User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 3

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.

I've suspected as much for a while now and don't think the CAMERA group is the only one (just the newest). A Hasbara group at israelactivism.com was recruiting even earlier for a similar undertaking. I'm glad that people are taking it seriously this time around. Anyway, thanks for the link and the heads up. Tiamut^talk 09:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

hehe how does proving genetic parenthood between Levantine or Moroccan population with Phoenicians "provide a modern "European" connection to Christians in the Levant "? does he always have to babble? Eli+ 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what he means, but I'm sure we'll get more of it in the future. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________ Hello i was wondering/advising. You should make an Alawi website which contains information on our religion etc. And my its different etc. And put it as a website others can visit on the Alawite Wikipedia page =D

You seem to know more and describe our religion better then the person whos made that page. You can write the differences between alawi themselves. All i no is i dont like people espeically other muslims reading that Alawi believe in Ali as a God/Prophet of some sort, and that he "created" the Prophet MOhummad "from his own light" its quite insulting and upsetting. I would give you a hand with writting aricles =D all i no is it would be good to have at least one website out there thats kidna honest.

Do what you like with that question/advise ^^ all i no is if you made an alawi website i would advise my christian/other muslims friends to it, because they ask a lot of questions sometimes.

Take Care. inaam. =D 121.220.19.107 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________

• I agree, there is a lot of misinformation out there, so what we can do is find out exactly what needs to be changed, and then see how we can change it. What do you think? Funkynusayri (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funkynusayri. Thank you for your edits to List of Druze and for pointing out important issues. I have responded to your concerns on the Talk:List of Druze. I appreciate all your efforts! Best regards, gidonb (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pteranodon sternbergi appears to exist. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, but when I reverted the first wikification it didn't, so I just assumed the second one would be a red link too, but the article had been created in the minutes in between. Anyway, on the Pterosaur wikiproject it is stated that "Articles should not get any more specific than genus level. Individual species should be discussed in the article about the appropriate genus. "Significant" higher order taxa should also get their own pages." I'll see what people say to that on the talk page. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Img kingkong1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Styracosaurus has already a good quality image by LofH that's why I haven't uploaded my version, same for Centrosaurus, Achelousaurus and so on... (I've drawn most of the ceratopsians genera!). If you think the articles need a second image, I can upload them. Also, I've recently uploaded an image of Coelurus as someone has requested it on my request page but then noticed that you've already made one (pretty nice) for the article. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that if there are more than one good image of a species, both should be used! It's good with different angles and stuff to show how they looked (I'll add your Coelurus). I don't want to give you extra work, and would be happy to cut them out and upload them myself, but you're the creator of course, so I'll let you decide. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. So do you want Styracosaurus only or the whole lot? I could do this later this evening. Cheers... ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All would be great, but Styrac is probably enough for now, since it's featured... Funkynusayri (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded Leptoceratops, Zuniceratops, Albertaceratops, Centrosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, Achelousaurus, Avaceratops, Pentaceratops, Anchiceratops, Styracosaurus and I have a few more (have to check). They are in my User:ArthurWeasley/Cretaceous Under Late Cretaceous/Ceratopsia. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll go add them! Funkynusayri (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please tell what is the meaning of "Inu"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• It redirects to dog, see: Inu. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Funky, I actually noticed that too. I'm not a big fan of fossil dealers selling off important specimens like that, which is kind of making me rethink licensing my images in CC... but I guess since it's already out there, I should get around to fixing it one of these days. I'll see what I can do. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yes the Nycto DB image looks fine now, thanks!Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're invited to join WikiProject Lebanon, where we are striving to assemble, update and categorize a thorough, accessible and neutral database of Lebanon related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the participants’ section here Participants.

• Thanks, I think I already did, I added my name there at least. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please restrain your use of inflammatory language especially when editing in controversial topic areas. "Hah, what a crock of shit" is not acceptable and does nothing but degrade the credibility of any point you wish to make. CIreland (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, but when encountering downright racist statements like that, there are not many other ways to react. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Firs, I uploaded an image of two Anatotitan skeletons to Commons and simply named them "Anatotitan.jpg", without knowing that the fair use image in the article had the same name. This leads the fair use image to "override" the Commons image, which is kind of a problem... Could you use your admin powers to either rename the fair use image, or simply delete it (it isn't particularly useful since fair use is discouraged anyway)? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Funk,

I've moved the Wikipedia version to Image:AnatotitanWWD.jpg. The Commons version can remain at Image:Anatotitan.jpg. Although Fair Use images are to be used sparingly on Wikipedia, this one has a valid Fair Use rationale, upload information, and licensing tags. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funky! Cool I hope it's alot of fun! I just finnished 3 years of animation degree at the Uiversity of Westminster. Now I have to try and find a job...ahh. I'm very saddend to hear of Stan Winstons Death. I'm part of the jurassic park generation, his work has directly influenced my life. He will be missed :( Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In the uk most the jobs available come from visual effect companies or ones that focus on advertisement. Theres places like Ardman for stop-motion people. The corse you have picked looks great, focused on the practical. The problem I had with my course was it was mostly focused on film making rather than the animation it's self. They didn't really teach us anything. I'm trying to get into 3d. I've aways been facinated by visual effects. I don't think that JP4 will go all CG, it's not like the company has gone...but who knows? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some drawn animation, but your more likely to find it in advertising than in filmmaking, which is a shame. I would like to see more drawn animation films being made. That said, most people on my course were doing drawn animation. I was one of only three people doing CG. Yes, the Prosaurolophus head was done in maya, It has been photoshoped recently to correct some mistakes. I think that in many cases physical make up and animatronics will be needed to some degree. Even if it’s as simple as someone has extensive scaring, why on earth would some one want to create that in CG. Some poor animator having to match a CG version over an actors face frame by frame and then a compositor having to get that to blend in for every shot its needed, it would be silly and time consuming. If I were making JP4 I’d still use animatronics for consistency and I think they look great! :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on who to replace May Ziade has come to a halt. I don't mind, I was just wondering if you could make the status quo box look better; it's quite sloppy now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Aye, I'll take a look, will have to see if I can do it in Photoshop... FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scutosaurus.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I must make the rest images of Onychodus non-free media like Image:Plate of the Lower Jaw of Onychodus sigmoides Newberry.png? Liopleurodon93 (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, that should be done to all media uploaded which isn't free. Also remember to add the fair use rationale template, otherwise the images might get deleted anyway. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Archaeoraptor.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tritemnodon, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.infohub.com/forums/printthread.php?t=8476. 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) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For adding images to paleobiology articles, a very minor task, but repeated hundreds of times, and for finding quality, usable images, I present you with this award. Thank you, FunkMonk. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funkmonk,

I've noticed your interest/excellent edits at Lystrosaurus and, I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the Palaeo project? Best, Mark t young (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll join! FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just removed your image. Looks plausible - but seems totally bogus. What were you thinking? Snori (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean? It's simply a moa foot. Seems I'll have to put it back. FunkMonk (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, maybe I should have questioned first... Snori (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here, there are many more like it, quite amazing: [1][2][3][4] FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I notice you preferred a "bones" image for the infobox of Lystrosaurus, and I can understand that. However I'm not keen on the skull image as the orientation is quite unclear - I think the face is to the right, with the canines pointing down, but I'd be struggling if I hadn't already done some research. What would you think of putting the whole skeleton image in the infobox? -- Philcha (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I don't have any opinion about it actually, reverting back to the life restoration would probably be more aesthetically pleasing. It's just that over at the dino project, the conclusion was reached that it is better to have actual bones in the infobox, as drawings are just artist's interpretations, so they will never be accurate. But Lystrosaurus isn't a dinosaur, so to hell with it! And the skull is facing right, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to you about it in the Arabs talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.164.24 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please write your email here? I made a new version of the image with a Public Domain image of nasser, but i'm not regestered so i would like to sewnt it to you so you could upload it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostan1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you've taken an interest in Lystrosaurus, I'd be grateful if you'd review it. If I get enough encouragement and Dutch courage I might go for GA. Please leave comments at Talk:Lystrosaurus -- Philcha (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Looked through it and made some minor changes, there is one sentence I don't understand (maybe due to tiredness), this: "India, China and Antarctica (which was not over the South Pole at the time)"

Does that mean it was below the South Pole (is it possible to be "below" south itself?)? Or does it mean it was simply at the South Pole? Does it refer to all the mentioned continents, or only Antarctica?

Anyway, I think the article is good, but it could probably need some sections that are present on some of the featured dinosaur articles, like classification, discovery, and paleobiology/ecology sections. But if you've already exhausted the sources, that might not be possible at present. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Monkaa's edits to the talk page were removed because the admins were sweeping through and reverting a lot of Monkaa's edits. The user was banned as a sockpuppet of Klaksonn and GreenEcho, among others. My guess is that his talk page reply was mistakengly removed by one of the admins, when it shouldn't have been. ← George ^[talk] 04:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks for the info. I'm always late at discovering when people have been banned... FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I was certain that you weren't trying to vandalize Dodo. Good luck on trying to get the pictures renamed: if you can't get it renamed as "dodo.jpg", maybe you could get it renamed as "dodoskeleton.jpg"? And I've decided that I'm only going to leave if everyone asks me to do so (and not just my detractors), or if Wikipedia really does turn into a bureaucratic swamp.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Renamed. Thanks for the tip. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rename! FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tip o' the hat to you: you always find us great free images. Nice to be able to help with that. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am just writing to say hello and remind you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule regarding Egyptians as I am not planning to get into any edit wars I will not try to revert your edits , but here is a few references that I think are worth considering http://www.intercultures.ca/cil-cai/country_overview-en.asp?ISO=EG ------ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html and http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat/interesting%20stuff/ethnic_gps.htm Many thanks. Ghaly (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I know all about the three revert rule, heh. I might come off as aggressive on that page, but that's simply because arguing with Zerida and his sock-puppets has made me overly suspicious when it comes to the Egyptians article. Deceiving people, like he did and which got him blocked, is only counterproductive in the long run. FunkMonk (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I have no idea what is going on. Feel free to ignore my edits/revert me, and if he brings up the fact that I "supported" him, let me know and I'll set the record straigt. Sorry, I did not intend to get involved :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect the IPs are controlled by a banned user, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Zerida FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I might get a block for breaking the three revert rule if I revert you. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am writing to remind you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule regarding Egyptians .Ghaly (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with those warnings, but when reverting sock-puppets, the three revert rule becomes irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I just uploaded an image of an Euparkeria skeleton to Commons, and yet again a fair use image with the same name overrides it. Could you change the name of this file? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euparkeria.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 13:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yet again! FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi FM,

I was wondering if you have any other metriorhynchid photos (especially from Paris)? Also, was the specimen number of the M. superciliosus specimen you photographed on it by any chance? Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm currently sorting through the images I took there and uploading them, so if there are any more metriorhynchids, I'll upload them for sure, but I don't think they had any more on display, if I remember correctly and after looking at the list of known genera. Do you know what other genera they have in Paris? I didn't see specimen numbers on any of the fossils they had in Paris actually, but maybe they can be found through the Internet. I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I know that Neustosaurus is on display in one of the galleries in Paris (high on the wall from what Eric Buffetaut told me). Apart from that, all I know is what is in the colllections (Metriorhynchus and Teleidosaurus). I've not had the chance to go to the Paris Natural History museum, so I've never seen their fossils. Pretty curious! Mark t young (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I got them, I regret I didn't get to take more pictures there, the guards almost had to throw me out when the museum closed, heh. I got a friend who took some more photos though, I'll try to see what he got. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. To my surprise I wound up preferring the head-on shot. I tweaked it a bit (+10% brightness +50% contrast in Paintshop Pro) and it brought out the shape of the head and the (semi-)sprawling gait really well - at 200px-wide thumbnail size! The profile shot was less successful at thumb size, even with the brightness and contrast tweak, because the lighting angle produces more glare and makes the head a shapeless blob. The existing skeleton drawing does much the same job as the profile and ought to stay.

Where to place the head-on pic?

• Since your pic is labelled L. murrayi, it could go level with the para about L. murrayi. That means the L. georgii pic would have to go. It's better in shape than the one in the taxobox, but when you look at the full-size L. georgii pic it's hairy, which I think is inaccurate.
• Or yours could go in the taxobox - Tyrannosaurus′ taxobox has a pretty dramatic skeleton pic.

I'd vote for taxobox. Then I'd contact the artist of that image and see if he can do one like the L. georgii but hairless - he'll understand "hairless" because we had a similar discussion about Thrinaxodon.

Sorry for rambling so much. I probably got excited because I'm no photographer and even less of an artist. -- Philcha (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice, you've banished the blues too!

Looking at the artists' impressions again, none is satisfactory: both of the L. murrayi drawings get the head wrong, as your photo makes clear; I don't know about L. georgii′s head, but its left rear leg is in poor shape.

I suggest your head-on photo should go in the taxobox, to get the article off to a good start. If you agree, we should paste this conversation into the article's Talk page - I'll do that if you like, since you've provided the photo. -- Philcha (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that a quotation from Herodotus had been tampered with in 2004, and put it right. Why have you reverted my correction? Have you checked in Herodotus (I have). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't know I reverted you too when I reverted an IP who removed some facts. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's OK then. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I really liked your comments on the Egyptians article, It is so true that Egyptian Copts are the only people in Egypt who solely identify themselves with the ancient Egyptians. Many modern Egyptians are not descendant from ancient Egyptians (Including myself, I am of Turko-Arab origins). —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCaire (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

LeCaire

Actually The Nubians are Genetically (see on Y-haplotype E3b1) are More Closely identify themselves with the Ancient Egyptians than Greek COPTS 82.5.167.237 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, you can help, by participating in the discussion! FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was using the image you uploaded, Image:OCmarsh.jpg in Bone Wars. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet all the image criteria because the author and rationale for public domain are missing. I was wondering if you could fill that in? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I've seen the image in two different books, and neither state who took the picture, sadly. But as far as I know, US copyright law doesn't require that you list the author of a a work which is now in the public domain, and that image certainly was published before 1923 (Marsh died in 1899), and that's the only criterion really. Anyway, I just added that the Peabody Museum of Natural History currently owns the picture (doesn't mean they own the copyright, since no one can have the copyright of a picture in the public domain).

Oh, I see they want the exact date of publication too, never experienced that before, but I'll see if I can find it.

By the way, there are a bunch of images (photos and engravings) here if you scroll down which are in the public domain and list both wherein they were published and publication date: http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/bonewars2.html FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about using some of those. By the way, though, can you add in where you got the image, at least? (or at least both the books). Then I can contact Peabody and try to see if they can sort it out. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot that, it's from an old edition of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Dinosaur-Book-David-Lambert/dp/156458304X I'll add the info to Commons. The image can also be found in a French book called Les Fossiles - Empreinte des Mondes Disparus by Yvette Gayrard-Valy. I think it's the same as this book: http://www.amazon.ca/Discoveries-Fossils-Yvette-Gayrard-Valy/dp/0810928248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220037545&sr=1-1 FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, Thnks for your note on the diplodocus image. Yeah that's right, all archosaurs have a maximun of three nails in each frontlimb (like the crocs). I see there are many images on the Diplodocus article, so there is no need to clutter it with another one. Unless you really want it readded to the article, I won't bother (it wasn't a very good image anyway) ;) ArthurWeasley (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Udanoceratops uploaded here. Updated Diplodocus uploaded here. Cheers! ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see that the merge project is canceled. This is weird, because when I read the talk page of the Sham article I found that nearly all the participants agreed with the merge except for User:AnonMoos. This user seems to enjoy a lot of influence, though, frankly, by following his contributions he doesn't seem to enjoy as much wealth of knowledge. HD1986 (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, I still think they should be merged, but you should be careful with your language on the talk pages, it could lead to a block or stuff like that, and we wouldn't want that! FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just flipped this image[5] around, so it could face the text in the Triceratops article (and it seems that the original uncleaned image faced left too), but now the background suddenly turned blue. Do you know what's wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk,

What program did you use to flip the image? The original background, I believe, was a transparent layer. It shouldn't be blue, unless the program you're using doesn't recognize transparencies. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can flip the image, FunkMonk. I'll see if I can do it later today. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

With one recent exception, I always use Photoshop. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi funky.

Regarding the thumb|Cave where the specimens were discovered

I changed the caption and moved it to the top right. I notice that the creator gives the same caption as the uploader (you), Cave where the remainings of Homo Floresiensis where discovered in 2003, Liang Bua, Flores, Indonesia [2007] , but has the flickr image been verified for this feature article? Sorry if you have been asked before, but I couldn't find any mention of it.cygnis insignis 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean, if it has been verified that it is the correct cave or what? FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, it was a bit vague. No, if s/he really took it - to be blunt. However, it seems there are many photos from the region on the site, its probably fine. Sorry to bother you. cygnis insignis 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I haven't asked the user if he/she really took the photos, but it seems legit, if you go to the profile it's used by two individuals for their travel photos. I can't think of a reason why they would upload a lot of travel pictures that weren't their own when they claim they took them. But well, you can never know... FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funky! Great, I kinda wish I was back at uni...I'm looking at companies in the uk (mainly london) and very few need animators. Even if they do, they require experianced animators with many skills. Which I dont have ;) Nobody wants noobs so all I can do is apply generally to companies and individual jobs and hope they pick me. :/ Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maybe I should go abroad, but I can barely speak english let alone another language ;) I don't have to be affiliated with a studio, but it would make life easier and it would be nice to get constant pay. I have seen those articles, the second artist is amazing. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why the fact tag ([6])? What is there to doubt? The TriZ (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• That he is specifically a Syriac. For all we know, he's a Christian Lebanese of unknown sectarian affiliation, unless you provide a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know that he is of Syriac origin since his from the same city as mine, and I know of his family and him, but sure I try to fix a source. Have you seen any of his movies btw? The TriZ (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Yeah, you need a source, otherwise It would be "original research", which Wikipedia doesn't like. Remember to add it to his brother as well. Yes, I've seen all his movies apart from "Leo". FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found a Swedish source, [7]. Both the brothers are mentioned. The TriZ (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Great, add it! FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. The TriZ (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The ROM's stance, as I understand it, is that photographs of any ROM property by employees or volunteers are copyright the ROM. So apparently if I photograph my friend standing outside the building, I cannot distribute that photograph. As the ROM stand to profit by selling photographs of objects in their care I can see why they would want to avoid their volunteers taking photographs and allowing them to be used commercially. It does seem a bit draconian to me but that's my understanding of the case... I'd've thought it would allow for "fair use" though. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's as simple as that; copyright law can be sticky. Since I've been told that the museum would disapprove if any images ended up being used commercially, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to upload them to Wikimedia Commons in the knowledge that the could be used commercially. As I say, I'm reluctant to remove them from WP, and feel that a "fair use" licence is applicable. But re-uploading them after discovering that the museum doesn't approve of its collections being photographed could be considered unprofessional. If you can find a way to get them onto WP under a fair use license (and I'd filled out a rationale for each image on the commons before they were deleted), that could be a satisfactory solution. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There are cases where photography taken in the line of work for an employer could be considered property of the employer; the boundary of this becomes hazy. Even if the employer has no legal recourse for protecting the copyright of images of fossils, if your manager tells you not to do something, it generally doesn't advance your career to question the legal basis for his request. So I think I'm going to avoid the risk of getting into trouble and leave it to someone else to choose to reinstate (or otherwise) the images. It's a great shame, but as Canada's national pasttime seems to be bureaucracy I don't want to upset the native customs. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, on the page mentioned in the Subject/Headline, in the related ethnic groups section, you changed "Other Semitic peoples" to "Other Middle Eastern peoples" without discussing it or sourcing your claim; giving the reason Semitic is irrelevant, only a linguistic term.

While there accuracy and reasoning for your edit may seem legitimate to many people, the truth is that other Semitic groups throughout the world are much closer to Arabs than other non-Semitic Middle Eastern groups; in fact, the majority of the people of non-Semitic origin in the Middle East (such as Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples) are virtually unrelated to Arabs. On the other hand, there has been extensive research and genetic testing that Jews, Arabs and other Semitic populations (such as the Assyrians) have common ancestry (you can read about this in the Semitic people article; it's sourced!). Anyway, your edits were in good faith, so I'll try to keep this short :) Thanks. Parthian Scribe 03:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. What you fail to understand is that most Arabs outside the original Arab lands are just Arabised non-Arabs. For example, Iraqis are genetically closer to Iranians than they are to Yemenis, Arab Moroccans are closer to Berbers than they are to Iraqis, Lebanese are closer to Armenians than they are to Yemenis, and so on. "Arab" and "Semitic" are not genetic terms, Iranians aren't distinct from their immediate Arab neighbours, same with Anatolians. I'll bring sources, don't worry. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. Okay? Good luck finding a source that says Persian Iranians are related Iraqis, or that Armenians are related to Lebanese Arabs. Anyway, in your argument, you inferred that "Arabs" (as defined by modern society) refers to a group of people related by language (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I interpreted "Arabized" as meaning). If that's the case, and different Arab groups are only related by language, other Semites would still be more like Arabs because--like you said--of linguistic similarities. Since Arab are (as you asserted) a group related by language and not ethnicity, Other Middle Eastern peoples should obviously not replace Semitic Peoples since they are not a group of people unified by linguistic similarities (or ethnic similarities by the way).--Parthian Scribe 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't need luck finding them, I've seen plenty of such studies. Even Jews have been shown to be closer related to Kurds, who are Iranian speakers, than to Arabs, so there you have it. Linguistics don't mean much when it comes to genetics. Here's some stuff I don't know if you can access: [8][9] and a map by Cavalli Sforza: [10] FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find when where exactly it said Kurds are more closely related to Arabs (but then again, I only skimmed over the second link). I think at this point you should start a discussion about this on the talk page of Arabs or Template:Arabs to see if a larger consensus could be reached. Parthian Scribe 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is irrelevant if there are reliable sources that back a position. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Wikipedia:Third_Opinion, WP:consensus Parthian Scribe 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's relative. An eventual third opinion would be irrelevant too if there weren't any sources to support their claims. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kurds are just one population, and them having some links to the Jews doesn't necessarily make all of the people of the Middle East (e.g. Georgians, and Armenians) closer to Arabs. On the other hand, this essay [11] supports my claim that Semites are in fact related. We obviously can't reach a consensus ourselves, so why not have a third opinion? It couldn't hurt. Parthian Scribe 01:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course Semitic-speaking peoples in the Middle East share genes, but that's because they are from the Middle East, not because they speak Semitic. Semitic speaking Middle Eatsenrers are not related to Semitic speaking Ethiopians, for example. And that study doesn't take non-Semitic speaking Middle Easterners into account, so of course they don't mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From what the Wikipedia article on the name of the Amhara people (the people who the Amharic language, which is Ethiopia's official language, comes from) comes from the Himyarites; whom they are descendants of. The article on Himyarites says that they are descended from pure Arabs. Ethiopians, or at least Semitic Ethiopians, seem to me to be close relatives of the Arabs. Parthian Scribe 07:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And some African Americans claim to be the true descendants of the ancient Hebrews. Give me a break, if it isn't supported by genetics, legends like that are to be treated like legends, not as facts. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Its Nordic Iranian in "ant terms"

Types of the Harder Mediterranean family closer to the Cordeds-Nordics

I didn`t use this since the page furthers down leads to biased material. See if you can find the

study without the modifications of home links. Here is the link pls. remove it after your studied it.

• That's only one author with his own terminology, most other authors by far used the term Iranid. So you should either make clear that it is the term of one author, or use the more widely used term. FunkMonk (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, It´s not an authour its a gathering of probably dozins of US antros at Athens from princeton and so on, this from 1971 before the rev. You´re right though about the Iranid I heard this to, do you have any sources Cyrus111 (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey FM, don't know of any good sources for prehistoric plants offhand unfortunately. But for Alxasaurus in particular, you could probably find that info in this book: [12] Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That photo you posted, isn't that actually Nostoceras nebraskensis(sp)?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, not according to the museum label at least, which can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8435962@N06/2987593642/ Maybe they've mislabeled it? Or maybe the two types are just very similar? FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I just now realized I just had a brainfart: I meant Didymoceras stevensoni, not Nostoceras whatchamacallit. And the list of synonymy for Didymoceras is long and contentious. D. stevensoni--Mr Fink (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be the exact same specimen, doesn't it? If that's the true genus, then I guess the image needs a rename... FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We could always play it (sort of) safe and change the caption to Didymoceras (Cirroceras) stevensoni And should we also put it in Didymoceras' page, also?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we should check which species of Cirroceras that are valid so we can exclude "stevensoni" for good? I'll see if Google turns anything up. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Funky, that was my fault [13] I forgot to reinclude the map image. Cheers for picking that up, and for uploading the image of the skull. Regards, cygnis insignis 15:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ok, no problem! FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tyrannosaurus rex. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why so formal? I reverted three times, that's allowed. You've reverted back to your own version too many times, so I can't really take your warning seriously. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, this seems very unfair. Your edits are hypocritical. You revert your edit 4 times and then and complain that another other person is in an edit war because he has reverted your edits 3 times (the allowed limmit!). You also said his edits are in Bad faith. They certainly wern't. How can you leave a warning on his talk page saying 'use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors' and then 'Ignore' him when he was trying to do just that! Whilst I don't mind some of the edits you made, you were very rude when in the way you implimented them. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Tyrannosaurus rex. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This constitutes a personal attack. Do it once more, and I will ask that you are blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please use the talk page to discuss changes, not merely for baseless threats, thanks. Your behaviour on the Tyrannosaurus talk page speaks for itself, so I'm pretty confident I have nothing to worry about, unless I start acting like you. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tyrannosaurus rex. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• In case you've forgotten, you're the one who has reverted more than three times, ignores and patronises other editors, refuses to take part in discussions, and ignores the manual of style. Please ask for me to be blocked, like you threatened to do, I expect it to backfire miserably once the admins see your talk-page behaviour vis a vis mine. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As you've commented on this issue recently, I thought you might be interested in the discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey FM, the wings on your version look accurate to me, but the image still had problems, especially with the skull. Quick check against a skeletal looks like the skull is too robust--upper jaw should be narrower, lower jaw narrower and more curved. Probably pretty easy photoshop job if you wanted to try. It's also missing the teeth in the upper jaw tip. Thanks for working on this though! Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm working on a revamp for the List of pterosaurs and I've been experimenting with a slightly different format for displaying the images in relation to the table because the way I had been doing it previously interfered with the tables' sorting function. If you could check out this section on the page and tell me how it looks compared to the other tables and get back to me, I'd be very grateful. Abyssal (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Any of the other tables on the page. I'm trying to create a version where the images are handled outside the table, like in the Q-Z section. The other sections in the same page use the older problematic format that includes the images inside the table. Thanks for the help. Abyssal (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the Q-Z section again so that it should look better on bigger monitors and/or higher resolutions. I haven't had a chance to look at it on my home monitor (at school now), so I thought I'd try to get some extra eyes on this until I can. Does it look any different/better/worse? Abyssal (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort of, but it's mainly because I'm experimenting with a different way of spacing them out, using tables. The other sections are just spaced with two indents. Abyssal (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thawb

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1.The gallery belongs to the pterosaur researcher (Mark Witton) that, alongside Darren Naish, wrote the essay on azhdarchid paleoecology

2.The points given make sense (read the text for the info on the wing loading, claws and head size)

3.Dimorphodon, according to the article, was a descendent of Peteinosaurus, itself a terrestrial form; wouldn't it make more sense if Dimorphodon continued in that line?

I hope I cleared everything --Falconfly —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

• Hi. Well, Mark Witton does not just make research up on his Flickr page, he cites and refers to actual scientific papers. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do too, it's in the guidelines, so instead of citing the Flickr page, you should cite the scientific papers the research has been presented it in, like the PLOS paper I put in instead, which Witton worked on too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

just wondering if you knew about Iraqi Arabs abroard, Cheers!--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm sorry. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure! ArthurWeasley (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Proav16 large.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a tag already. FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the nominee of a move request of ‘Alawi → Alawi at Talk:‘Alawi#Requested_move but have said you support Alawites as well. What do you think of a multiple choice as part of the discussion? — AjaxSmack 01:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, and again, I'd prefer Alawites over anything else. Most Alawites who know English would actually. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:‘Alawi. If you care, please weigh in on a modification of the move request there. — AjaxSmack 00:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

== Can you answer questions about Andrewsarchus? What do you currently believe about how it ate? How would it have moved? I have an article that says it is related to modern whales, any comment? What do you think it evolved into? ==

Have you taken a look at the Andrewsarchus article? Also, take a look at this article: http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/03/wherefore_art_thou_andrewsarch.php FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea actually. I'd help out with the tagging if you want to set up the cat. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That was generous, there's very little about that image that resembles Deinonychus in shape or proportion. I guess it's better to save time and just list the biggies though. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just expanding on this concept, maybe we should segregate the inaccurate or outdated images by family, the way fossils are done? For example, Fossil Diplodocus is a sub-cat of Diplodocus. Maybe Anatomically inaccurate Diplodocus images should be another sub-cat? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it would be a bit hard to sort through that many categories (if they were split by genus)? We could maybe split them up between life restorations and mounted skeletons? I'm not a big fan of the many fossil sub-caegoris on Commons either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for those two - image redirects left in article space gave a false positive :( Skier Dude (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Funk, not a bad idea. I wouldn't go with Atrociraptor though without some modifications, see pics of the skull in this link: [14]

The problem with a re-purpose is the newer version is pretty clearly Deinonychus... and if the image is so general that it could be anything, we'll need to make sure it's labeled as a totally hypothetical reconstruction. I remember having a discussion about the appropriateness of those a while back but forget what the opinions were. You could always say it's something like Luanchuanraptor but that would be risky since it's exact phylogenetic position hasn't been studied, and dromie skull shapes vary pretty drastically across the subfamilies. Your best bet would be to model it on a known, headless form that probably falls roughly in the Velociraptorinae/Dromaeosaurinae/Saurornitholestinae "group" and hope for the best. Maybe Pyroraptor? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Adasaurus would be good too, especially if you can find the paper. Much of the skull and skeleton are known, not sure how much has been figured, but this might be a good starting point: [15]. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The new Sauror wing looks fine to me. As for that fossil, it's probably one of the hundreds of unpublished dromie specimens lurking in Chinese museums (mostly unpublished because many are at least partially faked/composited). Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to keep Ida (fossil) as a separate article. please keep me posted on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh well, I disagreed with that, actually. The thing is, "Ida" and Darwinius is pretty much the same thing at present. Everything written in the Ida article would go for the Darwinius article as well, as there is only one single specimen of Darwinius, which is "Ida". FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to tell me more about this and why I should not remove it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Try to read the description of the image in the paper itself ("All of plate A and parts 1 and 2 on plate B (enclosed in dashed lines) are genuine; remainder of plate B was fabricated during preparation." and "Relative positions and museum numbers as in Figure 1. Radiographs show that all of plate A is genuine, while cranium, thorax, upper arms (part 1), and lumbus, pelvis, base of tail, and upper legs (part 2) of plate B are genuine."), it's directly from there. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)