User talk:Ucucha/Archive32

Archives

Leave a new message

Upcoming software-related events

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, for instance.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sublingua in rodents? and more...

According to this source, rodents have some sort of sublingua. Do you know if this is true or generally applicable? I doubt it would be as complex at a prosimian sublingua, if it is present.

Also, in the Pachylemur article, I put in some information about anticliny in the spinous process. I couldn't think of a good way to paraphrase this, and particularly explain anticliny in this context. Did you have any thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea; I'd never heard of the sublingua before. Gregory (1910) (Gregory, W.K. (1910). "The orders of mammals". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 27: 1–524. hdl:2246/313. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)) says there is a sublingua in treeshrews and a rudimentary one in colugos. Otherwise, I don't seem to have much that mentions the structure, though various papers discuss structures that are merely "sublingual" in position. I don't know about anticliny either, but will have a look soon. Ucucha (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for promoting the "Mark Satin" bio!

Seven Wikipedia editors are getting "Helping Hand" barnstars for helping me with the Mark Satin biography. Before they do, though, I want to thank you for promoting it to FA status yesterday. It is a unique article in some ways and tells an unusual story; I am glad you saw fit to put it through. - Babel41 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the promotion; you've done some impressive work on the article, and your diligence in checking the references is commendable. Ucucha (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence for Adiantum viridimontanum

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Ucucha, a belated but heartfelt thanks for all the help you rendered in reviewing and improving Adiantum viridimontanum. In particular, I appreciate the work you did last month to answer reviewers' concerns (especially given your other duties at FAC) when I was busy dealing with the usual start-of-semester chaos. I had no idea there were so many details to be polished about such an obscure little fern, and I couldn't have done it without your help! Best, Choess (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was great to see the article being developed, and I'm glad I was able to help. Ucucha (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hey Baby (No Doubt song)

I was unable to find the list of nominators for the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hey Baby (No Doubt song). Please fix the cause and run me again. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed FAC for Swedish heraldry

I'd like to know your thoughts on the recent FAC for Swedish heraldry, since you closed without promoting. I will be out of town for the next few weeks, though I will check in when possible, and once I get settled back in (with the Neveus book in hand - which is on its way in the mail), then I will be in a much better position to further improve the article. Setting aside for the second-hand references to the ellusive Neveus book, however, I would like to know what else should be done to bring the article into FA standards. Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? Should I just put it up for WP:PR in a month (after my next revision) and then FAC it again? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 06:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any specific suggestions (I closed it mostly because of a lack of reviews), but a peer review can't hurt. Good luck! Ucucha (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tammar FA

Hello, I would like you to close the Tammar wallaby FA. I guess I nominateed it prematurely and would like more time. LittleJerry (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have archived the nomination on Ucucha's behalf. I hope you found the reviewers' comments helpful. Graham Colm (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Ian Rose's talk page.
Message added 21:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rs chen 7754 21:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Genesis creation myth

A tag has been placed on Genesis creation myth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Per WP:RNPOV, it is the correct name for its target

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion request of this redirect page. The target article begins, "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth ...", so that appears to be a useful redirect page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Barrosa

I was unable to find the list of nominators for the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Barrosa. Please fix the cause and run me again. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFA of February 29, 2012

Hi, re this bot edit - TFA on February 29, 2012 wasn't London Necropolis Company, it was Psilocybin (see here and here). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It got changed. Raul654 (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I suppose I should make the bot account for TFAs that change after they've been selected. Ucucha (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC review push back

Hello Ucucha, I want to draw your attention to the treatment I've been receiving from User:Jivesh boodhun at his FAC nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Broken-Hearted Girl/archive1, my talk page and his talk page. I previously opposed one of his FACs, and that oppose vote and my application of the FA standards seems to be what's driving his behavior. I don't believe I have interacted with him significantly outside of the two FACs. I am continuing with the review in the name of improving Wikipedia for our readers, but if the kind of behavior I'm encountering is allowed to go unchecked, I fear good FAC reviewers will be driven away and our standards will suffer. Thanks for your attention. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, in addition to keeping an eye on every article I edit / nominate, you also watch the discussions I have on my talk-page. And to think, that at times you completely ignore those who post on your talk page to have a look at their FACs after they have fixed your issues. So, I reach to the conclusion that you know everything that goes on but you know where and when to comment and then disappear so that you do not have to write support. And there is no need to pretend to be the victim. I won't write an essay on what you have been doing since late 2010. People who have left Wikipedia because of you know and I am satisfied with that only. All I asked for was to leave me alone. Stop paying so much attention to all my contributions. I don't have to like you just like you do not like me. I am not a saint and I cannot put up with everyone, especially not you because of your arrogance. In fact you are the only one I cannot tolerate here. Your behavior disturbs many people here but as I have said before I am not among those who like to say this and that behind your back, I say it directly to you. Anyway, I have told you that I will try to fix the maximum number of the issues according to your preference. I hope I don't come across you ever again after this FAC or I will have no other choice than to leave like the others did. I am not a bad person and as long as most people on Wikipedia know this, I am happy and grateful to them. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to figure out in a case like this who is and isn't right, but it's good to see that THR's concerns are now being addressed. I hope those changes will make the article better. It's hard for nominators to accommodate reviewers who seem to want to get their own personal preferences into the article, and I think we should often defer to the nominator on issues of style. But it's equally hard for a reviewer to draw the line between suggesting legitimate improvements and following your personal preferences.

There's a few things I noticed in your posts here. THR, it may be a good idea to avoid watching Jivesh's talk page if he asks you to. Jivesh, unsupported allegations like "people ... have left Wikipedia because of you" are unhelpful. If there is really such a problem with someone's editing, there is dispute resolution to resolve it. Ucucha (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would I have to be in the right for his behavior to be deemed incivil? (Also, please preface your "Unsupported allegations..." sentence with "Jivesh," so others don't think I said it.) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks to you Ucucha for being fair. I do not want to aggravate things but whatever I wrote is true. I don't want to add anything about those allegations now. I am happy that you realized how difficult it becomes when a reviewer starts dictating his personal preferences. If you could spare some time, please read the FAC to know for real what happened. Thank you Ucucha. You do a remarkable job here. Bon courage. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jivesh, I did read the FAC; I saw some posts that were more snappy than they should have been. THR, I've prefixed that sentence. Ucucha (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed: toothcomb article

I'm consolidating my sources and preparing my notes in preparation for a full re-write of the toothcomb article. In your opinion, should the article address the toothcombs of both the toothcombed strepsirrhines and the colugos? Or should there be two separate articles for these convergent traits? The reason I'm considering two separate articles is because there is lengthy discussion about the evolution of the trait for toothcombed strepsirrhines, but none that I know of for colugos. Also, the discussion of function often focuses on primates, however colugos often get dragged in for comparison. – Maky ^« talk » 19:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to cover both, since the structures are so similar functionally (as far as I know), and similar structures exist even in treeshrews if I recall correctly. Besides, lemur toothcombs are such a poor substitute for the real toothcombs that colugos have :-). Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, this will complicate the structure of the article, and it will make it look like it is heavily biased towards strepsirrhine anatomy. However, I do see your point. I just dread the day of rewriting Rhinarium. Once again, its found in other mammals (many, in fact), but seems to be most intensely studied in primates. If your schedule ever quiets down and you want to collaborate on that one, just let me know. – Maky ^« talk » 16:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Elita

I was unable to find the list of nominators for the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Elita. Please fix the cause and run me again. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gorgosaurus

I was unable to find the list of nominators for the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gorgosaurus. Please fix the cause and run me again. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A template you made

Just an FYI about {{Sfnm}}: I recently made a small fix to it, and as you're the only other editor you might want to make sure it's right. –meiskam (talk•contrib•block) 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titan (moon)

I was unable to find the list of nominators for the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titan (moon). Please fix the cause and run me again. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reverted three vandalism edits to that FAC - does that help? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that won't make a difference in this case. The bot doesn't have code to recognize nominators from before there was a separate "Nominators:" line in FACs; I need to write that. It looks like it got the nom for this one anyway on the strength of his number of edits. Ucucha (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noisy Miner

Just posting in case you'd forgotten as you'd made some comments but not revisited the FAC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Black Bear

Um hi, you seem active in biology on wikipedia so I was wondering if you know a way to upload a picture. I think this picture would be perfect for the Florida Black Bear article and it is in the public domain, is there a way you can upload it? Because I wouldn't know what I was doing. -147.226.220.247 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done if you want to upload images, you need to create an account; see Wikipedia:Uploading images for details on uploading. —innotata 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sfn/sfnm

Hi. I should give you a heads up about what I mentioned re sfn/m. You added the ability to use both p/pp and loc to sfn, but sfnm doesn't have that. Before you just do so, I'd like to talk about the order they are emitted. I think it should be reversed with loc following p/pp. See this tweak, and the old version. That's a {cite news} and the old way emits "The New York Times: p. section 2, p. 52." The fix results in "The New York Times: p. 52, section 2." {cite news} and such don't have a loc parameter so we're left with gluing things like 'section' onto the end of page/pages (not ideal, of course). So I'm thinking flop the order for sfn to produce consistent results. Alarbus (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. I doubt I had any reason to choose either ordering. I've swapped them in Sfn now. As someone pointed out on its talkpage, Sfnm should really be rewritten to use a subtemplate; when I do that, I'll fix the ordering too. Ucucha (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (not actually looked;). I used {sfnm} on a few pages recently; William McKinley, for one. There were a few spots I wanted to use both p/pp and loc but had to glue everything into loc. Supporting both with {sfnm} will reduce the need to embed "p." or "pp." in a loc param and help editors shifting between sfn and sfnm. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Template talk:Sfnm, I just read the bit about using a script to gen the code and it reminded me of some stuff I once wrote. I wanted code to run *really* fast, so I had code generate code that would otherwise been in a loop. This was assembly language and it was tens of thousands of bytes of load/save operations without the overhead of looping. It was fast; it was animation.

Anyway, I also saw the talk about "blank arguments" which I've been calling double pipes. See William McKinley. It uses {{sfnRef}} a lot, mostly to allow sfn/sfnm to work without the years. To get sfnm to function, I had to use a lot of double pipes. I get it, and mostly don't have trouble with it. But others will. Most of the talk about this is on User talk:Wehwalt && User talk:Coemgenus, and there's much the same going on in Rutherford B. Hayes. Alarbus (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) {{cite news}} doesn't have a |loc= parameter - it has an |at= parameter, as do most (all?) of the other Citation Style 1/Citation Style 2 templates. So, instead of using |page=section 2, p. 52 (or even |page=52, section 2), you would use |at=section 2, p. 52. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that one. It's more for time in a video or sound in {cite vid…}. Proper database population has the page numbers in page/pages. We don't want the "p. " (or "pp. ") embedded; they're generated (encapsulated;) by the template. "at" would correspond to "loc" as an auxiliary field (and it's unfortunate that they're differently named). I'd have to look to see if they're all emitted if present… Alarbus (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC) (and they should have aliases added.)[reply]

The Sfn system is not really designed to work without years; perhaps there should be a |ref= option to generate ids without the year. I suppose it might be possible to make Sfnm automatically detect whether its parameters are years (something like {{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{2}}} + 1 }} | this is not a number | this is a number}}), but wikitext is not the most fun language to do that kind of thing in. I'll try to fix Sfnm to support loc. Ucucha (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the harv style is supposed to use years. A lot of extant articles using plaintext refs omit the years as redundant; a focus on concision (and a lot omit all sorts of detail, but the bar is low). The harvnb/sfn templates requiring years is a lot of what's behind resistance to their use; sfn's trailing stop, too. I mostly view this as wrong paradigm sloth. So I'll often use sfnRef to set an id that allows sfn without years; it's a way in the door. I fully realise that this may result in issues down the road when {sfn|Smith} publishes another book on a topic; or another Smith… but it can always be dealt with. I've seen plenty of cases where such ambiguity is blithely overlooked in citations. There's too much not caring out there. I want to see speedy FAC-fails due to improper referencing structure.

|ref=harvny (no-year) might be useful to get more acceptance. To a hardcore few, this is akin to religious warfare with a dose of Uni-loyalty thrown in. And they say this place isn't [supposed to be] a battlefield.

I see that getting sfnm to cope with omitted years would be a lot of work, especially given the extant usages with the double pipes. |loc= would be useful and perhaps I should give |at= a go. Mostly I think it's past time to consolidate; to rein in a lot of the trivial variations. I see your studies include CS; you know that managing complexity is important in software systems. Most here focus on just some small area and don't see the whole system where everything is multiplied up. Alarbus (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added |loc= support like Sfn's to Sfnm. At the moment we have |loc= being used throughout the Harvard citations family, and |at= throughout Citation/core. That should be unified.

And we have too many trivial variant templates in general. But as you say, if the templates impose a single style that creates more resistance to their adoption.

I'm going to do a little more work on unifying the Harvard templates. Let me know if you see further issues with my HarvErrors script; I found some further avoidable false positives at artificial intelligence. Ucucha (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've not looked at sfnm's loc, yet; but thanks.

See Indian Head gold pieces. I just changed it to sfn from plaintext; the cite "Guth, Ron; Garrett, Jeff (2005)" is not used, but with the '2' script it's not highlighted at all. I just flipflopped back to non-2 for a look and it's is getting highlighted (red, as I see that's still using class=error). This would be the peeking at section headings, as this page uses simple bold for the lowest level heading. That's fairly common from what I've seen with too many using the DL syntax ';' (an inappropriate bold-cheat syntax).

I like the idea of unifying; aliases should help and then bots could nudge code to whatever names are most apt, aliases then dropped and eventually things will improve. Did you see the sfn fork over a period at template talk:sfn#Option to remove terminal full stop in short form? Forked the whole thing over "." Since deleted in lieu of yet another option to sfn.

fyi, you do know that sfn-links can target full cites that are also in the {reflist} area, right? I'm not doing so, but have seen it out there. Alarbus (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of Rutherford B. Hayes

Above is a switch over to using sfnm with both loc a p parameters. Even though I'd issed loc for both volume and page, in vol. then p. order, I think I like it better switched. I makes those two look normal except for an extra bit at the end. But I've bad news:

Diff of James G. Blaine

This switch sfnm over, too, but there's an sfn using both and the loc field is not being emitted, so I believe the flop in sfn is not working properly. See here:

James G. Blaine#cite note-FOOTNOTEBlaine379v. 2-36

There's supposed to be a p=379 in there, too. See also:

Amundsen's South Pole expedition#cite note-FOOTNOTEAmundsenxviiVol. I-1

On that pages there's a missing "Vol. I, " in a |loc=Vol. I. I'm quite sure these were working before albeit in the other order. More troubling is the fact that there are other sfn on the Amundsen page that are using both params and they seem to be working properly. I'll be looking further. Sorry, Alarbus (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah; part of it seems to be that it's specific to |p= but not |pp=. I just previewed changing to "pp" for xvii and the volume appeared, too. Alarbus (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might instead have been because of this. Let's test them here: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4].

^ Smith 2010, p. 1.
^ Smith 2010, p. 1, fig. 1.
^ Smith 2010, pp. 2, fig. 1.
^ Smith 2010, fig. 2.

Perhaps it's better to start a discussion at Template talk:Sfn about the order of p/pp and loc. Ucucha (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for HarvErrors, I hadn't thought of the possibility of using Sfn to target references in a reflist, but I see it's possible. Still, I don't think that should have an effect on HarvErrors, since it is not problematic if references that are inside a <ref>...</ref> don't have any Sfns pointing to them.

HarvErrors2 currently only catches references in a list immediately following a References/Sources/etc. header. What it should really do is catch everything from such a header until the next level-2 header; I'll see whether I can code that. Ucucha (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk's fine; thinking this will fix it:

{{#if:{{{p|}}}|, p. {{{p}}}|{{#if:{{{pp|}}}|, pp. {{{pp}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{loc|}}}|, {{{loc}}}}}

I shifted loc all the way out of the other structure. Alarbus (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the change I just made, isn't it? Thanks for pointing this out. Ucucha (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. (edit conflict) we're missing each other's actions; I think you just made pretty much the same fix as above. off to look. Alarbus (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you fixed it while I was looking at sfn and posting here. Thanks. I've looked at the articles and they seem fine now. Still going to double check. Anyone who objects to consolidating templates needs several hundred curly braces dropped on their talk page along with an obligatory test. Alarbus (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and there's this: Template talk:Sfn#Core. Alarbus (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea to me. It'll be much easier to keep things like the order of p and loc in sync. Ucucha (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just

liked it. Alarbus (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Isn't this |location= aka |place=, as in the city of the publisher? It's not the same |loc=. Alarbus (talk)~~ 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired. It could use an alias |loc=. Alarbus (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This thread is rather related to the whole sfn/script issue. It's about encoding in {sfnRef} to get italics in footnotes.

Template talk:Sfn#Title-Date with wiki markup in link

Some of the ideas will impact {sfnm}, too. Alarbus (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sfnm should do whatever Sfn chooses to do, I think. Sorry for not responding earlier. Ucucha (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Ucucha. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- UtherSRG (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could have a look at this?

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#The Voice UK.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— M. Mario (T/C) 10:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User script listing cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 04:57, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Tarsier ID

When you made this change on commons, I assume it was because you believed that the animal is misidentified. Could you confirm this? And if so, why do you think it was misidentified? It's in use on other wikipedias for the original species, and I'd like to fix the Commons image page so that that doesn't happen anymore. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't what I wrote there tell exactly why I thought it was misidentified? Tarsius tarsier does not occur on northern Sulawesi (it is restricted to Selayar), and the tarsier species in the area where the picture was taken is currently unnamed. Ucucha (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mentioned on Commons that it's a zoo animal, which only makes matters worse. I assumed it was either wild animals that just happened to live in the zoo premises, or wild-caught tarsiers from the vicinity of the zoo, but if they're from somewhere else on Sulawesi, we have absolutely no idea what species they are. Ucucha (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I missed that in your diff. It has since been removed by another user. I left a message for the uploader to ask about his ID. If it was in a exhibit at the zoo and labeled as Tarsius tarsier, do you think there is still a large risk that it is not in fact Tarsius tarsier? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unlikely to be in fact Tarsius tarsier, no matter what it is labeled as. Tarsius tarsier as it has now been restricted is a very rare and narrowly distributed species. Ucucha (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Radzymin

I replied to your question at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/archive2. More specifically, all the images questioned by someone in the previous FAC process (check here) were already removed from the article altogether. //Halibu tt 03:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whom should I contact to do such a spot-check? //Halibu tt 11:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask people who have regularly done spotchecks at other FACs, such as User:Fifelfoo and User:Nikkimaria. I've also listed the article as needing a spotcheck on WT:FAC. Thanks for your previous message, by the way, and I'm sorry I forgot to reply. Ucucha (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Ucucha. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For year month day

I've edited {{for year month day/display/sandbox}} and would appreciate it if you would update the main page {{For year month day/display}} with my changes (it's fully protected). I've added some test cases to show the problem and fix. Thanks –meiskam (talk•contrib) 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Easter egg

I made that pipe this morning and probably should have had more coffee by doing so. Thanks for the promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive4

Please take a look As you can see, I've done this three times before and I really want it to pass now. In previous attempts, it didn't because of lack of interest--do you know how I can get anyone else involved to say yay or nay? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Futbol Club Barcelona

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Futbol Club Barcelona. It is TFA on May 11, 2012. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators for

I was unable to find the list of nominators for the FAC [[]]. Please fix the cause and run me again. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha, are you talking to yourself now? Drmies (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is merely my faithful (if buggy) servant talking to me. Ucucha (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're never lonely... Hey, you in the motherland this summer? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am there as we speak, and will be for a few more weeks. Are you here too? Ucucha (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll be there on June 4, with my oldest, until June 21 or so. Do you ever go shopping in the Kalverstraat? That's maybe halfway between my mom and your (old) school... Drmies (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important Mail

Hello, Ucucha. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Faendalimas ^talk 22:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition

You an administrator who is listed at WP:DYK as actively involved, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indraloris

Congrats! Nice work. Guettarda (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you did that one. Very nice! I envy you for your ability to summarize the dentition. Btw, do you mind if we include the infraorder in the taxobox? You talk about it in the article. – Maky ^« talk » 15:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article and Afrasia, Guettarda!

I try to be conservative in adding non-major ranks (like the infraorder Adapiformes), but if you feel it's important enough, go ahead.

I've actually seen most or all of the Indraloris material in the Harvard collection, so that helped. :-) Ucucha (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally ignore non-major ranks, too... except with primates, and particularly fossil primates. It all has to do with the general confusion over their early evolution and the spotlight that evolution receives from the media and public. I prefer it to be very clear (if possible) about the four (to six) major divisions: strepsirrhine/lemuriform, strepsirrhine/adapiform, haplorhine/tarsiiform, haplorhine/simiiform. Granted, then there are omomyiforms and eosimiiforms under Haplorhini, but with those the phylogeny and taxonomy (respectively) are such a disputed mess that I don't want to address it right now. The other four are considerably more stable. Which brings me to the point of "infraorder Lemuriformes"... which may need to be discussed at WikiProject Primates...

But, yes—thank you, Guettarda! – Maky ^« talk » 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Guettarda (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the material? Any chance you could photograph it? Guettarda (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in a few months when I get back to college. Ucucha (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Afrasia djijidae

Hello! Your submission of Afrasia djijidae at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Religious language/archive1

I was unable to find the list of nominators for the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Religious language/archive1. Please fix the cause and run me again. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Indraloris

On 16 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indraloris, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the first two fossils of Indraloris to be found were misidentified as a carnivoran and a loris, it is in fact a member of the extinct adapiform primates? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Indraloris. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paratheria

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I finished the GAN review for Paratheria (mammals). Just a few comments, then I'll be pleased to pass it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'm so sorry I dropped the ball on your mammals. I've passed the article - looks good! Thanks. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thanks for reviewing! Ucucha (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Afrasia djijidae

On 19 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Afrasia djijidae, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that dental similarities in Afrotarsius, an African fossil primate, and Afrasia, a newly described fossil primate from Myanmar, add support to the hypothesis that simians first evolved in Asia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Afrasia djijidae. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

I smell a rat!
If only people would actually learn to write... for themselves!

When you get a chance, we have another copyright violation at Multi-male group (history). It dates back to a very large edit on December 6, 2011. I've done a lot of clean-up, mostly by deleting the references and copyright violations. Most of the references were too specific for the material they were citing, or in some cases, were horribly off-topic. – Maky ^« talk » 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTESmith20101-1] Smith 2010, p. 1.

[FOOTNOTESmith20101fig._1-2] Smith 2010, p. 1, fig. 1.

[FOOTNOTESmith20102fig._1-3] Smith 2010, pp. 2, fig. 1.

[FOOTNOTESmith2010fig._2-4] Smith 2010, fig. 2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]