FAC and FAR coordinator proposal
Hi Ucucha, following the closure of the FAC and FAR coordinator proposal earlier today, I've removed your name from the FAC instructions and the @FAC template. This in no way prevents your return to the team if and when you feel you can contribute on a regular basis again. It was great working with you at FAC, and I hope we can do so again soon! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, and sorry for not responding earlier—I felt like I had little to add without reviewing a lot more WT:FAC discussions than I had time for. Good luck running FAC! Ucucha (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ucucha. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before hitting the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a nice birthday present! Ucucha (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You can tell your co-workers that we put it on the Main Page just for your birthday :) I'll never tell. - Dank (push to talk) 06:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you please consider unprotecting Maya Angelou?
Hello Ucucha, I tried to have Maya Angelou open to IP edits via RFPP, but an admin declined and said to ask you first. Anyway I think it's about time to let the Angelou page be unlocked (but still move protected) since it's been indefinitely semi protected for nearly 5 years now (Feb. 5, 2010 in fact). And BLP no longer applies to Angelou. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for contacting me. I don't think I should continue to exert ownership over an admin action I made almost five years ago, and I haven't been active enough recently to judge what would currently be the appropriate level of protection for an article like Angelou's. I think admins at WP:RFPP would be better placed to make that decision. Given that the article still receives a significant amount of views and the talk page is vandalized every so often, personally I'm afraid the article would perhaps receive similar levels of juvenile vandalism as it did before I semi-protected it.
- I'm sorry for sending you back where you came from. Ucucha (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful comments on the Camas pocket gopher article at FAC. You raised some good points. I started working my way through the issues raised, none of which seem particularly insurmountable. I don't fully understand how FA works as compared to GA or peer review. On the GA review of this article, User:FunkMonk was able to make a tremendous contribution with guidance on improving the article and mentoring me as an editor. At FA, the review was archived 60 hours after your comments, even as I was working my way through them. The closing comments also suggest that I need to do some FA reviews in order to get this article reviewed. Anyway, I'll continue working through the issues that you raised in the review. You mentioned that ITIS is not a reliable source. Can you tell me what I should use instead? I have a degree in biochemistry, and am a practicing physician, so academic mammalogy is not necessarily my strong suit. But it is more fun than my day job... Thank you again, --Gaff (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
A new tool, repeated cites
I've come across many articles where the authors have added cites to practically every sentence. In many cases these are repeated, so you might have a single para with the same cite listed over and over. Would it be difficult to modify the duplinks script to handle this case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)