanks for passing "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" I am very happy. Thanks again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]