On 26 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ? Nycticebus linglom, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fossil primate ? Nycticebus linglom is known from a single tooth, which is said to be the smallest known prosimianmolar? 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 and thanks so much for reviewing my Jan 21 article on DYK. But it is still sitting there not getting into a queue and I wonder if this is because it has the AGF checkmark instead of the green one. Or maybe there's some other issue that I haven't noticed and the gray checkmark means you don't really think it's OK? I'll be happy to fix it if there is still a problem. betsythedevine (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently lots of approved articles at DYK, so it may take some time (depending on the whims of those who assemble sets of hooks) before an article makes it into the queue. If it's any help, I've upgraded my approval to the green mark.
(As you can see above, my loris did make it to the Main Page by now. Perhaps next time you should try also starting article with a title that begins with a question mark; it helps ;-) ) Ucucha00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Bornean Slow Loris
On 28 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bornean Slow Loris, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when first described in the 1890s, the Bornean Slow Loris was said to have the face of a bear, the hands of a monkey, and to move like a sloth? 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.
Perhaps; no; yes. I might try to 5x expand the nomenclature article, but I probably won't have a lot of time soon, and I have a few other articles I'd like to work on. Are you writing an article on Osman Hill? He deserves a good one. Ucucha01:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to do him justice, but my attentions really should be elsewhere. Once I plop it down later tonight, you're welcome to help clean it up. By the way... did his widow every finish the 9th volume of Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy? I'm just curious, but don't have time to search. – VisionHolder « talk »01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I was thinking of filling out the Osman Hill redlink myself, but I'm glad a mammal-guy is going to do it instead (my attentions should be elsewhere too...) Are we gonna wrap up that GAN or what? Sasata (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to work on N. menagensis. I left the ones that I couldn't easily respond to; do either of you know more about the things J raised (related to pet trade among others)? Ucucha01:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... William Charles Osman Hill now has the best article I can offer him... at nearly 4am. I may have provided too much information from the memorial publications, but I figured it wouldn't hurt. Feel free to polish it up a bit (both of you) if you have time, and I'll check back after work tomorrow. At that point, I'll nominate for DYK. I you want on the nomination, just let me know. Just FYI, I have written to two of the institutions he had the closest tied with requesting a photo. Now we just need to cross our fingers. I just wish we could get the photo from the memorial articles... – VisionHolder « talk »
Hey Ucucha--right below the DYK entry for tourism in Abkhazia is an entry for some Dwarf Hamster, some creepy varmin. Am I being too picky by saying that it lacks content, that it's a bit too short? I can't help but think that if you had written the article it would be over 5000 characters. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it covers the basics, and the DYK requirement is 1500, not 5000. Besides, I don't think I would have gotten much more out of this one than obscure pieces of morphology; it seems rather poorly known. Ucucha02:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I only write articles about fossil mammals described from single teeth and occasionally whine about some hook. And this is really a very poorly known species—look at the Google Books and Scholar results for the scientific name, for example.
Has your semester already started again? I'm in my first week of classes, and today I attended a plant systematics class where the instructor set things on fire. All in the interests of education. Ucucha03:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right--it's a boring critter. But it seems that Vladimir E. Sokolov deserves an article--get on it. Maybe they have a tooth of his somewhere. Do you know I have all of my wife's wisdom teeth? In a little jar in the spice drawer? They're huge. Yes, we started weeks ago already, and so far it's been just absolutely fantastic. I like to say that students take World Lit survey classes because they like them, and generally they do better than regular Brit Lit surveys--well, that turned out to be a bunch of BS, as this semester's two sections prove. I wish I could set things on fire. Then again, I can make fun of all kinds of Christianities and talk about body parts...human body parts... Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, blame the messenger. What's funny is I get the different flavors of Christianity to talk to each other (initially they often think they're all pretty much the same) and then they say things like, "Y'all believe that? Are you crazy?" Wednesday the Baptists, Catholics, and Anglicans could not come to terms on what constitutes a sin. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, capitalization is inconsistent throughout, including in Eliurus and the "Nesomyidae nav" template. Your attention and editorial judgment are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those species, I actually have partially written (offline) articles already. Besides, those things should be under their scientific names, instead of their uncommon names. Ucucha20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<--I didn't know you and bots had that rat-love in common, but I'm happy for both of you. I'll follow whatever is in English and had a goodlooking infobox I can copy. Can you figure out how to produce a plural in the template at the bottom of List of lighthouses in the Netherlands? Brandaris is already written. It's a DYK waiting to happen, but right now I'm more interested in the redlinks. I thought about making a DYK with twenty lighthouses, but there isn't that much to write, and plowing the Dutch newspaper archives is too time-consuming. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 'List of lighthouses in Europe' navbox (and it should read "Lists"), which leads (? click 'edit') to Template:Europe topic. That's too clever for me. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tupaia miocenica, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tupaia miocenica, known from a single tooth, is among the few known fossil treeshrews? 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.
If you have time, would you be able to please skim some template code to make sure it's as efficient as it can be? (If not, I can try to find someone else... seriously) I think I have successfully made the templates (in my user space) for the portal list and book bar. I'm also looking at a more complex template called a "subject bar" that will combine those two bars, as well as an interWiki box. I've only got a static example of it up now, and the table & style sheet code needs some serious tweaking for appearance. Like I said, if you don't have time, don't worry about it. But if you are up for it, my syntax could use some checking, both on the templates and the table/style sheets. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk »08:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Image other
Hello. On 29 March 2010, you made this edit. Is there any particular reason why? I know it was a long time ago but the edit seems completely inappropriate. "REDIRECT" is the standard formatting and changing it to "redirect" does not change the functionality nor the appearance of the redirect. McLerristarr | Mclay115:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think that in reverting this edit, you may have misunderstood it. The countries listed constitute the type locality for this species, which we list in taxoboxes along with authority & date. Let me know if you have any objection to me reinserting this content. Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misunderstand anything; we never list type localities in the taxobox. If we did, we should list it explicitly, not hidden in the authority. Besides, the content was uncited. Ucucha22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. This isn't true: type localities are listed in the taxobox, albeit for a minority of species, but that's not "never". Does this information change your view? BTW, I think you have a valid point about whether we should have a separate field - personally, I think that this would be better than lumping it in with the authority, but that's how it's done at present - usually (although I have also seen it added as a footnote). But given that we don't have that field at the moment, I'd favour following what's been done on other articles. SP-KP (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but then that's a tiny minority. I think I have looked at all the GA- and FA-nominated biota articles for the last year, and none had the type locality in the taxobox. Furthermore, the documentation of Template:Taxobox does not mention the type locality.
If I was wrong in saying that the type locality is never given in the taxobox, I am sorry for the error, but I don't see much of a difference between "it is never used" and "it is used in a few articles in a manner that is inconsistent with the template's documentation and that doesn't even make it clear that the type locality is being given". If you want to have the type locality in the taxobox, please go to Template talk:Taxobox and propose the addition of a dedicated template field for the type locality. I don't think I would support: the type locality is usually fairly technical information of little relevance to most readers. Should we also include information about the type specimen in the taxobox? Or the formal diagnosis? Ucucha23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that one of us misunderstands what the term authority means in the sense in which it is used in the taxobox documentation; I fully accept that it could be me. My understanding is that the authority, when given in full, contains the original species name, the author, the publication date, the publication and page reference, the type locality, and any interpretative notes required to explain the latter in a modern context (e.g. for Speckled Reed Warbler, Acrocephalus sorghophilus, the full authority is "Calamodyta sorghophila Swinhoe 1863, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 92 - Amoy (= Xiamen), Fujian, China" and that abbreviated forms of this full authority can be used - the most common being the author, the author and date, and the author, date & type locality. All I think I'm doing in adding type locality to a taxobox is replacing one of these abbreviated forms of the authority with another slightly less abbreviated form. As I said, I could well be completely wrong on this, and if so, if you could point me at an authoritative source that corrects my misinterpretation, that would be really appreciated. SP-KP (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you OK, Ucucha? That last comment sounded like it's coming from someone who's in a really bad mood. If you'd like me to leave this for now, and let you reply in your own time when you are calmer, that's OK with me. SP-KP (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Tone doesn't carry well over the Internet, and I may have been too terse there (I was doing several things at once, and thought that sentence was all I needed to say). But I'll expand a little. While texts like the one you cite for Swinhoe are sometimes used in taxonomic lists, they have never to my knowledge been used on Wikipedia. Everyone (as far as I know) on Wikipedia has so far understood "authority" to mean "author plus year" (or just "author" for plants), which is a good reason to keep that meaning. If you want to have more information included in the taxobox, please propose it on the template's talk page. Ucucha00:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm sure you're correct in saying that 'full authorities' (e.g. the Swinhoe text above) are never used in WP. I'll look into this subject a bit more before making any proposal, as I want to be sure I'm not on dodgy ground when I say that Name-Date-Locality is as valid an abbreviated form of authority as Name-Date. It sounds as though you're not 100% sure about this specific point yourself either - but if you do happen upon a definitive answer on this, I'd be grateful for a message over at my talk page. SP-KP (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Validity depends on context. I know several journals that require articles to give the author and date for a species in running text on first mention, but I don't know any that require the type locality. (Indeed, I don't think I've ever seen author + date + type locality in the literature—only author + date, author + date + bibliographic reference, and author + date + reference + type locality.) Ucucha00:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oligoryzomys
totally off tangent, but i like to read the articles on rodent-related zoonotic diseases. so you were saying that Oligoryzomys is only a hantavirus vector in a small area... if you happen to know the complete ref info for Wells et al., 1997; Levis et al., 1998; Cantoni et al., 2001 i'd like to look into it, b/c hantavirus currently infects ppl in over half of the south american continent and seems to focus in areas with this genus, of course since all of Sigmodontinae is a potential vector and health statistics are likely sketchy in various countries, it's hard to say, but the isolation of hantavirus to the southern half of SA seems to suggest that the genus as a whole is playing a significant part to what is really a widespread disease. grazie! --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oligoryzomys occurs basically everywhere in South America, so I doubt there is much room for focus in areas where it occurs. However, it seems that HPS in South America occurs only in a relatively small area of northern Argentina, southwestern Brazil, southern Bolivia, and nearby areas—and not in the vast areas of Amazonia, eastern Brazil, and the northern Andes where Oligoryzomys also occurs. It seems that many oryzomyine rodents carry hantaviruses, but only in some areas, the viruses actually infect humans (i.e., Bayou virus, borne by the marsh rice rat, in the U.S., and viruses carried by Oligoryzomys around Argentina).
thanks for the extra info :) theoretically any species in Sigmodontinae (it's not Sigmodonts is it?) can carry a hantavirus, and the CDC seems to find that strains are species specific, which i find interesting given the large number of species. i'm aware there may have been problems with my proposed scheme... but i'm looking for better answers, not just a list of the flaws. do you have nething contructive to suggest that might prevent articles you perceive as being unimportant from being ranked so highly, so that someone without a specialized knowledge can get in the ballpark? --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems plausible that just about every sigmodontine species has its own hantavirus (of course, the vast majority of species have not been studied for hantaviruses). Oryzomys couesi has two, but the populations infected by the two viruses are probably in fact different species. They quite possibly also have a whole series of host-specific parasites (e.g., Eimeria). I count 18 species-specific parasites on list of parasites of the marsh rice rat, and while it is likely that many of those do in fact occur in other species (we've just never found them), that number suggests that other sigmodontine species may also have several host-specific parasites. Is that surprising? I don't see why it should be; humans also have some species-specific pathogens (the pubic louse, for example). Just another reminder that we have barely started to discover the full extent of biological diversity on this planet.
I've offered some suggestions (my previous system, less vague wording, scrapping the importance system entirely). I don't think the world will come to an end either if we assess Rhipidomys or Proechimys as high-importance; I just wanted to draw your attention to some implications of your proposal that I didn't think were intuitive.
Hello - as an experienced DYK reviewer, are you able to take a look at the Tourism in Abkhazia DYK nom at all? Despite your assertion that the revised hook is OK, an editor (who has been blocked for edit warring on politically unstable articles in the past) has come in citing original research to disagree with what's stated clearly in the source. Thanks, ArcticNight19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ucucha, following up on the DYK discussion, do I conclude from your remarks that "... that despite it being illegal under Georgian law for foreigners to enter Abkhazia without notifying the Georgian government, the territory's Black Sea beaches continue to attract tourists?", the original hook, is OK? If so, tick it off, or I will, and we can send it on. Arctic Night is getting antsy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I just had another look at the hook; the problem is that there are citations for both parts (Tbilisi prohibits entering Abkhazia without their knowledge; and Abkhazia attracts tourists), but all sources for the latter part are older than the citation for the former. Thus, we can hardly say that Abkhazia continues to attracts tourists despite the prohibition. Ucucha23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Simplicidentata
On 5 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simplicidentata, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Simplicidentata, the group including rodents and their closest extinct relatives, is characterized by the loss of a pair of upper incisors? 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.
Yes; there are probably some other links that go wrong. The program I wrote can't easily test for that. However, Urva should really be a dab page—a minor village can't be the primary topic over the most diverse genus of mongooses. Ucucha13:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Akodon spegazzinii
On 11 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akodon spegazzinii, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that because the rodent Akodon spegazzinii is so variable, several populations have been named as separate species? 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 19 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Myotis escalerai, 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. No, I don't have access to this book, since I no longer live in Catalonia and therefore cannot access its libraries. Nevertheless, most of the book seems to be available for preview on Google Books; if you want to, I can help you by translating the passages you need. What do you think? --Leptictidium (mt) 08:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does show some of it, but the preview is missing one of the pages discussing M. escalerai (168). Nevertheless, the accessible pages will include some valuable information. I think I will try to work from the Catalan text, and ask you when I encounter problems understanding it. I also e-mailed one of the authors of the book, but didn't get a reply—perhaps because I wrote in English. Ucucha18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Nasuella
On 20 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nasuella, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that mountain coatis, a genus of small carnivorans from the Andes, were considered to represent a single species, until a second species was recognized in 2009? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Looking at the article formerly known as Lemur evolutionary history as well as two of its sources (Wells 2003 & Tattersall 2006), I'm wondering if it's time to split the article. It's nearly 100k in size, and I could probably add a bit more about the paleoclimate and scientific thought behind the dispersal. But I've never split an article like that before, especially when it's a FA. If I did it, I was thinking about the titles Evolutionary history of lemurs and Taxonomic history of lemurs. Your thoughts (and anyone else who's monitoring Ucucha's talk page)? – VisionHolder « talk »06:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably a good idea to split off Lemur taxonomy or something like that—the article is indeed really long. However, I think it's best to wait until after it has been TFA (in two days). Ucucha14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. However, how will this affect the article's status? Will both articles have to go through FAR, and if I can only submit one at a time, then what happens to the other? Also, do I need to suggest the split first, or can I do it outright? I think this case is pretty obvious, and I would like to be the one to do it. – VisionHolder « talk »18:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to re-submit the split-off article to FAC, I think. Featured articles aren't locked, so you can just carry out the change. Ucucha18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say thanks for the 2011 Libyan uprising page move. I obviously supported the move to the (now) current title, but I'm really just applauding your decision to... well, to make a decision at all! good work, and thanks! — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please move this page back from "north africa" protests to "arab world" protests? Mauritania, western sahara, sudan, djibouti and somalia are not north african countries. However, they all have an arab lineage to an extent. All these countries have arabic as an official language so that is a more appropriate title. Thanks 84.13.60.50 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't move it on my own initiative, but after a well-supported move request; I won't move it back on my own initiative either. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Ucucha18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Citation style"
I'd like to discuss with you your reversion at Cologne War of some careful edits of mine. These included both a consolidation of eight uses of the same weblink as a single reference: this is normal good practice. They also included the usage of a standard citation template, {{CathEncy}}, which allows the use of text at Wikisource rather than a commercial site; and also the introduction of authorlinks. For example, I created a link to Frederick Holweck, which did not exist before. It seems to me that these were painstaking, constructive and quite normal improvements to the article - and also respectful of the basic "citation style" in use. I don't think that it is justified to use the principle that the original author sets the citation style to reject out of hand this sort of incremental improvement. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After your changes, the citation style was no longer consistent (compare refs. 21 and 22), and used named references, which as I recall the original author avoided. If doing so is not changing the citation style, I don't know what is. Ucucha22:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that <ref name> cannot be used in an article if the original author did not use it, that doesn't seem to me to be very reasonable. I accept the principle that referencing style should not be switched around according to personal preference, but that is a completely standard tag, and keeps referencing tidy. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think it keeps referencing tidy; others may disagree. Therefore, don't change it around needlessly. That's the point of the guideline not to change citation style. Ucucha01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than focusing on the specific wording of some guideline, please consider that your version of the article had mixed citation styles (contrary to FA criterion 2c). If you say that something should not be contentious, that does not make it uncontentious. Ucucha22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you reverted while I was in the middle of working. There isn't "my version" for that very reason. I can't accept what you are saying here. It is not "needless" to put links to sources in footnotes. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, the citation style is consistent throughout. Or at least it was. That is the guideline. I used a specific style because it is consistent in historiographic writing as well. Please do not change it unnecessarily. auntieruth(talk)21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you're still around. I don't have anything to add to that, and I'm afraid we'll start repeating ourselves here. Ucucha21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I'm still around. LOL. Trying to finish my dissertation!!! thanks for defending the consistent citation style. I understand Charles' point, but his efforts break guidelines. auntieruth(talk)22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, dissertations! Here, we now have lots of seniors scrambling to get their thesis done. So far, I'm still able to limit myself to floods of term papers and exams. Good luck! Ucucha22:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ucucha, can I ask you for a moment? Please have a look at the DYK suggestions page, to Pym (novel), and weigh in on the sourcing matter. I'm not entirely comfortable with Twitter as a source, even though in this particular case it may well be justified. I'm going to copy this question to some other talk pages as well since I'd like a few opinions. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An alternate hook that does not rely on Twitter has already been proposed. I don't think the Twitter ref should necessarily be a problem: we accept self-published references to an author's website for uncontroversial facts, and I don't see how Twitter is any different from that. Ucucha13:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: I don't think MS agrees completely with you. I feel a bit validated by that--I was a bit worried that an unreasonably nit-picky concern was holding a DYK up. Now I don't feel that way anymore. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you—I think there can be no reasonable doubt in the context of the template that "English" refers to the language we speak—but have no interest in pursuing the debate. Ucucha12:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think you misunderstood, I did say I thought it was fine as it was. I was more talking about the last part, the fact that it against MoS to italicise. As you have no interest in pursuing the debate, then fine np :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the wording of the hook (and the article), as if it's certain, that's what bothers me, and you, as a science person, should be all over that. The quote in my comments is directly from the article, and I looked through the whole thing without finding something that states it in such strong terms (fortunately we have the journal through a couple of databases--I used BioOne or something like that), which suggests to me that the hook and the article need to be modified. If you want to step in and judge differently, you are of course free to do so, and I will gladly defer to your judgment. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let me be clear--I have no doubt whatsoever about their sperm-saving capabilities, and I'm sure their technology is a lot more natural than my keeping a little jar in the freezer. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As best as I can tell, Sonja will be on the Main Page at 10 AM 8 March London time, and Wim will be in the next set (6 PM). Ucucha14:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. I don't think I'm smart enough to figure out how the queues and prep areas work--what I noticed was that a couple of 8 March entries were still on the suggestions page. Thanks again Ucucha, and have a good week. Study hard. Today it's Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, if I ever make it to school. :( Drmies (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Panama ?! Wow... I hope you have a zoom lens - take some snaps of some birds and mushrooms while there ;) Yeah, as far as the rat, it's one of those things one waits for unitl one has a stretch of time and less interruptions to play with... :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, unfortunately (and even if I did, the rice rats would get priority ;-) ). It's for a class on invertebrates. Ucucha00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it's still there in a week and a half, I'll take a look. (And perhaps in the next few days, if I happen to have some free time.) Ucucha23:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that you've returned safely and didn't get stopped at Customs with a few exotic rodents sticking their heads out of your pockets. (Just kidding.) Seriously, though, it's good to have you back. – VisionHolder « talk »12:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
