User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 4

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.

This is a shout out to you, I just was reading the AVP series discussion and I came across your name and I find it groovy. I enjoy funk too. But whatever, if there is anything that you need assistance with you can contact me. But otherwise I was just saying Hello. Tj999 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and same to you, cool userpage you got there by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funk, you're Scottish Lebanese? that's interesting i'm Irish Iraqi. I see your posts everywhere I go on Wiki! 90.193.39.230 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, I'm half Lebanese, a quarter Scottish, and a quarter Faroese actually, so 50% North Atlantic you could say, and living in Denmark. Fun to hear from an Irish-Iraqi, is it 50/50?. And are you planning on becoming a regular contributor here? You should register! FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Since I've noticed that you speak Faroese I wanted to ask you if you coul help me. Could you translate this for me? I guess this is an information about last three games of Formuladeildin 2008 but I don't understand a thing. If you want to could you just give me the necessary information about the games and post it to me? Thanks, bye. SonjiCeli (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, I'll take a look, I might not get time to send it to you until tomorrow. But in short, it says that it has been decided that the games which were cancelled 25. oktober should end as 0-0. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. SonjiCeli (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funk,

This edit from February 7th broke the numbering used in that section of the article. I've moved the image back to its original place so that the numbering remains intact. I've also restored the italics you removed in that edit. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, you don't have to notify me when changing image placement, it's all fine with me if it improves something. In this case, I moved it to the part of the text which described the way of restoring Stegosaurus that was shown in the image, but if it screws up coding it shouldn't be there, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please respect edited pages by not removing them if you have anything to edit please feel free to do so, but removal of entire pages are not considered valid.194.14.94.1 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Moving is not the same as removing. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They're synonyms, used by different authors for the same thing If so both are valid and can be used, why should one exclude the other, if anyrhing the Ir Afg page is more valid Cyrus111 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you agree, so there should only be one article. One doesn't have to be deleted, just redirected. "Irano Afghan" was used by Coon, "Iranid" by everyone else. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So we have an agreement, we can use both, only redirect, thats why wiki has this temp:

(for these cases)

Cheers Funk Cyrus111 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• We can use both in the same article, yes, but there is no reason to have separate articles for each, just because there are different names for the same thing. There are not separate articles for human and Homo sapiens either. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So why not use the Irano afghan page and use the redirect template, thats what is for, or delete the Iranid or "slash it" i.e Irano Afghan/Iranid, then use both content on same pageCyrus111 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Becauase that's not common practice at all. It's only used on some very controversial pages, such as the Syriac/Assyrians related ones, but that's not ideal either. With this term, there's practically no conroversy other than the one started by you and that IP address. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

this guy is a racialist crank with a bee in his bonnet about a "Nordic-Iranian" race.[1] There isn't even any debate in this, it's a complete non-starter. All he presents are links to racist websites. I am not willing to waste time over such non-issues, this sort of thing should be tackled at the administrative level. --dab (𒁳) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported Cyrus111 to the 3RR Noticeboard for his constant reverting. Just to be on the safe side, I suggest not making any edits there yourself until it's resolved in case you get caught up in the crossfire and accused of edit-warring too. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I've removed the related ethnic groups box on the Jew page for uniformity, and there hasn't been any opposition. Hey, am I the only one with a sense of deja vu?--Yolgnu (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I thought the article's title was the scientific name, I just didn't read far enough into the article to realize my mistake. I believe any user can move a page over a redirect, as in this case. However, the error message (is it an error message) you get puzzles me. That shouldn't really be happening unless there is something wrong with the link you want to move it to. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Spotty beat me to it. If the page that the article is being moved to is only a redirect, it is possible to move it to that title. Admins have the ability to move pages over articles, rather than just redirects. You can read more about moving over a redirect here. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• When I try to move articles over redirects, I still get this:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Error: could not submit form Jump to: navigation, search Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed.

This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read mw:Help:Moving a page for more detailed instructions.

Note to admins: The "leave a redirect behind" option should only be unchecked when reverting pagemove vandalism or if there is a very good reason to do so, as this will break any links to the current title, and may make the page harder to find. If you accessed this from new page patrol, please patrol the page before moving it, because otherwise the page will stay in the patrol log (see bugzilla:17463).

This page has a talk page, which will be automatically moved along with it unless:

You are moving the page across namespaces, A non-empty talk page already exists under the new name, or You uncheck the box below. In those cases, you will have to move or merge the page manually if desired. Please request a page move on Wikipedia:Requested moves if you cannot do so, but please do not just copy and paste the contents, as doing that destroys the edit history of the page.

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's weird. Perhaps it has something to do with your unified login originating from the Danish Wikipedia? Or perhaps because your username was renamed? I'm just throwing ideas out there; I'm not sure why you're not able to move pages over redirects. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask at the village pump or something. Didn't know until now that it was possible for other regular accounts to move over redirects... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I was able to move Ingenia over a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently fulfilled a request at WP:PAL. I was wondering what kind of image editing software you use, and how you are able to make such collages. I've been trying to create some using GIMP, but to no avail. Thanks! --Spotty ¹¹²²² 03:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't actually made the collage yet, the user who requested the image suddnely striked out his list of images, and I haven't asked him why yet. I haven't made any other such collage yet, but I use Photoshop, so it shouldn't be too hard. Maybe you should ask Dinoguy2, since he has already made such a collage, this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panaves_diversity.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could you tell me why you wanted to redirect the species article to the genus article? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there had been talks on the paleontology project about moving extinct species to genus articles, which has already been done to most fossil species by far. Most extinct species, including Mammut species, don't have enough info attached to them that would warrant separate articles. They are simply stubs or duplicates, with the only difference being location where it was found and size. I've brought it up on the paleo project to see what they say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Merging_fossil_species_into_genus_articles FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So, is there a consensus to do this? I haven't researched the subject, but I wonder if deleting the species articles might not tend to discourage future species-related contributions. Stubs have the potential to evolve into more substantial articles over time - if one is patient. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion link[], there you'll see the arguments against fossil species articles. The articles aren't deleted, simply redirected to the genus article, all the info is intact. It's just better to concentrate on the genus article since most if not all of the individual species info will be identical to the info found there, so it is hard to justify there being individual articles for them. Unlike living species, you can't observe fossil species, so many times, a lot of times actually, fossils that have at one point been described as distinct species turn out not to be, and so on. I doubt anyone will be discouraged to write about species, they can simply do it in the genus articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I partially reverted some of that, they were better left as redlinks or stubs. Then I stopped, for any number of reasons. Where is the discussion? cygnis insignis 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, at this point the Mastodon article has more info on the American mastodon than the eponymous article, so it may be appropriate to redirect it. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, it appears that there is support for single-species articles for recently extinct mammals when a lot of information is available; since this is true of the American mastodon, I am transferring the species-specific material from the genus to the species article. Let me know if you feel there is any problem with this. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but I don't think the same can be said about the other mastodon species. FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Funky, I notice you reverted my edits. Do you object to me undoing that? Clearly I think that Rule: extinct = genus only is bogus, especially for mammals, though I wont deny anyone the option to pretend such things exist. I fixed something in the article and planned to add a bit more. I also should point out that unless the citation is a public domain source, you have made a copyvio a little bit worse, that was the something I fixed. cygnis insignis 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can make something good out of one of those article, I'm all for that, it just seems to be impossible to write an article about one of the minor mastodon species without 90% of it being duplicate material. But you could prove me wrong. Not that I'm a hyper lumper or anything, I just split Aepyornis from the aepyornithidae article for example. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are kinda forcin' the issue, with an already falsified assertion. Why not leave the options of redlinks and stubs, rather than directing it all to the genus? The latter would be a compromise if this were extant taxa, we should include information relevant to the topic, in this case a genus. Adopting this compromise may be due to a genuine lack of facts or vision. I can show you examples of articles that are rubbish tips of species info, written as if it applies to all the genus; there is nothing wrong with a short article with specific information to be improved. I suppose that most of the extinct mammal species, especially proboscideans and other well known mammals, are potentially interesting articles. cygnis insignis 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But yet again, this is not an extant taxa, you can't compare the two. I and others have stated this many times; articles about fossil species are almost inherently going to be duplicates of each other, with the only difference being morphology and location data. Stuff like that can easily be summarised in a genus article in a few paragraphs. As an example, a slight difference from one fragmentary bone to another can result in erecting new species, not to say genera, that might get lumped into others at some point anyhow, having new articles for each of such is completely pointless. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So what. I might feel like debating this sometime, I generally avoid it. You have some editing to do, can I suggest that you fix the copyvio you moved and the citations you widowed from their references when you split Aepyornis. cygnis insignis 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why so agressive? Anyhow, what copyvio are you referring to? And what widowed refs? I didn't remove anything from the elephant bird article when I created the new one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

{{-}} — cygnis insignis 18:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The 'mastodon' stubs were verbatim text from the only source, you cut and pasted that into Mastodon. That may be a copyvio. The summary was merged, more than you usually provide, but not an adequate attribution. cygnis insignis
2. You said in your edit summary at Aepyornis "created", I suspect that is not the case. cygnis insignis 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• If there was a copyvio, I was not aware. What are you insinuating? And with Aepyornis, I don't even know what you mean. Could you cut the hostile tone, please? FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi , some genius nominated File:3133 (7)Jeita.JPG _ this picture of Jeita you uploaded_ for deletion under the pretext that there is no "freedom of panorama" in lebanon !!??? shou????? Shou hay??? the pic is indispensable man!!! Eli+ 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

i just saw you message i ll look into it mate Eli+ 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC) BTW im so angry!!

yes we can.... there's always a way, can you email me the picture, i'll make sure we have another version ready and LEGAL this time, BTW i read the law>>>> KHAWZA2NA .. [2] ill email you my email :P Eli+ 15:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks i got it, will process it within these 2 days Thank you . I dont think JG will get nominated, the world hates us :S, fi Veto 3layna Eli+ 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

read article 31, we are saved , the nomination is NOT justified, go back to page and write your input man! Eli+ 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, seems solid! Is any of the area private ground? FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

the land is owned by the Lebanese Republic but the premises are managed by MAPASEli+ 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you still think we have a shot at Jeita becoming a featured article? Eli+ 16:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Funk, I don't see any problem with making it Dromaeosauroides as long as any caption makes clear it's completely hypothetical. A Deinonychus like skull would seem to fit with its phylo position on Theropod Database at least. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Following your comments when you were trying to clean the panorama. I'm not sure if you stopped working on it, but I will appreciate your comments on the version I cleaned, since you seem to be experienced on this. Thank you. --Banzoo (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look on sunday, won't have a big monitor to look at until then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the unknown portions of Deinonychus' skull, Witmer and Maxwell have published on new material;

1996. Witmer, L. M. and Maxwell, W. D. The skull of Deinonychus (Dinosauria; Theropoda): new evidence and insights. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16(3) Supplement, 73A.

1996. Maxwell, W. D. and Hallas, B. H. First skull roof and braincase of Deinonychus. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 96(9):563.

And it includes the skull roof, nasals, etc. But these materials are not reflected in the skull model figured on the Deinonychus page.

• Oh, thanks! I had seen a new restoration of the skull by Gregory S. Paul, but thought it was just based on related genera, this one:[3] Is it based on the new material? FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk! I noticed you changed the Thalassodromeus picture, to remove any suggestion it was a skimmer. However, I was using the picture on the nl: article to illustrate Kellner's hypothesis that it skimmed! Could you place both versions in Commons?

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and I was actually thinking that the image could be used the way here that you use it on nl Wiki, so I could revert the change. Could you maybe make the en article reflect this so someone else does not remove the image again? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could indeed ;o).--MWAK (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is done. By the way, looking at the picture, it doesn't really appear to be skimming, rather trying to catch a leaping squid. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably the post-skimming phase :o) — I presume nobody can object to an instance of general piscivory.--MWAK (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

your message is well received, i guess i should contact mapas after all to get clearance for inside image usage just like you suggested, i will work on that later on when i have more spare time, waiting for your uploads ;) Eli+ 05:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, IM sorry for the late reply, i had way too much on my mind and often doze while surfing, thanks for the links; I'll work on Jeita becoming featured when I have more free time i'm ok with GA status for now. recently i'm researching (when i'm free) the history of the old souks of beirut (alas with very little success). Eli+ 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding and moving all the nice Plateosaurus pics! Please email me again; I had a crash and lost all addresses!HMallison (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Awright! I'll send a mail, and the new image I added of the AMNH mount will be rotated soon, by the way, thought a bot would do it, but they're too slow apparently. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While I don't mind you redirecting Metawali to Shi'a Islam in Lebanon, you should have noted in the edit summary for this edit that you took the material from there. Its true that all Wiki contributions are without copyright, but attribution is the form of a link to the article you took the material from is still required. I'm quite sure you didn't know this. So in the future, please do abide by it. Perhaps you might undo your edit, and redo it with the link to Metawali? Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Well, I didn't know that, but I just did this[4], which I figure would make any editor understand? Sorry if I caused any harm. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On 11 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Aardonyx, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael, to join, I'm adding tutorials bit by bit to a facebook group, it's still experimental and needs some time to pick up.Eli+ 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tutorials for what? I deleted my Facebook account a year ago, so I sadly can't join at the moment, but if I do create a new one, I'll join! FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

thats the best thing one could ever do :D, hehe; well the first tutorial is for citing refs easily using addons this is a link on youtube. this is intended for struggling newbies Eli+ 07:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CreativeSoul7981 has started removing a sentence from the Magi article and accusing it of bias because it doesn't match his Iranian racial and cultural purity bias (using a new-age website and a website explaining that the Three Magi were Zoroastrian as "proof.") I've gotten three reverts down and he won't be able to remove the sentence again if someone else reverts him. I thought based on your comments in the Semitic talk page that you could do it, if it's no bother. Thanks, Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He seems to have backed down for now, I think he doesn't quite get the 3RR. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On 11 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Tawa (dinosaur), which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

reply --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing ever since you transferred most of my pictures to Commons. Which reminds me, I need to put the new updated picture of Bomakellia into its article.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

...

The skull in the photo looks just like the drawing of a skull of Shanshitherium tafeli on page 265 of The Evolution of Artiodactyls by D. Prothero and friends, so I think the mounted skeleton is of S. tafeli. PS, thank you so much for uploading the rest of my pictures to Commons.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we amend the description of that photo, too, then?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was just wondering why you moved Acheloma cumminsi back to Acheloma, I'm pretty new at this so if I made a mistake please do tell KimiNewt (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There has been some discussion of this in the past, for example on the Darwinius page, so the consensus is that monospecific genera should only have the genus name in the title. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. So it seems I've made quite a few mistakes! Should I go back and change all the articles I've previously edited and moved to the species name (i.e. Cordicephalus gracilis)? KimiNewt (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if these are monospecific genera, then yes. Also, obscure fossil species usually don't get their own articles, they are mostly covered in the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are monospecific. It always made sense to me to just have the genus name redirect. I'll get on changing them soon, thanks. KimiNewt (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

great one! :) thanks! I'll soon write something about the expeditions, and Abyssal will update the stratigraphy. HMallison (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool! The dino project feels alive again after you joined! FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/wildnewworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. mattbr 10:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, User:Mabeenot is writing an article for The Signpost and wanted to do an interview with WP:DINO editors. The interview questions are here. Since you're a prolific editor on the project, I thought you might want to comment. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi FunkMunk,

How on earth did you get the orange and black color on your illustration of Sinornithosaurus correct two years before the paper stating that black and orange were probably the colors of this and other feathered dinosaurs? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, if only, but that's the colour of Sinosauropteryx, not Sinornithosaurus. Still, pretty odd. Damn those Sino names. By the way, forgot to answer about the interview, I think I'll pass, but thanks for asking! FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the Nature article discusses the same coloration in -saurus: "Our identification of both eumelanosomes and phaeomelanosomes implies that some basal birds and non-avian theropods had black and russet coloration. In Sinornithosaurus the filaments are locally dominated either by eumelanosomes or phaeomelanosomes, indicating significantly different colour tones." See? You're psychic. :) What lottery numbers should I pick this week? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

!!! Wow, and the only reward I'll get is that I don't have to recolour the damn thing! Amazing. Dino geekery has entered a completely new phase! Who'll predict the next colour? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not me; you're the medium. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the same batch of papers (that implied green and blue are impossible in protofeathers) rendered at least seven of my other restorations inaccurate... FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you just have to hone your psychic skills a little, is all. You're just starting out. Give it some time... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good start, better rate than most, I believe... FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Dinoguy's got the gift: http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/ FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed the nice picture of the Dodo head and foot you replaced my picture of just a pile of bones from Manchester Museum with. I have put my bones back and left your picture there. But I think these are plaster casts rather than a dried head as the label claims or a even a fossilised one as the blurb on the pictures tag claims. Would it be wise/OK to change the label to "plaster cast" ? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Hi, well, it is only safe if we know for certain, so let's see if we can find some references to those remains. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it must be a cast of the mummified head at the Oxford Museum. Couldn't find a proper ref, but I think it's ok. FunkMonk (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the warm return! I've now finally got a chance to spend some time on wiki, so I thought I'd return. You got someone else, that's odd.... Anyway I've a new email addreess, so there shouldn't be any more problems. Best, Mark t young (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That explains it then. You can find my email through my personal website: [5] Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the infobox military conflict on that page according to this edit. I believe this is unwarranted as there was a conflict in Lebanon although it was unconventional. There were multiple belligerent forces engaging in combat within a specific location which means I would define this as a military conflict, so I am interested in the rationale for your deletion of the infobox. Thank you very much.
226Trident 01:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a conflict. The conflict has several articles (Lebanese civil war, 1982 Lebanon war, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, so on). The MFL was not a "conflict" in any sense of thew word, but, obviously, a multinational force. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your merger of Living dinosaur (which is a disambiguation page, a category of pages much needed in Wikipedia) and Living dinosaur (cryptozoology), a particular issue within that general phrasing. Thank you and regards! --Againme (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Possibly_merger_the_artice.3F One of the articles is non-needed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Which one is non-needed and why? The disambiguation article incorporates much more than simply the cryptozoological aspect of the phrase "living dinosaur" and gives a general frame. What do you think about it? Should we wait for more thoughts? --Againme (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure anyone else really cares. But anyway, I think an article about the one meaning of living dinosaur that refers to birds is simply redundant. Just leave one cryptozoology article with a note that says it can also refer to birds. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. There are a couple more meanings, like Paleocene dinosaurs and Creationist dinosarus. --Againme (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how are paleocene dinosaurs living? And what do you mean by creationist dinosaurs? If you mean ones still thought living, they come under cryptozoology, and if you mean recently extinct, that still does not make them living dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point... but I liked that dab page... :) --Againme (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a nice collection of interesting stuff, but what the articles it directed to really had in common was that they were about dinosaurs surviving past the cretaceous, not necessarily living today. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Dinosaur-planet-dvd-cover-art.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Funk,

A random IP editor removed the image. I've fixed this. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk! I have been wondering about your photo of the Homo erectus skull: It is a very good picture, but do you not think it would give a better feel if you gave it lower saturation (only at the skull)? This is just my opinion, but what do you like the bright colors? /Conty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just automatic colour correction in Photoshop, the original is orange tinted, so the new version should be closer to the actual colours. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): A lot of redflags showed up, and I was a bit hasty to block when I realized that it wasn't a legitimate block. Please accept my apologies. –MuZemike 09:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Request handled by: –MuZemike Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Well, accepted, and I can see why you would get suspicious, judged on my recent edits to that navbox template, which, I'll have to admit, is rather a tasteless one. But heck, I didn't create it, I only edited. Or there is maybe another reason? I would appreciate an explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

awesome pic. Decora (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty cool. There are many more like it on the site it's from. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot logining in when I made my last edit about the Assyrian disamb-page. I wrote why in the summary. If we need a longer discussion I hope we can take it here instead, eller vad säger du? :) Shmayo (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ja, lad os det. Så igen, "Assyrians" kan jo henvise til både moderne og oldtids assyrere. Men det synes du måske ikke? FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Det stämmer att det kan hänvisa till båda. Så vad säger du om den gamla disamb-sidan; [6] ? Shmayo (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Den er bedre! Hvorfor er den ikke i brug? FunkMonk (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sander, M. et al. (2010): Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism. Biology Reviews (online first) doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00137.x

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123397084/PDFSTART

open access, btw. HMallison (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Looks really exciting at first glance. By the way, from now on, the Naturkunde Museum brachiosaur specimen (which figures as silhouette a couple of times) will forever remind me of my now ex-girlfriend, who I saw it with for the first time, waahaah... FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On May 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alanqa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not ever remove or modify anyones comments or additions, such as a {{movereq}} template, to talk pages, unless they agree. See WP:TALK for our talk page guidelines. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I added it myself in the first place, check the diffs. So I did exactly what you seem to want me to do, I removed the difference I made to the original message. You moved it back to my version yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the tip! Albertonykus (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You recently created the page Paraustralopithecus as a redirect to itself (#REDIRECT Paraustralopithecus). I assume you meant to do something else, so you may want to correct this before it gets deleted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This image you just added is of... a replica, surely? If so I don't like the word specimen... Evercat (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't mentioned in the description of the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the paper describing Tiktaalik says the fossil is being kept in Nunavut. This picture from that paper shows some fairly distinctive damage on the left side of the head, which is also seen in the Belgian Institute picture, so it's surely a replica rather than a new specimen, which I think would be spectacularly unlikely anyway. Evercat (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I just found out that the skull was faked. I'll update it soon, and maybe throw it up on the paleoart review just to make sure everything else is anatomically correct. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your re-edit on the Palestinian page, I'm new to wikipedia and am having difficulty doing what I was actually intending to do. I noticed that you made the variety of people pictures for Lebanese people. I was wondering if you could do the same for famous/notable Palestinian people, rather than having the old outdated picture. You did a great job on the Lebanese showing diversity, hopefully you can do the same for Palestinians.Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I proposed the same on the talk page of the Palestinian page, here[7]. If you have some suggestions for which people to put in, feel free to put them there. FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad someone else besides me had the same idea, haha. I added quite a few suggestions of names of Notable Palestinians to that list for ya. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a reply on the other page. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Funk, so will you be able to post the collage as is for now and then we can add to it as we come up with more images? Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, good luck. And I will continue looking for more pictures. Lazyfoxx (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

here are a couple Christian Palestinians, Naim Ateek: http://www.faith2share.net/Portals/0/NewsPage10/Naim%20Ateek.jpg, Michel Sabbah: http://intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/michel-sabbah.jpg Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Funkmonk, just checking up on the progress of the Montage, need any help? Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How many columns should it have? And do we have images of more than one female? I think that would be important. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think 3 columns would be adequate for now, what do you think? And yeah I believe there are 2 females in the one you made already, we can keep searching for more to add additionally as well ;) Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll try to do it tonight. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! can't wait to see :)Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Funk, just checking up, do you need any more help? 65.30.27.183 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (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:

Seems like my IP has been blocked for editing on Balkan related articles, which I don't, so please unblock me. It is most likely my younger brother editing as an anonymous IP from his own PC, we share IPs while I visit my family. I will tell him to stop. Or is there maybe a way to block the IP, but not my account?

Decline reason:

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:55, 27 September 2010 (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.

I'm still blocked, and I get this message: Editing from 217.157.202.160 has been disabled by Magog the Ogre for the following reason(s): Edit warring: Violation of 1RR parole on Balkans related article

This block has been set to expire: 01:09, 29 September 2010.FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC) {{unblock-ip|1=217.157.202.160|2=<nowiki>[[WP:Edit warring|Edit warring]]: Violation of 1RR parole on Balkans related article|3=Magog the Ogre}}</nowiki>

Are you editing on a public IP? Are you the same user who made those reversions to the Balkans related articles? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, see my unblock request above. I am currently visiting my family in another part of Denmark, so I'm sharing my IP adress with my younger brother (but through another PC) who I know has edited Balkan wars related articles recently. I myself never edit anonymously, and I never edit Balkan related articles, not an interest of mine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright; based off the editing pattern, I'll assume good faith, and grant you an IP block exemption until your vacation is over. How long do you plan on being in vacation Denmark? Also, you might want to have a talk with your little brother about civility and poor editing patterns on Wikipedia, lest he get you blocked at a different IP in the future (we even have a little essay on it: WP:BROTHER). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahah, damn, didn't know about that! From how fitting it is, you'd almost think I used that policy as an excuse. I live in DK, I'm jus in another part of it. And it's no vacation, I'm here for education the next six weeks. But I'll talk to my brother about it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, my brother says he won't edit anymore, but keep his Balkan propaganda on Youtube. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright. It's not that we don't want him to edit, it's that we don't want him to edit unconstructively. I'll remove the IP block exemption after the block expires on your IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodly FunkMonk. I saw you send me a note regarding the photo of an alleged moa bird. It was taken from a clip on youtube from the program Animal X [8]. Isn't it legal to use material from youtube? I thought it were uploade for free use? Conty 08:30, 1 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs)

No, where did you get that idea? And in any case, Youtube didn't create either the picture or the documentary it was shown in. Youtube doesn't own any of the videos uploaded on it, the uploaders usually do, and that's not always the case, when they upload TV shows and similar. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should I chop my picture of Doryaspis in half, so we can see each individual species better?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, is it possible to put them side by side in the same image maybe? Otherwise chopping it into two separate pictures could be a good solution. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I could do that, though, when I get home, I'll see which would look better.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright! And yeah, images with much vertical length can kind of screw up pages. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you were interested in Spinosaurus. I made a new image of him. If I can be useful to you hesitate to contact me.

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, cool, looks Luis Reyish! Do you know anything about that specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know him pretty well ... it's mine. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, what do you mean, the skeleton? FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. [[9]] --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah, what can I say, WOW! You should put some more info about yourself on the English Wikipedia, your credentials are pretty impressive. So where is that specimen now? Are the photos from Japan[10] of a cast, or is it the same specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed, the specimen was submitted in Japan. I made this morning an image of the skull. The specimen is in France, he was loaned for several months at the Museum of Toulouse. There will be exhibited in December. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Which parts are original fossils and which are reconstructed? Is the specimen going to be scientifically described? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I make you a document to fit the reconstituted party this weekend and I'll send it --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No joke! That's pretty cool, wish I'd updated my ovi profiles sooner... Good job on your Zamyn Khondt specimen pic, that's pretty much the only photo of the actual specimen I've ever seen, I'm surprised more people don't use it. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk. I have seen that you deleted my skeletal diagram of Ambulocetus from the page, with the comment that it showed incomplete parts as complete. I find it difficult to understand how you can say that; If you read the image description, you see sources which shows you the skeleton, and that my diagram is based on it. Or have I done something wrong? Conty 20:47,20 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs)

Hi, what I meant is that you have shown bones that look pretty fragmented as if they were intact, like the lower jaw, and you have also shown some bones that are simply not present, such as several finger and toe bones and ribs. The radius and ulna also look way too thick. So well, you should remember to post skeletal images for review, not only life restorations to get a second opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Heya Funkmonk, any news on the new Infobox Picture for the Palestinian Article?

I only ask because you seem to be the best at this sort of thing, having made great additions to the Lebanese article, I'd like to see the Palestinian article look as good as the other Levantine people articles. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't been up to snuff, I've been away from my own PC for a long time now, so I didn't have the right equipment to do it, but I'm back now, so it'll hopefully be done soon... FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh ok, well you did a good job on it, well done. :) Hopefully we can eventually add more people to help show the diversity more. ;) Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well that depends on whether we'll ever get more free photos of notable people! Are you Palestinian by the way? FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah haha, and yes I'm partially of Palestinian/Lebanese descent, are you? :) Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I really wish we could find free photos for Ali Suliman, Kais Nashef, Naim Ateek, and Michel Sabbah, I think they'd be good attributions, but whenever I find a picture one of the people on the page tells me it's not free. :( Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, as you may have noticed, I'm part Lebanese too. And by the way, when listing all sorts of foreign people as the ancestors of all Palestinians, you're playing right into the hands of the kind of people who would be delighted if the Palestinians had a foreign origin (see the now discredited book From Time Immemorial, for example). Luckily, DNA testing has shown this to be false. Of course there is some foreign admixture, but so is there in all populations of the world. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I just didn't want to leave any people out of the Ancestry make-up, for instance my Palestinian ancestry has some well documented French Crusader origin, as well as Greek Melkite origin. What I hate to see is the Pan-Arabists and Israeli's pinning the Palestinians as Ethnic Arabs who belong in Arabia and not Palestine, when the Arab admixture is only a small part of their actual ancestry, like the Lebanese and Syrians. The truth is that all Levantines are heavily mixed ethnically, although most their ancestry is Indigenous, ie Canaanite/Phoenician/etc. The other ethnic groups that have contributed to their make-up deserve to be noted I think. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, there is of course some admixture, like your family could have European ancestry, someone else could have Egyptian ancestry, like Arafat and so on, but this does not mean that Palestinians as a whole have such ancestry. Therefore, it is better to show what can be said for the entire group. And only thing that's safe to say for all Palestinians is that they're Levantine with South Arabian admixture (via the Islamic conquest for the Muslims, and via the Ghassanids for the Christians) And when it comes to very ancient groups, who really knows if for example the "Sea Peoples" left a genetic imprint? Recent genetic studies indicate they didn't, as there isn't any substantial European influence. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's Right, that's why I think we should re-add the previous statement into the intro but put before it "Palestinians can be descended from but not all descend from... ...but it varies depending on Region as well as to a lesser extent Religion" or something to that extent, just so that we don't leave anything out.

Also regarding the South Arabian admixture, a lot of it is exaggerated, for instance, if you look at the Haplogroup studies done on Palestinians you'll see that the strain of Haplogroup J1 which is the most common paternal haplogroup was until recently thought to have originated in South Arabia, but recent studies have shown that the most common J1 strain found in Palestinians has a indiginous Levantine origin, with the South Arabian strain of J1 being almost exlusively found in Muslims, it's like how haplogroup R1b a Western European haplogroup has basically only been found in the Christian populations of the Levant.

Also recent Genetic studies have shown that the majority of input into Levantines besides the majority indigenous blood flow is Southern European in the form of mostly Greek/Roman ancestry, this has been shown through Haplogroup studies as well as Genome wide studies. And of course this makes sense if we look at history because before the spead of Islam, most of the people in Palestine were Aramaen/Greek/Roman Christians :P Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I still strongly disagree that we should list every single ethnicity that they could have descended from, this is simply not done elsewhere. Some Danes descend from African slaves, Germans, and whatever, but this is not mentioned in the intro, and it shouldn't be. You're doing more damage than good with this, practically supporting the views of some ultra Zionists (even though the info is unconfirmable and pure speculation), so please let it go. Why do you think it was only Israeli editors who reverted back to your version? They want the Palestinians to be of mainly Arab, crusader and whatever else you wrote ancestry, so they can claim that they are the only true owners of the land, and "a land without people to a people without land" and all that bullshit. Maybe the info has some kind of sentimental value for you, but you must look at the bigger picture. Lots of people get their only knowledge about Palestinians through this article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it supports Zionists, because the first people listed in that group of people's are the Canaanites, of whom which were native's of Palestine for thousands of years, as were the Aramaens, Amorites, Jebusites, etc. And Romans and Greeks who have settled the Region since the times of the Roman Empire over 1500 years ago. Whether or not some people were "foreign" to the Land of Palestine, they still made the land their home and inter-mixed with the Native population for many many years. The first Jews themselves were immigrants to the Region from southern Mesopotamia. Zionists have no right to claim Palestine over the Palestinians because genetically they have just about as much right to the Land as any other Mediterranean population who has settled the region.

What aggravates me is the main ploy of the Zionists, which I feel is being subtely done in the article, is to solely pin Palestinians as "Arab invaders" who have no ancestry that traces back more than a couple hundred years in Palestine. Which may be true for some of the recent Immigrants to Palestine after that establishment of Israel, but is definitely not true in regards to Native Palestinians, mainly of Aramaen/Canaanite stock who have been in the region for thousands of years, while having absorbed admixture from other peoples who settled the region.

If you ask me, the Zionist Jews have hardly an argument in this matter because they are essentially not pure Jews in any sense beyond religions, they have absorbed many genes from their host countries that they have settled in, such as Ashkenazi Jews who have a considerable amount of German ancestry.

Their theory is flawed anyways because it claims people can leave a country for thousands of years and then return to it and get it all back, regardless of who didn't leave the country and have lived there ever since? Lazyfoxx (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why I think the current genetic data is enough, it simply says they're of Levantine origin and what groups they cluster with. No hokus pokus with Arabs and crusaders. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, In that matter I think it's sufficient now too, glad to have someone to agree with :). Now we just have to work on finding more images for the Infobox ;D Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

On images, compile a list of names, then we can search Flickr and Commons. Also, try to think of some people who lived long ago, then there's a big chance that there'll be public domain images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Found a picture of Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal. It's under the file name Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riah_Abu_Assal

Here's a picture of Naim Ateek, http://www.flickr.com/photos/21253639@N04/3756968447/

Here's one of Elias Chacour, http://www.flickr.com/photos/55134259@N07/5114790004/

Here's one of Mitri Raheb, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MitriRaheb.jpg

Here's Said Musa, the prime minister of Belize, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bajanreporter/1348473390/

I also found one of Edward Said, http://www.flickr.com/photos/strange_fruit/98619374/

Btw, we can now add John H. Sununu and John E. Sununu to the Infobox as well due to a source proving they are of both Lebanese and Palestinian descent. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry we can't use the Flickr images, their license says "all rights reserved". When searching on Flickr, be sure to check the boxes that say "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content", "Find content to use commercially ", and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". Those are the only files that can be used. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks :P, well I'll continue looking around for stuff. Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Also we should probably restrict it to really notable people, instead of watering it down, like in the Sephardi and other pages, which are just a hodgepodge of people. So preferrably people who are as notable as the ones already in the image. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'll keep that in mind when finding others, but I think either John H. Sununu, or John E. Sununu should be noted because they are/were a part of the American government. Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree on the content, the category he wants included is also laughable. But on the I/P template I was assuming it's any war involving either Israelis or Palestinians. Note also the main civil war article is included.--Misarxist 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the main civil war article is included because the Israelis actively participated in it, by supporting Christians against Lebanese Muslims, leftists, and Palestinians, as well as invading Lebanon and fighting Lebanese and Palestinians themselves. But in the particular case of the Damour massacre, the Israelis weren't involved. They weren't even in Lebanon at the time (76), they only joined in 78 and onwards. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This article comes under ARBPIA because the PLO participated in the massacre.--Misarxist 10:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, why? Are any Palestinian and Israeli related articles covered? Isn't it just the conflict between them? FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well truth be told that's only what I've always assumed. I've asked for clarification: here.--Misarxist 11:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the talk page, explaining some of the reasons I think that particular version is an improvement. Friginator (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that this model is inaccurate. Have you seen one live in the wild? I consider the drawing not very convincing. Maybe you're satisfied with the beast's bones, bon appétit! --Eva K. ^{is evil} 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The skeleton restoration is incorrect too. The problem is that this animal is only known from scraps[11], so when those reconstructions were made they could pretty much reconstruct it as they wanted. But since Unenlagia was found in 1997, more complete relatives of it have been discovered (such as Buitreraptor, see here[12]), so we now know that the old reconstructions were wrong. That's just how paleontology works. The article should not reflect outdated science. FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk - just to thank you for finding, uploading and adding images of extinct birds. They really enhance the articles. Cheers. Maias (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, after I found this website http://extinct-website.co.uk/, it's been a bit of an obsession. Still need to empty their categories for gruiformes and passeriformes... FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:JohnDenver.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

"Syriac people" are people and follower of the syriac christianity and the syriac(Aramaic) language, the maronite church is a offshot of the syriac orthodox church, and the maronites speaks syriac in origin.And the still use syriac like their Liturgical language. Thats why the full name of the church is " Antiochene Syriac Maronite Church"

And the official website of the maronite patriach are explain that the maronite are a part of the syriac people.

http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=143:-introduction&catid=35:maronite-identity-&Itemid=55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.29.175 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But they do not even see themselves as one people. And Maronites don't speak Syriac, so they are only Syriac in religion. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No,thats not true. They spoke syriac in origin, today the most of them speak arabic. But they use syriac Liturgical. And in church they pray in the syriac language, like their bible is written in. And they do not see them self as "one" people, they are a part of the "Syriac people" and a splitt from the syriac orthodox church who are syriacs too. The maronites are NOT arabs.They are Syriacs.

See this sources this give you naswer of all question, its the official website of the maronite patriarch.

http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=143:-introduction&catid=35:maronite-identity-&Itemid=55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.39.246 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, yes, they spoke Syriac once, but so did all people of the Fertile Crescent until half a millennium ago, where they all also part of "the Syriac people" just for speaking Syriac? No, they were as much part of such a people as all the people who speak Arabic today form a "people", it's just a lingua franca, not anything that denots descent. And that website doesn't say anything about a Syriac people. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They did not just spoke syriac, they are syriacs! They are a splitt from the syriac orthodox church who identfy themself as "syriacs". And the website says many about the syriacs, for example :

"and even though through the effect of time they took a distinctive Maronite character, this did not obscure their Antiochene and Syriac origin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.57.27 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)