User talk:Ucucha: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Ucucha/Archive8. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
I have responded to your inquiries about the DYK. Thank you for considering it as a candidate. --[[User:Rcjsuen|Remy Suen]] ([[User talk:Rcjsuen|talk]]) 11:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
I have responded to your inquiries about the DYK. Thank you for considering it as a candidate. --[[User:Rcjsuen|Remy Suen]] ([[User talk:Rcjsuen|talk]]) 11:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=336985730&oldid=336985660 responded] to your second comment. It seems my original assumptions about establishing notability were all off the mark. --[[User:Rcjsuen|Remy Suen]] ([[User talk:Rcjsuen|talk]]) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
:I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=336985730&oldid=336985660 responded] to your second comment. It seems my original assumptions about establishing notability were all off the mark. --[[User:Rcjsuen|Remy Suen]] ([[User talk:Rcjsuen|talk]]) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:54, 10 January 2010
- 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/Archive35
- Ucucha/Archive36
- Ucucha/Archive37
- Ucucha/Archive4
- Ucucha/Archive5
- Ucucha/Archive6
- Ucucha/Archive7
- Ucucha/Archive8
- Ucucha/Archive9
You Have No Sense Of Humour Mr Exchange Student
Greetings from us Uncyclopedia folk.
Enjoy your Wikiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.20.43 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're at the wrong address. I'm not an exchange student. Best wishes, Ucucha 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's a bit random. ZooPro 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ucucha, I think you should prove your point by telling a really funny joke--remember the one about the Belgian in the Sahara carrying a car door? Drmies (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Tuesday already? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The one with the airconditioned car? Ucucha 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tuesday already? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ucucha, I think you should prove your point by telling a really funny joke--remember the one about the Belgian in the Sahara carrying a car door? Drmies (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's a bit random. ZooPro 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Degu; Spermophilus
Can you add a proper description to degu, with all the details of its skeletal morphology? I've started one, and I'll work on this and on a distribution section, but I don't understand a good deal of the anatomical terms used in the Mammalian Species paper I've been using as a reference. If I get the green light on using the exact taxonomy from the Spermophilus paper, I'll post the split on all the Spermophilus articles. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll assume that I can follow Helgen et al.'s exact taxonomy: if I'm wrong leave a note at my talk page, so that I can notice it quickly. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at the degu. I guess hystricomorph anatomical terms won't be that different from the ones for sigmodontines. Yes, I think you should use the exact taxonomy of the Helgen et al. paper. They make three changes in species-level taxonomy as compared to MSW 3: one is elevating some American subspecies to species level, one is elevating Spermophilus pygmaeus from somewhere in Eurasia to species level, and one is Spermophilus taurensis. (I am sorry for not responding earlier - I unexpectedly didn't have internet access for the last few weeks.) Ucucha 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to go with ground quirrels rather than chipmunks or dormice, and I've completed the first stage of updating the Spermophilus articles: see Spermophilus. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at the degu. I guess hystricomorph anatomical terms won't be that different from the ones for sigmodontines. Yes, I think you should use the exact taxonomy of the Helgen et al. paper. They make three changes in species-level taxonomy as compared to MSW 3: one is elevating some American subspecies to species level, one is elevating Spermophilus pygmaeus from somewhere in Eurasia to species level, and one is Spermophilus taurensis. (I am sorry for not responding earlier - I unexpectedly didn't have internet access for the last few weeks.) Ucucha 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I got everything, care to take a second look? Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding earler. I'll have a look tomorrow. Ucucha 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eh?
Gelukkig nieuwjaar, muis! Ik hoop dat jouw HEMA-oliebollen net zo goed waren als de mijne--en dat waren de eerste oliebollen in vijftien jaar. Pais en vree! Drmies (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ich war in Deutschland und da gab es gar keine Oliebollen. Wel sneeuw, maar ook niet zo veel. Happy New Year! Ucucha 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Per your request
I elaborated on my oppose for SoWhy's RFB. Lara 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Cuvier
Maybe I'm reading it wrong (almost 2 AM and my left eye is blind) but in the Cuvier source I'm reading the description as "Clouded Guana(sic)" and Clouded Lizard seems to be refering to "L. Nebulosa" (Lacerta?). I believe that is another species:[1]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. In the actual description, they use "Clouded Guana" in the title of the section, but say "Clouded Lizard" for the image (linked in the article). I'll correct it. By the way, it might be nice to find the plate they are referring to in the original description. I can't find it on Google Books, but it looks like the one you linked to should be it, even though it doesn't entirely look like C. nubila. Ucucha 09:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I mean, it looks like another lizard altogether, like an Ameiva/racerunner/teid whatever from the mainland. I know Lacerta was thrown around arbitrarily for "lizard" back then, whereas today its strictly for Old World lizards. FYI on "clouds", "cloudy", etc:[2].--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought, that may be what they were attempting to draw (a Cuban iguana)...it looks like a juvenile with no spines, rings yet, feet/legs are ok but the headshape is totally wrong.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- In the description, they say it is under "Clouded Lizard L. nebulosa", which is what the plate says. But if it's such a bad image, it's probably best not to use it anyway.
- As for "clouds", looks like you are right and my dictionary isn't. However, I think we should only mention the meaning that is meant in the name of the lizard; we don't mention either that "nubila" can also mean "dark, gloomy". Do your sources go into detail on this? Ucucha 10:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, what struck me as wrong about the image was that the tail wasn't banded as in the images on the C. nubila page. Not sure whether that is expected in juveniles though. Ucucha 10:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, it can also mean "gray" too. It's funny reading the link you posted, as 2 species they identified as Cyclura then are actually identified as Ctenosaura today. I've seen Lacerta as an archaic term for Iguana but don't think I've ever seen it applied to Cyclura, Ctenosaura, etc. Nebulosa seems to be used more often as "clouded", I think that's the specific on the clouded leopard. Yeah the tail looks like it would on one less than a year old, but I have never seen any Cyclura with a head shaped like that, I thought skink or teid, first.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Genera were always much broader at the time than now; I guess Lacerta was probably originally intended to cover all lizards or something close.
- I believe nebulosa more precisely means "misty" (and also metaphorically "opaque"). But what we should want in the article is what nubila was intended to mean, which I can't really find from the sources. From what I can see, neither the IUCN nor the Hollingsworth book you cite explicitly mention the etymology. Ucucha 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought, that may be what they were attempting to draw (a Cuban iguana)...it looks like a juvenile with no spines, rings yet, feet/legs are ok but the headshape is totally wrong.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I mean, it looks like another lizard altogether, like an Ameiva/racerunner/teid whatever from the mainland. I know Lacerta was thrown around arbitrarily for "lizard" back then, whereas today its strictly for Old World lizards. FYI on "clouds", "cloudy", etc:[2].--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your inquiries about the DYK. Thank you for considering it as a candidate. --Remy Suen (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have responded to your second comment. It seems my original assumptions about establishing notability were all off the mark. --Remy Suen (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)