I noticed that on the Alpha Phi Alpha Presidents TfD, you voted keep because it was useful to navigate articles, but less than 1/4 of the people have articles, so there would be a lot of redlinks if said people were wl'ed (which they are not). However, you voted delete on Samira Said discography (which was right underneath APA) because of redlinks. So I see a inconsistent application of policy on your part that I wanted to bring to your attention for review. MSJapan (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no such thing. On the discography navbox, all important links were red (there were also a few "See also" links), so there was really nothing to navigate using the navbox. While most ΑΦΑ presidents may not have articles, there are quite a few who do, so there is opportunity to navigate between them. Ucucha (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider what to do with the nomination after I've gone through the rest of FAC. In general, concerns that articles don't include information that does not exist in reliable sources are not actionable (we can't expect FAs to include information that isn't there (compare Gymnopilus maritimus and Eremoryzomys), but for this article the argument is that the missing information is going to be available in the not-too-distant future. Ucucha (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the thing was never transcluded on FAC; I suppose that's why there were only music people commenting. I've removed the comments up till now, as FAC reviews should be conducted while the article is at FAC. Hopefully the article will get some broader input now. Ucucha (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*facepalm* How the hell we all missed it? Well thanks anyway Ucucha. However, I think you hit it on target with "argument is that the missing information is going to be available in the not-too-distant future." That's what we have been telling the nominator, who, I guess, was thinking that we are asking him to include unavailable information. Oh well. — Legolas(talk2me)14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he said somewhere that he didn't believe the information would become available since the song is already 8 months old; whether that's true I have no idea. But that is something to be discussed at the FAC. Ucucha (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I saw that you closed the FAC nomination for this article as not promoted, and I was wondering why. It looked to me like all raised issues had been resolved. There were a few cases where someone had raised an issue, we made a change, and asked "Is this sufficient?", and hadn't received a reply. There were replies by nominators made as recently as earlier today, and it seemed to be going so well. So why was this closed as not promoted? Thanks, – Quadell(talk)18:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC had been up for quite a while, and no one had supported yet. With more than 40 open FACs, I have to close some of those that are lingering at the bottom, so today I archived three that had received no support after more than three weeks. You'll probably have better luck at FAC if you start afresh in a few weeks.
It is unfortunately rather common that FAC nominations get archived due to a lack of feedback. There's not much we can do about it, short of encouraging people to review more (which, of course, you are already doing). Ucucha (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species
Hello. Just letting you know that I've posted the following at a number of project talk pages:
Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.
bugzilla:30931; someone else had already reported it. There seems to be quite a lot going on: for example, I did not get a new messages bar either for this post from you or for my sockpuppet in the section above this one. Ucucha (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ucucha; just posting here since I know you're an admin and I thought you (or a TPS) might know the answer to this question. A friend of mine, Lilian Edwards, has sent me a picture she'd be happy for us to use on her article. What do I need to do to ensure that the copyright status is correct? I can upload it, of course, but now that it's been sent to me do I have the right to say it's public domain or CC 3.0 or whatever? Or do I need to get her to confirm the source in some way? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Ucucha doesn't mind me jumping in to help on this one, but I deal with this all the time. (No admin rights are needed.) The best way to handle it is to email the person explaining at least one of the copy-left licenses (such as CC-BY-SA), and request that they email both the image and a formal release statement back to you. The release statement can be as simple as: "I release the attached image under CC-BY-SA." Next you go to Wiki Commons and upload the image. (I suggest the old form because it usually provides more help with flagging the image for OTRS.) With the OTRS template set for the image, forward the email from this person to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (including the location of the image on Wiki Commons), then sit back and wait until the request is processed. They should email you back within 1 to 14 days telling you that everything is good to go. If you need the formal directions, you may find them at: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Their release statement is more detailed, but they've never given me problems with my abbreviated version... as long as I provide the details of the CC-BY-SA license before acquiring consent. – VisionHolder « talk »21:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is anything that would justify speedy deletion (Taro-Gabunia is not technically banned, just indefinitely blocked). Here is a diff between TGilmour's version and the actual article; it looks like all he did was fiddling with some stuff in the references. I've commented out the categories (and the FA template) from TGilmour's version. I suppose we could send it to WP:MFD, but don't see much of a need. Ucucha (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ucucha, sorry for the delay in addressing your comments on this GAN. I have answered your comments to the best of my ability with the limited sources that are available.XavierGreen (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jason - it now does? (If it does not, please can you explain how it does not, because as far as I can see, the current version does.)--Toddy1 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It now does (satisfy the layout guidelines) because I fixed a couple minutes before writing here. User:John made another edit moments after I corrected the layout so I'm second down the present history list. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great shots, wonderful to have them. There are a few niggles- while the lighting and environment are great, they don't appear to have been taken with the best camera (or, perhaps more likely, they were taken from a great distance). Also, the crop is a little unfortunate- people tend to make a lot of lead room at FPC. There's also overexposure in the background, which is the kind of thing people will find to moan about if they really want to. The flip side, of course, is the rarity of the animal/the fact it is very rarely encountered, and the fact they're used in a featured article- both big plusses in my book. I'd support, though perhaps weakly, but I'm not sure if it would pass. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, somewhere, I think at move request, I was particularly grumpy with you. Sorry, I've come down with a nasty 'flu that's robbing me of any good humour I might have had. :-( Tony(talk)08:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, they look great. Someone already filled in the ID for the first one as probably Tupaia belangeri, a species of treeshrew, and for the last one as Tamiops macclellandi, a squirrel, both of which look reasonable as IDs. I don't have a book on Thai mammals at hand, so I'll have to go to the library to confirm the IDs; I'll probably be able to do that this Friday. Ucucha (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funambulus palmarum - the three-striped, which is restricted to southern India and quite different from the largely northern Funambulus pennanti (which has a chipping call note). But in the Western Ghats, there are also forest species like F. tristriatus (call different, no well marked stripes) and F. sublineatus (which may need work and will likely show a fairly ancient split between India and Sri Lanka). Shyamal (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason the bot didn't fix it on WP:FAC is that it only makes edits like that if it also makes an edit to move the marker. For the last few days, it has decided that the marker shouldn't be moved, so it didn't edit for spacing either. I can change that, of course. Ucucha (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, as a matter of fact, I did. I originally nominated it for FAR, but then, I was told it should have been FAC, and there, I was told I should do a PR first. Thanks, Belugaboycup of tea?00:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In File:HesperomysSmit.jpg, Hesperomys laticeps var. nitidus = Euryoryzomys nitidus and H. bimaculatus var. lepidus = Calomys lepidus. In the second one, Hesperomys scalops is probably scalops Thomas, 1884, a synonym of Abrothrix jelskii, but possibly scalops Gray, 1847, a synonym of Chelemys megalonyx. Rheithrodon pictus is Auliscomys pictus. The gerbil is Meriones crassus (synonym longifrons Lataste, 1884). That's all just based on looking up what the old names now refer to, but it seems that most or all of those are from original descriptions, so that should be safe. Ucucha (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I might have set the start date too late (I wanted to avoid having it notify people you notified again, and may have gone too far in the wrong direction). Dabomb scheduled a couple of TFAs today; let's see whether the bot picks those up correctly today (the bot runs once daily, at midnight UTC). Ucucha (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that should be helpful. We should work on getting some version of this script, perhaps a combined one, made into a gadget. Ucucha (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second FAC nomination
Thanks. Would it be alright for me to put up a second nomination? The current one has six supports, no opposes, and checks for images, sources, and paraphrasing. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to get hold of another image- Fernando Esteve tells me that the copyright belongs to him and that he is happy to release it, and this one was previously unpublished. Could you check it for me? J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right about it being too verbose. I just changed the sentence because it didn't really make sense. Should the part about Herpetotheriids being considered Didelphids be taken out? Dgrootmyers (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two opinions on the position of herpotheriids: some put them in Didelphidae, others as sister to Marsupialia. Each has some support in the scientific community. I think that's what the text of Herpetotheriidae says, but perhaps it's not clear. Ucucha (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my name is Marissa.User:NYMFan69-86 has suggested that I get in touch with you when tackling the Wikipedia project. Our teacher, Mr. Butler, has told us that several Wikipedia members have caught on to the project and will often help other students. I'm not sure if you have noticed in years before,or if User:NYMFan69-86just knows you are very good at Wikipedia. My teacher also said that we will need all the help we can get. I am a bit intimidated at this point, with all the formatting and what not. But any help I can acquire now or down the road I will be more than happy to accept. If you are willing to help, I will get back in touch once we start the articles if I seem to be stuck. Thank you for your time reading this! Marissa927 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be willing to help. Do you have any ideas about the topic you want to work on? To learn about formatting, it's probably a good start to simply look at an article and its wikitext side by side (like marsh rice rat and the edit page for that article). A lot of the really complicated stuff is hidden in templates (the stuff between {{ and }}), which take a set of inputs and produce an output like a table. Ucucha (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamal pointed me to you. He uploaded File:MicoSericeusWolf.jpg and used as accepted synonym Callithrix humeralifer (according to planet mammiferes). MSW3 lists M. sericeus as synonym for Callithrix (Mico) chrysoleuca. Can you solve this identification problem?
It's likely to be Planet Mammifères and not MSW 3 that's wrong. All sources that I can find (there aren't many) place sericeus as a synonym of chrysoleucus, not humeralifer. Possibly the reason for the confusion is that chrysoleucos was considered a subspecies of humeralifer for a while. (By the way, the correct names are Mico chrysoleucus and Mico humeralifer, but Callithrix chrysoleuca and Callithrix humeralifera.) Ucucha (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
okay, this is very helpful. Though I don't understand your BTW, one word seems to be missing. Did you mean ..correct names are _not_ Mico.. or did I misinterpret your sentence completely? Rbrausse (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just referring to the endings of the specific names (Mico is masculine, but Callithrix is feminine). Whether Mico or Callithrix is correct is a more subjective question; Mico has been more popular lately. Ucucha (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm not really sure what to do in this situation. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rogers Hornsby/archive1 has been the bottom article at FAC for a while now, holding on two supports and otherwise resolved comments. Those that usually review my articles already have, and I'm out of other people to ask for reviews. Since it's in that small window of too much support for archiving, yet not enough for promotion, I'm not really sure how that's handled since I haven't been in this situation (all I know is it's your call since Karanacs is recused and Sandy's still semi-active) If you know of any further people I could poke for a review that would be helpful, as I'm out on my end. WizardmanOperation Big Bear16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this is my fault, Wizardman, because I didn't revisit in a prompt manner after you addressed my comments. I read through the article again this morning and have supported the nom. Sorry for the inconvenience!! Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much to do except waiting, unfortunately; perhaps you could post neutral notices at places like relevant WikiProjects, or invite some specific people to comment at the FAC. Good luck, Ucucha (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verzoekje voor Wikispecies
Hoi Ucucha. Ik zag dat je ook moderator bent op Wikispecies. Zou je svp dit verzoek voor mij kunnen afhalen daar? Alvast bedankt! PS. Kom je nog eens langs nlwiki? En gaat het je goed af op Harvard? Met vriendelijke groet, Trijnstel (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Die is nu geblokkeerd. Harvard is fantastisch, maar ik heb niet veel tijd over voor Wikipedia, laat staan voor nlwiki. Hier spreek ik vaker Spaans and Nederlands. :) Ucucha (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ucucha,
I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it got selected really late. But yes, at that point there isn't much of a reason to send the notice any more... I'll see what I can do. Ucucha (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Ucucha! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Favor
Hey Ucucha, I know you don't care for fish (unless cut in chunks and fried, of course), but we really need a better picture of the Shortraker rock-fish. It's Saturday morning now; you can be on the West Coast in the early afternoon and take a nice shot of this ugly but tasty creature. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make it further west than Concord, I'm afraid. Had you heard of Ghoreishi before? I hadn't, I'm sorry to say, though she seems an interesting character. Ucucha (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've been gone too long, and if she doesn't pop up on RNW or the top ten stories from Trouw I'm likely to miss it. Did you know I went to the VU? Drmies (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. How were the kleine luyden? I don't think I have much to offer on that AFD; I'll just see what direction it goes. Ucucha (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The report draws a connection to Jan-Hendrik Schön, but I thought there was another German academic, last year, who got in the news for misconduct of one kind or another. Our Dutch guy, if I read the few articles I looked at correctly, is responsible for the date that supported the claim that meat eaters are hufterig. Diederik Stapel needs some updating... Drmies (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
_Alt.png)
