Thank you! You certainly deserve that barnstar more than I do, though--I've only rated a few. Good luck with getting the Smithsonian to release some images! Ucucha03:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ucucha has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ucucha's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ucucha!
On November 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noronhomys, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Thank you for the edits. I am a historian by trade, and generally don't write (or read) scientific articles. But I was surprised that this article had not been made yet, so I made it. The poor paraphrasing is solely my fault, Thank you again for fixing that.SADADS (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's interesting for me to learn about this species (I generally write about mammals, not reptiles); its biogeography is similar to that seen in some bats (Plecotus). Ucucha15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was nitpicking, but note this: in the publishing business, Latin words (such as et al.) are italized almost universally and only a few stubborn publishers resist (or don't know :-). This is picked up on WP (haven't checked MoS though) and I had italize et al. in my WP:FAs upon referee request. Groeten. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you were "stronger" than that referee in that particular place and time :-) Publishers won't ask your opinion, they would just go on and italize - this is an old tradition. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; journals enforce consistent styles. But on Wikipedia we only want consistent styles within articles, which is difficult enough when you look at some FACs. Ucucha00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Trachylepis atlantica
On November 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trachylepis atlantica, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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 November 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trachylepis maculata, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Corrected. In the future you may want to drop a note to the nominator's/autor's talk pages - I caught your comment almost by accident, since it's hard to watchlist T:TDYK comments (if you hadn't edited the article, I probably would've missed it entirely). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I usually wait a little before notifying the nominator on their talk page before dropping a message on their talk page, to give them the chance to respond without getting a scary orange message. Ucucha19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On November 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bats of the Caribbean, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Congratulations! Fabulous article! I will add to it when I can (I am working on someone else's computer now as I am having to put a new hard drive and reinstall everything into my own computer). I did add one more reference which I will make links to when I can. Keep up the good work! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and glad you liked it. It was quite some work, and it'd be great if it can be improved a little more. We'll probably have to split it up, though, since it is becoming so unmanageably huge, and it would actually be good if we'd put in some more detail, as I did at the other mammals of the Caribbean pages. Good luck with getting your computer repaired! Ucucha01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horton Plains National Park
Hi Ucucha, Thanks for the DYK review. I saw you have rephrased the hook according to the book source. That action is completely correct in that regard. But I wrote the hook in that way because Michael Green wrote that book IUCN directory of South Asian protected areas in 1990. Back then Sri Lanka had only 21 endemic birds. Now the number is 33 ( Kotagama, Sarath (2006). Common Endemic, Threatened Birds in Sri Lanka(PDF).). As far as I know, some new endemics won't find in the highlands of Sri Lanka. For Eg, Serendib Scops Owl is certainly a lowland bird. I think it is my fault, I should have left a note the reviewers. So can we represent these facts. Keep up the good work. Regards--Chanaka L (talk)03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!Ucucha
I posted this artcile today morning under the 25th date. Some alt hooks were suggested by you. But the hook is missing on the DYK now. Can you kindly clarify the status of the hook, please?--Nvvchar (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the above observations. I found it reviewed by you on 22nd date hooks. I fully agree with your Alt suggestion for the Hook. Does it stand approved now? I would apprecite if the picture is also reatined along with the hook. Or should I suggest some other hook also. Thank you for such a quick review.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, someone else had nominated it before you did. The picture is with the hook, and it will perhaps be retained, but that'll depend on the person who assembles the update. I verified the hook I proposed from the original, but we'll probably need someone else to tick it. But the hook will be promoted--don't worry about that. Ucucha14:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought of that. The thing is, there are hundreds of pages that should be moved in the same way at some time (the vast majority of rodents, bats, and shrews, as well as some other mammals). I go through them when I have time and also update and improve the articles as I do so. I suppose an admin could just move lots of articles, but I don't like it when the content of the article doesn't match the title.
From the previous discussions, I do believe there is a general consensus in favor of the moves I am doing, making the many RMs indeed unneeded. If only I were an admin, I'd just move those pages where I proposed RMs along with the ones I could move myself, in accordance with the previous consensus, but I'm not. Ucucha22:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On November 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pilosans of the Caribbean, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
No problem at all. In fact, if at all you'd probably have to ping Wizardman, because he assembled the current prep1 (I only rephrased a hook). Ucucha21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mammals of the Caribbean
On November 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mammals of the Caribbean, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Thanks for expanding the article. They're interesting guys, certainly. Not sure what you're referring to--something about klokken en klepels I'm afraid. Ucucha18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, today is a Dutch day. I just received a package from my friend in A'dam, containing not just chocolade letters but also a little new booklet with old Gerrit Komrij poems set to music. But then, what do you care for poetry, being a student of Oryzomyini? Did anyone send you letters, or kikkers en muizen? Drmies (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume there is no poetry in oryzomyines when there is a movie even in the mammals of the Caribbean? No, no frogs and mice for me so far--but we'll have some kind of Sinterklaas celebration here. Ucucha19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
Hello, Ucucha. I know you do a fair amount of work of these articles. The thing is, I presently have three entries in the chain viz Sugar Blue, Whistlin' Alex Moore and James Harman. There is no real reason for me to suppose that any of them will be good enough to 'make the grade'. However, I am going away on holiday tomorrow (2 December) for two weeks, so might not be around to answer any query. I would hate them to die, or get 'timed out', because I am unable to respond. Obviously I do not want to announce my departure to the whole world. Is there anything you - or anyone else - can do ? I realise this is a long shot. Many thanks,
I'll have a look at the three nominations and let you know when there are any problems, so we can get them confirmed before you go on holiday. Ucucha20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - since I proposed ALT9 and the sourcing of this article hasn't been entirely straightforward, I won't be confirming it; I'll leave it to others to consider whether the article is appropriately sourced. Ucucha02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For DYK, the article should give a reasonably complete overview of the subject ("cover the subject adequately"), which SRC does, judged from a quick gloss over the article. Then, the facts of the hook should be in the article and supported by the sources, which I think we achieved with ALT9 (as I believe--I didn't delve too deeply into that myself).
Then, the important thing is something fairly straightforward: the facts and ideas in the article should be supported by the sources. I'm afraid the article is lacking there. I just clicked a random ref, number 31 under "Student life", cited for the sentence "SRC hosts 10 registered student clubs involved in academic, competitive, and cultural based activities". Now, that ref leads to a page about student life at SRC, but it doesn't give the number ten. The tab "Student organizations" does give a list of student organizations, but only nine of them, and at least one (the honors program) which I wouldn't describe as a student club. Where did the text come from if the cited reference does not support it?
And that's just one sentence. You should take care to reflect in the article what the sources say, and also take care to avoid plagiarism; some sentences about the Kaleidoscope are dangerously close to those in the cited reference.
Thanks for the input. Some of the material is what I inherited when I began expansion, and others have added items along the way. My goal is to make this and every article I work on perfect, so any input is helpful. I will get to work on correcting those issues you indicated and review all of the refs. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Soricomorphs of the Caribbean
On December 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Soricomorphs of the Caribbean, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Just wanted to send a quick thank you for all the work you consistantly put in at DYK. The very thorough reviews, attention to detail, and polite and professional way you referee is not taken for granted. OK, I'll let you get back to work now. Thanks again. :)CalmerWaters05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather get back to sleep, it's past midnight here. :-) But you're very welcome, and thank you for the great work you're doing at DYK yourself. Ucucha05:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Someone else has already solved the problem for you by now. Good luck with learning the handle of those weird {{cite}} templates and I hope you'll do some more DYK nominations in the future. Ucucha16:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wake up and saw cbl62's comments at DYK talk, spoke to him and coming back to you to say thank you! I admire what you do at DYK (I guess you're a scientist, which explains your attitude :-). The cbl62's complaints are none of your fault - too many people are in the chain and some fail from time to time. There will always be unhappy people, and cbl62 is usually grumpy about his hooks - but he is a great contributor who cares about DYK. BTW, it was I who supported your version instead of that about OJ Simpson; I stand by that and like most of your ALTs .. Sorry for long writing. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. You're overrating me a little there--I'm only a college freshman. I have done some scientific research, though, and even had it published, so in that sense you could call me a scientist.
I have no hard feelings toward cbl62 and he did note some things where we could improve (though much of that is excused by the necessary haste with which many things at DYK are done). Perhaps we both have a scientist's perspective on what an interesting hook should be like, which may not be the same as the general public's perspective--something to look out for. Ucucha00:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will archive my talk, just always leave it to a low priority. I watch the talk page after I post there. IMO, recent haste at DYK is not the way it should be. If we had more people like yourself, we could really improve articles at DYK - that's what I'm trying to do when I have time. Cheers! Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem there. Yes, we need more reviewers--but the same goes for all other content review processes as far as I'm aware. But fortunately we have some great people who're keeping the place running. Ucucha01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re List of people who entered an Alford plea DYK eval
Your right. Myinsaing Kingdom can't be shortened too much without losing the correct meaning of the fact. Your improvement works great. Thanks for doing that CalmerWaters
Thanks for being picky in the review - being critical is far more helpful than being positive, so I appreciate it. Your detailed critique will help me greatly as I continue to improve the article. After I've worked on it some more, I'll reply on the article's talk page so if you don't mind keeping a eye on it that would be great. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the critique and input: the article's certainly better for that, too! :)
I'll have another trawl through as suggested and see if I can get that lined up for a future GA, perhaps. Kind regards & Keep up the good work, David. Harami2000 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; it's great to see articles improve at DYK. It definitely has GA potential, but you'll need to be careful with the sourcing. Reliable sources are often hard to come by for people like him whose notability is for a large part on the Internet, which makes it all the more important to cite your sources thoroughly (i.e., including the publisher). Ucucha22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading my mind, there: agreed! Shouldn't be too bad for 1970s/80s period since much of the source material is on hand here, and I've added a mental note to pick up relevant hooks whilst reading through that research library. Ironically it's the 1990s/2000s sources that are most difficult to pin down as "reliable" and I'm at least grateful that some of the online magazines (such as The Escapist, as cited) are now OK'd for interviews and suchlike. Should be a fun project to tick over on the side, amongst others; although hopefully others in WP:RPG, etc., will chip in, too. :) Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. I think I may need to expand a little on my assessment of The Escapist as an RS, as I don't have a lot of experience with assessing whether something is an RS. I based myself on this, which suggests that it has editorial oversight and fact-checking, with a research manager and several editors--i.e., it's more than just a blog where some people dump their texts. Coupled with some of the cited bits in The Escapist (magazine), this was enough to convince me. I had never heard of the magazine before, though, so it'd be good if someone who does know it confirms that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Ucucha23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are working on prep 2. I had added one hook to make room for demoting Schwa. I will stay out of prep 2 to avoid edit conflict. Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, but it was too late, I already got an EC. :-) That's what {{inuse}} is for. I'll leave modifying the hook up to MS, as it was he who saw an issue with it. Ucucha00:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but the other (more important) concern stands, namely that there is currently no source for their having travelled to Japan and Mexico. Ucucha02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for William B. Slaughter
On December 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William B. Slaughter, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Isn't too short the same whether they have been move from userspace or not? Too short is under 1500 characters, regardless of the article history. Is this not true? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I see a new group has taken over dyk. I am quite willing to wait and will not review dyks for now. Thank you for your patience. I will reconsider some time in the future. Thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA then...
Casliber would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Casliber to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ucucha. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
So far, so good, Ucucha! Did you see Tan's comment? I couldn't agree more--I've tried to do a few little things on the Dutch wiki, but I can't say I'm impressed with their mode of operation or the articles there. (Whenever I say some NL-related article without references, or even without reflist, I think, "Ah--must be translated from the Dutch wiki...") We here are mighty glad to have you. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it, yes. I agree that nlwiki is misguided on a few counts, one of which is a severe underappreciation of good sourcing. You can think about FAC, GAN, and DYK what you like and they are probably not perfect, but they do encourage vetting and quality of contributions. There are no such processes over there. (And thanks for your support!) Ucucha16:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no problem with FAC, GAN, and DYK (except for prurience in the latter, every now and then)--but I really stay away from the first two, given the length of my attention span. The very first time I submitted an article for GA I was so unhappy with the result that I haven't been back, but that was at least in part my own fault. The one list I got featured, that process wasn't bad at all. But now that you seem to be moving up in the ranks I expect every little stub of mine to get a star right away--there is no such thing as a free lunch! Het beste, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concern, but at the very least having content review processes with concrete criteria is better than not having them at all. Free lunches are quite plentiful here, in fact, but I'd be happy to help when you give FA or GA another try. Ucucha19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
I've just rewrote it, hope the phrase now looks clearer. Thanks a lot for you notice! I'm very happy that you find those articles about medieval Vietnam interesting! Grenouille vert (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_Alt.png)
