User talk:Ucucha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Ucucha/Archive1 Ucucha/Archive10 Ucucha/Archive11
Ucucha/Archive12 Ucucha/Archive13 Ucucha/Archive14
Ucucha/Archive15 Ucucha/Archive16 Ucucha/Archive17
Ucucha/Archive18 Ucucha/Archive19 Ucucha/Archive2
Ucucha/Archive20 Ucucha/Archive21 Ucucha/Archive22
Ucucha/Archive23 Ucucha/Archive24 Ucucha/Archive25
Ucucha/Archive26 Ucucha/Archive27 Ucucha/Archive28
Ucucha/Archive29 Ucucha/Archive3 Ucucha/Archive30
Ucucha/Archive31 Ucucha/Archive32 Ucucha/Archive33
Ucucha/Archive34 Ucucha/Archive4 Ucucha/Archive5
Ucucha/Archive6 Ucucha/Archive7 Ucucha/Archive8
Ucucha/Archive9

Leave a new message

UcuchaBot not working since 30th June (2)[edit]

Hi Ucucha, any news on getting your bot back in action? It's much missed. Hope all is well. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 09:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

TFA notification[edit]

This is to inform you that Transandinomys bolivaris, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 24 September 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rodent[edit]

Thanks for the note at the rodent FAC. I know you're not very active these days, so if you don't have time, that's fine, but if you have time, I would appreciate your input on a couple of points. I am a little out on a limb in that FAC because I have little background in biology and zoology. I was able to quickly find an article about rodent omnivory and carnivory, behaviours that were not mentioned in the feeding section. Cwymhiraeth did a good job of adding material based on that source, but it alarms me that something so basic could be omitted from an article like this (especially if it can be quickly found by a beginner like me). I can't tell if the article includes everything it should include, but when I see omissions like that I *really* want to hear from a subject matter expert that the article is comprehensive. Do you have the background to look at the article in that light?

Separately (and this is less important) I feel that the style is often wrong: it should talk about general characteristics of rodents, work down to specific cases, and then give examples of rodents that illustrate those cases. I don't think the article follows this style as much as it should, and if you have the time I would appreciate your input on that too.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I just wrote an oppose; I think there are some serious issues with the article and specified a few. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a relief. I was getting quite uneasy; but tingling antennae are not a valid oppose. I'm glad you had time to look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, will you look at the article again? LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I dealt with the points you raised in your comments in the Rodent FAC. Did I adequately deal with your concerns? Do you want to raise anything else? Your blanket "oppose" seems a bit harsh to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you call it a blanket oppose; I clearly identified issues that caused me to think the article doesn't currently make the cut to become an FA. My earlier comments weren't based on a full review of the article, but I had time to read it in more detail just now and left some more comments. Ucucha (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Some of the points you raised have been dealt with. I have been away for the weekend and will now get to work on others. Could you give a few examples of the "many sources I checked for doubtful-looking statements are ... websites without proper peer review (therefore, not high-quality reliable sources)"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you help with my maiden DYK nomination?[edit]

Bodhamayananda filed under September 25. (I found your name under Active editors on DYK page.) Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm sure he'll reply soon, Ucucha hasn't been very active lately. Anyway, your nomination looks fine. It sometimes takes one to two weeks to have your nomination reviewed at DYK, so the best thing to do is sit back and wait. – Maky « talk » 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Another mammal FAC...[edit]

But this one a little bigger than a mouse....just thought if you had a bit of time you might be interested. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. I've looked into Paraceratherium taxonomy a little recently. From a very quick look the article looks good but I'll likely not have much time in the near future to review it. Ucucha (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Slow loris[edit]

Good to see Slow loris on the Main page as TFA, - coming with a hidden message to slow down ;) - I love to see four names in a nomination, precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)