User talk:Ucucha/Archive14

Archives

Leave a new message

DYK for Sciurini

On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sciurini, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Natural language

Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh art

It will be deep night there. Sure for Q4? Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least it's something for Wales Day. As it turned out, this was a short set, so I have re-added the one I swapped out. Ucucha 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant - thanks very much! In time for Chubut Province anyway. Just after midnight in Wales, so there's the post-pub traffic. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, all Welshmen will check Wikipedia after they come home from the pub. :) Glad I could help. Ucucha 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book

BTW, you might want to add {{Wikipedia-Books|Oryzomys}} in the See also sections of all species of Oryzomys (and Oryzomys itself), otherwise few people will know the book exists. It will produce a box, like the one in the right corner.

If you have any questions, just ask (or check WP:Books, Help:Books, or WP:WBOOKS). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wait with that until all the articles are of acceptable quality. Thanks for your assistance. Ucucha 05:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might take a while. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it, though. There are already three at GAN, with a fourth soon to be added, and a few more I'll be expanding soon. Ucucha 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupines

Are porcupines paraphyletic? Fat chance, but I thought I'd ask you to prevent Porcupine from being rather messed up. I'd think porcupines would be a monophyletic group, just one at a rank between family and order, given that they have so many details in common, but the article rather needs a statement, and, preferrably, a proposed clade name, to prevent it from being turned into a disambiguation page by somebody like Chrisrus. (Chrisrus has "porcupine" on his list of animal names that do not correspond to the Greek [Latin], this probably being the most obviously actually correspondent.) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, porcupines are diphyletic; the New and Old World porcupines are distinct families that are not each others' closest relatives. I think porcupine should be some kind of dab page, for that same reason. Ucucha 23:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that. Then, I don't pay attention to porcupines unless one is driven over near me. Do you want to take a look at the other pages on Chrisrus's page. Moles, as discussed, deserve a page, but most are genuine, including this, it now seems. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among the mammals there I'd say anteater = Vermilingua; mongoose = Herpestidae; mole = Talpidae; squirrel = Sciuridae. Others don't correspond to taxa: whale = large Cetacea; civet = random Viverridae; fox = random Canidae; shrew-mole = Uropsilinae + Urotrichini + Neurotrichini and perhaps a couple more; monkey = Platyrrhini + Cercopithecidae; mole-rat = Bathyergidae + a couple of Spalacidae + random fossorial rodents; mole-shrew = Surdisorex plus some random other shrews; porcupine = Hystricidae + Erethizontidae; ant bear = obsolete term for (apparently) Orycteropus and Myrmecophaga; wolf = random Canidae (arguably, though, wolf = Canis lupus; others are "adjective wolf"). Ucucha 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there are others that he omitted. Mouse = small rodent; rat = medium-sized rodent; various combinations of those (climbing rat, climbing mouse, tree mouse, shrew mouse, shrew rat, tree rat, water rat, and others) also ambiguous (there are several there that might have to be converted into dabs: spiny mouse = Acomys, but also Scolomys; harvest mouse = Micromys but also Reithrodontomys [as you noted before]). Jerboa = some Dipodidae; cavy arguably = Caviinae + Kerodon though our article equates it with Caviinae; antilope = random Bovidae; dolphin = some small Cetacea; bandicoot = Peramelemorphia - Macrotis. Ucucha 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot. That reminds me, what is the reason for Oryzomyini not being called rice rat? This seems to be a fine common name. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. However, there are a few genera (Holochilus, Nectomys, Neacomys, Zygodontomys, Scolomys, Sigmodontomys, Amphinectomys, Lundomys, Noronhomys, Carletonomys) that are not commonly called "rice rats". Basically, "rice rat" is anything that was previously commonly placed in Oryzomys. Older papers tend to equate "rice rat" with Oryzomys, but now that Oryzomys is rather smaller Currently, Oryzomyini has in its lead that many species are commonly called "rice rats", which I think is the best way to do things. Ucucha 00:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mindomys

On March 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mindomys, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox and the Hound (novel)

This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines.

Signing here with a fake timestap to get this archived soon. Ucucha 15:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atys (King of Maeonia)

Hello Uchucha. Thank you for closing the queer turn the discussion was taking on my proposal for renaming Atys, father of Lydus to Atys (King of Maeonia). I responded to one user who seemed straight but an impression from past contacts is present in my mind for some of the later participants to the discussion, upon which I abstained from taking part in it further. I will put forth a new proposal in due time because now, we have a King of Lydia, or any king of any sort for that matter, without an article of his own and should make do within a list. Whereas this is not case for his namesake Atys (king) of Alba Longa, nor would it have been, if the thing had any regents, for the otherwise mysterious Kingdom of Kurdistan. :) Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a strange turn; I have never before or after closed a requested move as "Merge". But consensus was clear. I understand Atys father of Lydus now stands out from other kings of the period in having no article, but perhaps there are more articles that would better be merged into lists, since there is simply nothing substantial known about these persons. Ucucha 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein, I separated Car (King of Caria) and Car (King of Megara) who were previously under the same roof. I explained my reasoning in Talk: Car (mythology): "The knowledge on the figures and their attributes is certainly very scarce and open to debate and but that should not justify treatment in bulk." If you feel that these Cars should be grouped together like the Kings of Lydia, by all means re-merge them. In time, the reasoning may be extended to other similar cases. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that it is not good to treat two persons together in the manner Car (mythology) did, but the articles that result are so short, and unlikely to grow, that it might indeed be better if you merged them into a list. But there's no particular reason to ask me about that: I only closed one discussion and generally prefer to spend my time here on rice rats, rather than ancient kings with funny names. Ucucha 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Degu

Sorry for the mess-up there. I forgot to check the inches. By the way, surely you want to move Amphisbaena ridleyi back to the correct name. I've been thinking it would be good to try to seriously improve the article: do you want to work on it, as well? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just cm actually—the text said degus had a HBL of 2.5 to 3.1 cm! Almost as good as one of Sasata's mushrooms, which had up to 24% toxin content.

Yes, there's a couple of amphisbaenians that still need to be moved back. I'm getting Oryzomys gorgasi ready for a GA nom now, but may work on those later today. Most won't need admin tools to be moved back, but there are also some that he moved from one common name to another and that really should be at the scientific name. Amphisbaena ridleyi would be a possible GA or FA, yes, and would fit nicely with the two other Noronha FAs. There is still some good information that is not in the article. Ucucha 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the inches: I meant I didn't check the output, as I can think in centimetres only to a limited extent. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24% toxin content, eh? I've moved the article myself. Nice articles you've got for Oryzomys, when will marsh rice rat be one? Won't be good if this isn't a spectacular featured article some time. I'm looking into ridleyi since I'd like to work on the amphisbaenian articles some time, and this is one which is already a little developed. I've got all my sparrows and ground squirrels (finished moving all Marmotini that don't require admins, so I'll finish my navbox and get down to expansion some time) and Crested Shelduck, a good article that a little work could make into the second waterfowl FA; but otherwise little I'd like to improve steadily. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Oryzomys, I'll be getting gorgasi and dimidiatus ready for GA first; both are already somewhat developed but need polishing. I'll probably do the marsh rice rat soon. I'll also be able to get nelsoni and antillarum done pretty easily, but couesi is tricky because it is a species complex. When I also expand the genus article to something reasonable, it'll be ready to be a good or featured topic.

It would be great if we got some other decent articles in underdeveloped areas like Amphisbaenia. The Shelduck looks good for FAC if it's comprehensive as you say on its talk page. I tend to not bring shorter articles to FAC, although I think all my GAs and GA nominees meet all the FA criteria, so as to keep FA for the somewhat more well-known animals. Ucucha 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crested Shelduck and the shorter Oryzomyini articles are rather long compared to what I expect to get out of Socotra Sparrow, even if all goes well for finding offline sources. Only one paper has dealt with the species since 1966, I could say. The behaviour section will be something like: "It is common. It is surmised to be solitary during the breeding season and gregarious outside the breeding season" And I'd like to get it to GA. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's more than one maxilla known of it, the article should be longer than Carletonomys.

I moved all remaining marmotines. I noticed that while ground squirrel says that ground squirrel = Marmotini, Category:Ground squirrels also includes a few Xerus and Sciurotamias. We'll have to resolve that one way or the other. I also found User:Shallfaken/Ardennes Marmot and watched the linked piece of Belgian TV on YouTube. I had expected "Never gonna give you up", but it is apparently genuine, and very interesting (the userspace draft does contain a few errors). Ucucha 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the Socotra Sparrow. What I'll have is discussions of the taxonomy of it and its relatives, an extremely short description of the way its plumage differs from that of its relatives, two or three figures in measurement chart, a single paper actually on it which is offline (no idea what it is like, but I will soon: and the article will hinge on it), more papers on Socotra birds I'm not sure I can get which will probably just say "it is common and gregarious", and perhaps the original descriptions (but it is unlikely I'll be able to get them, here). I don't think there will be anything comparable to Carletonomys's sources, papers on the fossils of a formation. The papers on Socotran birds I can find are of little use, and a discussion of ecology would need to be one of the whole island, and Abd al-Kuri, which is less published-upon in English than the bird. As for Crested Shelduck, there is a lot that can be added to the article, I just discovered: dry rubbish to most people; things on specimens and art history. The article was well researched, and by an ornithologist, but mostly online on databases and other "popular" sources. Some things are cited to arguably unreliable sources, but this can all be replaced.

I agree with you that ground squirrel doesn't match Marmotini (Xerus), but Sciurotamias? The marmot seems interesting, and not too surprising to me. If you think it can have an article that seems great; I hope it will be DYK-size. I wonder how many more species the alpine marmot will be split into. In any case, mammals can not beat fish for new species in Europe (tip of the iceberg). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need help with getting some of the literature; I have easy access to almost anything here. The original description of the sparrow would be this, p. 166, but for some reason Google Books has the 1880, but not the 1881 volume online. BHL doesn't seem to have it either.

For some reason I was thinking Sciurotamias is a callosciurine, not a marmotine. So should we split Marmotini from ground squirrel? All the Xerini are also "ground squirrels", and Rheithrosciurus too (even though Britannica lists it as a tree squirrel).

I've been doing some Google Books searching, resulting in the two images I added and in some links I'll keep for the expansion of the marsh rice rat. There's this to begin with. It's got some interesting early taxonomic history. This is the first description. Baird named Oryzomys here and even has a plate here (only a skull though). He describes palustris here and gives us an explicit etymology: "The generic name is borrowed from its habits, as given by Audubon and Bachman, of frequenting the rice fields, and doing considerable damage to the crops." Ucucha 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I hope (or, rather, expect) from you would be a good behaviour section—I don't care a bit for the taxonomy of this particular animal. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Socotra Sparrow, thanks for the offer, but most of this is not digitised (all of it, actually, except the two or so papers giving it a short mention which can be found with Google Scholar), rather than things behind a paywall, of which I have found nothing yet. Through the state library systems and friends and relations in the nearby colleges of Minnesota and Wisconsin, I can get ahold of any papers one can get digitally or in a library in those states, and I did so regularly recently, for nought but edification. This is not quite what one can find in those institutions of Cambridge, Massachusets, but it is a lot. I'll add marsh rice rat to my watchlist, as I add Minnesota's vertebrates, to see what you do with it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only about digitized works; there are also actual libraries here which may have things that do not exist anywhere in Minnesota or Wisconsin (although "easy access" is perhaps not the correct term for the basement of the labyrinth that is Widener Library). Ray's 1962 thesis on Caribbean rice rats, for example, apparently exists only here, in Chicago, and in New York. Ucucha 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd actually work on the article? That's nice. Maybe I'll make it a collaboration. MeegsC also may be interested (she lives in London, I think). I don't think I'll get on to it for some time: I'm quite excited about getting info on the black-bibbed sparrows out, and I'll also do the common African species, excellent potential FAs soon. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, or I can scan things. Ucucha 03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'd like to do some other rufous sparrow before this one, to get an idea of what these birds are like compared to the others (perhaps the Kenya Sparrow, pictured). Once I add a longer lead to Russet Sparrow (I'll do so presently), can you give it a look over? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look over it shortly. Ucucha 19:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just started on the marsh rice rat. It's mostly stuff you probably don't like as much so far—taxonomy. I'll continue tomorrow. Any ideas for a good DYK hook? I might do something with its oldest taxonomic history, or perhaps something interesting will come up in the yet-unwritten sections. Ucucha 05:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anasazi, second try

Could you please leave a comment at Talk:Ancient Pueblo Peoples#Requested move? Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no substantive opinion. Consider leaving neutral messages at places like relevant WikiProjects and using Template:Rfctag to attract more opinions. Ucucha 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So.......Bender235 can't get a concensus from those of us who work on the article and immediately after a failed concensus goes through another hoop. Not constructive editing and his efforts are not welcome. You closed the previous effort - perhaps as an administrator you could encourage him to learn to work with others rather than pushing an agenda. WBardwin (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion did not result in consensus—this one, perhaps, will. I have no opinion either way, other than that our policy on article titles be followed, including use common names. It's up to you to determine what title would result from applying this policy. Ucucha 02:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Liberalism

Thank you!UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ucucha 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: You are fast

Let me guess... chronic watchlist checker? Sasata (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. And having seen enough of the marsh rice rat for a while, perhaps. There's a lot of sources. We know how much radiation is needed to kill them, how they mate, what parasites they have (thirty or so, if not more), what happens when you remove their pineal glands, and that they are not especially good at retaining water. A bit more than Mindomys. Ucucha 04:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mentally toying with the idea of undertaking a bigger project (because there's so little else to do here...), but would not want to do it alone. Would you be interested in collaborating on species? Projected FAC date... sometime in 2011. Maybe a to-do list on the talk page might attract some other experienced species FA writers and it could be a cool group endeavor. Sasata (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be interesting. Many of the supporting articles on taxonomy and nomenclature are in poor shape, and this is one of them. I think the best point to start would be an appropriate structure—perhaps divide into a history of the concept of a "species", general review of the different species concepts in use nowadays, and impact of those (for example, in conservation, and in numbers of species recognized in particular groups). Ucucha 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up some books during my library trip tomorrow and see if I can start an outline after some reading. Sasata (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qwest Field

Thanks for the cleanup at Qwest Field. It may not be the same as football in Europe, but Fenway is supposed to be a blast if you have much more time in Cambridge.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I do that at every FAC nowadays and this one had didn't nearly have as many problems as a lot of others. The only interest I have in sports is in fixing alt text and dashes on potential featured articles, so I think I'll pass on Fenway. Ucucha 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. To many Bostonians anyways (kidding of course). Well nice work and have a great evening.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of liberalism

I added the content there per the suggestions in the PR. Someone really wanted to see the material from the old Liberalism article in one of the daughter articles. But whether it's the right place or not...I'm not sure about that at all. To tell you the truth, I don't even think that material should be mentioned. I'm only doing it to satisfy the reviewers.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally a bad idea to do something to placate a reviewer when you don't think it improves the article.

I still don't see how the new content fits under History of liberalism. You could create new daughter articles if the content needs to be in a daughter article. Ucucha 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree with you fully. Most of the advice I got at FAC was absolutely great, some of it was worthless, and I'm having to listen to the worthless stuff all over again at PR. The addition of that material absolutely sabotages the article and it's nothing but a list meant to check off a few topics that someone wants mentioned name by name. I don't even think a daughter article is necessary. I think the material itself is just unworthy of Wikipedia. My preference is to delete it, but I don't really want to do that if it'll mean Pivovarov comes back to FAC and opposes with the same arguments. At the very least, I want to appease the people at the first FAC (even though as I mentioned there, this user has about 60 edits total in Wikipedia and it's the first time he participated in FAC; technically qualifies to participate in FAC, but still sketchy).UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has edited more at the Russian Wikipedia; and anyway we have to focus on the substance, not the people who brought up the points.

I think articles are sometimes promoted over an oppose (for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4), when consensus is that an oppose is groundless. I hope the peer review will help you improve the article—you'll probably get more opinions than the one you've had so far, and after that you can bring it back to FAC. Judged from the flurry of activity on the last FAC, you'll probably get no shortage of comments. Ucucha 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll talk it through with him some more and see if we can come to some sort of agreement. The PR just started after all. By the way, in a completely unrelated matter, interiot's great user edit count service went down because the account has apparently expired. Do you know of any other good and reliable user edit count trackers for Wikipedia?UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah I guess you do! That one for Pivovarov was pretty cool!UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck there. Yes, soxred's counter is good. It's also linked at the bottom of Special:Contributions pages here. Ucucha 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe

I had been (silently) watching that for some time, but I'm glad you called it, hopefully, to the attn of other reviewers. At any rate, FAC is not a vote ... so, cool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was just going to tell you. :) We'll see how they respond. Now you're here, there's a possible driveby nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney/archive1. Ucucha 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly (and vaguely), we need to keep a close eye out for socks and new accounts at FAC in the coming weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Not all may be related, though. Ucucha 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're wondering (you're usually right on top of things :), I do realize I'm holding up several WikiCup noms, and do hope I can at least carve out time for a partial promote ... soon :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck there. There are a few that could be promoted, I guess, but that's your choice. I don't have any particular interest in WikiCup noms beyond adding the notice, by the way, and I generally unwatch FACs I do the technical check on as soon as everything is resolved. Ucucha 02:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh rice rat

Hello, I have added only a small piece of information into Marsh rice rat, because it is taxonomically very difficult for me. Fell free to add more info from that PD source. The photo in the recovery plan seems to be not in public domain. Addtionally I have found via http://www.tineye.com/ an original uncropped version of File:Oryzomys palustris in vegetation.jpg somewhere at http://bigfrienzy.proboards53.com/ server - we should track its origin to be sure if is is PD nor not. --Snek01 (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll expand on it soon, probably in a few days; I have tons of sources to fill in the rest of the biology of the species.

Yes, that image looks a bit fishy. I have asked the CDC for clarification. Link to TinEye. Ucucha 13:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

With regards to removing names from Alt descriptions, because they cannot be verified, I just look up the verifiability page, and if you interpretation is correct, then no image on Wikipedia ought to be captioned with anybody's name at all, unless they are holding their a board with their name on it in front of them.

There is a very good reason for including the name. I have written about it on the Ben Paschal talk page. I am coming at this as an educator of the blind. Amandajm (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the difference between alt text and captions. Captions can and should include names. Alt text generally should not. Ucucha 12:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo

I answered the last three... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I answered again. One more thing, then it's sufficed for GA. Ucucha 13:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d'oh! missed it, had a go at rephrasing...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you

I appreciate your doing the review. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H3

It's not just for BLP's, it should be for any article. We actually had five hoax articles the other day, and something needs to be done to try and prevent them getting through. Gatoclass (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered that that was not the outcome of the discussion, but WT:DYK#Alternative suggestion indicates that it is. Sorry for that. We'll see how it goes. Ucucha 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the least we can do Ucucha. Quite frankly I am getting tired of trying to defend this project at AN/I and next time it happens I'm not sure I will even bother. But in the meantime, I want to try and ensure that we do everything practical to prevent a repetition of last week's dramafest. I am still considering what else we might do to try and tighten up our procedures, if I come up with anything I will canvas it at DYK talk. Gatoclass (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW that was an edit conflict at the rules page, had I realized you'd changed the wording I probably would have come here and discussed the issue first, sorry about that. Gatoclass (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but am afraid just about any solution won't do much more than start an arms race with the hoaxers. I hope this will be effective; you should probably make sure reviewers know about it, for example by changing the instructions at the suggestions page. Thanks for your ANI work; there were some uninformed things there that needed to be corrected. I try to keep in mind that ANI discussions about any other subject than blocking someone rarely result in anything. No problem with the ec (you just caused another to me :) ). Ucucha 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you're saying about the hoaxers, but if they choose to hoax us again, at least we will be able to say that we did in fact respond to the last breach. If we do nothing, it's just more ammunition for the critics. Gatoclass (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope for Britain

Hello. You deleted my article on the 1983 Labour party policy document and their 1983 general election manifesto at New Hope for Britain and replaced it as a redirect back to The longest suicide note in history, with the deletion summary "Unambiguous copyright infringement: authors of previous version not noted."[1] Irrespective of the decision at the AfD, the policy document and the election manifesto are clearly notable documents, and there should be one article on them (or one on each). Given they have the same title, and one follows the other, it makes sense to deal with them together.

I thought I gave an edit summary which linked to the relevant revision at The longest suicide note in history, viz [2], and that would be a sufficient link for CC/GFDL author attribution. I also explained what I was doing at here and here. I'm sure a lot of Wikipedia content is copied and pasted from one article into another with as little or indeed less attribution, but perhaps I was wrong. Please would you let me know what I should do to get it right next time.

There is plenty more material to be added, but I don't have a copy of the version that you deleted. I'd be grateful if you could put a copy of the deleted text in a sandbox for me to finish - somewhere like User:Jttw/New Hope for Britain. Thanks. -- Jttw (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure whether I was right in labeling the article as copyright infringement, and apologize if that was incorrect. However, the article would have been eligible for speedy deletion under CSD A10 anyway, since it substantially duplicated the existing article. If you want the suicide note article to be renamed (and there seems to be some support for that in the AFD), then you can propose that it be moved using the requested move process.

The deleted revision is nearly identical to this non-deleted revision, but if you still want to have it I can provide it. Ucucha 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I appreciate it was similar to the other article, and I was intending to expand the new one based on the sources I have found (some of which were removed from the other article in the revert) but I had to rush off and have not been able to get back to editing until this evening. And there have been other, um, distractions. And how I have to rush off again, and may not be able to get back to this until the weekend or next week.

Yes, please could you copy it to a user subpage - I think I made a few changes, and can't remember what. I can't be bothered with the paperwork for a move request, so I'll write a separate article.

I'd also still appreciate a steer on attribution, or just a pointer to the appropriate policy or guideline. Was my previous attempt sufficient, or is something further required? -- Jttw (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to do so is to use the {{copied}} template on the talk page. I am slightly hesitant to userfy the deleted revision because of attribution issues. I have provided a copy of the article you wrote. Ucucha 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what happened

was there some weird edit conflict? What happened. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The weird thing here was that you did not make any edit yourself but only undid Charles Edwards's edit. Weird. Ucucha 20:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Squirrel

エゾリス in ja:File:Wiki-ezorisu3.jpg should better be translated as "Hokkaido squirrel (subspecies of red squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris orientis)". エゾ stands not for Eurasian, but for Yezo - Northern part of olden Japan, which is now called Hokkaido and Sakhalin islands (my bad). That is for direct translation, species name could still be "Eurasian" - can't tell that for sure. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the English description be a direct translation of the Japanese one? I think the description currently at File:Wiki-ezorisu3.jpg is fine in describing the image, and from your text it doesn't appear to be erroneous. Ucucha 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My note was linguistic, I can't tell whether that person correctly identified the species. If correct then Sciurus vulgaris orientis has further been "translated" as red squirrel here and "Eurasian red squirrel" here (i.e. Japanese authors omitted the Hokkaido bit). Why I am so careful here - I have previously identified my own photos (Japanese birds) using scientifically looking library books, but then found that some English transliterations there are either not adopted or are just swapped to other species in other literature. Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurus vulgaris is the red squirrel of Eurasia, which occurs all the way from western Europe to Hokkaido. Sciurus vulgaris orientis is presumably just the local subspecies. Common names are indeed often messy, which is one of the reasons we have scientific names. Thanks for the accuracy check; I added the subspecies name to the file description page now. Ucucha 03:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oryzomys albiventer

On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryzomys albiventer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminly request

Hi Ucucha? Can I ask you to perform a couple uncontroversial and maintainence-related tasks for me?

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive1 needs to be speedy deleted.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive2 needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive3 needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive2, with the redirect deleted.

I usually bother Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to get this done, but he seems to be busy, so you were my next option :) Thanks in advance, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malagasy rodents

By the way... if you ever develop an interest in and need help writing articles about Malagasy rodents, let me know. Some of my books with lemur information also cover all other Malagasy mammals. I would love to co-author something with you someday. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nesomyines are interesting animals and I'd be happy to work on a few of them with you. The literature I have is a bit slanted to recent taxonomic literature (like descriptions of at least four new species of Eliurus); I don't have as much on some of the more ecologically interesting ones like Hypogeomys. Ucucha 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you and I need a break from the topics we're working on, we can sit down and work on these. Hypogeomys in particular sounds like a lot of fun. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western versus Eastern gray squirrels

Thank you for correcting the identification of my image of a gray squirrel: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WesternGraySquirrelGoldenGatePark.JPG

I have been uncertain of the identification for awhile and became more uncertain when I visited Golden Gate Park recently and saw a lot of what seemed to be clearly Eastern gray squirrels because they had so much brown in their coloration. Except for their coloration they looked very similar to the squirrel in my image.

So what was it in my image that made it clear to you that this was an Eastern and not a Western gray squirrel?

Thanks again, Dave Davefoc (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Westerngraysquirrel.jpg

Reddish coloration on the face and thin tail that doesn't look as silvery as in a western gray squirrel's. The one to the right is a western gray squirrel; they have very little reddish fur. Ucucha 20:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imbros Move Request

I'm gonna assume that you're a mod or an admin for wiki as you closed the requested move as 7 days passed. So I wanted to consult you. Wiki rules suggests that a simple google test can be sufficient to determine the name. "Gokceada" has 518 thousand results while "Imbros" has 171 thousand. Added to that the only link that's related to the island is that of the wiki in the first page of the google search. The rest refers to the Imbros gorge in Crete. I could have simply moved the article name without asking anyone but I didn't want to start an edit war. If you have read the discussion in the discussion page you'd see how some people are pushing their personal nationalistic agenda. And I'm sorry but I cannot accept an argument that says that the name should be Imbros because Shakespeare used the name in one of his plays centuries ago. In this case could I still go ahead and move the name? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether there were any nationalist agendas involved and won't comment on that. It's possible that there is a guideline or policy page that advises that Google can be used to determine what the most common name is, but I think many editors will argue that most results in standard Google are worthless, because they include low-quality sources like tourist information and self-published websites. That is why some editors in that discussion cited Google Books and Google Scholar results, which include sources that we would generally consider reliable on Wikipedia.

There was some argument about issues like this at the move request, but there was no clear consensus in favor of either name in the discussion. Therefore, I closed it as "no consensus". You should not just move the page now, since such a move would certainly be controversial; there needs to be consensus to move first. Ucucha 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the rule that's mentioned here: [3]. In the matter of multiple local names which is the case here, a simple google test is said to be sufficient. If peoples sense of an acceptable argument is that the name is Imbros because Shakespeare used it centuries ago then a google test makes hell of a lot more sense. I was hoping that you could see that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shakespeare argument was indeed not the strongest, but there were other more persuasive arguments. The section you refer to (I corrected the link) is primarily about cases where a name has been mentioned in English so rarely that there is no well-established English name. That doesn't seem to be the case with this island, since the name has been used in English quite a bit; the supporters of Imbros are arguing that that is the common English name for the island. Ucucha 22:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I explained in the discussion in depth point by point comparing various rules of Wiki for both names. The only argument I got back was that there is the Turkish wiki if I wanted to. The reason I checked the article on wiki and wanted to change it's name was because I was involved in a discussion with few of my American friends who are studying political science and when were talking they used the name "Gokceada". I was surprised to see that they even knew the name but they told me that it was their professor who used the name. After looking online to see the common name I saw that "Gokceada" was the common one used in the last decade while "Imbros" was widely used for the gorge in Crete. I have explained the common usage point by point in the discussion.

I know you don't really want to discuss on this. I newly decided to edit more actively but whenever I try to edit something minor factual error I'm labeled as nationalist and propagandist Turk by Armenians and Greeks. So I decided to stop even trying as such pages are oppressed by such people. It's just sad that so many common people use wiki to get information and there are so many inaccurate information that are bullied into submission by some people. I'll leave you alone now. Thanks for everything. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]