On May 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aonchotheca forresteri, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
On May 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hesperomys, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
Play Me's DYK views aren't in yet; I'm sure it'll get more than this one. I don't like moose; I prefer the mus. So does Innotata, I think. Ucucha15:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello
Hi, I am currently the sole coordinator for WikiProject Mammals since ZooPro retired. My main focus is on side things like assessment of articles, maintaining project pages, and coordinating collaborations (hopefully, haven't had any luck yet). I also work on stub articles one at a time in my sandbox. The project could really use another coordinator to help with the workload and help start a collaboration, hopefully. Since you are an admin and have a lot of experience with articles, would you be willing to help me with co-coordinating WikiProject Mammals? Thanks! The Arbiter★★★15:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind offer. However, I like to focus on writing articles, which I like best, and reviewing at FAC and GAN, which I like nearly as well and which I feel I have an obligation to do because I nominate so much there myself. I do assess unassessed articles for Mammals and its subprojects when I see them, but I would prefer not to become a formal coordinator at this time. Ucucha15:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, thanks so much for your dedication and hard work on Wikipedia, and I hope to continue to see you around WP:MAMMAL! Cheers, The Arbiter★★★01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Ascocotyle pindoramensis
On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ascocotyle pindoramensis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
On May 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catatropis johnstoni, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
Before you declared the recent changes to Catatropis johnstoni as an "unwarranted change in style", did you check WP:LAYOUT to see what the Wikipedia guideline says about Notes and References? If not, would you please have a look at the Notes and References section. As for the categories — I admit that I am not an expert — they came from the linked Trematoda page; if this creature is a trematoda, shouldn't the same categories apply? And if the categories are wrong, then maybe the Trematoda article needs fixing. Truthanado (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. I read that the section doesn't prescribe any one form, and that it doesn't address the specific form of referencing used in this article (short-form citations in a first section and alphabetic long-form citations in a second). Besides, I've used these exact same headers in ten recent featured articles and fifteen or so good articles, so they can't be that bad.
As for the categories, the Platyhelminthes and "Parasitic animals" categories were redundant for this article, because Category:Digenea is already a subcategory of both; this isn't the case for the "Trematoda" article. "Pathogenic microbes" is appropriate for "Trematoda", since that group certainly contains pathogenic organisms, but not so for C. johnstoni, as there is no evidence that it actually causes disease in the snail or in the marsh rice rat. Ucucha11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryzomys, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (I egged the chicken, and then I ate his leg.)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Polygenis gwyni, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thepaleochorasite.com/wiki/index.php?title=Polygenis_gwyni. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current number is actually 89, due to a couple of doubles and the two right above here. So I didn't almost catch you—I overtook your miserable 86 DYKs! :-) Ucucha21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't that special. And yours are all on the same topic to boot! BTW, I checked the page views for "Play Me"--3300, not enough to make the cut. But hey, I write about girls--how about that? Drmies (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. There are worms, lizards, shrews, carnivores, scientists, Field Ornithology Groups, YouTube artists, broken molars, trees, and anatomical features among them (in addition to the occasional rodent). Pretty good on "Play Me"—?Oryzomys pliocaenicus did better, though. You should also start writing on fragmentary fossils. Ucucha23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak the language, sorry! Now, your fossil teeth may have done well (and a GA too!) but I don't have the time, like, you know, the regular student in the US, who's just rehashing what he should have learned in high school, haha. I just got done grading the final exams in a lit class: it's pathetic. I hope you did well on your finals! Drmies (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, finals went well. The last was yesterday, so now I don't have much to do until I fly home in a few days. Fortunately, I don't need to do the grading. Ucucha12:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Transandinomys bolivaris
On May 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Transandinomys bolivaris, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
Hi, you recently showed your support for a name change of the American Empire article. Although you were in support of a slightly different change to my proposal, as only a minor change in capitalization, I have edited the request. It would be much appreciated if you could directly show your presumed support for this change. Thanks, MrTranscript (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly wanted to ensure the capitalization would be correct; I won't be looking into the subject to see which title is more appropriate (though on the face of it, it seems your proposed move is an improvement). Ucucha21:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without pushing you into anything, if you had the time to simply show your support on the page would be a great help, seeing as it seems to have low interest. MrTranscript (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ucucha, let me ask you, how did you get the URL for a specific page number in that google book (I am trying to generate a reference for the wood turtle part of this book, begins on page 250)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you are on that page in the preview, click on "link" at the top right. Then you'll get a link full of cruft that you don't need for the link to work; you can take out everything except the parts that begin id= (which identifies the book) and pg= (which identifies the page you're on). Ucucha23:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother with you with another request, but do you think you can find a paper for an article on what I think is a very fragmentary fossil, but of a sparrow, not a rice rat. I've finally found a paper that you will be probably be able to get: it was published in the Ostrich, South Africa's ornithology journal: Marks, M. B., 1964, Premaxillae of the fossil Passer predomesticus… 35:245. 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The full citation is: Markus, Miles B. December 1964. Premaxillae of the fossil Passer predomesticus Tchernov and the extant South African Passerinae. The Ostrich 35(4):245–246.
P. predomesticus was described from fossil premaxillae, probably >400,000 years old, from near Bethlehem. (Do you have Tchernov 1962, Bull. Res. Council Israel 11B(3):95–131?). It differs from domesticus and hispaniolensis in the structure of the ventral surface of the premaxilla: there is a narrow, central, anteroposteriorly running ridge, which becomes more narrow towards the front, in domesticus and hispaniolensis; the ridge is more marked in domesticus. In predomesticus, there is instead a central groove with slightly elevated margins.
Premaxillary measurements
Species
Max. width premax
Max length premax + nasals
Max width : Max length
n
hispaniolensis
9.0
13.0
1:1.45
7
domesticus subsp. (prob. biblicus)
8.2
13.2
1:1.61
20
predomesticus
8.0
12.0
1:1.50
2
iagoensis
7.7
14.4
1:1.87
8
melanurus
6.7
12.6
1:1.88
36
diffusus
6.2
11.9
1:1.92
3
domesticus indicus
6.4
12.1
1:1.89
3
This corrects a few misprints in Tchernov (1962). P. iagoensis, melanurus, and diffusus all have a median ridge similar to that of domesticus, but poorly developed, and some have a shallow median groove at the front, not nearly as developed as in predomesticus. He concludes that predomesticus is closest to living Palestine domesticus and to iagoensis, but distinct from either. Ucucha17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, I don't have Tchernov, nor do expect to get it. I only have two mentions in my sparrow books, and this paper discussing the evolutionary history of the House Sparrow. Most mentions of this fossil describe it as an ancestor of the House Sparrow, but Summers-Smith and Anderson consider this unlikely. —innotata18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I remember it and have it alongside your table: Something about Markus's paper the Auk found notable: the premaxillae of predomesticus are similar to domesticus and iagoensis in robustness, but differ in vantral patterning. —innotata19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said, isn't it? (2nd paragraph.) I agree that it doesn't seem likely that predomesticus is the ancestor of domesticus alone, since the living Passer species appear to share a synapomorphy (the central ridge) relative to it. Ucucha19:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read your summary very carefully (not yet), and the point is this is what they found notable. Nice to see you've cleared out most of the unidentified Tamias on the Commons, but they're still lots to do there. Many albino and melanistic squirrels need ID, and there are some more waiting to be moved from here. A big problem is that some people misunderstand Latin names and place all moles under Talpa, all sparrows under Passer, and so on. A lot of images go under categories like "bird distribution maps", instead of species. —innotata02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your query about the absence of a link from the en.WP FAC page. I want to write a piece for The Signpost comparing the FAC processes in a few of the non-English WPs. Are you able to check my google-translation of the German criteria and provide a little info on the way it works in practice there? My German is pretty bad. Tony(talk)09:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have first-hand experience with the German FAC process (I do with the Dutch one), but I know the language and can check your translation. I'll be pretty busy over the next few days (moving out of college for the summer), but will try to find time. Ucucha11:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Ucucha. Is the Dutch FAC similar to the German? I want to (i) be very selective, otherwise the task and the article size will blow out, and (ii) choose examples that show the extraordinary differences in approach among the WPs. I intend to google translate and fix a few more sets of criteria and instructions as background (among these could well be the Dutch). What is really harder is to summarise the review process itself—the subtleties of the cultural approach, the relationship between reviewers, nominators and ?delegates, and whether they really do apply the criteria seriously (as I believe occurs at en.WP). If you don't mind, I'll come back to you when I've made more progress and ask your advice. Tony(talk)04:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's one thing I should have said myself—just looking at the criteria may say little about how the process really works. The Dutch Wikipedia has criteria (nl:WP:Etalage/Wat is een etalageartikel) that are almost a direct translation of the English ones, but the process is very different. There are no delegates, or directors, or anything like that; instead, an article becomes an Etalageartikel (literally, a "showcase article") when there are two more votes in favor than against. The votes are real votes (see nl:WP:Etalage/Aanmelding kandidaten, the "FAC" page), and the criteria are hardly even mentioned there. Ucucha10:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks reliable to me, although I would prefer academic sources over things like this. Sorry for not responding earlier; I got caught in a few ash clouds while trying to get home, which took some time. Ucucha10:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading more sources on a species you're writing on is never a bad idea, because it helps you gain a broader picture, but if you have a choice of citing a particular fact to a source like this or to a source like Ernst and Lovich, or if they disagree, I would go with Ernst and Lovich. Ucucha17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Transandinomys talamancae, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
You're welcome. I don't know, but it was some time. Why do you even need such a gargantuan page? Because of its length, you can't really put it in any mainspace article. Ucucha19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Transandinomys talamancae. This article states the species lives in lowland forests from Costa Rica to southwestern Ecuador and northern Venezuela, up to 1525 m (5000 ft) above sea level. The origin for the altitude was feet. This was obviously not measured, it's estimated, most likely to the nearest 1000 feet. Does this animal ever go above 5000 feet? Maybe! Does it only go to 4500 ft? Maybe. Therefore the implied accuracy of this 5000 feet figure is plus minus 500 ft. So whey would we have a meter figure to the nearest meter? The implied accuracy would round the figure to the nearest 100 meters.
Another example, If I said the intersection is about 100 meters away, would that be 109 yards away? No it's only an estimation, the figure would be both 100 meters and 100 yards.
With this in mind I'd ask you to change the article back to 1500 m (5000 ft).Metricmike (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You begin with the assumption that the altitude was originally given in feet. That is wrong: the source only says 1525 m (Musser and Carleton, 2005, p. 1155 [see article for details]; I just checked again). Ucucha15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an online reference for this article, I take it you have the book, but common sense would indicate that because the answer in feet is an even thousand feet, this is where the reference originated. Note it's not 1526 m or 1524 m but the exact conversion of 5000 ft. The accuracy in meters stick out like a sore thumb as being the direct conversion of a figure in feet that has an accuracy of "roughly" 5000 feet. Note this: (Transandinomys bolivaris, also known as the long-whiskered rice rat, is a rodent in the genus Transandinomys. It is found in humid forest from northeastern Honduras to western Ecuador, up to 1800 m (5900 ft) above sea level). Although close, it's not the exact conversion. If it said 1800 m (5901 ft) it would look just as odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metricmike (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microgale macpheei, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
Have you heard about thIis? The Malaysian government and zoos took objection to the naming of this subspecies after somebody, and proposed to call it malayensis instead. Until I corrected this, the page used Malaysia's name. I can't find any evidence that anybody published the second name, and that it should be listed as a synonym (which it is on Wikimedia Commons and Wikispecies). Do you think you could find this out?
This isn't the only time governments have tried changing scientific names: Turkey also has demanded that any mammals found in Turkey with names like armeniana or kurdistanensis be renamed, as scientists surely must have named them with some sort of malicious intent.
By the way, can you check Zoological Record for articles on Passer predomesticus some time? I'm not sure there are any except Tchernov and Markus. (If you can't view Zoological Record pages now, I'll ask someone else.) I'm more hopeful on the Socotra Sparrow and all the others. —innotata21:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zoological Record for P. predomesticus only gives Markus. (I still have access to online resources, even from the Netherlans, but of course I can't go to the Harvard libraries. There is a pretty good natural history library here in Leiden at Naturalis, however.)
I hadn't heard of the malayensis issue. If I recall correctly, jacksoni itself is little better than a nomen nudum, though, so perhaps they're not out of luck yet. I think you could cite this paper for the synonymy of P. t. malayensis.
I had read about the Turkish issue before. I also know of a Dutch paleontologist who had named a fossil rat genus (first found in Greece, but later mostly discovered in Turkey, I believe) Byzantinia; he later named another fossil rodent Ottomania to appease the Turks. Ucucha21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking about predomesticus. As for the tiger, how is jacksoni a nomen nudum? And how does the paper you linked show that malayensis is a valid name, either? —innotata23:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closely, I'm not sure either is valid—Luo et al. just says the name is proposed and the subspecies is distinct, which in the past was more than enough to describe a species, but may not be OK on he ICZN now; I haven't found any journal descriptions of malayensis, either. —innotata23:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not a valid description of the name, but I think in our taxoboxes we should be giving our readers the service of listing the names they may encounter, instead of interpreting ourselves whether the Code is followed correctly. The source I gave is at least a high-quality source for the name malayensis. Ucucha06:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source you give proposes using jacksoni and the common name "Malayan tiger" as though it were sensible to consider both possibilities. —innotata13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems jacksoni is the name we should use. I don't think conservationists, like the people who wrote that piece I linked to, would care much about correct nomenclatural procedures. Ucucha15:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to the article now — it looks as if Irwin was discussing the differences within the southern group, rather than between the fuligula and obsoleta groups, so it is new stuff 06:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ucucha, nice to know you. I'm glad to se you're contributing developing F.V. article. I'd like to explain why you found 4 times the same source in the biography section. That source[1] is the only primary source today available about FV' life and his family. It was used 4 times waiting to change the footnotes using the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) and the op.cit. form for pointing each time the related page number. Don't be surprised to find Veranzio and Vrancic on the same line: it's a work-in-progress phase in which editors use the name cited in the related sources. Thanks anyways for your copy-editing, you are welcome to offer your help again.
See you around, --Theirrulez (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly see how a book from 1768 can be a primary source for someone who lived in the 16th century.
Feel free to put the refs back in with page numbers, if you feel that improves the sourcing. From what you say, it is probably best to put Fortis in a "Cited texts" section under the references and use something like "Fortis, p. 128" for each individual ref (or the {[tl|Harvnb}} template). Ucucha17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I planned to do. I will for sure use the Harvard citation template.
However, every single biographical informations today we have about the Veranzio family came frome Fortis' works. Abbe Albert Fortis was born only thirty years later than Veranzio's death (1650-1735). He traveled from the city of Venice through the Venetian lands of Dalmatia and shared his observations on the natural history and culture of those unknown places in letters to John Strange, the Bishop of Londonderry, and other clergy. Those letters were pubblished in the above mentioned book only in 1768, several years after Fortis' death. He particullary was friend of abbe Count Girolamo Veranzio, nephew of Fausto, who hosted him in the Veranzio house in Dalmatia. [2]
A primary source is (I think) generally understood to be one written by someone who was directly involved in the events, and someone who was born 30 years (and probably more—V died in 1617, unless our article is wrong there) after the death of the person he's writing about can hardly be said to be directly involved.
But really, it isn't very important whether or not he's a primary source. The best source to use for his life, by the way, would be a modern academic biography (see WP:SECONDARY), but I don't know whether any exist. Ucucha18:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am sure you'd consider it important for that reason.
By the way, I noticed that you made some changes in other peoples' comments on the talk page. That is generally not allowed (see WP:TPO for details, but really it's all common sense—when someone's signature is at the end of a post, we should be able to assume it was that person who wrote all of the post). I'd advise you to revert those edits. Ucucha19:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I erased some ¶, or some "*" in mine and other people's comments, just to compress the page IMHO too long and fuzzy. I also made some modifications on some comments of mine. If you think I violated some other users' posts, please show me where, and I will revert my changes immediately. Theirrulez (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is some debolding in DIREKTOR's post (under "Line 42" in the diff), a bolding in a post from Gun Powder Ma (still under "Line 42", removal of lines like "Google Books" in a post from DIREKTOR (under "Line 68"), another bolding in a post from Gun Powder Ma ("Line 89"), and then under "Line 658" you change "=" to "is suspected to be" in a post of DIREKTOR's. Really, all of those are minor, but there's no reason to make them, especially when the editing environment is already heated. Ucucha21:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no proper closing. Opinions on the move were still very much divided and proposed alternatives were not even considered. I think your decision was premature and that is why I reverted it. Not because I like to revert you – I don’t even no know who you are – but because of a wrong closure of the discussion. I am not particularly in favour to revert decisions unless they are blatantly mistaken. - DonCalo (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not equal unanimity, as I said, and I (as an uninvolved administrator) asssessed consensus to be in favor of moving, and not in favor of your proposed alternative. I'll wait to see what happens on the page. Ucucha18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note; I missed it because the move template was malformed (incorrectly substituted). It's closed now. Ucucha16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Triaenops goodmani
On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Triaenops goodmani, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
There's an interesting rodent from the island of Hispaniola called a Hispaniolan Hutia, as well as another bizarre mammal called a Hispaniolan Solenodon. I've added a few potential sources to their talk page. Later, if you're looking for a distraction, they might be good articles to work on for conservation reasons. I'm also tempted to suggest them for collaboration after Slow loris (one of my high-priority non-lemur articles) gets taken care of. – VisionHolder « talk »14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far too many articles to work on—I think I'll limit myself to rice rats, Madagascar bats, and euplerids for a while. But the hutia is interesting (only surviving member of the subfamily, I believe), and solenodons are among the most bizarre mammals around; I covered them in Soricomorphs of the Caribbean. Ucucha15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Plesiorycteropus
On May 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plesiorycteropus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
... has been nominated for deletion. I think I got the notice you were supposed to have (because the warning was placed on /doc, which I created, rather that the main page, which you created). - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I shall be attempting to direct the "delete" argument into some form it can be reasonably argued against before doing anything myself, I think. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And surely you must be dedicated to reviewing—thanks for yet another review! I began this group with writing Cryptoprocta spelea as a spin-off from the WikiProject Mammals collaboration on the fossa, and thought I also could do the other non-lemur, non-hippo recently extinct mammals of Madagascar. I thought that included only Hypogeomys australis, Microgale macpheei, and Plesiorycteropus, but discovered that N. narindaensis and Brachytarsomys mahajambaensis had just been described a few weeks ago, and then also found out about the bats, Triaenops goodmani and Hipposideros besaoka, which I should have known about, but had forgotten. So then it goes fast when I try to complete the series. :-) Ucucha06:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Hypogeomys australis
On June 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hypogeomys australis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.
