User talk:Ucucha/Archive28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives

Leave a new message

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations on False potto being promoted as a featured article! Thanks for contributing to humankind's treasure-trove of information on primates. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ucucha 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7 nieuwe Apomys-soorten[edit]

Ik vertel je vermoedelijk niets nieuws, maar ik lees hier dat er weer 7 nieuwe Apomys-soorten ontdekt zijn. Wie moet nu de artikelen op nl.wikipedia schrijven, nu je daar niet meer actief bent? ;) Magalhães (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew of it. That press release is somewhat misleading, since as far as I can see these species would have been recognized as new even without DNA data. And there are still at least three known undescribed species of Apomys—in addition, no doubt, to untold numbers of new species of other Philippine rodents. Ucucha 00:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown?[edit]

Hi Ucucha, I was wondering if you'd be interested in a triple crown award, which requires getting a DYK credit, substantially contributing to a GA, and substantially contributing to an FA. Your work on false potto alone would qualify you for a triple crown. OCNative (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to wait until I can eat Jimbo for lunch. I'm already halfway there. Ucucha 13:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New money boys club[edit]

id would like to know why this page was deleted? and how i can get it to be Userfication'fied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporatedestiny (talk • contribs) original diff

I deleted the page because it fulfilled (in my judgment) criteria for speedy deletion A7 and G11: it didn't show why the subject was significant or important enough for a Wikipedia article, and the article was promotional in nature. I have restored the page to User:Corporatedestiny/New money boys club. To create an actual Wikipedia article about the company, you'll have to show that it is notable by giving references that are independent of the company itself—for example, from Cape Town newspapers. If there are no such references, I'm afraid the company has no place in Wikipedia. Ucucha 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Alright will do. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporatedestiny (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch award[edit]

The Renaissance (Dutch)Man Award--so Dutch that it calls for a Belgian beer
It is my honor and privilege to toast Ucucha, for their ongoing efforts to improve Wikipedia in areas no one will ever notice. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thanks. Ucucha 01:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me--you axed me a question a while ago. Check your mail, and while you're waiting, download some sort of Word Perfect converter. I'll gladly explain if you need me to. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Word Perfect? I thought Lavanify was the last to use that, but I guess it survived a little longer in certain places. I was wondering what .wpd was; fortunately OpenOffice could open it.
Thanks for sending that piece; I think it's quite a good introduction to Wikipedia and its academic importance. I find that writing Wikipedia articles helps you organize your thoughts on academic topics; it certainly helped with Oryzomys and friends and other animals that I've studied, and it's part of the reason I wrote articles like Dermotherium, Galerix kostakii, and Tupaia miocenica. Ucucha 02:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha, I'll NEVER tell you this in public, but that shit you write on those rats is fantastic, and frankly I'm jealous. I hope you compile them as PDFs and stick them in your portfolio--though before you "use" them, make sure you're not dealing with Luddites (or cynics). I do something similar in my work (which right now consists of compiling an annotated Boniface bibliography)--that's how I wrote Concilium Germanicum and a bunch of the stuff around it, such as List of Frankish synods. And another reason (but don't tell anyone) is that I can use the WP articles I write as an archive, to remind me of that the main arguments were in a reference I cite--the annotation in my bibliography is only a sentence or two, and the WP articles sometimes are repositories for detail. Very helpful indeed. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly consider doing that when I get to apply to grad school. For me, writing is also useful because it forces me to translate anatomese into (hopefully) somewhat more understandable English, and therefore to understand well what the teeth I'm writing about actually look like. Ucucha 03:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking as an English teacher, I think you're doing a great job. I'm glad you're working for us and not for the Dutchies. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha![edit]

Well, I'm third now! Thanks for the incentive. Good that I'm rising somewhere, since I dropped a few spots both in Articles created and Edits. Who are those uberachievers that passed me? Please block them--if I do, someone might suspect something. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need something to be proud of, I suppose. But you won't be able to beat Quadell, who has already loved me twice. Ucucha 11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a challenge? Do you want me to shake you all night long? Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion[edit]

You did it again!
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Dermotherium a certified "Good Article"! (Pictured: a fossil. Not actually a Dermotherium, but close enough, right?) Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)
Looks like a chicken with its head upside down. Ucucha 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I'm not a real archaeologist... – Quadell (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your email[edit]

Thanks for your note. I have been here since 2008. I am not a frequent user. I know Racepacket and I know that he is active in the local Wikipedia Chapter but I am a separate user. Thanks again! ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baechter (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. You should probably review the policy on WP:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. Ucucha 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dermotherium[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 04:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kleine Muis[edit]

Hee kleine muis ik zag dat je van de nl.wikipedia vertrokken was. Hopelijk is alles goed met je! Waerth (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all is well. How are you? Still in Thailand? I've been editing a few Thai articles lately. Ucucha 11:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question relating to cladogram display[edit]

I noticed your name at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical), so I thought I would ask you here first as you understand the issues with cladogram display in the two groups of browsers.

At User:Peter_coxhead/Test/Clade#Manual fix for browser difference there are two 'manually' constructed cladograms, i.e. I have directly constructed the hidden tables which {{clade}} constructs, but in addition I have specified some cell heights. Because IE handles the height property in table cells differently from all the other browsers, there's a 'trick' in the CSS to deal with this.

I've tested myself or had others test these two cladograms in all the browsers I could find and they display in the same way (i.e. the Firefox/IE way rather than the Safari/Opera/Chrome way). (I'm a Mac user so I can't normally test Windows versions.)

However, today I've seen the page displayed in IE9 and it doesn't work – because the CSS 'trick' doesn't work for IE9. Do you know if there is any way of detecting the browser in use? I've searched Wikipedia for this but found nothing useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can vary the actual content of the template according to the browser. What you can do is deploy JavaScript according to the browser used (there's an example of that in MediaWiki:Common.js), and you may also be able to use CSS tricks like this or the stuff that MediaWiki already uses (here) to get CSS to be used only on IE. Of course, that'll require modifications to MediaWiki:Common.css. Ucucha 23:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the leads, which I'll follow up. I had begun to think that dealing with IE9 would require changes to Common.js or Common.css, because the "in page" tricks don't work with this version. The question is whether it's worth trying to fix the clade template so that it works the Firefox/IE way in Safari/Opera/Chrome, given that this breaks it in IE9, which then requires fixes for the fixes... I think I'll ask at WT:TOL. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, be aware that you won't necessarily get consensus to place any necessary code in common.(css|js). Incidentally, it seems that your test page has run afoul of the template limits (Post-expand include size: 2022874/2048000 bytes), simply because you're transcluding too many templates there. Ucucha 12:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus: yes, I had expected this. That's why I'm not going to do any more work on it unless I can show support from others. Test page: ah, I hadn't noticed. What happens is that when you use "Preview" after editing a section, it works (because only the section gets transcluded, I imagine), but when you "Save page" it doesn't. I don't need the "span" test now. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to mw:ResourceLoader/Default_modules#jQuery.client, when the jQuery.client plugin is initialized it adds some classes to the html element and I think this can be used to create CSS to specific to some browsers. Helder 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bling[edit]

A Tools Coder Barnstar to Ucucha. For Ucucha/HarvErrors, because it works, dammit.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template: IUCN2010[edit]

Hi Ucucha. I'm no expert on templates, so please excuse if I've misunderstood something, but it seems your 15th July edit of Template:IUCN2010, making it use Template:IUCN, has had the side effect of changing the version parameter from optional to mandatory, presumably giving rise to errors on pages using it. I first noticed it in Mammals of Borneo, which was problem-free when I previously edited it on 8th June but not when I looked there today, but in fact the problem shows up on the template page itself. Sorry I can't simply go and sort it, but I don't feel confident enough to edit a template. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, without the version specified the template would have said something like "Assessors (2010). Genus species. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version .". That is wrong; my edit merely made it more apparent that that is wrong. Ucucha 12:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, you are right, of course, and the IUCN site does specify a citation format that includes the version number. However, what has happened here is that an error that would be rather inconspicuous to readers has been replaced by a very up-front red notice (and no link), and this will not appear on anyone's watchlist. It will only be noticed if and when someone does an edit, and some of these articles are edited extremely rarely. Would it perhaps be better, so as to move forward more gracefully, for templates that have already been in use for some time to make the version parameter optional? After all, it was completely absent in {{IUCN2008}}, and it has no functionality - if one clicks one of those links, one gets the latest version (currently 2011.1), not the version stated in the version parameter. --Stfg (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suppose we have two options:
  • I can edit {{IUCN2010}} so that it no longer emits the error, but instead just doesn't display any version.
  • I can do the same, but additionally add a maintenance category so we can see which pages have templates that do not specify the version.
What do you prefer? Ucucha 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for asking. Well, both options solve the immediate problem, but if it's convenient for you to create the maintenance category, I will volunteer to go through it and correct those articles. That way, we'll clear the problem once and for all while citing in the way IUCN specifies. By the way, since it will no longer be clear what version was accessed, perhaps anyway the best way to correct the articles would be to have them use Template:IUCN2011.1 with downloaded parameter equal to the date on which I made the correction. At the same time I'll catch and update for any species reassessments. What do you reckon? --Stfg (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, it's best to simply use Template:IUCN directly and specify the |version= there. That way, we don't have to create new templates several times per year and the number of templates is kept under control. I will go add the maintenance category. Ucucha 11:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:IUCN Red List Templates with no version specified. Ucucha 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, there were only 13 (plus the test case). Quite a lot of these had other things wrong with them, so it was definitely worth it. I don't know if watchlisting categories like this works, but I've bookmarked it too and will check back from time to time.

I've used Template:IUCN as you suggested. It doesn't generate the phrase "In: IUCN yyyy." that the IUCN put in their standard citation format. I'm not sure if this matters, or if a perfect solution even exists. It seems to overlap the version number in function anyway. --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those. When you watchlist a category, you won't see changes in content; you'll have to look at the category periodically. I don't think such minor differences in the citation should be a big deal. By the way, there are still loads of pages citing the 2006 version of the Red List (Template:IUCN2006). Ucucha (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and also many citing 2008. Do you have any plans regarding those? (By the way, there is an error in Template:IUCN2008: It outputs "... In: IUCN {{{year}}}. ...", but it ought to say "In: IUCN 2008.")
Since pre-2009 IUCN issues don't have yyyy.n versions, and for 2009 and 2011 we only have IUCNyyyy.n templates, I think the problem of erroneous versionless template calls only arose in Template:IUCN2010, which we have now resolved unless someone comes along and misuses it in the future. Perhaps, now, it would be best to revert to generating a red error message for these, if you like.
There is a much bigger issue arising from reassessments that create new ids and discard old ones. I came across two of these among the 13 pages I edited yesterday. Our dead link detection tools probably cannot detect them because they aren't actually dead: they just go IUCN's "doesn't exist" page. Do we have any system for catching them? --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those need to be fixed (the 2006 ones especially because their links are dead), but I hardly have the time to fix them all. I don't see the error in Template:IUCN2008; could you point me to a page where it occurs? I have re-added the error message. Ucucha (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example of the error in Border Barb#References, which uses Template:IUCN2008 and gets "In: IUCN 2007". The template is generating it from the assessment year instead of the Red List publication year. I will think some more about the ongoing maintenance problem. --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this fix that? Ucucha (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes :) --Stfg (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Myotis alcathoe[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Myotis alcathoe. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Ucucha!

It was a mistake to have quoted that material even in user space and even to allow somebody without a journal subscription to verify the copyright problem.

I won't repeat that mistake (which was the first of its kind).

Thanks for your help. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Incidentally, it appeared that you were suggesting to Demiurge1000 that he delete the page, but Demiurge1000 is not an admin. Ucucha (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting fact. Facts can be highly amusing, also. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lepilemur microdon[edit]

Btw, were you happy with the Small-toothed sportive lemur article? You made some comments at the FAC, I made some fixes and offered some replies, but I never heard back. If there are still issues, please let me know. Thanks for the review, and I hope you're doing well. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry for not getting back there. I'm still uncomfortable with citing diagnostic characters to a 19th-century source. Do more recent sources (e.g., Tattersall, 1982) not mention the small cheekteeth at all? Ucucha (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tattersall didn't distinguish the species from L. mustelinus (without explanation). I've checked all my sources, and none mention the teeth. I'll try writing to my contacts at CI, and see if they can put me in touch with the person who wrong the section on the species in LoM3. Maybe they will know why this diagnostic feature is not mentioned in recently literature. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Primary sources[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuFoFuEd (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notification; I have nothing to contribute to the AN discussion. Next time, please remember to sign your posts and to tell what the discussion is about. Ucucha (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)/archive2[edit]

I have asked the Guild for some help when it comes to the copyediting. I was also given a link to User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and trying my hand at some of this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck improving the article. Ucucha 11:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know you gave hints before at prose at the peer reviews (I think, but has been several months). If you do have time to give other suggestions or hints, I would be very appreciative. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I only made a minor comment on the first FAC. I'll have another look at the article later on. Ucucha 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you said there was a lot of fluff in the article. One thing I did recently was took our mentions of former/future PM's because it felt like everyone in that article was a prime minister of some point. I also reworded some sections, especially about the DPJ. I am trying to get some more editing done on my own, but I still will ask for another set of eyes to look at it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors%2FRequests&action=historysubmit&diff=442923907&oldid=442923777 a copyedit will be provided. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that will improve the article. I'm sorry I haven't had time to continue looking over the article yet. Ucucha 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is alright. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is going on now by another user, so I invite you to take a look. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the notes you left and I am trying to address them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hopefully be able to respond and to continue evaluating the article in a few days. Ucucha (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I do these messages to let you know that I am working on it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Migrating Template:IUCN2006[edit]

Hello again. As promised, I've had a careful look at this. (By the way, when I asked whether you had any plans for them, I didn't mean doing all the hacking. I only wanted to know whether you planned to alter the templates or other strategic things like that.)

Anyway, I've become convinced that migrating all instances of IUCN2006 would be a mammoth task and not a feasible short-term objective. Actually, a good proportion of ids are still valid, but that's not really the main issue. Very many of the species have been reassessed since 2006, so other parameters have new values too. And after a reassessment one really needs to re-verify that the citation says what is claimed. Easy for conservation status, not so quick for statements about range, local populations in specific countries, conservation actions and so on. Also, use of taxobox status_ref parameters seems to have been sparse in 2006, so the actual citation often has to be hunted down in the article text. There's a temptation to move it to the taxobox at the same time as migrating the template. I've tried going through a few articles that I imagine might get a lot of hits (lion, tiger, dodo, ...) and the average seemed to be about 10 minutes, making it roughly a 500-man-hour job to do it all.

So I think the question to ask is what is really and truly needed. The 2006 template serves as a kind of "as of" statement, and that's useful. Otherwise, I wonder if it might be best just to wait for editors to do whatever they want. If someone thinks that information "as of 2006" is too out of date for a given article, they can change that article. If someone wants to take on the job a keeping the Canidae articles, say, perfectly current, then they can. But a lot of the 3000-ish articles still using IUCN2006 are quite esoteric and I wonder how urgent it is to migrate them. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you: it would be good to get all those articles up-to-date, but the task is too large to do easily. Let's hope the articles get cleaned up incrementally. Ucucha (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Myotis escalerai[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Myotis escalerai. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Oryzomys antillarum[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Oryzomys antillarum. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

The Sinking Ship Award
Congratulations on your almost-successful Wikibreak. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but an Agathaeromys image would have been more appropriate. Ucucha (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, a rat is a rat. Just be happy I didn't stick a squirrel in your user space. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New messages alert via background colour[edit]

Please see [1].

It's nice when it works, but, it does seem to give 'false positives'. Odd. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because some people put things with class="usermessage" in their normal pages (for example, see User talk:Innotata). I posted a code change on VPT that will remove at least some false positives. Ucucha (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Just now saw this:

"Kaldari, I don't know if you're referring to any of the DYKs I have written, but if you are, please tell me, so I can fix them and avoid similar problems in the future."

To answer your question, no I was not referring to any of your articles. Sorry for the delayed response :) Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It might be a good idea to tell the people whose articles you were referring to, so that they too can fix the problems. Ucucha (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For year month day/display[edit]

It appears that your latest edit created a bug so that the time appears like:

6 years, 9 monthsand 13 days.

(Notice the lack of space). I assume that you had something particular in mind when making the edit, so I will not revert your work. Please fix the problem. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I hope). Ucucha (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be fine. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Adirondack Cow[edit]

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that I have reverted your CSD G3 here and userfied the content. Billuconn11 sent me a pretty convinving e-mail, and I'm not so sure it is a hoax (or it is a damn convincing one)! Cheers! -- Luk talk 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A carnivorous cow that can stand upright on two legs and has sabre teeth? Fo shizzle? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see that convinving message, because I sure don't believe it. It's supposedly a large, charismatic mammal in one of the regions with the highest Internet penetrations in the world, and it's not mentioned anywhere on the Internet, except in a summary of a book on scout jokes and some spam sites. And on top of that, it's saber-toothed and looks like a Holstein cow, because it hybridized with the polar bears that come walking down to New England every winter. Right.
And yes, it has a list of sources, but those either support facts that don't have anything to do with the hoax, or they are unverifiable, like the two books that have supposedly been written on the animal.
G3 applies in any namespace, and I don't think we want hoaxes anywhere on Wikipedia. I suppose I'll have to send it to MFD. Ucucha (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgement on that, I admit I only glanced at the article after reading the email. The aim was to allow him to backup what he wrote locally, which is probably done by now :). -- Luk talk 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q (and some blatant canvassing)[edit]

Ucucha, your name came up at Talk:Cheese_sandwich#Merge_proposal (because I mentioned it). Feel free to weigh in on this important matter. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such important matters are best left in worthier hands than mine. Ucucha (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, you're such a snob. Welcome back--I hope you had a great vacation. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on Bonaire, actually, and just ate a cheese sandwich (or something of the sort; I'm not as familiar with sandwich classification as you undoubtedly are). Ucucha (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about the terminology. Now I'm really jealous. Please describe the view for me--I've always wanted to go. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty dry, so it's all low scrubs and cactuses. And then there's nice beaches, of course, with palm trees nearby. Ucucha (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Macrotarsomys petteri[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Macrotarsomys petteri. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC delegation[edit]

Hi Ucucha. I've made the announcement promoting you to FAC delegate. Congrats. Feel free to begin at the rate you are most comfortable with. Raul654 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ucucha (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got straight to work-- thank you so much! Glad to have you ! I'm swamped for another few weeks, but once things settle down, we can coordinate schedules at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat. I should be finished moving in by about mid-September; is there a certain schedule (days of the weeks, whatever) that you would like to use? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School is starting again for me in about a week, but I don't know yet quite what my schedule will be like. I'll probably have the most time in the weekends and on weekday evenings. Ucucha (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're single again? ;) Drmies (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm recused on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paxillus involutus/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corn Crake/archive1. Should we perhaps be noting recusals on the FAC chat page? Ucucha (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you'll have most time on weekends, as Karanacs never does weekends, and my weekends are full up ffor the near future ... in a couple of weeks, once my construction is more under control, I can probably take one day a week, Karanacs another, and maybe you weekends ... for now, we'll do whatever works. Yes, noting recusals on the FAC chat page is a good place to keep them all together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. Gimmebot normally runs on UTC midnight between Saturday and Sunday, doesn't it? That means I'd best do pr/ar Saturday during the day. Ucucha (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what he used to do, but things have been whacky lately, so I don't know if he still has that schedule. By the way, be sure not to conflict with Ucuchabot on promotion :)  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I meant to be online earlier today to do my share. I'm also in the process of unpacking, and my baby started kindergarten yesterday, so it's been a bit of a crazy few weeks, and likely will be crazy for a few more as we get settled into a new routine. I can pr/ar this weekend if need be, and I should be available next Tuesday. I tend to read through FAC during the day but promote late evening my time (CST) when I'm sure I won't be interrupted, so if I promise to do a midweek pr/ar and you don't see anything, that's probably why. Let me know what schedule works best for you, Ucucha. Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ucacha, first of all, congratulations on your "delegation"! Secondly, as you seem to be on a roll and I'll be away for a few days soon I wanted to check on my nom here -- given supports and checks done, was there anything preventing promotion? If so, be nice if I can deal with it in the next half day or so before I get away... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs, thanks for your message (and your e-mail). I'll actually be traveling this Saturday, so I won't have much time for FAC this particular weekend. As I discussed with Sandy above, I'd otherwise be happy to pr/ar on weekends for the next few months.
Ian, that FAC is getting pretty close to promotion, but what I'm concerned with is that the support is apparently all from MilHist people—I'd prefer to see some review from people without a project affiliation too. However, there's a good chance it will be promoted the next time one of us goes over FAC. Ucucha (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should be aiming for independent support as well but Apterygial seems to fit that criterion -- not a member of the MilHist and, in fact, not a reviewer I think I've come across before anywhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right—I'm not sure what I was thinking, but I suppose I considered Antarctic exploration to be part of military history. I don't have time to do another check right now, but as the FAC looks now it's likely to get through the next time someone promotes. I'm sorry for the mix-up. Ucucha (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No prob ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dusicyon[edit]

Thanks for your help. I wonder if you could agree that having the comment about Lycalopex as former, and still in some sources current, members of Dusicyon is useful? If I were thinking of keeping a zorro as a pet and wanted to know about the permit status, it might save a lot of confusion; in the meantime I have put it in both Dusicyon and Lycalopex. And, is it unacceptable OR to insert the comment "live Dusicyon (presumably meaning Lycalopex)". I look forward to your remarks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in some doubt that it is useful at all for that article to discuss the legal status of Dusicyon in England. It's useful for an article like slow loris to discuss such topics, because slow lorises are extant animals that are actually traded. If we have secondary sources (as opposed to primary sources like that legal document you are linking to) that discuss the legal repercussions of holding South American canids in England, that would be a different matter. Ucucha (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have downgraded the mentions to a See Also link. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article promotion[edit]

File:Mammal barnstar.png Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Ferugliotheriidae a Featured Article! Please accept this odd barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk)
And again, for Drymoreomys -- what a week for you! Thanks again. – Quadell (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just sheer coincidence that so many people start reviewing my FAC the moment I become a delegate. Or Brazilian rice rats are just so much more interesting than Argentinean fossils. Thanks for the barnstar; now I got to find a new article to nominate—Dermotherium, Bharattherium, Ferugliotherium, Akodon caenosus? Ucucha (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I didn't know you were a delegate. So, congratulations on that too! – Quadell (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Oryzomys peninsulae[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Oryzomys peninsulae. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR forfor Ferugliotheriidae[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Ferugliotheriidae. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Put the flagicon of Russia back as soon as possilbe[edit]

Ucucha I thank you for the changes that you had made to Template:Foreign relations of Russia. But I am very dissapointed that you had decided to remove the flagicon of Russia. How could you do that. I don't understand why. Why did you do it. All the other Foreign relations templates have their flagicons as well as the coat of arms. Pleae put the flagicon of Russia now. I have made a message yesterday but you didn't answer me. Please listen to me and put the flagicon of Russia now!!!

RohilPCS (talk) 10:25 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I used the code from User:Russavia/Foreign. I put the icon back in now per your request, but why do we need it? Ucucha (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ate my comment :)[edit]

[2] ... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I must have misread the diff when I got an edit conflict. I've now restored the comment; sorry for the error. Ucucha (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi Ucucha, is there any way that you could get your bot to mark FLs that have appeared on the Main Page with {{FL/BeenOnMainPage}} (diff), as it does on WP:FA? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll get around to it. I'm actually planning to expand as many of UcuchaBot's tasks to FL as desired (cf. WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 2, WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 3, WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 4, User:UcuchaBot/BRFA5). Ucucha (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there is a Template:TFL title (like Template:TFA title), but it isn't being filled. I can probably write a bot that does that, or is that not necessary? Template:TFA title is used to generate the TFA editnotice, and UcuchaBot 1 uses it to find the TFA's name. Ucucha (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ucucha/Archive28&oldid=1089998718"