Greetings, Ucucha! Just wanted to let you know I'm reviewing this article's nomination. I hope you'll check up over here in case I notice anything which needs to be addressed. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was flipping through a recent issue of Mycotaxon and noticed with interest this article, which solves the mystery of what the eastern North America–eastern Asia disjunct distribution is called. Thought you might want to know. Perhaps someday I'll make an article for it and update all those taxa pages... Sasata (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do that as a side aspect of hyphenating ISBNs, if only because most pre-2007 books were never actually assigned an ISBN-13 (plus the two ISBNs are pretty much the same identifier in the 978- prefix anyway, so you could just as well argue for it in the reverse direction). Feel free to restore the ISBN13, but I'd appreciate if you kept the hyphenation. Circéus (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly interested in the reasoning for your change, and don't care too much either way. You did keep the ISBN-13 for a 2006 book. Incidentally, I've got a 1997 book on my desk that gives an ISBN-13. Ucucha05:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you absolutely sure it's not a reprint? 'Cause I'm fairly sure the system was not even conceived before sometime in the 2000s. Circéus (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that anywhere in the book. However, it is a paperback and contains quotes from reviewers. The ISBN-13 is given with the barcode, and the ISBN-10 is also given on the title page and with the Library of Congress data. Ucucha13:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the previoud image does not give an accurate representation of the hamster and my hamster does as it is in a more natural position than a frightened old russian dwarf on a cheap blue plastic wheel. Please put the image back. PuffinLets talk!12:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but the quality of your image is so bad that it easily offsets that. I've now changed the image to one that hopefully addresses your concerns with the previous one. I've also removed the section you added on genetics; while accurate, it only gave general principles of inheritance, and nothing specifically about Phodopus dwarf hamsters. Ucucha13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to try again? If you didn't know, that is my actual dwarf hamster and I am using a better camera to try and get some better quality shots. Is that not allowed here on Wikipedia? PuffinLets talk!13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not too much of a problem if they are not of ideal quality; they may be useful in some place even if they are not good enough to be shown on the Phodopus page. In any case, I wouldn't want to be the sole judge of their quality. Ucucha13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Dwarfhamster4 one is the best one (the others are very much out of focus), but I don't think it's better than the image currently shown in the Phodopus article. Ucucha15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phidippus clarus
Hi, Ucucha. Sorry for over-writing Phidippus clarus - I was restructuring, adding images, and some content & cites. Next time I'll use {{inuse}}. I didn't anticipate that you would be interested to early - I only created the article 2-3 days ago. --Philcha (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ucucha. I think I've done what I can, as I've worn out Google (or me). I hope to nominate the article late tomorrow. If you'd like to comment, I'd be grateful. If there's anything major, please tell me at Talk:Phidippus clarus. --Philcha (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fossa is a cat-like, carnivorous mammal that is endemic to Madagascar. It is a member of the Eupleridae, a family of carnivorans closely related to the mongoose family. Its classification has been controversial because its physical traits resemble those of cats, yet other traits suggest a close relationship with viverrids. The fossa is the largest mammalian carnivore on the island of Madagascar and has been compared to a small cougar. Adults have a head-body length of 70–80 cm (28–31 in) and weigh between 5.5–8.6 kg (12–19 lb), with the males larger than the females. It has semi-retractable claws and flexible ankles that allow it to climb up and down trees head-first, and also support jumping from tree-to-tree. The fossa is unique within its family for the shape of its genitalia, which share traits with those of cats and hyenas. The species is widespread, although population densities are usually low. It is found solely in forested habitat, and actively hunts both day and night. Over 50% of its diet consists of lemurs, the endemic primates found on the island, though tenrecs, rodents, lizards, birds, and other animals are also documented as prey. The fossa is listed as "Vulnerable" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The greatest threat to the species is habitat destruction. (more...)
Yes, 5 upper Unicuspids also known as canine teeth. It is most definitely unusual and worth noting and totally applicable to have the dental formula. Please see Unicuspid and the given reference Species Accounts: Northern Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) which clearly states "The dental formula is as in the genus Sorex: falciform incisor, five unicuspids, fourth premolar and three molars in each upper jaw; procumbant incisor, one unicuspid, the fourth premolar and three molars in each lower toothrow, total 32"
I have done my research, I know it is correct and relevant. I have reverted your edit. Regards, FrostedΔ1401:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You evidently have not done quite enough research, since shrew unicuspids are not necessarily canines (the dental formula you put in suggests that they are). Instead, shrews have a series of teeth that are just simple unicuspids and cannot be easily identified as canines, incisors, or premolars. See, for example, the reference given in the unicuspid article, available online at [1]. As far as I am aware, no mammal has more than one canine per jaw quadrant, let alone five. Ucucha01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not edit war with you but I think it a shame not to have the dental formula displayed. Oh never mind FrostedΔ1413:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ucucha. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Heh, I wondered what was going on there, but now you've cleared things up for me! I've modified it now to weed out any that already have "classis", though the conjoined use of "class" and "classis" would still be incorrect-- have you seen what happens when "class" is used instead of "classis"? It's ugly!
Yes, we'd need to get rid of anything that uses |class=, whether or not it uses |classis= too. Are you also going to check |order= and |family=? I suppose weeding out |class= would get rid of most uses of those. Ucucha23:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is to a good peer-reviewed journal; it's not Nature, of course, but respectable. It also appears to be the only paper that has treated Teraterpeton in detail: Google Books and Scholar find four additional sources, but those either abstract the information in the original description or only mention the animal casually. Perhaps the article should cite some of those articles (if I had written the article, I would certainly have cited them), but it's not going to make too much of a difference. For many taxa, there simply aren't going to be many sources. I can't think of any full-length article that I've written that has only one source, but I've certainly written several where a second source only filled in minor details (e.g., Andreacarus voalavo, Voalavo antsahabensis, Nesomys narindaensis). Ucucha09:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that image was intended not as a specific illustration of Teraterpeton, but as a general illustration of what euryapsid skulls look like. Ucucha09:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Voalavo
On 19 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Voalavo, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that breeding males of the Malagasy rodent Voalavo produce a sweet-smelling musk? 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.
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. (A mite, I can't believe I reviewed a mite...) Ealdgyth - Talk14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eliurus petteri, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Malagasy rodent Eliurus petteri is the only tufted-tailed rat with completely white underparts? 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 science people are revolting. Can't you just stick with that tufty rat with white underparts? In other news, my oldest daughter announced she wants to be a scientist. I tried to steer her toward animals, but she likes volcanoes much more. I want her to be an archeologist, so I can visit her in Greece when she's digging up stuff. Then again, I also want her to be a lesbian, but her latest marriage is to some guy called Jason. I think. It could be Cayden. Or Kayson. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there. Incidentally, people did actually look for it in trees (mammalogists often set traps at least a few meters above ground), but almost always found it in pitfall traps on the ground. Ucucha06:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.. I suspected something like that and thus wrote you instead of rephrasing. Maybe better reflect this in the article, as this is a non-trivial piece of information (low trapping rate above above the ground). Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chittenango ovate amber snail
Hi there Ucucha! Thank you for reviewing the article. The whole review process was interesting and informative. Although some of my fellow project members seemed to disagree with some of your suggestions back there, I must say they will influence my own articles in the future. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Drymoreomys
On 26 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drymoreomys, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the Brazilian rodent Drymoreomys has traits that suggest it lives in trees, it is usually captured on the ground? 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 26 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article False potto, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the false potto may be a true potto(pictured)? 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, I've responded to your thoughtful comments on the FAC page. Many thanks for the review. I will be out a good part of the day, so do not expect a quick response to further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one would expect you to be able to reply immediately at every time of the day. We'll see what other reviewers have to say; it's quite possible that I am wrong. I'll ask Drmies, another Dutch editor, to also have a look. Ucucha10:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know Drmies spoke Dutch! I had Kww, another Dutch speaker (though not native) look it over and his comments were generally good on accuracy. Anyway, I've asked Sandy if she would be willing to let me withdraw it and nom another article I have ready, if she is well and good, if not I will just keep the nom active because I don't want to wait the two weeks and scramble to obtain the books. Possibly there are copies in the US. It will work out. I was greatly impressed by the book available on google books.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, why did you redlink that Utrecht newspaper? I don't think it still exists, I don't expect an article on it to be written anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid subject, so it should be linked, though I agree it's unlikely to get an article soon. I first met Drmies when he submitted an article about some ancient Dutch newspaper to DYK, and since then he has been relentlessly filling this talkpage with very funny half-Dutch, half-English nonsense. Ucucha11:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty bad image, though; if I were you, I wouldn't worry about it, since there are no doubt other new FAs with more striking images. Also, you already have an image from an FAC that I was a co-nom on (slow loris).
And I take credit for corrupting him by drawing him away from his rodents into the Malagasy fauna (past and present). :-) One of these days I'll have to re-pay the favor by working on some rodent articles with him. Honestly, Ucucha, your contributions to the broad topic of the fauna of Madagascar have been so greatly appreciated that no award on or off Wiki would be sufficient. You are a great writer, reviewer, collaborator, and friend. Keep up the excellent work! – VisionHolder « talk »17:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good—I'm not aware of the documentary, but I assume you got that from e-mailing VH and I'm sure he wouldn't make that up. Ucucha17:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bharattherium, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bharattherium may have been among the first grazing mammals? 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, because you made it one a few hours ago. But Antilope is absolutely correct as the genus name of the blackbuck, Antilope cervicapra. Antilopinae is a larger grouping, a subfamily, that includes some but not all antelopes. Ucucha20:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "make" it one; I merely reverted it back to exactly what it was before somebody added a bunch of unintelligible nonsense. If it should be a separate article, then by all means go ahead and write one — but it wasn't one until a day or two ago. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that. I wouldn't call the text that was added ([2]) "unintelligible nonsense"—it was mostly correct, though the messed-up automatic taxobox (not sure what was wrong there) doesn't help. Ucucha21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Ucucha. I've undone an edit you made to the above page (namely this one) as I've been informed that it's breaking taxonomy templates Wiki-wide. I think it's likely a mistake, I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! 狐 Déan rolla bairille!23:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content in those articles (aristolochia baetica and aristolochia acuminata) were not copyright violation. I have provided WP:CITATIONS and therefore have credited the source and have changed all sentences (had changed only some, but still credited a source) to what it is in its citation. More importantly and rather curiously (considering your removal), every sentence of the sourced antiproliferative information I had provided had already been changed from the original source! Also you removed a perfectly rational category from the article aristolochia baetica, why did you do that? I don't know if you are aware that most aristolochia species are drought-tolerant and so they should be categorized as such. I have reverted both of your edits, but have tried to take on board any constructive criticism you may have provided. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Providing a source does not mean that you did not violate copyright. If the text has substantial similarity to the source, you're violating copyright, and changing a few words does not mean you're good. For example, the source in A. baetica states "In order to systematically evaluate their potential activity on human breast cancer, four different polarity extracts from each plant were assessed in vitro for their antiproliferative effect on MCF-7 cells". In the article, you put: "To evaluate their potential activity on human breast cancer, four different polarity extracts from both A. baetica and origanum compactum were assessed in vitro for the antiproliferative effect they have on MCF-7 cells". That's almost the same, except a few words moved here and there; the rest of your text had the same kind of problems. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.
I will revert your edits again, since they introduce copyright violations. If you continue adding this material, you may end up being blocked.
I removed the category because the article does not say that this particular plant is drought-tolerant. It may be true, but should be mentioned, with a reliable source, in the article. Ucucha15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to re-affirm what User:Ucucha has said, you cannot simply copy work from other sources. The issue of plagiarism is quite separate from the copyright issue, as that link says in its lead. Yes, by acknowledging your source you don't have plagiarism issues but you still have copyright issues. What may be confusing you is that, in some circumstances, limited copying of text is allowed in quotations under the concept of fair use. However in this instance you've not made it clear it's a quote and anyway a fair use argument is made more difficult by how easy it is to write in your own words without degrading the article. Simply changing a few words from the source is also not enough to remove copyright concerns as, in this instance, you would have created a derivative work and this is also not allowed. I hope this helps you understand the concerns, but if not feel free to ask any questions. Dpmuk (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are more than three, unless you mean three with gonwanathere fossils, in which case, I'm not sure, and you would know more than me about this subject. This is why I removed this section. I'm not sure about the age part, but I edited it because it conflicted with the age given in the article for the Allen Formation. Dgrootmyers (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for that; it's indeed one of three formations where Campanian–Maastrichtian gondwanathere fossils have been found. I think there are two more where one or two mammalian fossils were found, and perhaps more where they got dinosaurs. I have now corrected the article.
The age is directly from the source that described the mammals from the Allen Formation. I think what may be going on is that while the deposition of the formation began in the Campanian, and some of the dinosaurs are from that period, the mammals are from the Maastrichtian part of the formation (but that is pure speculation). Ucucha06:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is already a link; two would be redundant. (And if the PMC should be put in the place of |url=, I don't see why that wouldn't also be the case for the other citation templates, so the change should be made to Citation/core.) Ucucha11:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was your change discussed prior to being put in place? The logic to link the PMC as the URL was quite deliberate, though you may be correct that it might sit better in citation/core. Rjwilmsi11:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not use if this is relevant, as this discussion looks at a "subroutine" of "cite journal". My concern is that I often give "convenience links" to journal articles' titles, so that readers with restricted access to the original source can use the alternative URL, which often is to a web page on the author's site. Does the change to pmc= in {{cite journal}} impact the use of "convenience links"? --Philcha (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. If there is no PMC, nothing was changed by my edit; if there is one, a convenience link that is explicitly put into the |url= parameter gets there first, with and without my change. Ucucha12:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't expand anything that is within ref tags. You'll have to search-and-replace "<ref" with something that doesn't occur anywhere else (like "<!"), run it through ExpandTemplates, and replace "<!" back with "<ref". Ucucha10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coloniatherium, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that with an estimated skull size of 87.5 mm (3.4 in), Coloniatherium was the largest mammal in the La Colonia Formation? 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 16 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claude W. Hibbard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American paleontologist Claude W. Hibbard became a school principal when he was only 18? 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 22 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ferugliotheriidae, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that blade-like teeth in the extinct mammalian family Ferugliotheriidae may have evolved into molar-like teeth in the Sudamericidae? 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.
Hey, I was amused by this and thought you might be too. Well, at first I was amused, then the more I thought about it, the more I liked the name "Ucachaca". It's kind of musical. Ohhhh, wait, I know why I think that. Gimme a second to find... this!MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM00:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ferugliotherium, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fossil mammal Ferugliotherium is known from only 20 teeth and maybe a tiny jaw fragment? 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.
I would like to ask whether you would be able to read the dicussion that can be seen on the English FC Barcelona thread on Wikipedia and make the requested additions as you are one of the regular editors and nobody has answered the requets yet, so that is the reason to why I am writing to you.
Hi, Ucucha. I'm from Thailand, follow to you via detail on Li Mae Long locality.
I wonder that you have the 'Full Text' article of the only reference of that page, that contain a lots of paleo-fauna from Thailand, or not?
If you have it, Could you please send a copy of it (in .pdf file) to me via my email: pkhun<at>hotmail.com
thank you Pkhun (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an e-mail. Are you interested in the fossil mammals of your country? I've written a few pieces about Thai fossils (Tupaia miocenica, ? Nycticebus linglom) and will probably add some others. I'm currently studying fossil small mammals from Pakistan, and the Thai faunas often have interesting similarities. Ucucha22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
