User talk:Ucucha/Archive34

Archives

Leave a new message

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre[edit]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).

Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FAC[edit]

Hello there. I was wondering if you might be able to help me with something. I would like to nominate Cane Ashby for FAC, but I was wondering if you could maybe take a look at the article first, and tell me how much work it would require? I understand you're probably very busy with other tasks, but if you could let me know, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Regards, Creativity97 15:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Sunbeam Tiger[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Sunbeam Tiger. It is TFA on July 12, 2013. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites. It is TFA on July 14, 2013. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Pisco Sour[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Pisco Sour. It is TFA on July 15, 2013. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Drymoreomys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Metacentric

Pseudoryzomys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Metacentric

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need bat expert[edit]

Hi. Can you or someone you know help with three new drafts of articles on bats:

Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems. These were not the only new Murina discovered in 2011: Murina chrysochaetes, Murina loreliae, and Murina shuipuensis, all from China, were also new. A more serious problem is that Murina cineracea has already been identified as a synonym of a previously described species, Murina feae. See my bat taxonomy listing at User:Ucucha/List of mammals/Vespertilionidae#Subfamily Murininae Miller, 1907. Ucucha (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The Csorba paper says M. cineracea was formerly in M. tubinaris, which I do mention in that article. Not trying to argue or anything, but I also say in the articles that they were found in SE Asia, and China isn't in SE Asia, though it is in the Far East. I also sense I'm not quite getting something here (no surprise there!) so if you would like to edit these 3 articles or tell me more about what needs fixed, that's fine. Thanks for the help. PumpkinSky talk 20:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashy-gray shouldn't have its own article: it's already been recognized as not being a valid species. Two of the Chinese species are from right on the border with Vietnam and presumably occur on the other side of the border too.

I'll revise some of the articles when I get to it. Thanks for writing these pages; it's good that bats get some love. Ucucha (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I hadn't seen anything about the ashy-gray not being valid. I even emailed Csorba. He gave OTRS releases for the photos and he said nothing about the ashy not being valid. Of course, that's understandable since he's the one that claimed they are valid. Yes, all creatures need wiki love.PumpkinSky talk 10:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Ian Rose's talk page.
Message added 04:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Apeomyoides[edit]

The article Apeomyoides you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Apeomyoides for comments about the article. Well done! Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha, I've started an RFC on proposed adjustments to the governance of the featured-article forums. Tony (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sfnm template[edit]

Hi. The sfnm template doesn't work in the article Michel Foucault and probably in all other articles. --Psychiatrick (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; your references did not have |ref=harv set correctly. Ucucha (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it breaks the linking where <ref>[[#Mac93|Macey 1993]] p. 56.</ref> is used. These should be updated to {{sfn}}. -- Gadget850^talk 18:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I looked for refs of that kind but not very hard (or not hard at all, since the article is full of them). Either the whole article needs to use Sfn or nothing; otherwise you're asking for problems. I converted a few more and might convert the rest too if I can figure out some regexes. Ucucha (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

small mammals
Thank you for getting attention for mammals that are easily overlooked and even threatened, like the Drymoreomys, and for maintaining the clock and quality of today's featured articles, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (14 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 178th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tupaia miocenica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lufeng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets. It is TFA on August 4, 2013. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Could you please respond to my request here? Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Graham responded already. Ucucha (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of FACs about to close?[edit]

I used to have on my watchlist a page that one of the FA delegates maintained, but now I can't find it. It showed the FACs that will soon expire, and I watched it to see if there was one that needed a last review to push it over the edge. Do you know the list I'm talking about? Thanks for any help, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deckiller/FAC urgents? Ucucha (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell, other than the urgents (which are no longer maintained), I know of no such list ... confused ?? Because there is no such thing (or should be no such thing) as the presumption of something about to expire, since delegates determine the timing on each nomination ... I do know that the presumption that three supports = promotion has firmly and worrisomely taken hold at FAC, and has even been used in cases where the articles were not well reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "FACs needing feedback" is just what I was looking for, thanks. (It seems to be updated regularly.) SandyGeorgia, I understand that the timing is up to the delegates, and that there are no solid rules about when a nomination will be closed or how many supports are needed. I trust the delegates to use their discretion to maintain the quality of featured content in this regard. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK RfC[edit]

As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Just thought I'd let you know that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive10 has 6 supports and 0 opposes. Hopefully 10th time is the charm. — ₳aron 09:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR RFC[edit]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the wonderfully neutrally worded notice. Ucucha (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hello Ucucha. I have got something important to show you. Can I contact you by email? Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I can't guarantee that I'll be able to help. Ucucha (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I cannot see your email. Could you please email me first so that I get yours? Please. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at these FACs [1], [2], [3]... What do you think, I mean is there some kind of canvassing going on? How can these people always support each other {Tomica, Status, Eternal, SnapSnap)? This is not fair in my honest opinion. I may be wrong. I am sure that Wikiepdia is not a place where we only want to have a collection of FAs, right? And what I have pointed out to you concerning this "group" is about to happen for the fourth time in a row. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm what a pity. However, I will be polite and explain to you. They have helped me a lot while commenting on my FAC's [while no one else did, and most of the users ignore it]. I don't ask them to support, I guess that's natural, they just give their comments which I resolve btw. If you are such a good stalker you would notice that too I guess. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply will not discuss this with you. I will let the delegate decide what is right or wrong. And there is absolutely no need to express your pity to me. Rules and regulations are not only for us but for you and your group of friends as well. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong irrespective of who we are talking about. Last but not the least, I may be a good stalker but you were the best, are the best and you will always remain the best. Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a stalker, I am just a good user that wants to work by the rules of Wikipedia. And the rules for the single say that if a song was made for digital download then it is a single, unlike you make WP:OR making it constantly a 'song' because of its poor success. And btw for the FAC's, Wikipedia:Canvassing is allowed, so I don't know which rule I broke. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I don't want to discuss on any topic with you. God knows how good it would have been if you were able to just read and understand what you yourself you have written above so that it becomes clear you that where you have always thought I have been wrong, actually you were wrong and you still are. I just hope you don't remain as such.

Respected Ucucha, please have a look at the message I left you. And thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC promotion[edit]

Since Graham's on vacation and Ian was a reviewer, I'd like to tell you that I believe Tosa-class battleship is ready for promotion. If you disagree, please comment there so I can fix whatever is still wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot down?[edit]

I spot that your bot has not worked a jot since August 28th (on the dot). I would like it a lot (no rot) if your bot could be got to do wot-not again. That would be... hot. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks like the code it uses to fetch pages from Wikipedia suddenly stopped working. Not sure why. I'll fix it though. Ucucha (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the library I use doesn't interact very nicely with https. Should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Ucucha (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I need to figure out why it messed up WP:FANMP. Ucucha (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps also why it notified User talk:User talk:ClueBot Commons that The Hunger Games was going to be TFA soon! Bencherlite ^Talk 23:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in the dim and distant past it also left two messages for User talk:User:Rodhullandemu... Bencherlite ^Talk 23:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you got it restarted, the bot has been adding a section header for "Older nominations" at WP:FAC, rather than moving the already extant header. Appreciate if you could take a look at it. Maralia (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as before at User talk:User talk:NobuTamura tonight and User talk:User talk:Eric Corbett recently. Is it something to do with the way the names are listed in the FAC nomination header? Bencherlite ^Talk 23:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't hate me[edit]

Can you please review and fix "Fluorine". It is a work of love. If it's too long, just hit bio and hazard and enviro sections.-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicup notes[edit]

Hi mate, while the bot appears to be doing its thing re. the older FAC noms marker and the TFA highlighter, it seems to be missing out on Wikicup entries on the relevant FAC nom pages... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing future TFA notification[edit]

Usually when a FA of which I am the main editor is scheduled for TFA, the bot gives a notification on my talk page asking that the blurb be checked. I've noticed that the bot did not give a notification for Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway. The bot tagged the article's talk page as a future TFA at 00:04 on 3 October 2013.

I spotted the scheduling as I had the article's talk page watch listed, so it wasn't a problem, but something seems to have been skipped.--DavidCane (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding FA nomination[edit]

Hello,

About a month ago, I nominated the article AdS/CFT correspondence for FA status. Since then, I've gotten a lot of helpful comments from other editors, and everyone has been quite supportive of the project. However, it's been a week since anyone left a comment, and I'm not sure that there will be more comments unless I recruit more people. Please let me know if there's anything I need to do to make sure the article gets the attention it needs. I wouldn't want it to be archived just because there weren't enough reviews.

Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw FAC nom[edit]

After consideration of some of the reviewers comments, I feel I need to withdraw the nom for Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl to allow it to go through a copy edit. I also dropped this same note at the other FA coordinators talk page. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping down as FAC coordinator?[edit]

Hello Ucucha. I'm AmericanLemming, and I've noticed that you haven't edited in a month and haven't promoted or archived any FAC since late August. I understand that you might be busy or that something has come up in your life that limits your on-wiki time, but still, you're a FAC coordinator. If you find that you are no longer able or willing to serve in that capacity, it might be for the best that you step down.

I in no way mean to disrespect the tremendous effort you have put in at Wikipedia, both in writing articles and in serving as a FAC coordinator, but I do think you owe it to the community to either return to active involvement in promoting and archiving FAC candidates or step aside and let someone else do the job. I would greatly appreciate a reply. Thank you.

I will also raise my concerns at the FAC talk page. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My take while I have some time this morning, Sydney time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Hi, as someone who took part in the previous nomination can you comment on this. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

code[edit]

hello ucucha, would I ask you to Let me provide source This code. I needed for fawiki. please email for me. best regards:)Mahdi ^talk 12:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problem[edit]

Your bot has decided to re-notify the principal authors of all the forthcoming TFAs - was it something it ate? I'm undoing the duplicate messages and hoping that it doesn't repeat itself again later... Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four-tuned Award[edit]

Slakr's Four-tuned Award

For attaining an exceptionally large number of Four Awards, I hereby award you with this delicious fortune cookie. No doubt you'll be able to turn the fortune it contains into an article, get it featured on did you know, and then proceed not just to make it good, but also get it featured. "People will recognize your accomplishments," indeed. :P (lucky numbers: 4, 8, 22, π, 73, 843.73333)

Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr^\ talk / 10:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nom: Ike Altgens[edit]

Please accept my apologies if I'm spamming. This nom has been active for 38 days. The initial concerns with Ike Altgens have long since been addressed, and a great deal of additional work has been done, including a recheck of its sources and the addition of a free image courtesy the subject's nephew. I believe this article is ready for promotion and would greatly appreciate any attention you're willing to give its nom. Thanks in advance. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

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.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA promotion bot down?[edit]

Hey there. Just letting you know that the promotion bot still hasn't processed some of the week's promotions. Graham Colm promoted two on the 21st and one on the 19th that still haven't been handled. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Goodman Beaver[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Goodman Beaver. It is TFA on April 9, 2014. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I assumed this was because the {{FAC}} template was still on the talk page and the article history hadn't been updated to show it was an FA, so I've done those jobs as well. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few other glitches[edit]

Hope you don't mind me listing them, just in case there's an underlying problem that can be fixed. The bot didn't tell the following people about their FAs becoming TFAs:

Hope this helps. Thanks for a very useful bot, as ever. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other bot issues[edit]

Bot doesn't like articles being selected as TFA before the FAC is closed, it seems. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Sultanate of Singora[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Sultanate of Singora. It is TFA on June 4, 2014. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Thopha saccata[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Thopha saccata. It is TFA on June 9, 2014. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article history updated by Sarastro1, to whom thanks are due. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Kronan (ship)[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Kronan (ship). It is TFA on June 23, 2014. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Kelpie[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Kelpie. It is TFA on June 29, 2014. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article history added by Ruby2010 (thank you) and maindate now added. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to write maindate on Talk:Pope Paul III and His Grandsons[edit]

I was unable to insert a |maindate= on the page Talk:Pope Paul III and His Grandsons. It is TFA on July 6, 2014. Thank you! UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article history added by Ruby2010 (thank you) and maindate now added. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

small mammals
Thank you for getting attention for mammals that are easily overlooked and even threatened, like the Drymoreomys, and for maintaining the clock and quality of today's featured articles, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (14 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 178th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UcuchaBot not working since 30th June[edit]

Hello Ucucha, any chance that you could give your very helpful bot a kick, or an oilchange, or whatever it needs to get it going again? It does lots of useful things and I hope it's not gone forever... Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal[edit]

Just wanted to notify you of this withdrawal. ceranthor 18:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Great script! Keep up the good work! =] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Hi. Last month I did a major upgrade on the article about a 1970s television sitcom called Temperatures Rising and made it an FAC. That was nearly three weeks ago and so far no one has offered any comments. So I decided it was time to "make some noise" and see if I can find a way to get the ball rolling on it. I decided that I might try contacting one of the three FAC coordinators and seek that person's advice. Since you live in the United States (like me, in California) I decided you would be the best bet. So … can you offer any suggestions on how to entice anyone to take a look at the article? Thanks for any help or advice you can give. Jimknut (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

The edit of mine that you reverted was not intended to be vandalism, nor was it supposed to be biased.--Fred Bloggs (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I accused you of neither. There is no reason to put "according to evolution" in random biological articles, just as an article on the planet Neptune does not need to say that it orbits the Sun according to the theory of gravity. Ucucha (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does your script work with different language wikis?[edit]

Greetings Ucucha! I was wondering if your splendid script is working with other language wikis as well? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible promotion[edit]

Could you perhaps take a look at this and see if Katy Perry is ready to become FA? I'm hoping to have her be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin[edit]

Dear Ucucha, the FA review for Chopin has I believe gone about as far as it is likely to go. The only objector has been User:Piotrus who wanted to add some redlinks, but I think (see review) we've attained a sort of consensus about this. Other issues have I believe all been addressed. Is it now appropriate to suggest that the proposal be formally assessed for FA? Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UcuchaBot not working since 30th June (2)[edit]

Hi Ucucha, any news on getting your bot back in action? It's much missed. Hope all is well. Best wishes, Bencherlite ^Talk 09:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TFA notification[edit]

This is to inform you that Transandinomys bolivaris, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 24 September 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodent[edit]

Thanks for the note at the rodent FAC. I know you're not very active these days, so if you don't have time, that's fine, but if you have time, I would appreciate your input on a couple of points. I am a little out on a limb in that FAC because I have little background in biology and zoology. I was able to quickly find an article about rodent omnivory and carnivory, behaviours that were not mentioned in the feeding section. Cwymhiraeth did a good job of adding material based on that source, but it alarms me that something so basic could be omitted from an article like this (especially if it can be quickly found by a beginner like me). I can't tell if the article includes everything it should include, but when I see omissions like that I *really* want to hear from a subject matter expert that the article is comprehensive. Do you have the background to look at the article in that light?

Separately (and this is less important) I feel that the style is often wrong: it should talk about general characteristics of rodents, work down to specific cases, and then give examples of rodents that illustrate those cases. I don't think the article follows this style as much as it should, and if you have the time I would appreciate your input on that too.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! I just wrote an oppose; I think there are some serious issues with the article and specified a few. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. I was getting quite uneasy; but tingling antennae are not a valid oppose. I'm glad you had time to look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, will you look at the article again? LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with the points you raised in your comments in the Rodent FAC. Did I adequately deal with your concerns? Do you want to raise anything else? Your blanket "oppose" seems a bit harsh to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you call it a blanket oppose; I clearly identified issues that caused me to think the article doesn't currently make the cut to become an FA. My earlier comments weren't based on a full review of the article, but I had time to read it in more detail just now and left some more comments. Ucucha (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Some of the points you raised have been dealt with. I have been away for the weekend and will now get to work on others. Could you give a few examples of the "many sources I checked for doubtful-looking statements are ... websites without proper peer review (therefore, not high-quality reliable sources)"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help with my maiden DYK nomination?[edit]

Bodhamayananda filed under September 25. (I found your name under Active editors on DYK page.) Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm sure he'll reply soon, Ucucha hasn't been very active lately. Anyway, your nomination looks fine. It sometimes takes one to two weeks to have your nomination reviewed at DYK, so the best thing to do is sit back and wait. – Maky ^« talk » 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another mammal FAC...[edit]

But this one a little bigger than a mouse....just thought if you had a bit of time you might be interested. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, interesting. I've looked into Paraceratherium taxonomy a little recently. From a very quick look the article looks good but I'll likely not have much time in the near future to review it. Ucucha (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slow loris[edit]

Good to see Slow loris on the Main page as TFA, - coming with a hidden message to slow down ;) - I love to see four names in a nomination, precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}