User talk:Ucucha/Archive13

Archives

Leave a new message

Talkback

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know.
Message added 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

i B e n 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hello, Ucucha! I'm sure you've heard of me (via ZooPro) throughout the community. I was wondering if you could protect the page Kayavak. I requested it for protection, but it was declined because of not enough vandalism and/or nonsense edits "AT THIS TIME." About once a month it goes through a vandal-burst and needs the protection. The vandalism is all from IP adresses and anonymous users, not auto-confirmed or confirmed users or admins. I hope you will accept my request, she needs the protection from the anonymous user and IP address vandalism! Warm regards and all my best, Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 19:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't get a lot of vandalism (only two vandalistic edits so far), so I concur with Cirt's assessment that this does not nearly justify semi-protection. By the way, it's generally frowned upon to go to another admin with a request when someone else has already declined the request (see WP:FORUMSHOP). You did mention the earlier request, which is good. Ucucha 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Squirrel articles

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for your work and brilliant insight and spirit of cooperation for the articles about squirrels. Saukkomies

Thank you! Good that we've been able to fix all these pages now. There's quite a bit that needs to be improved on tree squirrel (uncited statements, perhaps unreliable sources), but at least we've got a good organization now. Ucucha 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs

Thank you so much for the medal, Ucucha. Great! It's cool to be the first. :-)
BTW, should Large Mindoro Forest Mouse (22 August 2009) be listed on User:Ucucha#Did you know articles? --PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - it's a really impressive achievement on your part, making sure that not only the people who know their way to T:TDYK get their articles featured on DYK.

It should be, yes; I'll put it in with the next update. Ucucha 14:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help moving a page

Would you please help me move Large Sloth Lemur to Palaeopropithecus (currently a redirect)? The common name is not supported by any primary or secondary sources I can find, plus capitalization is wrong for a genus. Also, if you look at the pages that link to it, almost all of the ones in the mainspace go through the redirects for the genus or the species. Honestly, I don't see a reason for proposing it and discussing it. It only gets about 6 hits per day (some of which are probably mine), and there aren't many watchers for the page. Would you mind flexing some admin muscle for me and take care of this? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Google Books found a few sources using this name (though perhaps for P. ingens, not for the genus as a whole), but not nearly enough to justify using it here.

You seem to be having a habit of posting here while I'm starting an FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mindomys/archive1 is now open. Which reminds me that I still have to review the Gray Mouse Lemur on FAC—will try to do that this week. Ucucha 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... I'm good like that. Thanks for looking into it and fixing it. You wield your mop like an expert! When I get to that genus, I will look for those references and see if the info can be incorporated more appropriately. Ultimately, the redirect from that common name will probably be more appropriate than using it as the article name. Anyway, if I can, I'll try to look at your FAC sometime this week. Admittedly, I just started doing GACs, and although I have experience going through FACs, I'm not sure if I'm ready to jump into making judgment calls on FACs yet (unless they are on lemur articles or general primate topics). Anyway, good luck with it! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like last time, I am placing this here merely because I was posting here anyway, not to force you to review it (though you're of course very welcome to). The previous FAC, the skink, was perhaps a more reader-friendly one; this is squarely in obscure-rodent territory. I'll see how it goes. Ucucha 04:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oldfield mouse

On 22 February, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oldfield mouse, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you're a great bot. [1] Ucucha 06:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of pages

Hi, you recently commented that i could have performed the move Mohamed al-Kahtani without admin tools. As the desired name is a redirect and therefore i get an error message when using the move button in the article... and as non admin i can not delete the redirect. I am interested to hear how it can be done by an non admin? Thank's IQinn (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin, you can move a page over a redirect to that page that has no further edits (for example, if Page 1 redirects to Page 2 and the only edit to Page 1 was the creation of the redirect, you should be able to move Page 2 to Page 1). I think this page fell under that category. Ucucha 06:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right it works if there are no further edits of the redirect. But many redirects i have seen in the past have two or three edits and just one additional edit trigger an error when using the move tool. Many of the additional edits are just bot edits that for example fixed an double redirect. Can not remember if that was the case for this particular redirect. Thank you will have a look at the history of the redirect first in the future. IQinn (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true. This particular redirect had two edits, but the second one was you tagging it with {{db-move}}. Ucucha 06:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied templates

Hi. Thanks for using {{Copied}} when you copy content between articles. I noticed that you have been providing diffs from the source article, for example, Talk:Squirrel. In this case, the diff should be from the destination article (Squirrel), not the source (Sciuridae). Identical templates should be placed on both articles. If you make a list, I'll look through it and make the necessary fixes.

If the instructions are unclear, any suggestions for improving Template:Copied/doc would be appreciated. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for confusing that. I used the templates only while copying text from Sciuridae to Squirrel and from Squirrel to Tree squirrel. Ucucha 04:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I saw those two reorganizations and assumed that you had done more. I've fixed them. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes! Ucucha 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Key Largo Woodrat

On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Key Largo Woodrat, 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 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Whitefish

Can you move yet another page to sentence case? I've listed at non-controversial moves, but I'd like it to be moved really soon. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast enough? Ucucha 22:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've moved a couple more chipmunks while waiting, though. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics

Hi, you recently closed a requested move that resulted in the page "Great Britain at the Olympics" being moved to Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics. The discussion here shows that you closed it with only two users having taken part (other than the original request maker) and they diagreed. Additionally no one at WikiProject Olympics was notified of the suggested move. Having raised the issue at the WP:OLY talk page it is the opinion of myself and at least one other experienced Olympic editor that the result of the discussion should have been no consensus and that the move was in fact incorrect. I request that you take a second look and reopen the discussion. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to initiate a new request to move the page back. I contend that my close of the original discussion was correct, since the arguments of the proponents appeared to be stronger; in addition, the page was first moved to its previous location (without NI) without discussion, so a move back to the original title does not need strong consensus (cf. WP:RMCI). Ucucha 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My furry friend

Hey Ucucha, considering this edit, I had 650 in there because that is what the Miami Herald article had. That article is from 1984, the Journal of Mammalogy article has 6500, but that's four years later. So the sentence (mentioning "late 1980s") as it was (and I'm pretty sure I wrote that one) didn't jive with the Miami Herald article, but now that reference doesn't jive with the number. I always thought that the two wildly different numbers were due to a. different counting methods and/or b. a population increase. I'm going to rephrase the sentence and not mention the lower number. Check and see if my version is OK with you. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we got some hits! Can you list us at Wikipedia:DYKSTATS? Drmies (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has already done that (presumably our untiring scientist).

Did you read my post on the matter on our darling rat's talk page? 6500 is from Humphrey 1988 and 650 from Barbour and Humphrey 1982. Humphrey 1988 actually addresses the matter, and says the earlier estimate was wrong. Apparently, that is because density estimates in the earlier study were too low by a factor of 7 (he does not say why) and because the earlier study used density of signs like houses and burrows to guess where ares with the highest woodrat density would be, and as it happens density of these signs turns out not to be correlated strongly to woodrat density (p. 531). He does not suggest that density has increased in the time between his study and the previous one, so I think we should just go with the more recent study here. Ucucha 18:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, hadn't looked at the talk page yet. You draw the same conclusion I did, except that yours is based on, ahem, factual evidence and stuff. Some think that that's better. This one is OK with you? BTW, someone removed what they called "purple prose" from the article--a sad day. There's still one "purple" word in there, though. Bwuhaha! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some do. Others think that intuition, Fingerspitzengefühl, and onderbuiksentimenten are better. But, yes, looking at the sources may sometimes be marginally helpful.

Your revision seems good, except that I am not sure we got the geography of the place quite right. Your text distinguishes between "Key Largo proper" and "North Key Largo"; Humphrey talks about "northern Key Largo" where the woodrats he counts live. Apparently, the island Key Largo is divided into census-designated places Key Largo, Florida, and North Key Largo, Florida. Your text cites Humphrey for the woodrat having disappeared from Key Largo proper, but he doesn't say that.

The text you wrote was very purple indeed. You seem to be much too emotionally attached to rodents. I suggest you write an article about a nice lizard or so to remedy that, as I did. Ucucha 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbour and Humphrey clarify things a bit. They say that in Schwartz's time (1950s), there were no woodrat houses in southern Key Largo, but Schwartz caught some at the southern end of Rock Harbor (presumably not Rock Harbor). In 1973, the Interior Department published a report that found woodrats had disappeared from all but the northern third of Key Largo. They estimated total population size at 700 to 800. Ucucha 19:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Key Largo proper" is from the Miami Herald. I am not entirely sure if "North Key Largo" and Northern Key Largo" always mean the same thing in all the sources. How about this: I go write this paper that I'm presenting tomorrow, and you fix the text however you see fit? That seems like a good division of labor. BTW, don't forget to register for the next election--it might be sooner rather than later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

I think we could just use the Barbour and Hamphrey piece, which is clear enough; I'll go do that when I have time.

Yes, it'll be the first time I'm able to vote. Mr. Bos was kind enough to make sure the date of that vote was moved forward a bit. I'll probably be home on election day, though, so no need for that particular registration. Ucucha 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese lattes

Can you merge the history of Akame with that of Japanese lates? I ended up making a cut-and-paste move here essentially due to trying to edit to fast and getting confused over the fish's names (a little more complicated than that, but an explanation is needless). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Interesting fish; it'll need just a bit more to qualify for DYK. Ucucha 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do you think it would be fine for you to just delete Spalax (disambiguation), as it has been replaced by hatnotes on the two pages. Or should I nominate it for deletion somewhere regardless? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. "Deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages" is actually specifically mandated by CSD G6. Ucucha 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK credit mixup

What is going on with this edit. Are there other mixups associated with this one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was the only one. I forgot to copy the hook for this article from the queue and accidentally pasted the one for the previous article. Note that I corrected it within a few minutes. Ucucha 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK backlog

Hi, Since you are active on DYK, could you perhaps please help me by taking a look at the Feb 20/2010 listing of Natural language understanding. It is still sitting there, awaiting attention and final OK. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it'll get reviewed in time. There are many much older nominations waiting. Ucucha 05:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plagiarism at Honor Rolls of Baseball ?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Honor_Rolls_of_Baseball&action=history You edited 27 Nov 2009 to "remove most of the lead as plagiarism". Really? There were several citations that amount to "reference forgotten"? WP:PLAG is too general for me in this case. Did you identify the source? I would hope to read it and improve the article. Having briefly visited your space I wonder how you found this page and whether someone else edited and gave your username, if that is possible. P64 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the page at T:TDYK, checked the source (http://www.sabr.org/sabr.cfm?a=cms,c,1533,34,0), and found that much of its text was eerily similar to the text in the article. I just checked again and still think this was close paraphrasing that would count as plagiarism—the text is just too similar to the source. You are free to improve the article using this source, which seems to give a good overview of the topic, but be careful to use your own words and your own order of ideas. Ucucha 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a clear case of plagiarism.

In the code I didn't recognize "ref name=forgotten" as a genuine reference equivalent to "Ibid." in its effect. I understood it to mean that the writer had forgotten the source, which I didn't find it myself, but "forgotten" is the first word of the source title.

That source is itself tricky because it's the publisher's promotional mix of interview with the author of one article in a print collection, and material selected from his article. I have the collection somewhere and I'll reread that original before trying any rewrite here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P64 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I see how that can have been confusing. Good luck with the article! Ucucha 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final cut privilege AfD

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final cut privilege. For full disclosure, I have participated in this AfD. However, there has been no activity in months, the deletion notice on the article has long since been removed, but the AfD doesn't seem to have ever been closed. It seems like someone should finally close the AfD (or relist it) but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so since I participated. Rlendog (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never closed an AFD and don't want to do it. Perhaps you can just ask at WT:AFD for someone to do something about it? Ucucha 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll do that. Rlendog (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amphisbaenians

Auphin (talk · contribs) has been moving all the amphisbaenian pages to vernacular names (and moving them to title case—original research in many cases—, and often to rather spurious, too). As with caecilians, all or at least almost all amphisbaenians should be at scientific names. Can you deal with this? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it. Many of those pages are poorly written anyway; we'll see how it goes. Ucucha 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on my squirrel work

I figured that you might be interested in what I've been up to lately in regards to the tree squirrel articles. Basically, I finally figured out how to create SVG maps, and am now going through and creating SVG range maps for all of the species of tree squirrels. I got side-tracked in the last two days, though, with the species Ratufa indica, because it just was in a bad way, and needed lots of TLC. So if you haven't had a chance to look at it, you might find it interesting. I knocked my brains out trying to get all of the references fully cited, but I did it! You can always tell when it's one of my citations - I'm very thorough. It comes from years being a reference librarian... Anyway, I'll finish off the maps over the next week or so, and then I think I need to go back and do some catch-up work with the Ukrainians so they don't feel like I'm ignoring them. --Saukkomies ^talk 06:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it—I have all rodent articles on my watchlist. Thanks for your work on the maps and your other contributions! I'll perhaps take a shot at expanding a few squirrels to DYK or GA, like Sciurillus. Ucucha 13:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help getting something up to par for this, please let me know. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on a potential GAC

Since you have taken on quite a few of my recent subfossil lemur GACs, I was wondering what you would think of Collared Brown Lemur—an older page that I wrote but just cleaned up. Not too long ago, Rlendog had suggested that I submit it for GAC, given that there is not much information about the species. Admittedly, there is not much out there, and most of what is on the page covers the majority of the material from the secondary sources in my collection. There is other material available—mostly brief mentions here and there in articles mostly aimed at understanding the divergence of the genus Eulemur. Although I will certainly add a summary of that information if I make a run for FAC with the small article, do you think the article would merit a run at GAC? Or at least an upgrade to B-class given today's clean-up? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather short, of course, but it should be able to make GA if there is not much else to say about it.

The text there implies that sexual dichromatism is not a form of sexual dimorphism, but I think sexual dimorphism includes every difference between the sexes that is not a primary sexual characteristic, and our article agrees. Ucucha 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I originally stated it that way because many people will not bother to distinguish between sexual dimorphism and sexual dichromatism. Anyway, it's been fixed. Hopefully it's better than C-class now and nearly ready for a GAC run. I'll work on sprinkling in some more info from the sources Sasata listed after I get home from work tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request close thing

Hey. Thanks for sifting through that extremely long discussion. As you note, the move request template was placed on that talkpage and not on the RfC page that motivated its creation. You suggest that the latter may be determined as having reached consensus, though not the former. Would it be appropriate to just place an RM template to that page? It feels as though it would be both productive and annoying. The vote is currently set at 27 in favor of one title and 9 in favor of the "next best" alternative. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I don't really know what answer to expect.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the CRU incident, aren't you?

I would advise you not to do that. The RM I closed was started later than the RFC and could be said to supersede it, and WP:RM says the discussion should take place on the article talk page. More generally, there has already been a huge amount of discussion on the article title, and while no consensus has yet been achieved, it is probably more productive to focus on other issues at least for the moment. Ucucha 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

Noticed your comment in this edit summary. For the topic to show up, you have to use topic= instead of subtopic=. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I must have confused it with the GA nominee template which does require subtopic=. Ucucha 03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out some minor flaws I made on August 23, 1998 Upper Great Lakes severe weather outbreak in your edit summary. Haha thats what I get for writing articles when im tired. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could help. I wonder whether the title shouldn't have "August 23, 1998, Upper ...", with an additional comma, according to some section of WP:MOS that I can't find. Ucucha 04:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good question... based on other similarly named articles this would seem to be a common title. But it could be we've been doing it wrong for a while. --Marcusmax(speak)

See comma#Uses, section "In dates", and WP:COPYEDIT#Common edits, seventh bullet. Ucucha 04:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yah, looks like i'll be renaming it again lol. I should probably also move articles of a similar name within WP:SEVERE or at least notify the project of this. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, if anything you probably have more important things to do than adding commas to article titles. But it does seem including the comma is the correct usage. Ucucha 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I moved it anyways, i'll have to modify the dyk hook as well but its all in the name of good grammar. I'll have to notify the project soon because many important articles like April 6–8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak (which is a GA) don't conform to this either. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that article have "Tornado Outbreak" in caps? It's probably a good idea to have a few other people confirm that what I'm saying makes sense before you move lots of pages. Ucucha 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yah I decided not to do anything drast especially in my exhausted state. So I left a nice notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather#Grammar issues in article titles and hopefully a solution will come of it. Thanks again -Marcusmax(speak) 04:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]