User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Nemegtomaia

Congratulations on getting Nemegtomaia to featured article status!  – Corinne (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for your help improving it! And many other of my nominations, not only does it make the text read better, it also makes it even more different from the cited texts... FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Mauritanian Blue Pining For The Fjords

What do you think of the lineart so far? [1] --Mr Fink (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! The head on the upper one seems a bit too laterally compressed maybe? Can't find a photo of the same angle, but the heads of similar parrots are broader than their bills:[2] The lower bills of both seem to be a tad too long compared to the upper bill. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. I will try to fix it.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of this? [3]--Mr Fink (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good that they don't block each other now, maybe the head (excluding the beak, which is fine) of the lower one could be bigger? Or rather, the feather contours of the head could be wider. Hope you get what I mean... FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Smilodon teeth growth

There seems to be a contradiction in the section on Smilodon development. It states that the adult teeth grew at 20 months but later states they reaced their full size at 18 months. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, what do the sources used there say? Seems to be in the text that was written before I began working on the article... FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"The results suggest that the canines of S. fatalis grew about 80 mm during a 12-month period, or about 7 mm/month, and the total duration of growth for this species was about 18 months." [4] LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If no sources contradict that, we should use that only... Or give a range, if the sources differ. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it means 18 more months? LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm so sorry, but my mathematics skills have deteriorated to primary school level over the years (if they were ever above), the numbers here are confusing me! FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Steller's sea cow

Hi -- I'm just about done with my review, but I have a question about the references, and since your articles often use journal citations I thought I'd ask you, if you have a moment. I asked for a page number on the Whitmore cite, and it was added, but that citation is used in half-a-dozen other places, some of which won't use that page number, so that seems quite wrong. How is this usually handled? Are page numbers not normally given for journal articles? In my own articles I split out a list of sources, and then use short form references, but that's not the style here so I'm not quite sure what would be expected. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been told before it depends on the length of the articles. If they are relatively short, I just give the entire length of the article, but in for example Broad-billed parrot, Hume 2007, which is 76 pages long, has been split up. FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I think once it gets past 15 or 20 pages it's quite a burden on the reader to expect to find the information, but it seems to be generally true in the literature that page numbers aren't given when citing a journal article, so I guess that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's up to common sense on an individual basis... FunkMonk (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Giganotosaurus

Your recent edit to Giganotosaurus removes the source that I added to what was an unreferenced claim. Also the source does not state Giganotosaurus, the animal, is estimated to have run at said speeds.

"This indicator was used to estimate the maximum speed of locomotion of Giganotosaurus (about 14 m s-1) at which, from a kinematic point of view, the danger of falling does not exist."

This is what the source reads. Exactly what was explained in the version you deleted. Berkserker (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The intro does not need references. Everything there is referenced in the article body. The intro is also not supposed to go into detail with things already discussed in the article body. Familiarise yourself with WP:Lead before reverting further. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The version you are trying to assert is controversial and is an opinion. It is not a fact. You are trying to keep an inaccurate claim that does not even exist in the source itself. An intro needs to be neutral, period. It is a more crucial rule of thumb compared to having references in the intro. You are telling me to familiarise myself with WP:Lead that you yourself haven't even read to begin with. Otherwise you wouldn't try to revert a scientifically accurate sentence with an opinion. I have no tolerance for hypocrisy and you have done it twice already by 1) Recommending a seasoned editor and a researcher to review basic set of rules that you fail to follow yourself - borderline personal attack 2) Claiming the person who made the original edit is reverting while it is you who is doing the reverting to begin with. Also you are bordering on the 3RR; if you have a problem with the original edit, you can start a discussion in talk before reverting. Berkserker (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're closer to breaking the three revert rule, since you made the first change. Anyhow, I've added a briefer version of your speed edits. But the source only mention juvenile sauropods, so you simply cannot remove that. Simply saying saurpods is WP:original research on your part. You could explain what you think is "controversial" and why, then we can figure out what to do, rather than edit-warring. This has passed multiple reviews at FAC, so you need to back up your claims rather than ranting. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mauritius parrot

I can get you the HBW account for that species if you like. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be great! Is that the main source of "overview" text you'd use for extant species? FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS Levant (1758)

Apologies for the slight delay, and thanks for reviewing this article. Have responded here; any further suggestions or changes welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, will take a look! FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the nine FAC reviews and six FAC image and source reviews you did during March. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually thought I was on the low side! FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You're one of the top five reviewers overall in the last eight months, but this was a productive month even for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC request

Hi. When you get the chance, could you review my FAC linked above? If you can't, please reply. Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 19:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems you already have enough supports (three) for a promotion? Seems the image and source reviews are also done, so it is practically an FA now, you just have to wait for a coordinator to formally promote it... FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, the coordinator wants someone to do a prose review. Could you do it when you get the chance? If you can't, please reply. Thanks. -- 1989 12:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Heheh, I'm probably the worst person to ask for that, I always request a copy edit before I nominate anything myself, because I'm unsure about my own English skills, due to not being a native Anglophone... FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you be able to review this one instead? -- 1989 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Did an image review for now, may return later. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Animal positions article ?

Its outside my sphere of interest but someone ought to do an animal positions article similar to human positions spelling out which animals sit, squat, kneel or lie down and in what situations.--Penbat (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, that would be a pretty gigantic undertaking, given the thousands of body-plans and behavioural situations in question... But if there are sources that deal with this, why not. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are probably common themes running through birds, reptiles, primates, mammals etc. Maybe someone somewhere has already done the analysis and written a book on this. It is an interesting subject eg do dogs and cats squat, kneel or sit ? Apparently wolves like to squat when they howl - Squatting_position#Grand_Howl --Penbat (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have put in an article request here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article requests#Animal behavior. --Penbat (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting to see what will come of that! FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istiodactylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hemisphere. 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) 10:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Barbary lions

I said "meant to depict barbary lions" because the museum has some doubts whether the Verreaux brothers really collected barbary lions. According to the NGeographic article the DNA of the lions will now be analized. JMK (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Most lions brought to Europe back then were either from North or South Africa, so they could be either. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Agassizodu

Hello FunkMonk,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Agassizodu for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I rarely DR anything, so I'm not sure where to get the tags... FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Big cats

One for the felid-fanciers and artists: https://archive.org/details/TheBigCatsAndTheirFossilRelativesAnIllustratedGuideToTheirEvolutionAndNaturalHistoryByAlanTurner Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch, that can't be legal! I better, ehm, "read" it when I get home, before it gets taken down... By the way, there's a similar book illustrated by Antón about canids:[5] I was wondering whether there may be a more up to date general description of the dire wolf in that.... FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you cat fanciers across this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/first-fossil-footprints-saber-toothed-cats-are-bigger-bengal-tiger-paws Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yep, I added a bit of that to the Smilodon article last year, though it doesn't seem to be "validly" published yet... And actually, I wouldn't say I'm necessarily more of a cat-person than a dog-person, I've had more dogs than cats in my life... FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

While I was exploring the research on Dire wolf, I realized that I had quite a bit of Smilodon info in memory as well - I decided to add some of it to that article. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

With an animal as well-known as this, the supply of available information is almost unlimited, so it's hard to keep track, even though we were two nominators at that FAC. Good with some supplements! FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

People want to know when the last one of any prehistoric mammal went extinct - I think that it gives them a feeling of how close they are to "touching" one. I am always fascinated that there were mammoths alive while the ancient Egyptians began to build pyramids. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, even with something like the thylacine, I was always amazed that my grandparents were alive when it still existed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the Thylacine. I have hiked alone for ten days in the very remote Central Plateau of Tasmania and seen things that just don't add up. Regarding Dire wolf, I have used the measurement "meter" to humour our North American cousins, yet the {{convert template delivers the word "metre", so there is an inconsistency in the article. Let us see if anyone picks it up. If they do, we go with "a la Francais". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like quite an adventure! Any interesting stories or photos? Incidentally, one of my proudest "Wikipedia-moments" was when I discovered this footage of live thylacines was in the public domain and subsequently edited it together and uploaded it here:[6] As for measurements, if it's a problem with the templates, I'm sure there's some parameter that can be turned on and off to change the spelling, otherwise you can turn on abreviations so it just says "m"... FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The remote mountains of Tasmania I describe as beautiful, haunting, and brutal. If you are not prepared for it, a change of weather conditions can take your life, as it does with some hikers each year. No photos; I don't want anyone to be able to identify the area. Let us just say that on a very flat area of green grass between two large lakes there were kangaroo bones. A lot of kangaroo bones. This was not some form of "elephant graveyard", this was a hunting ground. But of what? Not Tassie Devils, the roos were too large, they bring down the much smaller Bennet's wallaby. No wild dogs out there, they would have returned back to humankind in their first winter, or others would have heard their barking at some time. A large predator(s) was at work. Later, up in a high rocky area of a hill nearby, I heard what sounded like a giant "possum" calling across the valley. I have no idea what it was, but I assume it was a large marsupial. A large marsupial that was not a Devil, as I know their call. I have my thoughts as to what might still be out there, operating only at night as they were known to do, staying away from humans and tracks as they were known to do, and staying away from muddy areas because they did not like wet feet, therefore leaving no prints. Time will tell. Nice work on their videos, by the way. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I've also thought it would be more likely to find survivors on Tasmania than on the Australian mainland, where they were not historically seen by Europeans anyway. And no dingoes on Tasmania either, I reckon... As an Australian, I should have known you'd have a special connection to the local, extinct canid convergents! FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to laugh when people show a grainy photo to the media of something they believe is a thylacine in the daytime, and also teams that go out with their camping gear looking for their "tracks". If they were to go out with night-vision goggles and infrared cameras, I would take those teams a little more seriously. People need to read the historical sources to ascertain how the thylacine operated in its environment (ie its adaptation). Of interest from my last trip, thylacines don't like sheep, they prefer roos. However, two sheep were found with their throats ripped out and something had torn from where the throat was down inside the chest cavity to remove the heats - the most prized part. There is only one predator on record known to have hunted in this way - that is their opening move on roos. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 23:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, I wonder what you thought of this video:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You might have an interest in this website to explore. You can download 3D data to bring up onscreen a model which can be rotated in 360 degrees. I will start you off with a Pleistocene wolf article. http://morphomuseum.com/Articles/view/15 Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's cool! Especially since I'm working in a 3D animation program right now, almost tempted to sneak one of those skulls into the movie, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought it might appeal to your artistic side in addition to the palaeo side. There is a software download on the main page. One could always manipulate some of the content "as a guide" for other purposes. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I've done so with dinosaur 3D scans in the past. Mammals are just much trickier to reconstruct due to their fleshy faces... It is hard to figure out how far the tissue would have extended, unless you really know the facial anatomy of living relatives. FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istiodactylus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laminae and Deltopectoral. 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) 10:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday FunkMonk!

tomorrow is your 10th birthday on wikipedia, i hope you can enjoy it! don't forget that in your 10th birthday THYLACOLEO RETURNS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justcallmesam (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks, how were you able to make the calculation? FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

you joined wikipedia in may 1 2007 so this day Thylacoleo returns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.91.208.30 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope! FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis

Articles that you have been involved in editing—List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis —have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 65.255.88.233 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New reply

Hello, FunkMonk. You have new messages at Talk:Dimetrodon.
Message added 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, FunkMonk. You have new messages at Talk:Dimetrodon.
Message added 65.255.88.233 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istiodactylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terrestrial. 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) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Hey FunkMonk, I have a small favor to ask: can you tak a look here Qatna's king. I uploaded the photo from flickr and its licence says that im allowed to use non commercially but the Wiki is saying that it should be deleted. Is there any way to keep it?, I really need it for the next article. Thanks in advance.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted :( Thanks anyway, cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't online when you wrote here. Either you can upload the photo as "fair use" in low resolution, or we can see if we can find a completely free alternative. What did the photo show? If some sort of artifact, it should be possible to find another photo... FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

this is the photo. Its really hard to find a free one. Those artifacts were discovered in 2002 and I searched everywhere. I guess the article will have to do without many pictures in it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll keep my eyes open... Seems like we do have quite a few images on Commons that could be added to the article?[8] FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but they wont be enough. Only three of the site and artifacts. The maps and scheduale were drawn by me. Nothing can be done, its so annoying that we cant bring so much important photos here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

One thing I sometimes do when I need photos for an article, usually about some extinct animal, is to search Flickr and Commons for photos in museums where I know important specimens are found (not the subject itself). For example, many museum visitors just take photos and upload them without actually knowing or writing what they depict, so you won't find these photos if you search specifically for a name, like "Qatna". But if I for example just look through general photos of Near East artefacts from the Louvre[9], or search the name of any museum that has Qatna artefacts on Commons or Flickr, there might be something that hasn't been categorised and labelled correctly by the photographer (and which you, as the expert, may recognise). I have found dozens of great photos this way, it may take some time to go through all the photos, but it can be quite rewarding... A link I use to search Flickr for only photos that can be used on commons is this:[10] Replace "dinosaur" with any other word, museum or place, and you will only find photos that have the right CC licences. It can also help searching for words in different languages, as the photographers may not be Anglophones. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Always helpfull !!! thanks my friend, I will start searching.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem! The downside is that you really need to know what you're looking for by sight, so it helps knowing what certain artefacts look like and where to find them... FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That wont be a problem, I know them piece by piece actually.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cladogram

In your research on prehistoric elephants, did you come across any trees mapping Proboscidea in general (not just Elephantidae)? I feel the elephant article could use such a cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not of the whole group, but I just did an image search for proboscidean phylogeny, and it seems these two papers do: [11] and [12] FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Zenobia and WP:MOS

Why is that article, today's featured article no less, apparently exempt for our manual of style (MOS:SEASON in this case?) Surely it's the opposite and FAs should avoid ambiguous wording contrary to the MOS? Valenciano (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Because of WP:Common sense. Summer in Syria is obviously that of the northern hemisphere. The readers aren't toddlers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt some of our readers do know that summer in Syria is a northern hemisphere one, and the article as currently written doesn't even say Syrian/Palmyrene summer. Middle of the year is much more concise in such cases and will be more easily understood. Articles, especially featured ones, shouldn't be written from a northern hemisphere bias. Valenciano (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Northern hemisphere bias"? What is that even supposed to be? By your logic, writing "middle of the year" may not even reflect what the source says; if southern hemisphere summer is theoretically meant, it wouldn't be in the middle of the year, would it? Anyhow, the article has passed several reviews, including Featured Article, so if this was really a problem, it would have been brought up long ago. The important thing is what the source says, and if it doesn't say "middle of the year", we shouldn't either. I suggest you bring this up on the article talk page if you really feel strongly about it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BIAS sums up my thoughts on the issue: our articles should be written from a global perspective, not from the narrower perspective of Europeans and North Americans. I'm fully aware that "writing middle of the year may not even reflect what the source says" and that's why I checked the source before making the edit, and the source is explicitly about summer in the med. That I even have to check the source to work out which summer is being referred to illustrates what I mean; middle of the year is unambiguous in contrast. And no, we don't need to say verbatim what the source says, we're perfectly free to report what it says in different words which more closely adhere to our WP:MOS. Anyway, I've said my piece and even if we disagree on it, thanks for taking the time to reply. Valenciano (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, bring it up on the talk page for a wider discussion; it has passed several reviews with no problems, so it shouldn't be changed on a whim. Also, the guideline you linked, which isn't policy, only suggests alternatives could be given, it doesn't say they should. There's a pretty big difference. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

When Dinosaurs Roamed America

The file "When Dinosaurs Roamed America.jpg" that You uploaded to Wikipedia cannot be used in Russian version of the page of this film. Is there any ability to use this file on the Russian page? (Without uploading it again..) Igor Kuritsyn (talk) 1:51, 30 May 2017

You would have to upload it again locally with a fair use rationale, since it is not a free file. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Awarded to Funkmonk for this inspired comment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks! I could imagine some editors might find it too close to being promotion of the series, but we'll see... FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guadeloupe amazon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guadeloupe amazon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guadeloupe amazon

The article Guadeloupe amazon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guadeloupe amazon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy Shakhbat-Shakhbet.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nancy Shakhbat-Shakhbet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Guadeloupe amazon

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Guadeloupe amazon has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank! Not sure what the citation needed tag is for, though? The source is at the end of the paragraph, as is common practice. --FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus

It seems the article is already well developed. Would we need to work with a regular contributor? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead, I already pinged HMallison, the main writer, but I think he's too busy with real-life palaontology. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2, 2017

Giganatosaurus has been scheduled for July 2 as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the main page text; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving this to the 30th to make way for Grey jay. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mihtagalak.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mihtagalak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy Ajram Sheel Oyoonak Anni.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nancy Ajram Sheel Oyoonak Anni.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy Shakhbat-Shakhbet.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nancy Shakhbat-Shakhbet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy-Ajram---Betffakar-Fi-Eih.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nancy-Ajram---Betffakar-Fi-Eih.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ya-salam.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ya-salam.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Woolly mammoth

This is not the section for such

Mmmmmmmmmm... yes it is, because this is a relevant information. How many frozen mammoths have left Russia before the Russian Revolution? That one in Paris was offered to the French Muséum in 1912, so this is a particularly unique specimen. Kintaro (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a dedicated section to frozen mammoths and their discovery, the info should be placed there if anywhere. It is not relevant in a section about biology. Anything added should follow the established structure of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mihtagalak.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mihtagalak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy Ajram Sheel Oyoonak Anni.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nancy Ajram Sheel Oyoonak Anni.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy Shakhbat-Shakhbet.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nancy Shakhbat-Shakhbet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy-Ajram---Betffakar-Fi-Eih.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nancy-Ajram---Betffakar-Fi-Eih.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ya-salam.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ya-salam.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Istiodactylus copy edit complete

I have completed your requested copy edit of Istiodactylus. I left one "clarify" note on the page for you. Other than that, it all looks great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Istiodactylus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Istiodactylus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Istiodactylus

The article Istiodactylus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Istiodactylus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FunkMonk. You have new messages at Talk:Dimetrodon.

Adding time-stamp so this can get archived. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Giganotosaurus, "one of the largest known meat-eating dinosaurs, and therefore one of the largest terrestrial carnivores to have ever existed"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Dawn man listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dawn man. Since you had some involvement with the Dawn man redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Uanfala 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:FAC nomination - Balfour Declaration

Hi FunkMonk, i'm almost done with the improvements to the article now, pending a few more sentences to add to the lead. In the meantime I have drafted the FAC nomination intro, and wondered if you wouldn't mind taking a quick look:

This is about the document considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Its 100th anniversary is in three months' time. It is a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. It was promoted to good article status in April 2016, and has since had a 15-month long peer review, a GOCE copy edit, and support for almost a year from FunkMonk as a mentor. As an important topic in a controversial area, it has been prepared in conjunction with WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which aims to create a bilateral narrative in a field with distinct and divergent ways of describing the same things. The abundance of supporting quotations and notes, reflecting the fact that every detail of this topic has been argued over by scholars from all sides of the spectrum, has been discussed at WP:ANI.

Cheers, Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! Only thing I would snip is "15-month long", since for much of that time, nothing was written on the page... But I think you can nominate, the article has obviously evolved a lot since I did the peer-review, so I'll read it again as FAC reviewer. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Time to step up?

Hello Funkmonk, I seek your advice once again, please. I have basically been "WikiProject Dogs" for the last couple of years, actioning items on its Talk page and conducting assessments of articles up to class=B and importance=high (I had inherited a backlog going back to 2011 that nobody was assessing). As you know, the GAC list grows unabated and there are good articles now being withdrawn by some editors due to lack of action. We have had some fun times together recently, so do you think that I am ready to conduct a GA assessment of articles that are in my strategic interest (which as you know is quite narrow)? My first target would be Hybrid (biology). Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you've been through the processes yourself now, so you should certainly know the ropes. But keep in mind that the criteria are laxer for GA nominations, whereas for example the peer review I did of dire wolf had FAC in mind, so was a bit more nitpicky. Some editors, like myself, always GA nominate with later FAC in mind, so we appreciate very thorough GA reviews, but others may not have such ambitions. I saw your discussion with Chiswick Chap (I have his talk page watchlisted from earlier discussions), and I would say add any suggestions that come to mind that you think would improve the article, and whether something is too nitpicky or not can be discussed afterwards. I can also watch the review by the sideline. But yeah, I think the huge GAN backlog is partially due to some well-intentioned but somewhat disruptive university mass-nominations that happen about annually, but the articles are usually underdeveloped. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, this is good advice and I shall progress. As you know, my interest in ice age wolves and evolutionary biology sometimes cross - hybrids and (genomic) introgression are two that easily come to mind. I am not sure if you have read Ayn Rand, but I have just delivered my "This is John Galt Speaking" speech from The Fountainhead, and worth a look at what I am currently doing here. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hope your efforts bear fruit! The bird project was also on the verge of extinction some time ago due to some unfortunate events that lead to an exodus of editors, but it's back on track, so should be possible with the dog-project as well... FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully. I will try to salvage it to be at least partially functioning, else I will leave it completely. You only have to look at the state of their "flagship" article, Dog class=B (barely), to know that things are not well among dog-kind. Among the Wikipedia wolf-pack, there are some very opinionated individuals and powerful personalities, there is sometimes a bit of snarling and biting on the talk pages from time to time, but if consulted and presented with a good idea they will act as a pack for the greater good. I have never seen that among Wikipedia's "dog pack". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hybrid (biology) - I have commenced its GAC review, if you could ensure I don't get too "excited". Regarding WikiProject Dogs, I fear there will be few replies with each choosing a different option, leading to no further action. I tried! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Already watching! As for dogs, I've reviewed a few dog breed GANs in the past, but haven't seen any recently, so maybe there just aren't enough dog-people around at this time... FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have template WikiProject Dogs as semi-active - there is not much happening in that project now. William Harris • (talk) • 08:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We are having an issue with an image of skulls in Hybrid- the File:Comparison of hybrid human skulls.png which says it has fair use as a pix of a building! Do you have any expertise on images to advise or shall I ask one of the image admins from our Dire wolf FA? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:Fair Use is pretty clear on this (see image section). If abundant free images are already available and present in the article, fair use images should not be used. Just because one minor aspect of the article (hominid hybrids) ins't illustrated doesn't mean fair use would be necessary. And I am sure free relevant pictures will be available in time, if not already somewhere. --FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I now feel as if I have just been initiated into some higher order. Thanks for your mentoring! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

From pup to wolf. Next stop, Fenris... --FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My favourite is Skoll. On the day of Ragnarok, the wolf Skoll will swallow the sun and his brother Hati will devour the moon, plunging the world into darkness. I have made a replica Viking shield that features a Mammon-style red Skoll on a yellow background (representing the sun). With proper leather edging and a black metal boss, it looks striking on the wall. I thoroughly enjoyed doing the sketching and fine-line painting. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice, I'd like to see a picture of that! Plenty of vargs to choose from for our hierarchy, it seems... FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Funkmonk, the Beringian wolf has passed GA with the reviewer's comment that it was ready for FAC now. The Guild of Copy Editors has completed a review. I am considering going straight to FAC now - do you have a view, please? William Harris • (talk) • 08:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently on vacation with a very bad connection, so I am only now figuring out how to write on Wikipedia from my phone... But yeah, there really aren't more stops to go before FAC, I would say. I can't do so much from my phone, but I will try to read the article. At first glance, may be good to note how the wolves in the taxobox image were made, since some readers might think they are actual stuffed Beringians. Rogue taxidermy? Models? FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, there is no rush and this matter can wait until you "Northerners" finish your vacation period, which will come to an end far too quickly! William Harris • (talk) • 22:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm now back, William Harris, and contrary to your dire prediction, my vacation will go on for quite a bit, but I'll be going on another trip in two weeks time, so I hope I can get some work done here before... I think you can nominate the article as soon as you're ready, but I see you reused the dire wolf size diagram, should I perhaps make a new one using the restoration in the article as basis? Would they have had the same shoulder height? FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

'morning Funkmonk, I am glad that you have returned safely from visiting a far-flung trouble spot, such as the Faroe Islands! You have so many taxa to keep an eye on that I do not expect you to keep up with the minute details of each article. The Dire wolf has the same dimensions as the Northwestern wolf, as does the Beringian wolf. We used the dimensions of the Northwestern wolf for the diagram, so it can be used for both. My only concern with the Beringian wolf is that it begins with "The Beringian wolf (Canis lupus) is an extinct Ice Age wolf..." and someone might take exception to the term "wolf" being used twice in the same sentence. The first usage is its name, the second is what it is. I did not want to start as with Dire wolf, which says "The dire wolf (Canis dirus, "fearsome dog") is an extinct species of the genus Canis." We used Canis twice, and looking back now I don't think the second Canis adds much value. William Harris • (talk) • 22:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It was quick to make a new image after I made the first one, and I think its good to have a separate one to avoid any confusion. How does it look?[13] Hmmm, I don't think saying wolf twice will be a problem, see for example Mascarene parrot or Mauritius blue pigeon. You could maybe say "The Beringian wolf is an extinct type of wolf that lived during the Ice Age", to make it a bit clearer for the average reader (but still make it ambiguous exactly what it is, a population, a subspecies?). As for the dire, maybe say "extinct species of canid" instead of "species in the genus Canis"? It is not as specific, but perhaps it sounds better. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That image looks fine, although the ears could do with being erect above the head some more as it is in shadow and almost appears "ear-less", is that possible to do for a person of your skills? I have gone with your wording suggestion; the Dire wolf could go exactly the same way? William Harris • (talk) • 09:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you could do that in dire wolf too. As for lengthening the ears, that would be easy, but I've been wondering why the back of the head seems so bulbous, I think the ears could be freed by shaving some of that down... FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The image does match Mario's coloured version in the article, so perhaps we just run with your current image and upload it. Readers should be able to work it out, should they even notice! William Harris • (talk) • 22:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Now added, with the hair around the ears pulled a bit back... FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice work; that should do it! William Harris • (talk) • 11:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

And so it begins: Cave wolf. William Harris • (talk) • 11:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rise of the obscure fossil wolves! FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Beringian wolf FAC - I have left one question for you there, else I have replied to all of your points. Thanks for going over the article in such detail. It has not had many contributors - let alone critical contributors - and so it badly needed it, especially when there is a good dose of genetic analyses to wade through. It is looking much better now. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've now added two replies, but after those are answered, I'll be ready to support. Waiting for reviews can often take longer when there is not a crowd of reviewers knowledgeable about a subject, as there is with birds and to some extend dinosaurs, so I think the issue is people feel they are not experienced enough rather than not being interested. But don't worry, more reviews will come. As for myself, I wasn't able to respond until now because I was at a friend's wedding... FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I am not concerned about timing and have budgeted 2 months for the article to be sitting in FAC. The longer it waits, the better chance there is of attracting editorial improvement. It is not just another "carnivore" article - it includes genetic, morphology, and stable isotope analyses of an extinct population with environmental considerations - not your average offering. It is a bit like dire wolf with DNA. I trust you advised your wedded friend accordingly - "you can't be happy all of your life!". William Harris • (talk) • 09:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The article should now be on its way. As for warning my friend, he is the first of my friends to get married, so none of the rest of us had the necessary experience to advise him; but the way marriages are portrayed on film should be enough to scare most people away from it, as well as the local 50% divorce rate... But I understand there are some economical benefits, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

My philosophy on many things in life is "learn to live with it" plus "you'll get over it". After 30 years of marriage, I can recommend it. :-) William Harris • (talk) • 11:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind when the time comes! FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Quagga

Your article being promoted to a featured article 4 years ago doesn't mean that you have veto power over changes made. 4 pictures of the same individual animal standing in the same enclosure is clearly excessive, and does nothing to help with understanding. I opened a discussion on the Quagga talk page, though I don't suppose there will be much activity there. But the main issue is please don't act like I just go around arbitrarily deleting things from featured articles.. I think my change was wholly reasonable. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

FAR

Hi FunkMonk. I believe it was you who gave his last comment on my previous FAC before it's been promoted. I was wondering if I could ask for your thoughts on my latest FAC? It's just that lack of response from other editors can be a problem which is why some do not make the cut ultimately, and I wouldn't want that. Many thanks, SLIGHTLY ^mad 09:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it's going pretty well, with the last support only two days ago? I mainly review articles when I have at least slight knowledge about the subject, but I'll take a look if it stalls. But if it gets a third support, it is sure to pass (unless someone directly opposes). FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Spotted green pigeon scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Spotted green pigeon article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 27, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 27, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong?

Are you having a bad day? If so, perhaps a short break would help. I'm absolutely stunned that a 10 year veteran with as much experience as you have is acting so rudely and I'm hoping it is just something going on that's bleeding over into Wikipedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing an article under construction being demolished on spurious grounds, and when I bring up the error, and point out that Wikipedia rules have been broken (repeatedly), the complaint is dismissed based on personal opinion. That's what's wrong. Since there is no indication this type of behaviour will stop/be moderated, the last resort to prevent such deletions is bringing in third parties. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)