This is an archive of past discussions with User:FunkMonk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My text summarised discussions that had taken place on the article's talk page. I also added a note to the Talk page asking people to contribute to that section. Can you reply on the Talk page, saying why that section shouldn't exist?
You are not supposed to summarise talk pages, but actual published articles. None discuss this specific genus as aquatic. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The talk page discussions were based on published articles. So you reverted my edit based on uninformed assumptions which turn out not to be true. Please be more careful with reverting. It's very frustrating for well intentioned editors. If you do it to new editors, I'd guess they'd leave. Gronky (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
See talk page of said article. That info had nothing at all to do with that specific genus, so does not belong there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Archaic Homo sapiens redirect
I noticed you changed the redirect for Archaic Homo sapiens from Homo rhodesiensis to Anatomically-modern humans back in June. This seems the wrong place to go to me as the "Archaic" is specifically saying "not AMH". The redirect originally went to Archaic humans which is not 100% right either but probably the best fit of the three. Do you have strong reasons for leaving it as is or is it OK if I change it back - if there's already been a discussion about it please point me there (I've looked in the obvious places but couldn't find one). Tobus2 (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't change it back. Archaic Homo sapiens should not redirect to Homo rhodesiensis, a non Homo sapiens. What I was thinking was that it should redirect to Homo sapiens idaltu, an actual homo sapiens subspecies. Iainstein (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I meant change it back to Archaic humans, the original redirect. I note that there seem to be 2 uses of "Archaic homo sapiens", some sources use it to mean pre-AMH Homo sapiens sapiens (eg 25000-200,000kya) while others use it to refer to post-Erectus homo such us heidelbergensis, rhodesiensis, antecessor and sometimes neanderthalensis (eg 500,000-250,000kya). The Archaic humans page says "Modern humans are theorized to have evolved from archaic humans, who in turn evolved from Homo erectus. Varieties of archaic humans are sometimes included under the binomial name "Homo sapiens" because their brain size is very similar to that of modern humans"... so "Archaic homo sapiens" is equivalant to "Archaic homo" in some cases, I don't think there's a page for the other usage, although your suggestion of idaltu might be a good candidate. Tobus2 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Do whatever you like (was just a redlink that needed to go somewhere), but I don't think it should redirect to a specific taxon at least. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for info on Haplocanthosaurus and I found these. I thought they would make a great addition to Haplocanthosaurus and maybe Apatosaurus or Diplodocus. Iainstein (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with FA, and thanks for your suggestion on the GOCE requests page; however, the links make it very accessible to the general reader. Very enjoyable article! All the best, Miniapolis21:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Al-Mansuriya a certified "Good Article"! Thank you for stepping in and taking over the nomination. Your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)17:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigersaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Browser (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.
Only the uploader commented, and he said that he would move them to the English Wiki if they were deleted. It could already be done now, they are PD US without question, but not necessarily PD worldwide, therefore can't be hosted on Commons if so. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nigersaurus 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack(talk)09:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Rodrigues Starling
If you read the Wikipedia text, as well as look at IOC, Zoonomen, and IUCN Red List, they all list Slater as the tax auth. What is your source?...Pvmoutside (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigersaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferns (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.
I was trying to participate in wikiproject specifically dinosaurs for my school project. And I don't even know how to start anything. I was wondering since I saw your name quite a bit on the edit history what could be worked on. In general, how to go about this. Thanks for your help. --Pandachanman14:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! Well, usually what is done is expanding these articles by summarising scientific papers. But I guess that might be a bit of a mouthful. But you could perhaps read a few articles to see how they're structured, and see if you find some unsourced or questionable stuff along the way? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Choiseul Pigeon to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,336 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, BencherliteTalk11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigersaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferns (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 looks like you resolved a lot of the current nominations as quickfail (e.g. [2]), but the nominations haven't been closed--should I go ahead and mark these as failed? Thanks for your work to sort through the more obviously unready of these. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The Yârsânî are emanationists and incarnationists, believing that the Divine Essence has successive incarnations in human form known as mazhariyyats (similar to the Hinduavatars). They believe God manifests one primary and seven secondary manifestations in each of the seven epochs of the world. The mazhariyyats of the First Epoch closely matched by name the archangels of the Semitic religions; the mazhariyyats of the Second Epoch, which begins with ‘Alī as the primary avatar, also includes all Muslim figures except for one, Nusayr - either referring to the "Nazarene" (i.e. Jesus), or Nârsh, the minor avatar who later came to be known as Theophobus. (See Nazarene (sect), Mandaeism)
In the Fourth Epoch, the primary mazhariyyat is held to be Sultan Sahak. It is said that he was given birth by Dayerak Rezbar or Khatun-e Rezbar, a Kurdish virgin, and as in the case of Mary, it was a virginal conception. While sleeping under a pomegranate tree a kernel of fruit fell into her mouth when a bird pecked the fruit directly over her.[1] Though some mistake this as an incarnation of the Virgin Mary and of the mother of ‘Alī, it echoes Mithraic and Zoroastrian beliefs, of the birth of the Saoshyant, the savior of Zoroastrianism born of a virgin, impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster or Zarathushtra in lake Hamun in Sistan. Mithra was also believed to be both Savior and son of God, born out of a rock - wearing only a phrygian cap. 161.253.50.18 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia
The Yârsânî are emanationists and incarnationists, believing that the Divine Essence has successive incarnations in human form known as mazhariyyats (similar to the Hinduavatars). They believe God manifests one primary and seven secondary manifestations in each of the seven epochs of the world. The mazhariyyats of the First Epoch closely matched by name the archangels of the Semitic religions; the mazhariyyats of the Second Epoch, which begins with ‘Alī as the primary avatar, also includes all Muslim figures except for one, Nusayr - either referring to the "Nazarene" (i.e. Jesus), or Nârsh, the minor avatar who later came to be known as Theophobus. (See Nazarene (sect), Mandaeism)
In the Fourth Epoch, the primary mazhariyyat is held to be Sultan Sahak. It is said that he was given birth by Dayerak Rezbar or Khatun-e Rezbar, a Kurdish virgin, and as in the case of Mary, it was a virginal conception. While sleeping under a pomegranate tree a kernel of fruit fell into her mouth when a bird pecked the fruit directly over her.[2] Though some mistake this as an incarnation of the Virgin Mary and of the mother of ‘Alī, it echoes Mithraic and Zoroastrian beliefs, of the birth of the Saoshyant, the savior of Zoroastrianism born of a virgin, impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster or Zarathushtra in lake Hamun in Sistan. Mithra was also believed to be both Savior and son of God, born out of a rock - wearing only a phrygian cap.
The Haft Tan "Seven Archangels" are key figures in the Yârsân belief system and their history. The only female among them is Khatun-e Rezbar, the mother of Sultan Sahak.
Pir Dawud (David) Notice slang called Daoo(Diva/Dawa?), the incarnation of the archangel Michael;
Pir Benjamin,or Benyam considered the incarnation of the archangel Gabriel;
Pir Mustafā', the incarnation of archangel Azrael;
The traditions of the Yârsân are preserved in poetry known as Kalam-e Saranjam "The Discourse of Conclusion", divinely revealed narratives passed down orally through the generations. These traditions are said to have been written down by Pir Musi, one of the seven companions of Sultan Sahak (also the angel in charge of recording human deeds).[3] The collection consists of "The epochs of Khawandagar [God]", "‘Alī", "Shah Khoshin" and "Sultan Sahak", the different manifestations of divinity. The epoch of Shah Khoshin takes place in Luristan and the epoch of Sultan Sahak is placed in Hawraman near the Sirwan River, the land of the Gorani. The sayings attributed to Sultan Sahak are written in GoraniKurdish, the sacred language of the Ahl-e Haqq. Some of their literature is written in the Persian language.[4][5]
Since Ali is considered as the second emanation of "GOD", they are called as AliIlahis. Similarly, Nusayris also consider Ali as an ilah, but since they all are Arabs, they are called as ArabAlawis. Since all of the Yarsan are Kurds, they called themeselves as KurdishAlawis in order to associate themeselves with Shia and Alevis. Up until three months ago all wikipedia pages in English and French were presuming these Yaresanis incorrectly as as Muslims. And some pages even called them as a madh'hab of Islam as in the [template: Islamic Theology], yet due to this Ali becoming the second emanation of "GOD" in their faith. But, now it becomes clear that they are not muslims altough this alawi or alevi name assiging issue is unresolved, you may read in alevi pages that Ahl-i Haqq people are persistively listed. Especially, Alevi pages in Danish language extreemely persistent on this matter. YOu cannot convince them to erase the name of Ahl-i Haqq people from the Alevi pages. In short, they admits the people Ahl-i Haqq as Alevis, i.e. KurdishAlawis. 161.253.50.18 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In short: this is a name you made up. They don't call themselves "Kurdish Alawis", and neither does anyone else. Therefore it is not usable here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There are also large communities of Alevis in some regions of Iranian Azerbaijan. The town of Ilkhichi (İlxıçı), which is located 87 km south west of Tabriz is almost entirely populated by Alevis. [citation needed] For political reasons, one of which was to create a distinct identity for these communities, they have not been called Alevi since the early 20th century.[citation needed] They are called various names, such as Ali-Ilahis, Ahl-e Haqq and Goran.161.253.50.18 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You better to correct Alevi pages in all languages other than Turkish, if they are not Alevi, why are you counting their population as Alevi and listing there!! 161.253.50.18 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, no sources mention the name you made up. No need to discuss this further before you provide a source where the name is used. FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
PLEASE DELETE THE FOLLOWING MISLEADING PART161.253.50.18 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There are also large communities of Alevis in some regions of Iranian Azerbaijan. The town of Ilkhichi (İlxıçı), which is located 87 km south west of Tabriz is almost entirely populated by Alevis. [citation needed] For political reasons, one of which was to create a distinct identity for these communities, they have not been called Alevi since the early 20th century.[citation needed] They are called various names, such as Ali-Ilahis, Ahl-e Haqq and Goran.
Heheh, I have a kind of phobia for higher level taxa articles! Couldn't even get myself together to expand raphidae, though it would have been pretty easy, and would had made a featured topic. But I'm all ok with genera, species and subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd certainly be interested in that one, it was described so recently that it will be easy to collect pretty much everything published (on the web, at least) on it. And since it was subject of a PLOS paper[3], there are many free images available. Let me know when you want to begin! FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, since the main editor (Rufous-crowned Sparrow ) of the article disappeared, Passenger Pigeon, quite an important article, was left in limbo. After the Dodo, perhaps the most famous recently extinct bird. Would you be interested in that one in the not so near future? Other than that, I've always been interested in getting the aurochs somewhere. On the other hand, there may already be so much stuff in those articles that it will be hard to work with. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I guess I won't do them alone... Just too bad their main editors vanished. You never got to do anything on emu, right? And if I do the taxonomic and discovery stuff on Nigersaurus, will you start on behaviour and anatomy stuff (I get the feeling you're more interested in that) when the time comes? FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok, as you can see in other dinosaur FAs, description is solely about anatomical features (including hypothetical ones), and biology is about behaviour, and also function of physical features. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Apart from what you linked, that's all I could find of significance (including non-free papers). Should be enough, though. The 1970s paper will be of little use to me, as it is in French. Main NPOV problem is that there seems to be some disagreement over "neutral" head posture. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to make sure, look at the third paragraph of "Skeletal Reconstruction" from this. Is this an actual description of the bones or just what happened to them after fossilization? (e.g. "Much of the pelvic and pectoral girdles are also reduced to thin sheets of bone several millimeters in thickness"). LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be a description of the actual bones, because the same section also says "Pneumatic invasion of the centra of the presacral vertebrae has reduced the vertebral body to a hollow shell divided by a thin median septum (Figure 3C, lower cross-section), an extreme version of the condition in other diplodocoids". So it is basically about natural pneumatism. And by the way, if you wanted to copy text directly from PLOS and Acta Polonica, there would be no restrictions, they have the same license as here. And there's a full life restoration of this animal on Commons, which is slightly incorrect, but I'll try to fix it up. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be best for us to still paraphrase since I think we should still be original and much of the info is still too technical for readers. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
How do you think the order of sections should be? Dinosaur FAs usually start with description, classification, palaeobiology/behaviour, palaeoecology, and history of discovery kind of differs between articles. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Its your choice. I'm not sure that the discovery section can get any longer or if there's enough information for paleoecology to have its own section. I'll work on palaeobiology this weekend. See what you can do with the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've requested two papers about taxonomic stuff, I can send them if you want. I just realised this will be the only featured sauropod article other than Diplodocus if we succeed. I've arranged sections as in other dinosaur articles, for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
In general, or on ecology? I can see a bit of info about contemporaries in the 1999 paper that could be added as ecology. I think the entire article could be doubled in length at least, if we pull out more detail (and there's plenty, paraphrasing instead of summarising creates a lot of content). As for teeth, the 2007 paper says "In the center of upper and lower batteries, as many as 10 teeth are present in a single column extending deep within each jaw bone. The upper series has about 60 tooth columns (4 premaxillary, 25 maxillary per side), and the lower series has has 68 tooth columns (34 per dentary). In sum, there are more than 500 active and replacement teeth in a single skull." FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll work some more this week. Is there any more things in ecology/biology that you think should be added or elaborated on? LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, what I'd do at least is give a much more detailed summary of the whole skull orientation debate. Could be quite a large paragraph or more. But in general, I think a lot more could be squeezed out, I went as far at looking at the footnotes in the 1999 paper, a lot of essential info was only found there. I'd like to look at the 1976 article as well, but I don't think we'll be able to get that. But I'll certainly help with the rest once I finish up history and classification, like we did on quagga. The two external link articles also have some extra circumstantial info (and hyperbolic statements from scientists) that could be interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Right now there is some info about evolution of its features in relation to related taxa that I'd like to add, but I'm unsure whether they would be better under description or classification. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think history and classification are done, will move on to add more stuff to palaeobiology. Apart from that, I guess the description could be longer, two links need proper formatting, and the intro needs to be longer. When the two latter issues are fixed, I think we could already submit it to GA, then we can work on the rest in the meantime while inevitably waiting anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated it for GA. Will probably take a while before it gets picked up anyway, so we can tweak it further in the meantime. I'll do a more detailed summary of the head posture thing in the coming days, most likely finished before anyone reviews it. After that, I think it's just about adding more details from the papers, and then we'd have it ready for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep. I'd suggest going through the papers and just add anything interesting that isn't here already, summarised of course. We could split it up in some way. I'll do all the head posture stuff at least then. So you could do the feeding stuff maybe? And description could be divided between skull and postcranium (you'll get first choice!). Pneumatisation (no reason for it seems to be given) could get a bit more detail as well.FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the sources, I think there's enough material to double both description and behaviour before FAC. It will go into quite some technical detail, but that's inevitable for palaeontology articles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's shaping up pretty well, once we finish Jens' other suggestions, and expand a little more, I think it'll be pretty solid for FAC. May need a copy edit, but those are never done in time... FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! As I mentioned, I've been very busy the last few weeks, because I'm art directing at a project, which basically means I'm drawing all day long, so haven't had much time for Wikipedia. But I was thinking of doing some writing this weekend, which means today! Especially now after Choiseul Pigeon was just promoted for FA, took a damn while, was a bit discouraging. If all goes well, we can have Nigersaurus at FAC by next weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently grinding through the sources to add any interesting information we've left out. I guess our main problem after that will be copyediting. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems I could do it as well. I think our main problem will be too technical language and copyediting (as with Quagga), but let's see! FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm gonna fix the remaining issues today, there were a few other ones as well. Still needs a fourth review to pass though, so we'll have to wait a while... FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Torosaurus
Hallo FunkMonk! First of all my thanks for the many gorgeous and exiting images you have recently added to the various articles! As it happens, I am in need of two very ugly and boring ones. The new article about Torosaurus (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081608) has two graphics that would be very useful in illustrating the text of the Torosaurus article at nl: (and hopefully in the not to far future the en: article as well). I am referring to figures 3B and 6B, which I believe best convey the essence of the text. It might be necessary to combine 3B with 3A and 6B with 6A, I'm not sure. If you could find the time, I'd be much obliged.
Is it cricket to use images from scientific papers without acknowledging the source? I have edited the Euhelopus page to add more information from Poropat & Kear's paper of 22 November, so when I noticed their reconstructions and scans already in the article, I tagged them with the reference. I think it's a good idea to give credit even if it is an open access journal. Regards, Monado (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The credit is given on the file page, and it should not be given in the caption. We have thousands of images from Plos One here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Europelta
On 8 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Europelta, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the remains of the armoured dinosaur Europelta were uncovered in a coal mine in Spain in 2011? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Europelta. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It isn't proper in an encyclopedia article for someone, even a cited expert, to express an opinion that a scientific project should not be funded (unless it's scientifically flawed). It's also inappropriate and subjective speculation to state how that money should be spent, preferably.
Neither is it appropriate, as Vsmith[4] to suggest that I need "group consensus" before making a change. This isn't the law of the jungle, it's Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and I know them well enough.
Almost every scientific endeavor has advocates and detractors, and certainly people who would prefer more money be spent on things important to them. It isn't Wikipedia's place to make a list of each, as if weight of personality affected validity. My guess is that many millions of people would like to see the Woolly Mammoth return. It's not up to some individual to tell them how to spend their money, either.
That quote recommending defunding resurrecting Wolly Mammoths[5] belongs in a user forum where people can debate the pros and cons of the many options. But not in an encyclopedia. Yours, Leptus Froggi (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You need to realise that unless you gather a new consensus to remove the part, it isn't going anywhere. It is that simple. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
GA Nomination
FunkMonk,
Thank you for your first review of my article Ecition burchellii. Since then, I have put a lot more work into expanding it and fixing the things that caused it to fail GA status the first time. Therefore, I have put it up for reevaluation and would love to see it become a GA!
Hi Funk. If you see the review page for the Andean Cock-of-the-rock you will see that the second reviewer thinks that the article is a GA. He suggested to me to leave this note on your talk page because the first reviewer has to pass the GA. Thanks. Iainstein (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please be aware that 3 reverts in one day is a blockable offense, except when it's a BLP violation in which case as many reverts as needed. The sources are you are listing are clearly unreliable and if you keep edit warring it will end up at WP:ANI and you run the risk of being blocked. -- GreenC17:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Be my guest. I've reverted once, so I can revert you again if I want to. This info will soon be all over the place, so I can wait, lol. The guy is history. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please also be reminded that 3RR is a bright-line limit, not an entitlement. You can be blocked for edit warring behavior without technically blocking this rule, and indeed will be brought to the appropriate noticeboard if you again introduce poorly sourced contentious information about living persons to an article after this warning. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned, this is spreading like wildfire, and will be reported by more reliable sources, so no issue there, I'm just waiting. When the time comes, the info will be re added with better sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Figures by Nopcsa
Hi Funk. I looked through article for Struthiosaurinae and realized that Notizen über Cretacische Dinosaurier has a CC license. Could you somehow upload the figures from here. Thanks and good luck with uploading them. Iainstein (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there are no images of Struthiosaurus in the article you linked to. There is a dubious Megalosaurus, and then something that was later referred to Nopscaspondylus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that. Since we don't need the megalosaurus and the nopcsapospondylus maybe I could check the other articles by Nopcsa to see if anything is worth uploading. Iainstein (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Cool. May take a while before I can help working on articles within a reliable time frame, will be a bit busy in real life the upcoming months. FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newton's Parakeet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tarsus and 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.
Hi Funk. I recently found this doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054991{{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link). It contains three figures that could be useful to wikipedia in general. the first figure I would appreciate is a combo of fig. 1 and 2, placed ontop of or beside each other, showing the fossil and the reconstruction. The position is up to you. The second is fig. 3, and I would appreciate if you left it as it is. Thanks in advance. Iainstein (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for dropping in. The thing most at issue seems to be not the lengthy history but the actual species lists (recall that Lists is specifically an issue for GA reviewers to watch out for) in the article. I'd have thought we should leave the history (maybe a bit improved ...) but split the lists out, i.e. 'List of historic Megalosaurus species'. Do you not think that would be the best thing here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
On second thoughts, that won't do for the species that have never been reassigned elsewhere, but are known to not belong in the genus... Which goes for all of them pretty much. There is a list of Psittacosaurus species, though. But again, the listed species of Megalosaurus do not actually belong to the genus, they were just never reassigned due to being dubious, so it is kind of a special case. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, since they don't really belong, an odd case as you say, I'd think they'd make perfect sense as a stand-alone list, honestly. Is there any reason not to split it off, since it seems the obviously right thing to do? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the main problem would be that there is no precedent for a similar split, where most of the species included are not even related. Species of Allosaurus (an article more than a list) would come closest, though. Only one species is universally recognised, but the article covers many others. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The list would have to be 'List of species historically assigned to Megalosaurus' if the simple 'historic' won't do. That is a clearly delimited list entry criterion so there is no problem with its existence as a list (every entry is cited, list membership sharply defined). The only question is whether the list could reasonably stay in the article; generally when an article contains a large list, GA review asks for it to be removed. This one is certainly unusual in some ways but it certainly has the usual attributes - unwieldiness, overbalancing the article text, bloating the article size. Is there any justification for keeping it in? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, one thing that kind of separates it from other lists is that it will not change much, since no new species are likely to be added to it. So once it has a final form, it will be pretty much set. I think it may be a merger/splitter mentality that is colliding here, I and others personally want all info about a limited subject on the same page, since the overall article length is pretty short. But I can see the counterpoint. But also take a look at FAs like lion, which has a pretty long, similar list. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Lion list is somewhat similar, though far shorter and less splittable. Clearly we have to consider people's preferences as well as the standards. Perhaps we can make the article look a little better, however. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the images. Could you move the list to the end and make any other improvements you can think of to make it less 'listy'? Would be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I did suggest once that the entire history section could be moved to after description at least. But I'd be hesitant to make large changes like that myself, I'm not a nominator. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, about the pop culture section. I recently insisted to another user that we have it before the contentious list, so that the list appeared at the end, in the same manner as lists of works in a biography. You are aware that I don't think the list should be in the article at all; it certainly shouldn't be in the middle with a sadly lost little bit on pop culture at the end of it. However, the article seems to be stuck in GAN for a different reason - there are masses of missing page references; and I was a bit nonplussed to see editors cheerfully adding yet more species stuff while the things that needed doing weren't (aren't) getting done. If they wait long enough they'll get a fail, of course - I can't work out what they're up to. Maybe you could pop the pop culture back where it came from. Thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I'm thinking of consistency across dinosaur articles. Popular culture sections are generally frowned upon, much more so than lists are, and when they are present, they are always pushed down to the very bottom. That is true for dinosaur articles, and pretty much all other articles. Especially in this case, where it could be cut out with no problem, and is practically just a summary of a single mention in a single story. I can move it back up, but I really do disagree, and I think it would be even better to just remove it. More importantly, all the fluff about it being the "first non-avian dinosaur" etc. is obviously not traceable to the source used, the story itself, but is basically Wikipedia editorialising. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
extinct creatures
Thank you for quality articles in Palaeontology and the Arab world, for bringing extinct creatures as Dodo and Mauritius Blue Pigeon back to the "life" of our attention with scientific precision, and for GA reviews, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuban Macaw, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tarsus and 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.
This is a note to let the main editors of Nigersaurus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 18, 2014. 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 Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 18, 2014. 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:
Nigersaurus (meaning "Niger reptile") is a genus of rebbachisauridsauropod dinosaur that lived during the middle Cretaceous period, about 115 to 105 million years ago. It was discovered in the Elrhaz Formation in an area called Gadoufaoua, in Niger. Fossils of this dinosaur were first described in 1976, but it was only named in 1999. The genus contains a single species, N. taqueti, named after French palaeontologist Philippe Taquet, who discovered the first remains. At 9 m (30 ft) long—small for a sauropod—it weighed around 4 tonnes, comparable to a modern elephant. It had a wide muzzle filled with more than 500 teeth, which were replaced every 14 days. Unlike other tetrapods, its jaws were wider than the skull, with its teeth were located far to the front, and it fed with its head close to the ground. It lived in a riparian habitat, and its diet probably consisted of soft plants, such as ferns, horsetails, and angiosperms. It is one of the most common fossil vertebrates found in the area, and shared its habitat with other dinosaurian megaherbivores, as well as large theropods and crocodylomorphs. (Full article...)
Hi Funkmonk! The graphics of Torosaurus that I wanted came from this article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081608 I especially found figures 3 and 6 very relevant. These each consist of two graphics and could be split in two; if so, in each case the lower graphic (3B and 6B respectively) is the more important. In any case, I'll try and make room for all of them (luckily without the need for a list ;o).
"User FunkMonk gave me a bad review! So my friend put a horse's head in his bed. He ate the horse's head and gave it a bad review! True story."--Mr Fink (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That is quite weird, I copied the name from a caption in the paper, so it must have been a lapsus or some such. Or earlier spelling of the name? It is spelled that way in fig. 1 and 2. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In the rest of figures is Sahitisuchus... I guess that is simply a misspelling, since that these Itaborian sebecids never have been named until now (although probably we can hope more species in the future).--Rextron (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Newton's Parakeet to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,321 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk10:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Schaubia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Afro-Eurasian(talk)01:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, FunkMonk. I nomed AYE for GAN about a month ago, but nobody is interested in reviewing the article. I feel that I could nom it at FAC as it is now, but it would be nice to have a respected second opinion. So, if you have the time to take a look, maybe you can either pass, review, or give me some advice regarding closing the GAN and going straight to FAC. Cheers! GabeMc(talk|contribs)22:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I almost began reviewing it yesterday, before your request! But I was too tired, and had another article which I wasn't finished reviewing yet. So I'll take it, but it may take some days for the review to finish. FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- heh funkmonk the Syrian regime are giving lectures to those who have left old homs about the extent of the conspiracy facing Syria - you could write the texts for them - you and snarwani and nasteva and philgreaves - now allez vous enSayerslle (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
ethnic cleansing - [10] - an admin will find you trolling me - and harassing me - the ip geolocater says aberdeen and I was last in scotland in 2011 - you are becoming very irritating indeed and stay off my talkpage please. Sayerslle (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There are millions of Sunnis in Tartus and Latakia (including refugees that have been welcomed there), living alongside Alawites and Christins. Ethnic cleansing indeed. And you could be using a proxy IP, we need to find out. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
'we need to find out' - right little basij aren't you - as I said -and if you don't stop stalking and harassing me I will report you - I have said I did not evade my block - I am not a liar - I am aperson of integrity - now, please, will you leave me alone - you are getting creepy. Sayerslle (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Lol, can you point out where exactly you're being harassed? If addressing a person on his talk page is harassment, what was this[11] then? You're currently blocked for who knows which time, it's hard to give you the benefit of doubt by now. And I'm still not sure how welcoming millions of Sunni refugees into Latakia and Tartus (as well as having a majority Sunni government) is "ethnic cleansing". FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
you hve trouble understanding integrity I guess. I don't evade blocks. talk to nasteva on twitter - you and him would get on well - don't talk to me- poles apart - and please don't add anything else here , you think i'm a seriatim Wikipedia offender, a pov pusher, a corrupt influence or summat , I get it, PLEASE - we don't like each other, that's enough Sayerslle (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Did you read what you wrote on my talk page back then? I've been more than civilised towards you in comparison, more than you deserve at least. But who cares, see you on the Syria talk pages, once you're unblocked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
who cares? - certainly not you - are you finished yet - i'm beginning to think you are annoyed by me because at some level you are worried you are supporting a torturer cynical regime and that secular principled democratic leftists are right.Sayerslle (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
As I said already, see you if you get unblocked. And I'm fine opposing throat-slitting, organ-munching, Saudi-controlled Salafist maniacs, thank you very much. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
^Z. Mir-Hosseini (1994). "Inner Truth and Outer History: The Two Worlds of the Ahl-e Haqq of Kurdistan", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.26, pp.267-269.
^Kjeilen, Tore. "Ahl-e Haqq". Encyclopaedia of the Orient. Archived from the original on 23 July 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
_Alt.png)
