User talk:Ucucha/Archive15

Archives

Leave a new message

History of logic (please advise)

Hi Ucucha. I saw your comments on the History of logic article at FAC, on which I have commented as well. I have considerable expertise in the subject and would like to help improve it. Is this guy a sockpuppet? I really do not want to get involved in some wikidrama with a banned user, etc. I am just looking for something I can work on. Please advise?

Also, I did not flat out oppose the nomination, mainly because I am new at FAC, but it seems to me it fails outright on 1b and 1c. You are an FAC regular. How would you handle this situation?

Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "From the other side" account that nominated the FAC is very new and the person who mainly prepared the article, Peter Damian, is banned from Wikipedia and has had lots of sockpuppets (most recently User:Logic Historian). I don't know who "From the other side" is, but he may also be a sockpuppet, of whom I don't know.

I can understand that you don't want to get involved in this kind of mess. What I would try to do is just ignore this sockpuppetry issue and evaluate the article. Oppose when you don't feel it meets the criteria (although it seems the nominator has addressed some of those). I am sure Sandy is on it and will find a way to deal with it. Ucucha 12:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this when I was getting ready to leave you a message. I tried to oppose (gently), by suggestion peer review from project, and ACR from history. don't think it worked. Oh, and btw, I did the fix at FAC (Fuerstenberg). Did you have other issues I need to deal with there? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens. I have no more technical axes to grind at the Fuerstenberg FAC, but might do a full review later. He reminds me of the place in the Black Forest where we often go; they drink Fuerstenberg beer there. Ucucha 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip

Hey Ucucha, can you look into the listing of User:ALoan at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs? It's odd, and the history of their user page is odd as well. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a renamed and retired user. I have no doubt that the listing is correct. Ucucha 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marsh rice rat

On March 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marsh rice rat, 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, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Talk:Human

Technically, shouldn't you also delete Talk:Frugivore for the same reason? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. That editor should learn to quote a little less from sources I think; this goes far beyond fair use. Ucucha 01:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more ridiculous than I thought—Shelley was a great poet, but if you need him to support your claim that humans are frugivores... Ucucha 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." —Albert Einstein.

Just nod and then bang your head against the wall a few times. Trust me... it helps! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look at my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Ucucha 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2009–10 Kentucky Wildcats women's basketball team

Please take another look at this DYK. The citations do support the claims made for ALT1, but just to be clear, I've added the relevant quotes into the citations. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WCAV‎

I am going to ask that you take this up on talk, file an ANI thread getting consensus or remove every single set of names like this from every single television station page (and successfully fight the backlash) or you are disrupting one page, with no policy or consensus to back you up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cited BLP policy in making my edit, which trumps about everything else. If there are zillions other pages that also violate that policy, that is no excuse except to fix those too. Ucucha 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you cited was a "Privacy of Names". Since there names can be linked from WCAV's website, that makes "Privacy of Names" moot. Also, since there is no consensus for this and it appears on other pages (backlash?) removing them, even if there were policy out there, would need consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. I don't see a pressing need for Wikipedia to further publicize these names. Furthermore, if these names are verifiable only from WCAV's website, then WP:BLPSPS applies—no material on living persons should be sourced to a self-published source.

And you need consensus to override BLP policy, not the other way around. Ucucha 04:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated, WP:BLPSPS is "self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets". One small problem with that. None of these people publish WCAV's website NewsPlex.com, they have bio pages there and those bio pages are written by someone within Gray Communications in Atlanta, Georgia where the websites track back to, not at WCAV in Charlottesville, Virginia. So saying NewsPlex.com (the WCAV website) is "self-published" is false as it is published by the company that owns WCAV, not the other way around. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That part of policy is precisely about self-published sources not published by these people. For living persons, we need either reliable third-party published sources (as defined by WP:RS) or, in some instances, sources published by the subject itself. Ucucha 13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WCAV, owned by a nationally recognized television station ownership company called Gray Communications (notable enough to have it's own page here) has stations that are used on many pages as references for articles. So if they are reliable for references on articles here on Wikipedia, then they are reliable for links on the WCAV page to the bio pages. Stop hiding behind vague and incorrect policies and just link to the bios. It is as simple as that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you—the person wanting the material included—to provide the references, not on me. Policies are just that, but they codify Wikipedia's social responsibility towards living persons covered on this site. Ucucha 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have met all challenges brought, so the burden is not on me. I have shown that this information more than meets the policies of Wikipedia and has in other pages. So, I have no burden. I can, very easily add the links and will within the hour or next hour (working on something offline and on), so I really don't see the problem here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you haven't; that a given reference is also used on other pages is not an argument that it is a reliable source. Instead, it is a reliable source if it complies with WP:RS. I remain unconvinced, by the way, that the inclusion of those names complies with the relevant part of BLP policy. Ucucha 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now raised this at WP:BLPN#Name list at WCAV. Ucucha 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) So, what you are saying is that a reference from a Gray Communications station, used on other pages, is good enough to satisfy WP:RS there, but not on WCAV? That doesn't even come close to making sense. Also, you can take this to WP:BLPN, but that will still wouldn't have anything to do with all the other pages these lists (so linked, some referenced...depends on the editor and page) on Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that it probably shouldn't be used on those other pages either; sorry if that was unclear. Ucucha 18:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But a reference from a station, a network (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, etc) affiliated station owned by a major US television station company makes up a good bunch of the references we use on news stories throughout Wikipedia. Be that company a small company like Gray, Barrington Broadcasting, Nexstar Broadcasting Group or a big company like Gannett Company, CBS Corporation, or NBC Universal, they have been long considered reliable sources. Plus, to consider WCAV's pages not reliable sources, WP:BLP wouldn't be the place for it, it would be WP:RS. BLP has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable or not. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between a news story and the material we are talking about here. Note that I have two BLP concerns: the unwarranted inclusion of names of private individuals and the reference to a self-published source. You disagree with those BLP concerns, but to sort out our differences, at least for the first the BLP noticeboard is appropriate. I suggest we wait for further input there. Ucucha 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we can hash out our differences here, but whatever works for you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		DYK Barnstar
		For the insane amount of work you due reviewing DYK candidates and otherwise making DYK run smoothly, I hereby award you this barnstar. You certainly deserve it! --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not sure how deserved it is right now—I haven't done that much reviewing lately. Ucucha 14:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that every time I go there (which admittedly isn't all that often0 I see your name all over the page. :) Also this page backs up my perception - 1100+ total DYK edits is darn impressive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Muroid molar

On March 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muroid molar, 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, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Groner

How come you removed the hook? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned at WP:ERRORS; also see my comment at T:TDYK#Grace Groner. Ucucha 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can think of is that she bought shares when the company was young, the company grew, and she got rich. This went along with the fact that she saved a lot during her life. I'll go correct the hook now and if it looks good, feel free to move it back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't even write the newer hook, so I'll use an older one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review any hooks you propose; it can just go back to the Main Page in a later set. Ucucha 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: "... that upon being told that the late Grace Groner donated her entire estate to her alma mater Lake Forest College, president Stephen D. Schutt exclaimed "Oh, my God"?" This was what I changed my hook to, and then it was changed to say what it said. Another hook would be to say roughly, "...that after purchasing three shares for sixty dollars in the 1930s and living a frugal lifestyle, the late Grace Groner donated seven million dollars to her alma mater Lake Forest College?" I'll put whatever you think is best on the suggestions page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second one is better; I share Gato's reservation about the "Oh my God" part. You'll also need to format ref. 3 correctly, by the way. Actually, I now see that the source you provide (ref. 2) does confirm the hook that was on the Main Page (the 7 million stems directly from the 180 dollar in shares). If you put that in the article, we can use that hook again. Ucucha 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed number three. What do you mean by putting it in the article? Do you want me to cite the donation from the investment thing? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently (or last time I checked) does not clearly state that the 7 million estate derives from the 180 dollar investment. The hook on the Main Page did say that, and ref. 2 also does. If you put that fact in the article, we can also use it in the hook. Ucucha 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think all of her seven million came from the investment, as she was a frugal person and there are frugal people who are millionaires. I think the error would be crediting her investment to the three shares, which seems highly unlikely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so—you know more about the subject than I do. In that case, I think we can use your second proposed hook, although I would change sixty to 180 there. Ucucha 21:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the second hook has been added. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC History of Logic

Okay, wtH? happened? From the other side is now blocked? This doesn't surprise me. He brought the discussion to my talk page, which I ignored. So is it a sock? and what happens to the article now? I don't think it's ready. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fram blocked that account as a sock of Peter Damian. I see little reason to question that. What will happen, I don't know—there have been some other people working on the article, so they might try to rescue the FAC. Sandy, in any case, knows that this is going on and hasn't closed the FAC, so I guess it'll continue. Ucucha 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has spilled over into the FAC talk page. It's a pity, really—the man has been told that he has no business being on Wikipedia (for good reasons, I presume; I don't know the history well), and still he can cause this kind of drama. Ucucha 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest the article's withdrawal, but that went over like a lead balloon. I'm out of that discussion entirely. I don't think the article's ready -- didn't think so before either, and now certainly not. It will just distract us from the main issue: reviewing articles. There are so many that need doing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Well, it seems unlikely to pass now. Ucucha 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aiphanes FAC question

Would be interested in your opinion here. Thanks - Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was already looking at it. :) Ucucha 03:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Simpson/archive2 – alt text resolved now. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, struck my oppose. Ucucha 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 World Series

Thanks for the quick reply and check-up. I actually recently added that cool dash script to my monobook, just forgot to run it! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck with the FAC. Ucucha 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in regards to Rodentia. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a joke of some sort, but I don't get it. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is prone to introducing supposedly "funny" easter eggs into articles and I have no choice but to remove those. Ucucha 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Aww come on, that was funny. Ravers of the world, unite! But I won't do it again, I promise. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. And now, I'll never see another "Xs of the World" title without adding "unite!" Damn you, Drmies! Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it had the same effect on me! (The same book is mentioned a bit higher up in that list, but I left it--Ucucha is prone to pro-rodent admin abuse.) Now, both of you, get to work. Guettarda, you got some vandalism to combat, no doubt, and Ucucha, go review some microbial GA nominations (better than molars, I'm sure)--I'm on Spring Break. Ha! Drmies (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting my references together for a research paper on rice rats today: "Mammal Species of the World ...". Perhaps I should have put it there and waited whether the peer reviewer would notice. :) Ucucha 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Break? Ah, yeah, that sounds familiar...my students are away, so I have lots to time to...deal with a cold :( Guettarda (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm editing with a COI, so would one of you be willing to review this edit for me, to make sure I didn't let me emotions get the better of me? Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That edit seems fine except that the ref doesn't say that he specifically read law; it just says that he studied there.

It's spring break here too; nicely calm without classes. I had time to go to Franklin Park Zoo, which was nice. Ucucha 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Stick to the facts. Which probably adds more COI edits. One of these days I'm going to actually re-write that article properly (in a sandbox or something), post a draft, and then throw up a link at the COI noticeboard see what people think about it. Wrote most of it back in the day, before I had ever heard of the COI rules. But it kinda grates to see a potentially important article languish or slowly degrade because I shouldn't be editing it... Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's their rodent collection? :) Guettarda (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a bad idea; the article is not as good as an article on a head of state should be.

The rodent collection was sadly limited. The prairie dogs were on vacation, but there were some eastern gray squirrels walking around and a chinchilla in the pet collection (which also had the fine piece of advice that when you have more fish, you need a bigger aquarium).

At the Aiphanes FAC, there's one outstanding issue left, at the top of my list; thought you might have missed it. Ucucha 13:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, didn't miss it, had to go to bed. Still thinking about the best way to deal with that... Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Greetings from St. Louis, the gateway to the west! Drmies (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Louis? That's just within the range of the marsh rice rat I think, good place. Ucucha 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bracken, Texas DYK

I've added a reference from the Handbook of Texas Online, which also verifies the claim made in the hook. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Anarchy Online alt text

Just wanted to let you know that the non-free images used in the Anarchy Online FAC have been replaced with free ones, and as a result the alt text (which you had contributed to) has been changed. Sebquantic (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have another look. Ucucha 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aiphanes FAC

Sasata suggested that I remove conversion from micrometres to inches. Makes sense to me, but I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the suggesting, having voted to "support". Guettarda (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's completely right. 0.00000000000027 inches or whatever it was is useful to no one. (Going to look now whether the quark article has imperial conversions.) Ucucha 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do I...I stared at it for a while after I added the {{convert}} template...but what makes perfect sense to me may not make sense to other people. Guettarda (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article you Nominated

I'm not really going to review it or anything, but how come the article's title is in italics? --Ha dg er 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a scientific name; scientific genus and species names of organisms are in italics. The italicization is done by a piece of code in the {{Taxobox}} template. Ucucha 21:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Now I understand. Thank you! --Ha dg er 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penance

That made me laugh. I've not found a lot to laugh about while constructing this article. I knew I might encounter jokes about it because most people don't really know the awful details involved, particularly the suffering and starvation of children that occurred. I'm not offended, but I felt I had to speak strongly to make myself clear at DYK in case others who did not bother to read the article jumped to the conclusion that the article would be funny. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that and sorry for my jumping to a conclusion. Ucucha 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to learn.....

How you go about a rigorous search of recent peer-reviewed literature of Red-capped Robin - this is an article I buffed up a while ago but I felt it was just a bit too slim for FAC. All input appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISI Web of Knowledge. I looked, there are 43 records on this species, not all of which may be useful. You'll probably be able to get some more information out of that, but I don't think it's too short for FAC even now.

Congratulations on the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo passing, by the way. Did you see that I got the paper on fungus-eating cockatoos from Corella? Sasata was very excited, but you didn't put it in the article yet. Ucucha 11:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No (???) - wow/great job! ~~Will go and check~~ added now...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The ISIS page is subscription only (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I can e-mail you a list though. By the way, do you really need all those details about the fungi-eating cockatoo in the article? Things like the size of the trunk don't seem too relevant to an encyclopedia article to me. Ucucha 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (butting in) Have you looked in the Biodiversity Heritage Library? A quick look finds some things not in the article, such as details on eggs in Catalogue of the collection of birds' eggs in the British museum (Natural history). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucucha (a) yes please, (b) yeah, maybe a bit heavy on the details -will trim :); @innotata - thanks for the heads up, much appreciated. Will look later today (after breakfast etc --> 7.30 am here) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oryzomys nelsoni

On March 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryzomys nelsoni, 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, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T. rex

Another impressive article from you. Did you know that it is not just still surviving, but also insanely abundant? All T. species are. They're rather interesting, but like the other "mole rats" I'm not going to do much with them now, because of their complicated taxonomy. I think I will try to get in the April Fools' thing, but with a Royal Marines officer. Here's what I was going to ask: How much detail do you think I should give on anatomy at House Sparrow. I can't find any good sources on the matter: the main thing From Genes to Populations has to say that is worth including on the Sparrow's skeleton is the percentage of body mass; for The House Sparrow, the number of bones. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not so sure—I think (but haven't been able to find confirmation) that the IUCN listed this one as "Endangered" before they lumped it. Perhaps people thought it was dangerous. It was fun writing the article: it's an interesting animal, and there are not too many sources to worry about.

Do ornithologists really care so little about the skeleton? Paleontologists working on birds must have a hard job. I think you should include the facts you can find; WP:FA? says no major details should be omitted, and I think the skeleton is a major detail. Ucucha 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information on skeletons exists, but is inaccessible, physically and figuratively. The only paper referred to which I suspect contains detailed skeletal information on the House Sparrrow is paleontolgical, and is not available to me (and probably not to you either), being published in an Israeli journal I can't find any references to online. As for T. rex being formerly endangered, why don't you try the Wayback Machine or WebCite? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have one of the largest libraries in the world here; I could at least check whether we have it. I'm trying the Internet Archive; it's having its usual technical difficulties though. Ucucha 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page it was EN in the 2004 Red List, but according to the earliest (Polbot) revision of our article, it was LC in the 2006 list. Ucucha 21:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Euryoryzomys emmonsae

On March 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Euryoryzomys emmonsae, 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, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California gray or rock squirrel?

Could you take a look at this image:

It is categorized as an eastern gray squirrel. I am sure that is wrong. I think the white on the shoulder marks it as a California ground squirrel. But the Grand Canyon seems to be outside the range for a California ground squirrel. I think it's a very nice image and I'd like to add it to the California ground squirrel gallery, but I'm not sure of the identification. Thanks, --Davefoc (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's certainly a ground squirrel. It looks like a California ground squirrel to me too, but geographically it seems more likely to be a rock squirrel, and apparently some rock squirrels also have something resembling the white shoulders of the California ground squirrel—see the picture I put up. Ucucha 18:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atys (King of Maeonia)

Hello Uchucha. Thank you for closing the queer turn the discussion was taking on my proposal for renaming Atys, father of Lydus to Atys (King of Maeonia). I responded to one user who seemed straight but an impression from past contacts is present in my mind for some of the later participants to the discussion, upon which I abstained from taking part in it further. I will put forth a new proposal in due time because now, we have a King of Lydia, or any king of any sort for that matter, without an article of his own and should make do within a list. Whereas this is not case for his namesake Atys (king) of Alba Longa, nor would it have been, if the thing had any regents, for the otherwise mysterious Kingdom of Kurdistan. :) Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a strange turn; I have never before or after closed a requested move as "Merge". But consensus was clear. I understand Atys father of Lydus now stands out from other kings of the period in having no article, but perhaps there are more articles that would better be merged into lists, since there is simply nothing substantial known about these persons. Ucucha 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein, I separated Car (King of Caria) and Car (King of Megara) who were previously under the same roof. I explained my reasoning in Talk: Car (mythology): "The knowledge on the figures and their attributes is certainly very scarce and open to debate and but that should not justify treatment in bulk." If you feel that these Cars should be grouped together like the Kings of Lydia, by all means re-merge them. In time, the reasoning may be extended to other similar cases. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that it is not good to treat two persons together in the manner Car (mythology) did, but the articles that result are so short, and unlikely to grow, that it might indeed be better if you merged them into a list. But there's no particular reason to ask me about that: I only closed one discussion and generally prefer to spend my time here on rice rats, rather than ancient kings with funny names. Ucucha 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The base material is short but the viewpoints published by scholars offer ground for growth. For Atys, it is also the name of a divinity, generally spelled Attis in that case. One scholar thinks the name (and therefore the divinity) is Phrygian (James George Frazer, citing scholars's names just to emphasize my example), another that it is Lydian and Phrygian (Attis: Between Myth and History: King Priest and God: Maria Grazia Lancellotti) while another sees it as a Greek introduction to Anatolia (Jan N. Bremmer). As a principle, I make a move request rather making the move myself, but a move request also has the disadvantage of bringing together not very knowledgeable chattering classes who move from one move request to another to present their precious views or interchanges. I will make a new move request for the king to Atys (King of the Maeonians) to have a clearer Atys (disambiguation). Cretanforever (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be part of those chattering classes, so I don't think I have anything useful to say to you; organize things as you see fit until someone has a better idea. Ucucha 11:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WCAV

The posts we had made to WP:BLPN have been archived. The discussion kinda died out after about a day. I am not sure how you want to proceed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that most people there agreed, with whatever motivation, that the list shouldn't be included. Ucucha 10:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree, I think it was split down the middle with no real consensus reached.

A side question, as you are an admin, is Google Maps a reliable source if the map is linked to a close-up version of the area in question? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four uninvolved people commented in the thread: cmadler, Off2riorob, DGG, and Nil Einne, and every one of them commented to the effect that the list isn't particularly useful (though to be fair, they didn't seem to agree with my BLP concerns much).

I am not sure how my being an admin has any influence on whether I am able to say whether a source is reliable or not. I think Google Maps is usually considered a reliable source, though I would try to find better sources. Ucucha 11:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't see it. I seen some saying it wasn't needed and some say it was. I honestly didn't see consensus one way or another.

Being an admin you would be more likely to know for certain if something was a reliable source or not than say John Q. Editor, hence my asking. But I will look for better sources. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't see it, then re-read the discussion, and note that that I said is true: each of them said the list was valueless, unnecessary, or some variation of that. Ucucha 11:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one, I didn't give you the courtesy note above to get into a pissing match with you and two, I am not calling you a liar, I just see if differently. I don't see consensus for one or another side. It just ain't there. Now, I am not here for an arguement or pissing match. It was a courtesy note and nothing more. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to see things differently if you have evidence to back up your view. So far, you haven't provided any. Ucucha 11:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Actually, cmadler didn't completely strike it down. He suggested WXYT-FM as "an example of presenting the names of on-air talent in a more meaningful way"...so he didn't ouright strike it. There is an alternative. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but that list is in a different format. I don't have as many problems with the listing in that article either; perhaps you should convert other lists to that format. Ucucha 11:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but right now, I am actively working on the article for Stephens City, Virginia. This is taking up 99% of my time right now. If you have time in the coming day, please feel free to turn the list into prose. I would ask that the links to the pages remain as kind of references. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did so. Is the list of former personalities citable to a reliable source? If so, that should be included. Ucucha 12:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. I think people just add to it as someone leaves. I have absolutely no problem with you removing that section. My apologizes for the slowness in my reply. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize; 15 minutes isn't slow and I was away anyway. I removed the section. Good luck with Stephens City. I'll go back to working on the marsh rice rat. Ucucha 12:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done all I can on Stephens City until a couple people get up, but thanks :) Good luck on your article as well. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text

Hi. Just realised that I have partially undone an edit of yours to Template:WPBannerMeta/core. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion on how best to deal with accessibility issues with the icons in WikiPoject banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs)

It looks like the discussion has already come to a conclusion, and I think the solution you came to is better than mine. Thanks for the notification though. Ucucha 10:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Erythrina velutina

On March 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erythrina velutina, 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, 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you

here Please see here [1]. If the article had "serious POV concerns" the article would have been tagged for POV, but it is not, and has not been since March 13. There's no single criteria of DYK that article fails.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to respond, please do it here. I will check on that myself.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are serious POV concerns, as Gatoclass repeatedly said, enough that there was no consensus to keep the article at AFD. Whether these concerns are justified, I don't know and haven't investigated. However, at DYK we usually want consensus that an article is appropriate to run: we don't want an article on the Main Page that people have good-faith POV concerns about. That is the case with this article.

In addition, there's the purely practical concern that there is by now over 20 kb of discussion on this article on T:TDYK. That is impractical and inappropriate on that page and should be avoided. Ucucha 23:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete the article, and I know about one other article, which was promoted under the same condition lately. I agree the discussion takes lots of space, but it is not my fault. More than once I asked Gatoclass to move it to the article's discussion page, where it belongs. It could be moved there now, but I see no reason for the hook to be deleted according on what Gatoclass is saying. It is very, very unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; my argument is that there were many people at the AFD who thought the article was non-neutral. If there are such serious and good-faith concerns about the neutrality of the article, it is not prudent to showcase it on the Main Page. I am sorry for not catching other articles with similar situations. Ucucha 00:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that most people who voted to delete the article placed their votes before it was almost completely re-written. One of the "strong delete" votes was added by the user, who still cannot get over that they were not allowed to add to Tony Blair article that Tony "Blair has been a long time member of the Zionist Lobby group", and attacks me personally at every level because I pointed this out to them. Others were mislead as you are by the deletion request itself by the statements made by the nominator. For example the nominator wrote: "Note that the author is reverting any attempts to fix the obvious NPOV problems and sourcing problems by removing balanced Kennedy quotes and keeping the ones uncritical of Israel and by keeping distorted summaries of Kennedy's view points without explaining himself on talk - [2], [3]." Even after I've proven to the nominator that the first quote was found only in a fiction book, and the second is the fact mentioned in black and white by famous writer, the nominator never bothered to remove the statement. One of the person, who voted to delete, changed his vote after he himself fixed the problems. So please do not make your opinion on reading the deletion request only. Once again there's no POV tag in the article now. It has not been there since March 13. It is about time to admit it and promote the article. It seems to be only the right thing to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator did not discount those votes; this is not the place to re-argue with them. And I've seen several people write that the re-write did not address their concerns. Please do not assume that I am misled; I am capable of determining that myself.

I am not going to edit war, so that will unfortunately lead to the hook remaining hanging there at the end of the page. We'll see what happens; I'm unwilling to argue further about it. Ucucha 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. You told me you are not interested in continuing discussion, but you made the changes on the nomination, and I'd like to thank you for that. I also would like to point out that two uninvolved editors have already agreed that the article should be promoted at the nomination and at DYK talk page. So, IMO the opinion of two uninvolved editors should be enough to proceed with the nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]