User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 2

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.

To answer your question on User Talk:Egyegy, apparently you hate Egyptians. I don't know why you are involved in this situation, but it is basically User:Egyegy and User:Jeeny have both added personal attacks to their pages about eachother, however Egyegy also included you in them. - Rjd0060 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, hilarious. FunkMonk 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "Sala'am" means but I should I trust that it is nothing that could be considered a personal attack? - Rjd0060 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• It even has a Wikipedia article: salaam. FunkMonk 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Learn something new every day! - Rjd0060 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't merge without discussion (you left no comments on the Bilad al-Sham article talk page), and please don't merge in a poorly-done way (for example, the first paragraph of the "Greater Syria" article now defines Bilad al-Sham as an "irredentist" term, which is a very unfortunate oversimplification). AnonMoos 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it can be quite easily fixed, am I right? I didn't comment on the Bilad al-Sham site, but the merge tag was there for weeks. Why exactly do we need two articles about the same thing? Bilad al-Sham is Greater Syria, it's just the Arabic name for it. By the way, I only made the redirect and minor edits, the actual work was done by the editor before me (Al Ameer son). FunkMonk 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, the purpose of adding the merge tag was for you (or someone) to make arguments in favor of the merge on the "Talk:Bilad al-Sham" page, so that the pros and cons of the merge proposal could be discussed; however, you did not do this. Second, "Bilad al-Sham" and "Greater Syria" do not always exactly mean the same thing (certainly not in predominant English language usage, where "Bilad al-Sham" most often refers to pre-20th-century history). In the previous state of affairs, a somewhat artificial distinction was drawn between the article "Greater Syria" discussing modern Arab nationalism and "Bilad al-Sham" discussing everything else. This was a slightly artificial distinction, but the way things are now jumbled together on the Greater Syria article is probably worse. AnonMoos 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I assumed people would do the obvious and follow the link to the Greater Syria article and read the comments there. Anyhow, that Bilad al-Sham can sometimes refer to something else is rather irrelevant, because it is an Arabic term, which has an English equivalent, Greater Syria, and this is the English Wikipedia. "Bilad al-Sham" is translated as "Greater Syria" without exceptions today. The logical solution would simply be to redirect Bilad a-Sham, and then explain the minor differences between the terms in the Greater Syrian article, everything else is completely identical, and the Bilad al-Sham article is highly redundant. If you don't like how the Greater Syria article is now, then simply change it. FunkMonk 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, why are you reverting my edits on pages like Image:Moa-Wellington-Museum-NZ.jpg. If the bot has determined it is not on commons, what is the point of keeping it listed under a very old category? If you want to say that the image is still on commons, at least reset the tag so that it will show up in the process right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that they are on Commons (check yourself by following the links), the bot doesn't say they aren't on Commons, but that they don't have categories there, I've since fixed that. All we have to do is wait for the bot to check them again, then they'll be eligible for deletion. I already explained this. The reason I used an old tag is simply that I have different tags saved in a text file, not necessarily updated, but it doesn't matter to the bot, it reviews them anyway. FunkMonk 00:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 04:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Where? Shouldn't be necessary when reverting vandalism. FunkMonk 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's important whatever you are doing. When we are monitoring Recent Changes to revert vandalism we may have a doubt about something, but if you added an edit summary, we will automatically suppose your good faith. We also use statistics about editors's usage of the edit summary. But don't take offence, this is not a warning message, it was just a standard information notice. Have a good day. Martial BACQUET 07:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• For example, here are your statistics:

Time range: 169 approximate day(s) of edits on this page (169 day(s) passed since first edit) Current time: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:53:30 UTC || Last edit: 00:46, October 17, 2007 || Oldest edit: 08:10, May 1, 2007 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 70.3% Minor edits: NaN% Average edits per day: 23.93 (currently, for last 1000 edit(s)) Average edits per day: 24.1 (since last active, for last 1000 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 507 edits): Major article edits: 65.48% Minor article edits: NaN% Encyclopedia contributions (out of all 3482 edits shown on this page and last 82 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.09% (3) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.32% (11) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 36.44% (1269) Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 18 (checks last 5000) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 0.08% Project contributions (as marked): Articles for Creation: 0% (0 edit(s)) Peer Review: 0% (0 edit(s)) Pages for Deletion: 0.03% (1 edit(s)) Copyright problems pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0.46% (16 edit(s)) Bot approvals pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) RfC/RfAr pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) Requests for adminship: 0% (0 edit(s)) Identified RfA votes: 0% (0 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s)) User warnings: 0% (0 edit(s)) User welcomes: 0% (0 edit(s)) Special edit type statistics (as marked): Page moves: 0.03% (1 edit(s)) (1 moves(s)) Page redirections: 0.06% (2 edit(s)) Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s)) AutoWikiBrowser edits: 0% (0 edit(s)) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 728 | Average edits per page: 4.78 | Edits on top: 9.13% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 69.01% (2403 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0.09% (3 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 5.11% (178 edit(s)) Unmarked edits with no summary: 25.76% (897 edit(s)) Edit count by namespace: Article: 61.72% (2149) | Article talk: 25.79% (898) User: 0.72% (25) | User talk: 5.86% (204) Wikipedia: 1.12% (39) | Wikipedia talk: 0.92% (32) Image: 2.81% (98) | Image talk: 0.14% (5) Template: 0.8% (28) | Template talk: 0.11% (4) Category: 0% (0) | Category talk: 0% (0) Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martial75 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Alrighty, I just assumed it wasn't necessary after reading this: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." But thanks! FunkMonk 14:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Fayssal, could you re-view this block of Skatewalk? [1]

Other people have questioned the block, and it seems to have been a mistake. FunkMonk 13:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Funky. Thanks for letting me know. I'll verify that and see what i can do. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've had a look and i believe i agree w/ the block. The account was disruptive anyway and showed similar patterns of those of Serenesouldnyc. We don't need that behavior here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk,

Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia's dinosaur articles. Your edits are appreciated.

It is my worry, however, that some of these images do not fall into the rough guidelines established at WP:DINO, which is why a few of them were removed the other day. I did see that you fixed several of them, and that is appreciated. Now you have inserted an additional batch, many of which suffer from the same problems. The images are lovely: very artistic and dynamic. But at least a few of them suffer from anatomical problems. Watch out for theropod (the "meat eaters") images where the palms of their hands are facing downward or even backward: they are often depicted this way, but it's been shown in studies that they could not have held their hands in this position without breaking their wrists or doing severe injuries to themselves: the bones just don't fit that way. Watch out for theropods or ornithopods with snake-like tails: only the sauropodomorphs had flexible, whip-like tails, and even they only had those at the back half (or so).

There is an Image review process where team members weigh in on which images are encyclopedic, which might be suitable for historic use (see Diplodocus for examples of images no longer considered accurate, but which are used in a historic ("this is how we used to think they looked") section discussing depictions through the years), and which ones are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. This is important because the images shown in an encyclopedia should be accurare. If you plan to add more images, it would be beneficial to bring them up on the image review page first, as it saves us time having to go through each article, looking for new images.

Thanks again for your efforts, Funky.

Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the guidelines, I've been adding pictures done by a Russian guy whose images have been uploaded to Commons by the dozens, so I've been checking out where those images were used, and added them to the English articles when not in use, as I believe his drawings are at least quite technically good, but I realise now that some details, like the bunny hands and the rubber tails, are unscientific. But the images have been released into the public domain, and illustration is my occupation, so I can fix them when it's necessary. I think it's sad to see his drawings go to waste, when just a slight refinement could make them more accurate so they could meet the criteria for inclusion.

So well, I'd love to get some guidelines for fixing such images, but I'm afraid that I've already uploaded all the images by him that I could find on Commons, hehe, so well, I'll just fix the rest of the images as they are removed, if they are inaccurate. I'd love to contribute with some original drawings myself, but I'm afraid that I don't have the proper references to work with, as most of my dinosaur books are outdated, so I'm almost shocked sometimes when I read some of the new info about certain dinosaur species here on Wikipedia. FunkMonk 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, FunkMonk, and for your understanding.

I think it's great that since these are PD images, they can be modified. That eliminates a lot of the problem. If you're willing to modify any problem images, that's fantastic: I, too, would hate to see otherwise perfectly usable images go to waste. The two images you already adjusted look good to me, and if more are removed, I look forward to seeing your corrected versions.

I agree that it's a little shocking for people to see how some dinosaurs are now depicted. We still get a lot of problems on Deinonychus, for example, with people adding outdated, featherless images. People are just upset to see a fully-feathered dinosaur. But as our understanding of the fossils changes, the images have to change, too.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of your contributions on Wikipedia, Funky. If you'd like, I know some folks at WP:DINO would be more than willing to send you PDFs of the latest descriptions when possible, if you'd like to do some illustrations yourself, and if not, I'm sure there are more of the Russian illustrator's images that may need work. Thanks again for all your work. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, and same to you. FunkMonk 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:6a00b8ea068718dece00c2252138178e1d-500pi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:B00018D3JQ.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:6a00b8ea068718dece00c2252138178e1d-500pi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk,

Only minutes ago I uploaded a new image file of Gamal Abdel Nasser and inserted it in the infobox in the Gamal Abdel Nasser article. I have just noticed that not only have you removed the image from the page and replaced it with a less attractive picture, but you have also effectively deleted the newer image by uploading the existing image file Image:Nasser.gif and naming it Image:Gamal Abdel Nasser pic.jpg, the novel name I had given to the newer image.

You then left the extremely confusing comment "That's not how to do it, don't delete old images". This makes no sense as I did not delete any existing image, rather I uploaded a new image and saved it under a new name. It is you who have deleted an existing image.

I would be grateful if you kindly explain your actions, and undertake not to repeat them in the future.

I trust that we both have the same intention of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. As such, I am sure you can understand my confusion and frustration at the actions noted above. Louse 14:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, you completely replaced the existing image, instead of simply uploading a new one. This causes some problems, first you completely delete a perfectly usable image, which might not necessarily have to be included in the article, but is good to have in the database, and important thing, you haven't provides any kind of source for the new picture, and the source for the old picture is still in the summary for the new picture.

If you want a new image to replace the old one, don't simply upload it on top of the old one, but upload a completely new one here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload

In fact, I've done it for you, so use the image on the right instead of deleting old ones by uploading on top of them. So if you could provide the source for your new image, please do so, and add it to the file on commons.

Also, I don't see why the image you added is any better than the new one I added, images with large resolution are always preferred. The new image is far superior, what's wrong with it? I've added it on the right too.FunkMonk 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk,

I fear you have completely misunderstood my previous message, and the process I followed in uploading the new image of Gamal Abdel Nasser.

I repeat that I did NOT replace an existing image by uploading the new image, (namely Image:Gamal Abdel Nasser pic) and did NOT delete any other image. All images which were previously on the database are still there. The image I uploaded was completely new and saved under a completely new name. No previously existing image was deleted.

Furthermore, I did provide a source for the new image, and included it in the summary. You will note that it is the same source as the other image (Image:Nasser.gif) - the newer image was downloaded from the same website in 2004, and has since been removed from the site.

I urge you to re-read my first message and check the file history of the images in questions to discover the route of your misunderstanding.

I hope this clarifies matters for you. Given your obvious interest in Gamal Abdel Nasser and articles relating to the Arab World, I very much hope we will have the opportunity to work together on improving the content on Wikipedia. As you know, there are many Arab-related articles that currently suffer from poor content, poor editing, and POV. I would welcome any suggestions you might have on this rectifying this matter.

Many thanks. Louse 15:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Awright, seems like I was fooled by the image not being present in the source link. Still, better on Commons, then it can be used everywhere. You should make an account there. FunkMonk 15:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Many thanks, that's my favourite barnstar! FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! :) I really appreciate your work. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hah, I just noticed, it might need to be updated with an extra finger on the Tyrannosaurus hand! FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Funky,

Allosaurus, an article you worked on, is currently up for Featured Article Candidacy here. I'm not asking for you to support the candidacy, but because you've already worked on the article, you may have more ideas on how to improve the article, or concerns that should be addressed (we're a tiny project, and so the number of ideas for improvement are limited to what a few people think of).

I'm also sending out requests to other users who have worked on the article a bit, and to the Tree of Life WikiProject, for more feedback. Feel free to ignore this request if you've better things to do, or if it annoys you to get a sort of impersonal message. I'm just trying to get more of the community involved in making input on the dinosaur FACs, and this is my (admittedly semi-lame) attempt. Anyone else who reads this message on your talk page would also be welcome to make suggestions or comments. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, I have no problem with that, I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Great, thank you very much. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 DAYS in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for violating 3RR on Talk:Egyptians. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. nat.utoronto 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FunkMonk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You should block Hamada too, he reverted a fourth time, which lead me to believe the time had passed. I actually didn't know that the 3rv rule applied to talk pages, but anyway, if Hamada is blocked too, I'm happy.

Decline reason:

This is not a legit reason to unblock. — Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, but I didn't know other ways to get the attention of the admin who blocked me. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked already. nat.utoronto 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could some of you comment on the dispute itself? I pretty much see Hamada's removal of the Wiki project template as vandalism, admin involvement would be quite a bit more constructive than simply blocking us both. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that blocking Funky over this is very harsh (and 10 days on top of that?). He was only trying to restore a project banner. No big deal. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• It's because I have a somewhat long history of three revert rule breakage, hehe, what can I say, I'm kind of sloppy when it comes to that... Hope it isn't a bannable offense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not longer than mine. And I've never been blocked for 10 days. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• It's blatant anti-Arabism. Forstår du forresten dansk, eh? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• lol @ anti-Arabism :P Jo självklart, det är ganska likt svenskan. Däremot, är det svårt att kommunicera med danska genom att prata. Deras dialekt är helt åt helvete galen. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Egyptians, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptians. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed all celebrities from this page as you suggest. You seem very knowledgable... questoon... how does copyright ofimages impact thedistinction between celebrity vsregular jews.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

...and I put them back. Please do not hijack a discussion for your own topics... theres plenty of room on the dicsussion page for you to start your own line of discussion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Funky,

Thanks for all your dinosaur image work, as always. :) I did remove three which are no longer considered accurate, but you've done some nice work today. Thank you. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, yeah, there were some fuck ups, but I'm happy that you guys are willing to clean it up, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. You saved us hours of searching through commons, you know. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting some of your edits on the "unusual" articles; there were so many vandals hitting the Swedish emigration to the United States page that I was looking at everyone's edits with a highly suspicious eye. Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ok. I still think Swedes should be wikified in that article though. FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Works for me, I am sure Bishonen won't mind at all. I wound up reverting all the way back to the version immediately before the article went on the main page because there had been a couple of hits of sneaky vandalism early on that had been missed. In penance, I shall wikify Swedes. Risker (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Haha, good we have nice guys like you around. FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear FunkMonk,

Shukran ikteer for the barnstar. There's so much work still to be done in improving Palestine and Arab related articles, many of which lack in detail in NPOV. I try to do my part and it's nice to have recognition from my peers. Keep up your own good work. Tiamut 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome and thanks, you're certainly one of my favourite editors here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Email me if you want me to send you the entire PDF, otherwise here is just the image I mentioned: [2]. Sheep81 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Is there anything else in the PDF which I should use for the drawing? FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding find on the photo!!! Question, shouldn't the date be 1860, not 1850 (a typo)?

J. J. in PA (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, I changed it to 1860. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've changed the image. It's nice to have Mapusaurus included. But it was agreed on 21 Dec 2007 that: Tyannosaurus should be highlighted in black; Therizinosaurus should be omitted as it wasn't a carnivore. Philcha (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it wasn't a carnivore, but the caption doesn't state that it was either, but that it was a theropod, which it certainly was. Why exactly do you want the Tyrannosaurus to be black? FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Black so it has higher contrast - it's the subject of the article. See the Talk page for 21 Dec 2007. Re the caption, when it omitted Therizinosaurus the caption said "compared with other large carnivorous dinos" and the pic also included Allosaurus for comparison as the largest Jurassic carnivore, which is much more relevant. Philcha (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well, ok. But notice, the picture is used on the page of every other species present on it, without them having to be blacked out for highlight. A mere mention of their colour in the caption seems to do the trick. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you check out my FPC? Mario1987 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but well, I'm not really the right person to ask, I suck at that. FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can find it. My computer has crashed repeatedly over the past month and the hard drive has just been replaced. I don't know if I can pull out the material from the corrupted drive just yet. I'll let you know if I do manage it. Tiamut^talk 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, it's not that important really, we still have the cropped version, I just thought I would notify you about the "accident", heh. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, what's up? How's it going? You need any help with anything? I feel like working on articles but don't know where to start. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

hello im new to this and dont quite no how i would send you a message through this? but how would we be able to discuss the Alawi page? i found some things that you were tryin to explain be incorrect. Every Alawi person i no Woships the Imam Ali in the Shia way, and worship all of the Prophet Mohammads family, and the we worship both the Prophet Mohammad and the Imam Ali, and follow both their teaching, we do not just follow the Imam Ali teachings, we follow the Prophets as well. Alawi int he past 50 years have become closer to Shia, and do not celebrate Christmas. Or any other Christian Eids. I know from me and my family we celebrate all Shia Eids, and for Ramadan nearly every year we choose to fast. And yes our teachings are kept private (not secrete) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawi 4 life (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we should probably discuss this on the talk page on the Alawi article, but anyway, I believe the Alawite beliefs vary quite a bit, my family do for example celebrate Christmas and other Christian festivals, but they are Lebanese, so they may have retained more of the original Alawite beliefs than the ones in Syria, who try harder to be accepted as true Muslims, so that the validity of Bashar Assad's presidency isn't questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My family is Alawi, and we celebrate the Shia Eids. We dont celebrate Christmas how can we, when we dont believe the story of the 3 wise men, ad we dont believe in Joseph, to Muslims Marry wasnt married and God had sent "Zacaria" to guard her.et c The part about How we Worship the Imam Al, to Alawi we follow both Teachings of the Imam Ali and the Prophet Mohammad. None of them come first, in your case your kinda saying that Ali comes first before the prophet. Alawi only have the Quran and their own scriputres as Islamic text. And iv read from other websites that Aparantly Alawi worship the Imam ALi like a God, when we dont. When you are trying to Explain the Trinity thing, your as basicly saying that we belive Ali is God, in 3 forms, which complely contridicts the point of us being Muslim. That there is no one but Allah and there is only One god, and he has no sons etc. And we believe in Rencarnation as is. And your should say that when the boys study the Alawi text, you should say after 15/16 boys can choose to go deeper into the relgion and study more, or choose not to study more. i no from my grandfather he went deep into the relgion and spent his whole life studying it. Where as my dad stoped when he got married and had kids (so around 22).

• Well, I didn't write the article, and I'm not sure who added the trinity stuff, but if it isn't sourced, it probably shouldn't be there. As for beliefs, well, as I mentioned before, the Alawites in Syria have changed their beliefs to become more like mainstream Muslims, so many of the older traditions might not be practiced there. It's different in Lebanon though, where the Syrian government is unable to regulate the sects like in Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• hmm.. im sorry if i sound annoyingg.. lol

im only on here to learn about my relgion further, im limited with what i can take in because i dont no how to read Arabic well. I am Lebanese my family comes from Tropli. My dads family comes from Syria but his born in Lebanon Tripoli as well. Hmm from what iv learned so far is that us Alawi mainly concentrate on the Quran, and that our text are used to gain further knowledge and understanding really of the Quran. I wouldnt know because im a girl, and am not allowed to read the certain text that the boys are only allowed to read. But the trinity thing was the only reason of my complaint because it condrinicts us being muslims totally in a way :P Because how can the Imam Ali make the Prophet Mohammad :P ? The Imam Ali is younger the the Prophet Mohammad? i just have so many questions, and wont answers froma reliable source, i know the very basics really. And we i tried to get in depth a bit i found that other websites were saying that Ali created Mohammad? and that God came down in the form of flesh 7 times? and the last 3 times where as the "Trinity" Ali, Mohammad, and Salman Al Farsi.. and i got confused because isnt the whole point of Islam is that we deny the fact that Allah has any decendants or sons? ... Hmm what is your veiw on Alawi how would you describe it and put it.. from what your allowed to tell me?

• Ah, where do you live now then? My father also lived in Tripoli, and much of our family still does. It's a bit hard to find info on the Alawis on the Internet, much of it is wrong, but the Wikipedia article is somewhat factual, I've tried to source most of the stuff written in it, and removed the things that seemed far out, and which didn't have sources.

Most of what I know about the sect is already in the article, but some of it isn't, because you have to cite real articles if you add something to Wikipedia, you can't just add things you've been told. So there are some things I am unable to add at the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Im born in Australia and live in Melbourne Victoria. In Tripoli i think some of my famly lives near the "Jabal" i dont know the name of the Neibourghood. Well yes i agree very much about the other articles on the net being incorrect. My family is from Lebanon, and i know Syrian Alawite's and iv found our beliefs to be the same.. and Hafez Al Assad gave the Alawites our freedom in Syria/Lebanon if it wasnt for him we wouldnt be accpected by other muslims as muslims which we are, and would still be treaten like shit in Syria and Lebanon if it wasnt for him. So i respect him greatly. And Alawi are like Shia, what links us the most is us both having the same belief, of the 12 imams, we both have the same Imams, where as Sunni have different Imam;s to Alawi and Shia. I like the Alawi Relgion, we are not to strict, we arnt into mosques, but worship Allah, Mohammad, and Ali, in our own private way, and make our relgion a way of life with out "showing it off". And what i like about us is we concentrate mainly on the Quran not other stuff, and we believe in al the prophets, there are some Islamic sects that dont believe in all the prophets. What my question was how do Alawi differ from Lebanon to Syria, because im Lebanese and Alawi, and i havent found much of a difference between Alawi from Syria and LEbanon. Maybe the ones i know are just normal, but not all Syrian Alawi try too hard in Syria, i think itd be the opposite. Because in Syria its a government dominated (Alawi) we are able to relax and be normal. ~

• Ah, Jabal Mohsen? Well, about Syria, the thing is, when Hafez Assad took power in Syria, the Sunni majority were outraged because they didn't believe Alawites were true Muslims. So a Shia cleric in Lebanon announced that Alawites were real Shia Muslims, and after that the Syrian government tried to obscure the differences between Alawites and other Muslims in Syria. So the fact that Alawites were in power didn't really mean that Alawites now could do whatever they wanted, but that they had to be even more careful to fit in, so that the Sunnis wouldn't question the validity of Hafez Assad's presidency. They did anyway, and that's why you have the uprisings that lead to the Hama massacre and so on.

And Syria didn't actually help the Alawites in Lebanon during the civil war due to the fact that the Syrian government is secular. It was Hafez Assads brother, Rifaat, who sent help and organised an Alawite militia back then. SO today, many Lebanese Alawites like Rifaat more than Hafez and Bashar. Also, at least one of the two Alawite seats in the Lebanese parliament is occupied to an Alawite member of Hariri's Future Movement, which is of course anti-Syria. I've heard they used bribery though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm.. Because my family we're not Syrians.. Were half half.. and My dad Served 6 years in the Syrian Army, and my dad told me that yeah majority of the Syrian Army was Alawi, a lot of it were Christians too, and a couple of jews not that many, and my dad told me that they were all great friends and got along with each other well. My dad fought int he war..

Isreal and Syria for the Golan Hieghts, Isreal wonted to claim that area as theirs when it Syrian land.. i dont hate Lebanon and i dont hate Syria.. and Hafz Al Assad wanted his son Raifft to Succeed him, but he unfourntly died, and thats why Bashir is President really. I like the whole family, and all the Alawi's iv met that are Syrian which is my dads side of the family are all normal really.. they dont try and be Shia more or anything. The Reason why theres such a large connection between Shia and Alawi is because we have the Same Imams, and because we believe in the same 12 Imams as the Shia, we believe in the same historical storied behind them, eg; the battles the Imam Ali lead, the Battles the Imam Hassan lead, the battes that Imam Hussien lead... thats why we the Alawi were given the ok as an Islamic relgion, and yes you do have a point where in Syria ther are some Alawi that try to be orthdox Muslims more, but i am pround to be a Alawi, yes our relgion does have some Christian asspects so what? thats what i would say to any Alawi taht trys to act like a Sunni muslim more.. our fellow Christians arnt crap or shit? They believe in all the good and right things like us, And im born in Australia lol... im From Melbourne.. but in Lebanon all i no is my family is from Tripoli really lol i dont really no where in Tripoli exactly.. and what i want to really know and no 1 is telling me this is that if us the Alawi are kinda different to our fellow Shia, then what makes us so different? Yes we celebrate Christmas and Easter (fitted with the islamic veiw of Jesus (Issa) but what other details are there?

because if thats the only thing that kind of makes us different form Shia then i hate to say it we are then pretty much like Shia..

i no we also believe in Rencarnation.. but otherwise is that? it .. you keep sayin in Lebanon there are Alawi that "dont try and be like Shia muslims" when hello we branch from Shia? we believe in the Same 12 Imams as them..

sorry lol.. gotta ask someone? lol

Firstly: thanks for your help at getting pictures into the Palestinian costumes article: much appreciated! And as you might know: a job well done leads to....more jobs! ;-D I am cluless when it comes to uploding pictures myself, but I believe there are some pictures in the Matson collection part of the Library of Congress, which have an expired copyright, and could therefor be used. I outlined it here. Would you care to take a look at it? And possible upload some of the pictures to wikipedia? Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Aye, I'll do it right now! FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for you message! I left a note, partly for you, on Durovas talk -page, (now archived) here. The Félix Bonfils picture of Ramleh would be very nice in the Ramleh article, I think (Bonfils died in 1885). Possibly remove some of the lower part of the picture (just fields)? I have thought for a long time of starting an article about "Nebi Rubin", both the place and the celabrations...lots of facinating history about it in Benvenisti! But if I understand Durova correctly, we would have to submit a copyright query to the LoC website for using those pictures. Ah well, sometime in the future.. Take care, Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I need you to take a look at the introduction for this article, the history, and the talk page. The IP editor who composed the text in question is claling me a Mossad agent for reverting his edits to the introduction. Could you weigh in with your opinion? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Aye. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Maans, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://countrystudies.us/lebanon/16.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, if anyone contacts me about this, I simply copied the section about the Maans from the Wikipedia article here: [3] FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The restoration is complete. Please ping me when you're ready to conominate. Regards, Durova^Charge! 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, remember when you got irritated over me using a Zionist website as a source in the Semitic article? Check this conversation: Talk:Kevin B. MacDonald#Again, EliasAlucard, stop spewing anti-Semitic crap on the talk page. Lots of lulz. By the way, I think you can help out in editing the Hesham Tillawi article; he's a Palestinian and MacDonald has been on his show.[4] — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, you post on Stormfront? Then you might have come across some of the old physical anthropology stuff, I used to be quite into that some years ago, posted on a forum called "Dodona" which is now closed. We used to take shots at "classifying" people, which turned pretty popular, so people flocked to get classified.

Don't know anything about either MacDonald or Tillawi, but I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't check anthropology topics on Stormfront; those assholes are obsessed in "whiteness" and you must fill certain criteria and everything to be "white" over there. But yeah, anthropology is quite interesting. An interesting forum, however, is biodiversityforum: http://www.biodiversityforum.com/ Pretty much politically incorrect anthropology but without the Nazis. About the article, it needs some more sources (only got the ADL right now, and that's certainly a biased source) and needs to be expanded. I don't know where to look but since Palestinians is an interest of yours, you might be able to expand the article a lot. And yes, do check out MacDonald, he's simply awesome. I recommend you to read his brilliant response to John Derbyshire (in which he also defends Palestinians) here. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)r

• Hehe, Biodiversity is just an offshoot of Dodona (which was owned by a Greek guy), I was a member there in the beginning (used the name "Funk"), but I and a few other posters got into an argument with the weirdo German admin, Gareth/Ethir, and subsequently left/got banned. You got an account there?

There were so many of those anthropology boards at one point (I had accounts in most of them, using variations of the word "Funk" in all), filled with drama which transcended the different fora. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I've only read one thread or so at biodiversity... I've had good recommendations about it though, but I've never bothered to check it out thoroughly. If you're interested in anthropology, I think you'll find MacDonald's critique of Franz Boas' "Boasian anthropology" interesting and enlightening. I just bought his books (User:EliasAlucard/Books) and I'm going to read them soon. From all the reviews and everything I've read about MacDonald so far, he seems right on the spot. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like I ought to check out MacDonald, sounds interesting. By the way, I just discovered my old forum-pal Augustus Khan has become a moderator on Biodiversity, so I might return, just as long as Gareth/Ethir doesn't have complete control. He's a fucking maniac. Yeah, I can recommend the board too (I even think there are some Assyrians there), the difference from the original Dodona is superficial. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I might check it out some day, and even become a regular member, if only I can get my ass out of here. But you know that won't happen when the Oromoyo fanatics come here every once in a while and run berserk and start revert wars and try to "prove" that we Assyrians don't exist. What a waste of time. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Heh, just create an anti-Arameanist bot and leave, but yeah, I know what you mean, I don't know what the fuck it is, but Wikipedia is addictive like a computer game, discussions are like shoot-em-up games (edits) mixed with real-time-strategy games (talk page discussions), and even "better", as you get the feeling that you're actually accomplishing something by editing here and winning discussions. After all, you can influence the views of the masses by editing, and seeing stuff you've written or pictures you've uploaded used on other sites is kind of thrilling...

Also kind of dangerous, actually, as it becomes a motivation in itself to try to manipulate the average Internet surfer, which is everyone these days.

Don't hope what I just wrote could result in a perma-ban or something, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, I know what you mean. Of course, everyone is here to influence in one way or the other. I guess, in a way, that's needed; if all sorts of POV editors are working together on different articles, in the end, the articles might turn out into NPOV articles; so that said, I welcome all sorts of point of views, as long as Wikipedia procedures are followed and the sources cited meet a high quality. I personally try to act as professional as I can on the articles, but on the talk pages I may jest around sometimes. I'm also to some extent paranoid (in a very lighthearted way) that either radical Jews or Muslims want to kill me after some of my edits on Islam and Judaism articles. lol. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

loooool, and the show must go on: Talk:Kevin B. MacDonald#Again, EliasAlucard, stop spewing anti-Semitic crap on the talk page. Unbelievable. This is the most bizarre discussion I've had in a while on Wiki. I think I need a break. Don't forget to help out with the Tillawi article though. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whew, seems like you should be careful on that MacDonald article, maybe they'll unleash Jayjg on your ass! FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • lol, he took it to WP:ANI#Anti-semitic claptrap spewed on Talk Page but they just told him to shut up :) — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Bedouinwomanb.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits on Arab article? I don’t think there is something wrong with it. All ethnic group articles have more than one picture to illustrate that particular ethnic group. One image from one country and one period of time does not cover the whole ethnic group. You can use that image to illustrate a particular era or section or whatever, but you can not use it to illustrate whole ethnic group. I was really surprised for this unjustified revert from an active WP Arab member. --Aziz1005 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• What are you referring to, the infobox or pictures in the article in general? As for the article in general, there is plenty of room, so there is no reason to replace images, and as for the infobox, there should be consensus on who exactly is going to be in the infobox. Just putting random people in there because we have images of them doesn't cut it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I only done the infobox. I dont know about the rest of the article. Not having a consensus does not mean we can not add pics to the infobox. since these pics belong to etnically Arab figures. Best regards--Aziz1005 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me. I hope I can help here with some things. HD1986 (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• You've already helped a lot, those mandate articles need a lot of work. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Nordic race has been tagged for a merger into Nordic theory for 22 days. You did not object the merger in the discussion, and consensus was merge. You can also take a look at the article Nordic theory and see that its old version included already lot of information on "Nordic race" and that it is being expanded to include even more. Your argument that "White people doesn't redirect to white supremacy either" is not helpful, see wp:ATA. The cases are different here. The debates about a Nordic Race were to a large extend part of ideologies of racial supremacy. Zara1709 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• It was tagged for being merged, not being merged into. There's a big difference. The concept of a Nordic race isn't inherently connected to the concept of Nordic supremacy.FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you edit summary, too. I actually intended to propose that Nordic theory be moved to Nordic race after I was done with the merger. Nordic race is the more encompassing term, but the article Nordic theory was longer and higher quality. Zara1709 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Awright, I didn't check out the Nordic theory article previously, as I didn't have it on my watchlist. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funky. I notice you made an image at Emu default to the right [5], how about making the remaining left aligned image the same. cygnis insignis 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that's problematic, due to the taxobox being on the right, if the remaining image is right aligned, there would be a huge white space, which you can see if you preview the page after changing the parameter. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. The other option is (usually) to go left-right-left. Whatever you think. Regards, cygnis insignis 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We're up and running! Please visit and contribute at Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers! Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funky! I thought I would make use of you kind offer about help with images.. If you go to the Library of Congress search page, then type in Nablus soap ..you will get three "hits". I believe the first of those three can be used without any problems, as it is made before 1920. (It is this picture here: [6]) Could you upload it to the commons, and cut it in half..and make the borders a bit nicer? Tiamut has just made an article about Nabulsi soap, and I thought that an old picture would be fine there, Regards, Huldra (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are at it; if you at the same search page search for village oven, then the three first that come up are old Palestine pictures which, I believe, we can use. Could you possible upload no. 2 and 3? ...I would like to put one of them into the Palestinian cuisine article, as that article could do with some expansion of its history-section. Regards, Huldra (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, I'll look at it now, if you have more just notify me! FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the stuff, want them cropped differently? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Funky! I have copied them into Nabulsi soap and Palestinian cuisine. I don´t think it is necessary to crop them more, do you? But if the "oven" picture could be made a bit lighter; it would be nice. (I think the woman has such an interesting expression on her face: very alert.) Anyway, thanks again, Huldra (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've lightened it a bit, it'll lose too many shadow details if I lighten it further... As for the cropping, I think it's ok. Seems like the articles are coming out good! FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that is fine. Palestinian cuisine is of course already a GA, and I am very impressed with what Tiamut has managed only in 2-3 days on Nabulsi soap. Thanks, and see you around! -- Huldra (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings FunkMonk, I have a favor to ask you about these antique pictures. Huldra gave me a link to this picture of Palestinians eating, here, but it needs some cropping. I was wondering if you could use your expertise to clean it up. Its one of the needed pictures for the Palestinian cuisine article. Cheers friend! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Aye, I'll take a look at it, but the link doesn't work, could you tell me what words you searched for on the site? FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I´m not sure Al-Almeerson is "watching" this page, anyway, if you go to the Library of Congress search page, then type in Int[erior] of Arab Christian home ..you got it, Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I see it now, but hmmm, it says "CREATED/PUBLISHED: [between 1898 and 1946]", so we don't know whether it is actually in the public domain or not... If it was published the first time in the USA after 1923, it isn't PD. But if it for example was published in Israel for the first time, it will be PD. But I don't think we'll ever know... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah: you are right; don´t know how I missed that :-< Oh well, I will keep looking. Thanks anyway, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry for not responding to the page, Huldra hit it right, I wasn't watching it. I see it won't work but thats fine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • No problem, anyway, you're welcome to link to other images here if you find some. FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[7]. Shpakovich (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a modern female there. Shpakovich (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey funky, do you think you can give your opinion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Assyrian_people on the lay-out for the ethnic page? Thanks. Chaldean (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arab. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh, I'm reverting vandalism from an anon-IP who doesn't know anything about the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alyam keeps removing the Nasser pic from the article and I have reverted him a number of times. The thing is this is not the only vandalism thats been going on. I think over half of the edits of Arab are vandalism or reverts. We should really get a semi-protected lock to block anon-IP users and new users. Could you bring that up to an administrator. Its not fair and quite ridiculous you be threatened with getting blocked. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe Stifle could do it? FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  Just to let you know that reverts of vandalism are only exempt from the 3RR in the case that they are simple and obvious vandalism, i.e. material that someone who had never seen the page before would recognise as inappropriate. Otherwise you should enlist help from another user.

  The activity at Arab is not so severe as to warrant semiprotection at this time but I've added the page to my watchlist and if there is trouble I'll arrange to deal with it. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I see you added yourself to that arbitration request about the Egyptians article, but well, it's not the same case as this one. Anyway, what would the alternative be? A few steps lower than that in the process? Mediation? It has really gone on for month, and the editors are stubborn. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Funky, I was wondering if this picture of Geber on wiki (Image:Geber.jpg) is good enough to be included in the Arab gallery. There should be some clearer ones with color, but couldn't find any. This is of course, if we include him. We'll discuss that on the Arab talk page though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, certainly better than the postage stamp... FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Now we just have to decide who to include in the photo collage and we're set. The points of contention are whether we choose Faten Hamama or May Ziade for the second modern woman. Slacker supports Ziade, which I'm fine with. I think Chaldean might disagree though. The second is for the fourth spot we either choose Darwish or Qabbani. He votes Darwish, which I also support. Then fnally there's the decision on whether to include Averroes or Zahrawi. Don't know what to say here. Averroes is certainly more controversial (in the matter of his Arab or Persian identity). Please inform us who you will vote in. I know this thing must be bugging you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed you've been changing the "related ethnic groups" section on infoboxes from linguistically related groups to genetically related groups. I've started a discussion over which criterion is better on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Since I'd like both sides to be represented, I'd appreciate if you joined the discussion and explained your point of view.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty cool, thanks for pointing it out! (Though in theory, they could have gotten the image directly from a FMNH source somewhere else, but I agree it's more likely they trolled for CC-licensed images online). Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A nice choice of images - thanks! Philcha (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, there were a few bare spots in the article, and a few good images left on Commons... FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "LOCcs" refer to? Hyacinth (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to fix it, but I don't know why the reference section doesn't show up... FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! You have been so helpful in the past, so here I am again! Well, Tiamut has just started an article on Hebron glass, and I would love to add a couple of pictures to it. So, if you go to the Library of Congress search page, then type in Road to Hebron, Mar Saba, etc. Glass works, and Jewellery Jerusalem, then you will get two different pictures, both would suit very well in the article. Is it possible that you could upload them? The "Jewellery Jerusalem" picture also has to be cut in two, etc.

Also, if you type in Father and children, showing costumes, Ramallah, Palestine, you will find a picture I have been looking for for quite a while. Weir discuss this exact picture in her book "Palestinian Costumes" (you can also see it here: [8]) -and we really need more pictures of males if we are to manage to get Palestinian costumes to FA-status (which would be great fun). So, in other words; is it possible that you could also upload that picture, possibly removing the "border" (outside the photographic area) on both sides and on the top? (The bottom, with the caption, could possibly stay?)

And thirdly, if you (at the same place) type in mother-of pearl, then the first four pictures you get would be very suitable for an article I had thought of starting, called something like: Mother-of-Pearl carvings in Palestine. I like picture no. 3 and 4 best. However, if we are to have the first picture in its "usual" place, that is: in the upper right-hand-corner, then the it will not look that good (with the workers with their "back" to the article, so to speak. Hope you understand what I mean.) I therefore wondered if you could take one of those pictures and "revolve it" (I believe that is the word?) 180 degrees, so that the workers "face" the article? I hope this was comprehensible. Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, here are the images, I cropped the caption out of the father with children picture, as well, I used the same text in the description when I uploaded it, so it isn't "lost". As for mother of pearl pictures, the second and third images are almost identical, likewise with the first and fourth, so I only uploaded one of each, but I guess that's what you had in mind anyway, since you said which ones you liked the best. So again, if you have other images, just notify me, it's enjoyable to make cool old pictures like these easily available. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Take a look at Hebron glass and Mother-of-Pearl carving in Bethlehem to see how it works.. You uploaded the very right pictures of the mother-of-pearl workers -I thought no 1 and 2 had such staring eyes, so I did not like them as much. However, could you switch the last picture back again? If you look at Mother-of-Pearl carving in Bethlehem (which I expect to be expanded quite a bit w.r.t. the text), I thought of having the bottom picture to the left, so I would like the workers there to face to the right. Hope you understand what I mean. And yes; some of the American Colony pictures are very, very nice (IMO). Weir has built large part of her book "Palestinian costumes" around those pictures. Very convenient for us, at least when we find the pictures! Anyway, thanks again, Huldra (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AVPPrey.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)