User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 8

Hej

Jeg har set dig rundt omkring på wikien men aldrig opdaget at du var Dansker. Jeg er glad for at du er enig med mig i at FAR og GAN ligesågodt kan klares i en proces. Hav det godt! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, hej! Ja, og jeg synes ligefrem at den "almindelige" FAC proces kunne have sådan en mulighed; i stedet for "oppose" kunne man for eksempel sige "promote to GA". Og forresten er det her[1] min rigtige talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ja det ville spare mange reviewer-kræfter hvis vi havde en simpel integreret kvalitetsevalueringsproces. Jeg brugte denne her i tilfølde af at du ville frabede dig danske hilsner på din rigtige talkpage, nu du kun skriver din nationalitet her under "stuff". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, "stuff" er bare for sjov... Kan godt lide når tingene er lidt labyrintiske (og så kan folk heller ikke se når jeg redigerer siden på deres watchlist). Og ja, jeg synes hele tiden folk beklager sig over der mangler reviewers, så det her kunne i det mindste løse lidt af problemet. Har du foreslået det før? FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Så er der rystet lidt op i brakvandet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Integrated_GA_reviews FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, ja det bliver sjovt. :) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey Funk, thanks for the Barnstar! I still visit most days, it just takes a lot of time to edit anything. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. I miss seeing your restorations as WIP! FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Brolga

Thank you for doing the GA review of Brolga. For some reason I didn't see it mentioned on my watchlist and I didn't know it had been concluded, so I am a bit late in thanking you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, no problem, and well, you should really thank yourself for writing a good article! FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus

Thanks for the edit. I completely agree and understand that D. breedorum is now considered to be a synonym for D. wetherilli. I tried to make the change myself but I destroyed the table twice, so I gave up. I appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and now that I think of it, it should actually be listed as a synonym... I will do that now. And great work, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Very smooth, thank you.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Image placement on all the pages looks much better now. Thanks for double checking my contributions!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem! We had many interesting images lying around for years which there wasn't room for until you expanded the articles. Now I think it looks really good, with relevant images illustrating each section. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Several unsourced sentences" has nothing to do with "be quick-failed" whatsoever (or with GA for that matter, at all)

Quick-failing is only for The article [that] completely lacks reliable sources.

Also, Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules. --Niemti (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Two passages under Gold Edition and downloadable content end without citations. Marketing and PlayStation Home also end without citations. That is a problem for verifiability. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Women in the Arab Spring article

Hello! I've created the Women in the Arab Spring article, although I have not posted the "After the protests" section yet. I would really appreciate any suggestions you could give me about the content I've posted thus far or things you think I should add. I've had some trouble finding information specific to women in the Syrian civil war, so if you know any sources or have recommendations about where to look that would be fantastic. Thanks for your help! Nadhika99 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I'll take a look! FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Dodo

Hi FunkMonk - re this change, if you read what I put, I'm not "referring to a Wikipedia page as a source", I'm simply noting that a fuller explanation is given on the other page. Which it is, with references (those are the sources). At present, the Dodo article glosses over the fact that scientists are not completely agreed that the Nicobar pigeon is the closest living relative to the dodo. This is laid out well on the pigeon's page. Either this needs to be explained fully on the dodo page (which would affect the balance of the article) or linked to at the pigeon's page (as I did) - or the dodo's article cannot be considered accurate to the standard expected from a featured article. Grutness...wha? 13:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that even on that page, it is original research, not what the sources actually say. The same sources are used in the Dodo article, and they do not state anything about problems with the position, someone has added that to Wikipedia because that is their own interpretation. Read the actual sources before editing further. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the Nicobar pigeon page needs editing. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

New Original Artwork

Monk, First, thanks for your edits and improvements of my contributions on the Dilophosaurus, Cryolophosaurus, and Coelophysis pages. Second, my friend has original paleoart (e.g. life reconstructions and fossil sketches) and I'm wondering if you can direct me to the guidelines for introducing and placing images on Wikipedia. ThanksEvangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, here is a page for review of such:[2] And he can upload it here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hartebeest

Hi FunkMonk! Hartebeest is currently an FAC. There's a bit of discussion about your uploaded File:Hartebeests.jpg. Like to drop in? I feel it is hardly concerned with the article, more likely about some problems in the given file data. Would be good to have you there. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the issue has already been fixed? The date of death has been added to the image page. FunkMonk (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's quick work, for many editors are visiting the FAC. Anyway, thanks for your fast response. I believe this issue would soon be resolved now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

resource request

re: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Extinct_Mascarene_birds, send me an email and I'll send it to you when I receive it. cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Island Emu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (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) 16:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your review! Let me know if you would like another opinion on your current FAC, I'd be happy to help out. Cheers, Jack (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Heheh, thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Shukran

Thanks for the barnstar, it was a pleasure working on it. And yes, despite some of his serious mistakes/miscalculations, I think so too. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Tekram! I hope it will be at FAC one day. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi. Would you care to comment at my nomination here for the article Song of Innocence? A support, oppose, or any other comment would be appreciated. If not, no need to reply to this. Dan56 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look before long. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you plain on getting Emu back to FA?

I was thinking of GA maybe, but I'm not too comfortable with working on articles that are basically written already (I prefer writing them from scratch). So I'll probably pass. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

The barnstar means a lot, Funk Monk! What've you been up to lately? Abyssal (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! It just occurred to me I've never expressed appreciation for all the great people I've been rubbing shoulders with the most for all these years, if you guys weren't here, it wouldn't be fun! As for what I've been working on here, mainly recently extinct birds, but also gave woolly mammoth an overhaul. How about you? FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FunkMunk, and thank you very much! J. Spencer (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hylaeosaurus map

Also many thanks for uploading those nice Hylaeosaurus images! Which reminds me ;o), did you also upload the map of Lower Cretaceous Europe shown in the PLoS ONE article? It would be very useful for quite a few dinosaur subjects.--MWAK (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought about it, but the caption says "after Mutterlose J (1997); modified).", so I'm not sure if the figure is merely based on that, or if it is modified directly from it? If the latter, I'm not sure the license fits... FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Citing authors

Hi Funk, standard practice is that parentheses are only used if the name is not the original name or combination used by the original author, for example if the genus and species were named by different people. So in the taxobox, it would be Anhanguera piscator Kellner & Tomida, 2000 but Coloborhynchus piscator (Kellner & Tomida, 2000), because the species was originally placed in Anhanguera but is sometimes placed in Coloborhynchus. The person who first used C. piscator is not generally cited unless for clarification in the text, I guess to avoid people getting their names attached to species just by shuffling the genera around. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, seems I'll have to go and fix some articles I've worked on accordingly... What if the new combination is accepted as valid, what is shown then? See Mammuthus primigenius for example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible future collaboration

Hello. Since you seem to have in interest in recently extinct animals and was thinking we work on bringing quagga to GA or FA. Not right away but maybe this summer? LittleJerry (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Would be cool, I don't have any books about it, but I guess Google Scholar could help us out. I've uploaded some nice contemporary paintings and photos of it the last couple of years. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be quite a bit of information on its taxonomy, genetics and the quagga project. However, I can't find to much on its history/extinction and behavior. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well its not set in stone but if we did decide to do it, I was thinking that it would be divided into Taxonomy/etymology (including evolution), Biology (including physical description, behavior and ecology), History/extinction and Possible de-extinction. Would be able to find more info like you did for the King Island Emu? LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As for sources, I have quite a few books about extinct birds, and there is also a website which collects a lot of PDFs of old papers about extinct birds, so it was easy to obtain (which is also why extinct birds is what I've mostly been working on recently). I think it'll be harder for the Quagga, and we may perhaps have to use older sources on Google books an such, for the biology sections. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Woolly mammoth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lausanne Conference (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) 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Help Request

Could I get your help in mediating an edit war I'm having with another user at Megalania?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, heheh, well, it seems obvious that the info is based on unreliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I didn't see you had already reverted him, so I ended up reverting you... Twice. Mistake, didn't get much sleep, have an assignment due for tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Make that thrice... FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You must be coming down with what the Devilbot's holophone teacher described as "stupid hand syndrome."--Mr Fink (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I hope it won't affect my actual assignment as much as my conduct here. Perhaps I've unconsciously written about yetis and mokele-mbembe instead of design-driven innovation and experience economy... FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar!--Kevmin § 05:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!--Kagaku Daisuke (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And you too! FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mascarene Grey Parakeet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congeners (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) 11:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Martha Pictures

Other than two pictures in the Martha (Passenger Pigeon) article, do you know of any available photographs that are definitely Martha (or definitely of Whitman's first birds)? Also, do you know if the color picture at [4] is in the public domain (as taken per governmental job) or not? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that is the only photo I have seen of Martha in life, but I know of a life drawing by Charles R. Knight, and here is another public domain image of the stuffed specimen:[5] I can upload it if it is interesting. As for the colour image, there seems to be very little info on the authorship, so I'm not sure, but I'll see if I can find something comparable. On Whitman's bird, there are a couple more images, but they are undated, apart from the year 1896.[6] Here's a large one of a bird in profile from Whitman's aviary:[7] Anything of interest? FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, [8] has a picture of Martha mid-skinning. Do you think a picture of her complete internal makeup is of interest, or too out there for the article? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I also encountered the image here[9], and almost uploaded it, but I didn't know it was Martha. It is quite grizzly, but I think it would be interesting to show. Should I upload it, and perhaps the other image of her stuffed? FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes please. Hopefully the article will grow long enough to support both pictures, and I like the stuffed bird more than the picture in the article. What year is that picture from (pre-early 1950s?)? Also, I dropped a note on the WP:Birds talk page I'd like you to look at. Thank you so much. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the images:[10][11] As you can see, the image of the mount is from 1921 at least. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

More Martha

Do you think that general details about Martha's appearance and how she would have been raised should be included in the article? There aren't citations for her specifically, but they are present in the Passenger Pigeon article. Once I've wrapped up the Passenger Pigeon draft, I'm going to add a section at the beginning explaining the decline in wild Passenger Pigeons with a link to the main article. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps briefly, starting with "as a Passenger Pigeon, Martha was..." or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do You Remember...?

Do you remember a super annoying anonymous editor who drove everyone to distraction by tacking on various iterations of "megafauna" categories onto articles about any animal over 2 pounds, while refusing to communicate in any way? Nicknamed "megafauna man," I think.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And its changing IP would always start with "125.XXXXXXX"--Mr Fink (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Is he back? I'm not sure if I remember him specifically, there have been so many weirdo IPs with ridiculous agendas that they all blend together in my head... FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Either yes, or he never left: What I do remember of "megafauna man" is that his IPs were centered in Indonesia, and this new(er) vandal, who's IPs are also centered in Indonesia, has a similar MO, though mostly putting in nonexistent or inappropriate categories of "Extinct animals of XXXXX"--Mr Fink (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please bring up your bad memories on WP:RFPP. Hopefully, we should be able to somehow make clear to this Indonesian guy that this behaviour is not acceptable. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember we were able to stem his unconstructive editing by range-blocking the current set of IPs he was using. In the meantime, I put a request to have Largest Organisms permanently semi-protected in the hopes of putting at least one crimp in his plans.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hey, I scratched your back. Can you scratch mine? I've been waiting for a second opinion for a while.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I'll take a look at Jeez, and thanks for the scratching. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus

Hallo FunkMonk! Thank you for uploading the Scelidosaurus image! As you pointed out, there are quite a number of other images from Owen that could be added, so I gave this a little thought. One of the most interesting would, paradoxically, be the knee joint that was the original lectotype, precisely because it is actually not of Scelidosaurus. This image could also nicely illustrate Merosaurus (obviously, it would better to categorise it as such). Another rare illustration might be the juvenile or Philpot specimen. Lastly, I think the foot would be a great addition, if only for its aesthetic appeal. But, of course, any image is welcome. If necessary, I'll provide a full osteology to accommodate them all ;o).

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was searching for the knee in vain, but couldn't find it. Could you link to the location of those images? In general, if you find images of interesting specimens on those sites (especially animals we don't have images of yet), feel free to ask me to upload them, because half of the time I don't know what I'm looking at! FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. The foot I referred to, was this image: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/books/britfossils/html/txu-oclc-13370987-4-dinosauria-plate58.php

The other plates are in the 1861 edition, a pdf of which can be uploaded here: http://sloan.archive.org/details/monographof131861pala

Tabula II is the knee joint and Tabula III the Philpot specimen. They are pages 214 and 216 of the pdf, if you upload the colour version.

--MWAK (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, will do. But in this image[12], what does that claw belong to? Should I remove it from the image? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Owen had a theropod claw pictured next to the knee joint. Both were apparently part of the collection of Henry Norris and might well have come from the same individual, so they can be presented as a whole, with the caption explaining the situation. While admiring your new additions, it struck me that they are of a better quality than the image of the skull you once uploaded. I think the publication then used as a source, itself was based on some old photocopy. This might be the ideal occasion to replace it with an image directly taken from Owen!--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was from Kenneth Carpenter's old site, which is down now, so I'm not really sure what paper it was originally from. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If I might ask for your assistance for a last time regarding the subject of Scelidosaurus: after our discussion above, I found out by reading Mortimer's website that the original left thighbone, today specimen GSM 109560, was of a theropod also (I should have remembered that from reading Benson, but had quite forgotten). It is the bone pictured in Tabula I of the Owen 1861 paper. It might be a nice addition to the Merosaurus article as that name was based on this specimen too — and I'd also like to illustrate it in the Dutch article.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, good that you said it before I uploaded it under a wrong name! it is now in the Merosaurus article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm much obliged and will immediately add it to the Dutch article!--MWAK (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Smilodon problems

I'm having trouble with mapping out the Smilodon article. I can't find very many RS that give a straightforward description of the animal's body plan. It's mostly functional anatomy. I plan on separating Descriptions from Paleobiology. Would you be interesting in working on Smilodon as well as quagga (not at the same time of course)? LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, working on the mammoth articles, I've learned that general descriptions are more often found in "popular" works, such as books, not in scientific papers. I think there's a good book about extinct large cats by Alan Turner and Mauricio Anton (Big Cats and their Fossil Relatives[13]) that might be helpful. In my own "library", the best I've got is National Geographic Prehistoric Mammals, also by Alan Turner and Mauricio Anton, which gives short description of many extinct mammals. I'll see if I can help with anything. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot, I have this one too:[14] Also, this PD book, though old, might have some good descriptions, I'm not sure: http://www.archive.org/stream/historyoflandmam00scot#page/530/mode/2up FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably be able to handle the rest of the article myself but you're free to join in. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I found some useful information in "Big Cats and their Fossil Relatives" but I think NatGeo would be good. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it after your last message, and there really isn't much there. I can scan it for you, if you like, it's only two pages. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Where would it be posted? LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just send you a link. You cna remove it when you have downloaded it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are the two pages:[15][16] FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'll probably mix description with paleobiology like Dimetrodon and Ankylosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds ok. if it works, it works. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you haven't seen it, there are ancient DNA studies of Smilodon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Gryposaurus_skull.jpg

Hi, Funkmunk;

The file File:Gryposaurus_skull.jpg is actually Brachylophosaurus, not Gryposaurus (the label is for a skull outside of the photo). I thought I'd let you know first before trying to fix it on Commons. J. Spencer (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I fixed it on Commons after I saw your edit summary, nice catch! Also, there are other images of that skull on the web, with correct identification:[17] Do you know what this[18] is, on the other hand? FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Flickr skull is a Gryposaurus skull, and is in fact the skull that the label in the Brachylophosaurus image belongs to (the shadows in the upper right corner of the Brachylophosaurus image match the shadows under the skull). J. Spencer (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, thanks, that explains it! There are a lot of nice images on Flickr, too bad most of the photographers know nothing about dinosaurs, leaving us to figure out what they photographed... FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Chilihueque

If you would like to merge chilihueque into llama please use the normal procedure (Help:Merging#Proposing_a_merger) and read the talk page (Talk:Chilihueque). Further as I see the article is well sourced. If you don't think so its your duty to point out its flaws and avoid statements like "Read the source and find out." Dentren | ^Talk 18:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is a valid species or even separate breed, not even the source used, therefore there is no reason the article exists. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

answered in chilihueque talk. Dentren | ^Talk 12:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the part I read. Again, it doesn't state it is a valid species, it only states what it might be related to, or that it might be on some step of domestication. That does not warrant a taxobox (only for valid taxa), and hardly even an article separate from the "parent" article. The text is so ambiguous that it could mean anything, but it does not make any attempt to conclude what it actually was. If the article is kept, it needs to be rewritten, so it doesn't indicate that this is a valid species. No taxobox, and the wording must be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Civil war

If you want to talk about the involvement of Israel please do so in the section created about Israel. Your comments about Israel on the discussion about Iraq and Turkey are irrelevant to that topic.Pug6666 21:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talk • contribs)

Nope, the point is very relevant. Israel has killed more Syrian soldiers than either Turkey or Jordan, more than both together even. Context is important, no? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the dispute Resolution board because I have tried to explain but it hasn't worked.  :Pug6666 21:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That is because we disagree. That happens sometimes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Syrian civil war. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What an utter waste of time. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Funkadelic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Funkadelic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"Jurassic Park"

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I fixed the issue that was hanging up the review. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

well done

great job on Syria article. keep it up. Jumada (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is too frustrating to post there more than a few times a week, yikes... I'm pretty baffled by the amount of POV-warring westerners the page attracts. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed a lot of anti-syria, pro-terrorist editors there, but they hardly get away with any propaganda due to your watch and a few others that have balanced the article. its still far from truth, but it could be worse. keep it up my friend. Jumada (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly can't balance out the page alone, so please don't get banned, heheh... FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Euoplocephalus

Hallo Funkmonk! Thank you for uploading the new image of Euoplocephalus! It is in this context I'd like to make a special request of you. Figure 6 of the Arbour 2013 study combines a lot of images. In the Dutch article I've written separate sections about the back of the head, the palate and the lower jaw. Therein lies my difficulty, for to illustrate them I am in need of images F, D and I of figure 6 being made separate pictures. I understand this is a lot of trouble for what might not be the most spectacular parts of the skeleton (then again, there is a certain rarity value), but if you might find the time, I would be much obliged.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I was almost going to ask you what images were needed myself, because there is so much stuff jumbled together in that paper that it's hard to keep track. Could I perhaps combine more than one picture, so that we get more included? For example, i and j show the same specimen in different views. I'll upload soon. Also, I see you've written about inaccuracies in the captions of the life restorations in the Dutch wiki, could you elaborate on them her,e so I can fix those images? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Combining I and J is an excellent proposal! It might also be worthwhile to make C a separate image because it shows a very informative anterior view. Indeed you correctly noticed that — though I appreciate its artistic merit — I did not consider the "Euplocephalus size comparison with human.png" image to be anatomically correct. It shows the typical mistake of making the torso profile much too curved or domed. In reality it was very flat. To maintain proportions, the limbs are then made much too long. Now it seems as if the forelimbs and the hindlimbs were close when in fact they stood well apart. Between them the belly should protrude to an extreme degree. The belly sides were more than twice as far removed from the midline as the limbs were. So the animal looked like a gigantic pillbox on stumpy legs positioned at the extreme front and rear. Very bizarre. Paul has a revealing picture of it in his Field Guide on page 235. Minor mistakes in our image include: a too short neck; the cervical half-rings being made continuous with the body plates and not covering the lower neck sides; body plates forming an continuous shield over the total length (in fact there were interstitial bands between and below the main segments, as shown by the Scolosaurus holotype); the squamosal horn being larger than the quadratojugal horn; insufficient musculature of the arm; too small upper osteoderm on the upper arm; too high osteoderms on the back; osteoderms that are conical instead of keeled; impossible protraction of the left leg (the belly would have blocked the forward movement); and the handle of the tail club being too fat and not differentiated from the tail base. So, quite a few things would have to be adapted...--MWAK (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, I'm pretty sure I can save the drawing, but the 3D rendering will be harder (if possible at all) to fix. Do they have the same problems? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it can still serve as an example of how not to draw Euoplocephalus ;o). The Tamura drawing is better, but shares the usual mistakes: the torso should be much flatter (with the highest point on the anterior sacral shield, not the shoulders); the limbs are much too long; the belly does not protrude between them; the shoulder osteoderm is too tall (in reality base length would have exceeded its height); and the neck rings should be made of six instead of four sections (the Scolosaurus holotype has four) with a plate, osteoderm on it, protecting the lower side.--MWAK (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I'll fix these things in a few days, I'm quite busy right now, I have an exam on thursday, but luckily my project is about designing a dinosaur (Dromaeosauroides), so it's fun... Niels Bonde, one of the describers, likes the drawings! But he even thinks the one I've used in the Wiki article is too underfeathered, and preferred this version: [19] FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Success with your exams! I too would say that the null hypothesis for dromaeosaurids is four full length wings :o). But with just two teeth to go on, you can let your fantasy run free. Being a Danish dinosaur it must have had an underside in Dannebrog rød, with a parasagittal white band on the midline combined with similar bands on the ventral surfaces of the forelimbs.--MWAK (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It went well! And yeah, the one existing model of Dromaeosauroides is red[20], so I think you're on to something... I've modified the Euoplocephalus drawing[21], it is it ok? I'm not sure what the plates under the neck looks like, do you know of a photo? And I've uploaded the photos from the Plos paper, with a few related images included. 11:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		To FunkMonk, for writing the article "Woolly mammoth". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding constructively to my pedantic points. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it has only made the article much better and more accurate! FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Arab Infobox

What is the problem with displaying a larger file that shows prominent people of arab ancestry from each arab nation? JohnnyOrgseed (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is too much, and we need to discuss every single choice. Many of the choices are too controversial. Saudi Kings? Why on Earth would we want one there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It has far less than the infoboxes of the Spanish, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Italians, Russians and British. Controversial? How so? A Saudi King is just as important to the history of a culture as a Spanish Conquistador, a Greek soldier, a Roman general, a German Nazi regime rocket scientist, a Italian "explorer", a Russian tsar, and a British king and queen. There should be no tarry in including Arabic history. JohnnyOrgseed (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You must propose the changes on the talk page so they can be discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Koreanosaurus requested move

Please see this request for a technical move of Koreanosaurus. You recently moved the DAB page, but your edit summary suggested you wanted to reserve 'Koreanosaurus' for the animal itself: "The name should be used for the proper name". In response to the technical move request, I went ahead and moved Koreanosaurus (ornithopod) to Koreanosaurus. I hope this is what you had in mind. It looks like the ornithopod is formally named and the other animal is not. That would be a reason to make the ornithopod be the primary meaning. If this needs fixing let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is only one animal officially named this, therefore I moved it to make way for a future move, when the other animal gets a proper scientific name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Smilodon DNA

You mentioned Smilodon. Do you know any papers that discuss it and what it shows? LittleJerry (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This study is new, and does include Smilodon: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3885.2012.00267.x/abstract;jsessionid=64743C68F06DC1CE760401C9EB1E3D07.d02t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mascarene Parrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Culmen (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) 14:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment(ary)

Hi! Another editor and I are having a discussion over at solo (trilobite) over whether to move "Han solo (trilobite)" to "Han (trilobite)". We mostly agree (i.e., per Wikipedia policy concerning monotypic genus articles), though, I think we might be better served if we had another point of view in the discussion, perhaps as a much-need Devil's Advocate? Thank you for your time.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you should announce this on the paleo project, the talk page is predictably attracting more fanboys than science types. FunkMonk (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newton's Parakeet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congeners (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) 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Quagga revisited

Okay. Now that I'm finished with Smilodon, we can work on quagga. Maybe sometime this week? LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't work on Dromaeosauroides just yet either, missing a paper, so I'm about ready. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Never done a collaboration before, how do we obtain the same unfree sources? One gets them, and emails them to the other? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have some books that discuss its appearance, behavior, which is what I'll start with (a biology section). Maybe you can do its taxonomy/evolution. Google scholar yields many papers on that. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Or if you want, I could gather sources and you could write the text. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with writing up the taxonomy, I like that stuff anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you need sources on that? LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This one[22] seems important, do you have it? FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, seems the entire paper is free, thought it was just an abstract.. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This book seems useful, but I can't access the pages after a certain point: http://books.google.dk/books?id=iqwEYkTDZf4C&pg=PA537&dq=quagga&hl=da&sa=X&ei=EJGvUbrtNuzriQLdtIDwCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=quagga&f=false FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but the page that you can access seems to give plenty of taxonomy information and this talks about the origin of the name. There's also this and this. LittleJerry (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mascarene Parrot GA

Just to let you know that I've promoted Mascarene Parrot to GA. Nice work! -- Yzx (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! Looking forward to more sharks and rays, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Alcidae

I am currently trying to work up the article Atlantic Puffin. With your image manipulation skills, would you be able to manipulate this image so that it highlights the rhinoceros auklet and the three puffins at the bottom instead of the auklets in the middle? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Like this? http://oi40.tinypic.com/2yttesi.jpg And nice to see this article get attention, my mother is Faroese (they love that bird, it also tastes nice), and I have a stuffed specimen on my shelf. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just like that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good. I was stimulated to work on the article by finding a book, "The Puffin" by Boag and Alexander, in my local library. It is a most interesting bird and as a result I am completely reorganising the article. Fortunately, it does not seem to have persistent vandalism nor a "resident" editor to object to changes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! Just ask if you need any help. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

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) 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quagga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• = [[Cambridge University Press]] | location = Cambridge | isbn = 0-521-84418-5 | pages = 537–546] |edition = 3rd | coauthors = Chimimba, CT | chapter = Equidae}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mascarinus mascarin

As you can check here the accepted scientific name for Mascarene Parrot is Mascarinus mascarin.--Esculapio (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is Linnaeus original abbreviated version. It is not the full name. He abbreviated many of his names, but they are not spelled that way today. I will make a note of this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Pornography

Hello, I was just wondering in regards to your recent approval of Pornography as a good article: doesn't the green logo usually appear on the article page as well as the talk page, or have you simply you got around to adding it yet? Thanks. Lachlan Foley 09:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It will be added automatically by a bot soon, when it is also removed from the nomination list. FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, normally, as this point has been going on for two months, you should have seen it in the history of the article... Woovee (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well again, since it is a mere style issue, not about content, it doesn't have much bearing on the GA process. If it had been a FAC, it would had been another story. Also, it should had been discussed on the talk page (which is empty), not scattered across the history. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Thanks for all your work to bring Red Rail to Featured Article quality. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 21:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for your GA review. Took a while before I got myself together and nominated it, but was waiting for a paper that perhaps didn't exist/won't be published soon... FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Resistance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish (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) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alawites may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The '''Alawites''', also known as '''Alawis''' (''ʿAlawīyyah'' ({{lang-ar|علوية}}) are a prominent [[mysticism|mystical]] religious group centred

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Dodo

This is a note to let the main editors of Dodo know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 6, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Dodo is an extinct flightless bird that was endemic to the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. Its external appearance is evidenced only by 17th-century paintings and written accounts that vary considerably, so its exact appearance is a mystery. Little is certain about its habitat and behaviour. Subfossil remains show the Dodo was about one 1 metre (3.3 feet) tall and may have weighed 10–18 kg (22–40 lb). It is presumed that the Dodo became flightless because of the ready availability of abundant food sources and a relative absence of predators on Mauritius. The first recorded mention of the Dodo was by Dutch sailors in 1598. In the following years, the bird was preyed upon by hungry sailors, their domesticated animals, and invasive species introduced during that time. The last widely accepted sighting of a Dodo was in 1662. Its extinction within only about a century of its discovery called attention to the previously unrecognised problem of human involvement in the disappearance of entire species. The Dodo achieved widespread recognition from its role in Alice in Wonderland, and it has become a fixture in popular culture, often as a symbol of extinction and obsolescence. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For your amazing work on dinosaur images. You have this star already but you can never have to many stars. Reid,iain james (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Your welcome. I just noticed how so many photos have been updated and uploaded by you.Reid,iain james (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, yeah, scavenging the net for free palaeontology images has become a bit of an unhealthy obsession for me... I used to cut out dinosaur images from magazines when I was a kid. OCD? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "civil war"

Hey, can you comment on this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmed al-Assir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre (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) 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Great Auk quotation

Hey I was wondering if you could help me, I'm trying to write a paper on the Great Auk and want to use the quotation I think you added to that page about the slaughter of the last Great Auks. I was wondering where you found the quotation, as I can't find the text of Garefowl Books by John Wolley anywhere online. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.83.5 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It (along with most other quotes) is also found in the book "Great Auk" by Errol Fuller: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0810963914 FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Prehistoric rhinos

Hi. I edited an article on a prehistoric rhino, Meninatherium. New users have an interface that makes suggestions on articles to edit, and this was about the only random article that wasn't a battleship, a storm, or an obscure financial term offered in dozens of suggestions. I did a google scholar search and found some sources (not rocket science), but I am not knowledgeable on rhinos,or mammals in general, and I think this article should be redirected to a higher taxon, with the information about it and a couple of closely related species/genera, as the genus is poorly defined, and relatively unknown.

Is this something you are capable of doing? I saw your name in a discussion at the mammals project about Wikipedia prehistoric mammals. Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that is really good work actually! Exactly what we need more of! All valid genera are entitled to their own articles, so if you are interested in doing more like these, you're welcome! They will not be redirected. There is a much larger chance of an article growing and becoming informative if it already exists, because most people with useful knowledge who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia may not know how to start a new one, so the fact that it is already there makes it easier to add to. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create it, just added the sources and reworded it a bit. So, it should remain as its own article? Okay. I don't really know mammals, and I probably won't edit any more. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, but you improved it a lot. And you didn't make any mistakes, so if you're bored some day and stumble over anything else you think needs fixing, you now know how to. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Just a heads up. You apparently have violated 3RR. You may want to self-revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Three reverts are allowed, the fourth one is the offending one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Sorry for the miscount. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mauritius Blue Pigeon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Providence and Farquhar (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) 10:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus FAC

Hey, thanks for your second opinion at the Jesus good article review. I've now nominated the article for FAC. If you have time, can you take a look at the article and leave some comments? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Flightless Dodo article

You removed my request for a citation on the statement that "It is presumed that the Dodo became flightless because of the ready availability of abundant food sources and a relative absence of predators on Mauritius." You said that "It is in the article". I couldn't find the part of the article that said who presumed this nor indeed anything supporting the reason for it becoming flightless. Perhaps you can point me to the appropriate part of the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. I'll continue the discussion on the article's talk page to make it easier for others to join in if they want to. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Vulcanodon

Hi FunkMonk, you added a Vulcanodon image from in Poznan Plaza. Is that in Poland? See Poznań. Reid,iain james (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you can usually find more information about an image if you click on it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you know if it's the City of the County? Reid,iain james (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Great northern tilefish to GA

I have done all but one of which you have asked (the other will be done shortly), here, could you check it out once you are free ;) Thanks Prabash.Akmeemana 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I might get time in a couple of days. FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Take your time! Prabash.Akmeemana 03:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mammoth

Hi FunkMonk, I know you know the mammoth articles far better than I, so I thought I'd best just point you at this article, then I realised there are a big bunch of articles in this google search all related to the same thread. Presumably the blood sample stuff is new (but maybe that's just the hype?) and ought to find a place somewhere in the article. EdwardLane (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the specimen already is mentioned last under the frozen specimens section. The blood thing is a bit overhyped, and needs actual scientific study before anything can be concluded. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok cool, I figured you would know or at least easily find, whether the specimen was the same as one in the article, where I would have spent a good hour before I could be 'fairly sure'. I'll forget this for now then. Cheers EdwardLane (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That one in your link is not the one with the blood, but a juvenile found a few years ago, it is also mentioned in the article, as "Yuka". FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)