User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 9

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.

A request for Arbcom regarding creation of specific Syrian civil war 1RR arbitration tool is issued and if accepted will affect that page and other related pages on Syrian civil war. The issue was previously discussed and recommended for Arbcom solution on the issue here. As an editor involved in previous discussion, your opinion is requested, thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Previously you posted your opinion on my sandbox page as following:

Will cool the many hot-heads down, and force them to use the talk-page, which is a good thing. ~~~~

Please repost it at the official discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How is the taxonomy coming? Don't forget that the one paper explains how the quagga lost its stripes. Also should we keep the culture section with its few cites? LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My plan is to summarise the stripe paper, and if present, taxonomy issues in that South Africa mammal book. As for the culture section, I think it could be made into a "relationship with humans" section, and all the useless pop culture cameos can be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We're gonna need some cites for the cultural references. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For the books, I assume they would suffice as sources themselves. The Jurassic Park novel references to the quagga are somewhat notable as far as I remember, since they relate to the recreation of extinct animals, with the quagga being used as an example of such. I'll see if I can find it in my old copies. I've removed the games and stuff like that. The film appearance seems somewhat notable, I guess there must be a source mentioning it somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• And by the way, there is some info on appearance and sympatry with other zebras in the 2005 genetics paper that could be used outside the evolution section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already put that in the "Biology and ecology" section. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm now going to nominate it for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I think a little more could be added form the sources we have, but I guess it is long enough for GA. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to add some. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently fleshing out with stuff I can find, but Skinner 2005 mentions "Skinner & Smithers 1990" as a place to find more information about the quagqa. Walkers animals mentions "Smithers 1983". Do you know what that publication is? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another thing, I think it would be nice to note how many stuffed specimens/skins/skeletons still exist today, if this information can be found. I know it is mentioned in some old papers, but not which. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think it is ready for GA now, but I have requested some papers[1] that may help us expand the article further. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The article looks even better. I'm afraid I can't locate those papers. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Some papers have been provided there, you may want to download them. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And sorry for being so late in the game, by the way, but never did a collaboration before, and was a bit unsure how to start (and I'm also a bit busy in real life at the moment). But it seems to be going well now, and I think we have plenty of time to work before anyone reviews the article. At this rate, I think we could get it to FA, what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing. Do you think we'll have to add back in the info on culture to be comprehensive for FA? LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless we find something really notable, a few random and scattered mentions in books doesn't really make a difference for FA. But that doesn't mean we should leave out if we find something profound, what we had just wasn't up to snuff. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• This book seems to be a specialised source: [2] Darren Naish mentions it here[3], and discusses the quagga. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should paraphrase some of the information given by Colonal Harris instead of quoting a whole passage. LittleJerry (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add the quote myself[4], and was about to remove it, but after reading it, and upon learning it is one of the only definite descriptions from life, I kind of like it. The thing is, by paraphrasing it, we have to interpret it, and that is good enough for second hand accounts (like the books we've cited), but this is a first hand account, and almost all the animal is known from in life. Therefore, meddling with it can tamper with the meaning. And besides, I've brought many articles to FA status that contained extensive contemporary descriptions of recently extinct animals (often they are only known from very few accounts), so shouldn't be a problem for FAC, if that's what you had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that it's a GA, the next step would be fixing the stuff mentioned in the review. Then it shouldn't be too far from FA. I would personally love a section about the existing museum specimens, but I have no comprehensive source about it. Seems to be in that 1996 book. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to order that book. Money's tight on my part. LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary for FA anyway. Do you think there is enough info to make a range map? Since we now know the exact date the last specimen died, August 12, we could perhaps submit it as today's featured article for that date if we get it to FA before? FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I have no experience in making maps. LittleJerry (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The articles states that "...it is unclear why the quagga lost the stripes on its hind parts" but also "Its distinct coat pattern likely evolved rapidly due to geographical isolation and/or adaptation to a drier environment". The latter is cited to a more recent source. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, even the latter leaves it unclear, "likely" doesn't indicate much certainty. And there doesn't seem to be any consensus of why zebras even have stripes, not to mention the lack of them. FunkMonk (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So is it almost ready. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should send it to the copyeditors first, though... FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Until then, each of us could read trough it, and fix overlooked errors in the process. I always find mistakes on re-read. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Historically, quagga taxonomy was further complicated by he fact that the extinct southernmost population of Burchell's zebra was thought to be a distinct subspecies until recently, Equus quagga burchellii (then regarded a full species, E. burchellii)." I think the reviewers are going to object to the use of "recently". LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure, but I think the 2004 paper we cite was the first to propose this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This 1978 paper may be where it was first proposed: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40680486/#page/5/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading that, it seems to have been in a 1974 paper by the same author[5], which is also a list of specimens. Trying to find it... FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Andnope... The 70s papers do claim Burchell's zebra never went extinct, but not that the surviving population was the same as any other subspecies, so it may have been the 2004 paper after all. Pretty complicated. FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How long do you want to wait for the copyedit? LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Takes longer than I had expected. If you feel it is ready for FAC already, I'm fine wit that. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lets wait another week. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be on Iceland until July 17, so may not be able to respond on a FAC until then. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have Internet access here anyway, so no problem. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then, we can start now if you want. You can create the page and I'll add my name on after. LittleJerry (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will do when I am home on tuesday (I don't have the sources with me). FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an Arbitrator has proposed a motion regarding a clarification and amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FunkMonk. You have new messages at User talk:Great northern tilefish/GA1.
Message added 21:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, Talk:Great northern tilefish/GA1. I've done some more work as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion with respect to a request for clarification and amendment, in which you were named as a party, regarding articles related to the Syrian civil war. Please see the link above for the full text of the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What's your suggestion about this?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll have to admit it's a bit over my head! FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Good evening:

Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:

http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, sorry for keeping you waiting but I finally got the Micropachycephalosaurus image onto tinypic.com. Could you check on it when you have time? Reid,iain james (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to cut down the 2013 protests in Turkey article to a more reasonable size, however one of the editors raised an issue with me removing the info. I could really use a neutral eye to look over the article and propose some areas where it could be reduced in size. It is current at around 210k bytes (after my removals were readded to the article). Thanks in advance!! Jeancey (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I think perhaps some people have issues with removing info entirely. Maybe you could dump it in spin off articles, like we usually do in the Syrian civil war page? FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess. Some of the info was really useless though, like the specific name of someone who got injured, and the source was a facebook post, which isn't a reliable source and there isn't likely to be a reliable source for that info. Jeancey (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the threshold of inclusion should be that a reliable source is available. FunkMonk (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea I didn't think so. Thanks for reviewing the article, I'll finish addressing your concerns in the coming days. Cheers! --Al Ameer (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear user, as a participant of former discussions on amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles, i would like to notify you on motion-resulting discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN), in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. Meanwhile, and for a period of 30 days starting July 21, 1RR sanction shall continue to be applied with any notifications and sanctions to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quagga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphological (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been told to ask you, would you be able to upload these pictures for me?; [6], [7] and [8].. The reason I'm asking is that all of them come from the Syrianhistory.com page and I'm unable to remove the Syrianhistory..com tags.... Could you help me with this??? --TIAYN (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. These are tricky, so first I'll try to find versions without watermarks elsewhere, and the rest I'll try to crop, and then remove the letters. Worked before here:[9][10] FunkMonk (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I have news on the colour of Sinornithosaurus rendering your image inaccurate. It is fairly new, of course. Sinornithosaurus is now known to be a combination of reddish-brown, yellow, black and grey (Darren Naish, 2012). Reid,iain james (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any diagram showing where these colours occurred. In any case, the paper it was announced in should be cited in the article, then I'll fix the image. FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a diagram. Unfortunately, since it isn't online I'll just list where the colours occurred here.

• Reddish-brown - back all the way from the back of the head to the tail feathers and on the belly.
• Yellow - Around the eye, the underside and legs.
• Black and Grey - spread out in spots along the back.
• Arm Wings - The wings were reddy-brown closer to the arms and blue closer to the tips.
• Leg Wings - The legs wings were red on the inside and blue on the outside.

Hope this helps. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, where did you get it? Because it will be easier by seeing it, of course. Do you know what paper this was published in? FunkMonk (talk)

I got it from a book, it might be in a paper but I don't know if it is. The book is called "Planet Dinosaur : The Next Generation of Killer Dinosaurs". Its consultant paleontologist was Darren Naish. To find the book check ref 7 in Sinornithosaurus, Click on its ISBN, scroll down the list of libraries near you (I'm in Canada so that's where I looked) then click on them till you find one. From there I can't help you because I own it and didn't need to do any other steps. (If you can't find it in libraries near you then check the Halifax library in the Canada section) Reid,iain james (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Did it specifically state those colours are based on fossils? FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It said they were based on melanosomes, eumelanosomes and phaeomelanosomes which were fossilized. Here is an image from the book I have [11](oops, I fixed it. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)). There is also a whole wiki on it - Planet Dinosaur Wiki. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Since a popular documentary isn't a reliable source, I'll ask someone if they know where this was published. I'm pretty sure the colours aren't that well known, only approximately. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I also sort of thought that. I didn't find anything in the book about where the paper would be so I have no clue where it would be. Anyway, I'll keep checking. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I just googled it and realized that it might have been "Nature". Reid,iain james (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Zzzgreaterkoafinch.jpg|thumb|left|upright|]Illustrationby Frohawk]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and nearby islets during his visit. At this time, the parrots, the [[Rodrigues Starling]] and the [[Rodrigues Pigeon] frequented and nested on these islets to avoid the large population of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cryptozoology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you placed this warning on Mann Jess' talk page as well, eh? None of us have reverted more than three times, so please spare me of the warnings. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not entitled to 3 reverts. It was edit warring when you reverted my revert for the 1st time. Please don't do that. It only serves to be combative, which makes consensus building harder down the road. There is more information at WP:3RR on this, and the reasons for the policy. I'm happy to discuss the issue with you on talk. Just open a new section with your concerns.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not protected by 1 revert, so yes, three reverts are allowed, and you are "part of an edit war" yourself by reverting me. We have discussed this at length, but you refuse to accept that your position is itself fringe. Cryptozoology can be pseudo-science, cryptozoology itself is not pseudo-science. It is quite simple. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Really... read WP:EW. "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." and "The (3 revert) rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." and so on. Editors are regularly blocked for reverting 3 times or fewer, just like you did. It's not simply "allowed" to revert another editor repeatedly. I'm telling you this because I don't want to see you blocked. I promise you, you'll fare a lot better nicely discussing the issue rather than turning this interaction (or others) into a confrontation.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I know the rules, and I do know from experience that three reverts are generally accepted. But the point is not the edit war itself, it is that discussion has stalled, because you consistently ignore the points I raised above and on the article talk page. So I repeat my main points: "Cryptozoology can be pseudo-science, cryptozoology itself is not pseudo-science" and "Cryptozoology as a field is neither a "claim" or "fringe" in itself. The existence of bigfoot is, but the two are obviously not synonymous". You keep confusing the method/field with cases within the field/cases whereupon the method has been used. The method itself is not the problem. To search for animals whose existence is not confirmed is not pseudo-science by any stretch of the imagination, and is widely practised by mainstream zoologists. Yet that is the very definition of cryptozoology. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again FunkMonk. I'm having a problem with IP addresses on Huaxiaosaurus. I've already reverted two edits and for the third time I have IP addresses changing the cited length and height which they say "is unrealistic" but is what is in the reference. I don't know how to protect a page from IP addresses but if you could that would be much appreciated. Reid,iain james (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, only admins can do that (I'm not one). But I'm pretty sure a lot more edit warring is needed before a page can be protected. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I still can't revert it yet. Otherwise I'll have violated the the revert rule. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems J. Spencer already did? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I'm going to thank him because he did. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, just an FYI that over at WEPQ we have no problem with folks assessing their own articles, so feel free to do so for yours in the future. Figure that unless there is a stunningly good reason for it, "importance" is almost always set at "low". Any experienced editor will be able to know if they are doing a stub or start-class article (etc.). Thanks for the Amerhippus article! Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, will set it at low, and see if I can expand it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I passed the article for GA status and gave it a couple copyedits. Let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck, bibliomaniac15 22:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, it couldn't really be any longer, because nothing more is known. There are some measurements of skeletal elements I have left out, but that is mainly of interest to the actual scientists. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk. I am informing users that might want to say something about this. If you have an opinion please add it. Thanks. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, if there is anyone else who you think might want it you can send it to them. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rodrigues Parrot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rostrum, Ara and Extinct Birds

Amerhippus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Osorno

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this was a redlink on the Rodrigues Parrot article, and I decided to create the article. I essentially copied what was on the French Wikipedia. I was wondering if you had any sources or anything to expand the article with. bibliomaniac15 01:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Nice! Don't know much about plants, but this is what Google scholar gives me: http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?hl=da&q=Fernelia+buxifolia&btnG= The source I used about the parrot could also be used for the few details therein. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FunkMonk. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Mascarene Parrot at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! JudyCS (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, this was an excellent copy edit! FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, got a lot of stuff going on at the moment. I'll do my best to find time to take a look at the article when you nominate it! J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure when that will be though, as quagga is still at FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, seems I was wrong, as quagga is only a co-nomination, I can nominate one other article as well. Will probably do it soon then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you skilled in cladogramming? I have been trying to make out how its done and am finding it very difficult. You can see my brief effort here. If you were able to help I was thinking of having the five headings currently on the right of this image, plus what I have done for the 4 puffins plus perhaps the 2 bottom lines, the gull and pratincole. Even that seems to be beyond my scope, I've been mucking around with it for several hours already. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I'm pretty dreadful myself, I was only able to make the simple ones at Dodo and woolly mammoth by copying cladograms with a similar structure from other articles, then changing the names, and making slight modifications to the structure. But I think the image is alright, because it isn't a copyright violation after all. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood AFBorchert's final comment. Your Woolly Mammoth one is the sort of thing I was thinking about but where it has Loxodonta, I want a pair of species and when I tried to expand the cladogram bit I made, that pair disappeared. Well, never mind. I will look into winter plumage instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can help. See here and here to see cladograms I've made. If you have pages you want cladograms on just tell me. Reid,iain james (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! I have one you might be able to help me with. I can link you an image from the paper. You can see Cwmhiraeth's problem in his links. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be glad to help (I'll give you a hit - All the stuff I learned is from looking at the page code to see how to do things). Reid,iain james (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, I've wasted hours trying to make cladograms, and I still don't understand most of it. Anyway, this is the one that could be nice in the Mascarene Parrot article (ignore the blue lines):[12] FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ooh. Thats a toughie. I can do one like this easily but to get one like I did one Saltasaurinae will be hard. Btw, would you like it to be like the one on My Sandbox or like the one on Saltasaurinae. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference, the box? I'd prefer without box. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to make one without the box. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool. In any case, both articles are featured article candidates, so your work would end up in at least one FA. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to get it like that. How does this look. If you think there is something else or something different you want on it I can try to update it. Reid,iain james (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty much perfect! Can the numbers and the E be removed? I forgot to say they weren't necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure. I can easily remove them. After that should I add it to the article? Reid,iain james (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can also do it, but if you want to add it, I have made space for you here, under "The cladogram accompanying the study is shown below:"[13] FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll add some links and other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I also put it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_Vasa_Parrot#Taxonomy FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

How about on the Coracopsis page? Reid,iain james (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, you only have to revert me once there, because I added it, but removed it again. It leaves out one Greater Vasa parrot subspecies, but I guess it is ok there anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you. I could update it to add in the last species and I could add in other stuff as well if you want. Do you? Reid,iain james (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be misleading, because it was not included in the study, so we would not even know where to put it. But there are two members of the species included, so it is good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, because the cladogram left a lot of white space on the right side, I added an image of the parrot sitting on a branch, next to another parrot on its own branch. I think it's kind of cool, since cladograms are branches too in a way... Kind of a figurative equivalent! FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• If user Reid,iain james fancies doing a cladogram for the Atlantic Puffin on the basis mentioned above, it would be most welcome. My feeble starting effort is here and the source is here. In addition to the 4 puffins in my fragment, I think there could be branches for the auks, the guillemots, the Synthliboramphus murrelets, the true auklets and the Brachyramphus murrelets. Such a cladogram would be more suitable for the article than the image there presently which is too small to read without enlargement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Once I'm done with the Mascarene Parrot cladogram I'll try to work on one for the Atlantic Puffin. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So you just want me to redo the cladogram? You know you can regulate the size of the image. I could just make the image larger instead. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think a cladogram would be better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. How does this look? Reid,iain james (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk, would you be able to make a new version of this video File:1958-02-03 First US Satellite Launched.ogv that would start at 1:50 and thereby skip the launching of the satellite into space bit? --Al Ameer (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mascarene Parrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I would like your opinion on this. It involves the synonomy of Nedoceratops and Triceratops, which was brought up by you a while ago. I added something I would like your opinion on. Thanks. Ps - I would like as many people as possible to add their opinion, could you help distribute this message? Reid,iain james (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I think Quadell was editing GOCE/REQ while you were editing Talk:Newton's Parakeet and I was trying to get the current version of the discussion off GOCE/REQ and on to the article talk page. In the course of all this, I suspect that a reply by you may have been either deleted or superseded. It's too complicated for me to figure out. Sorry if anything got lost. --Stfg (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed it, an added the comment to the talk page afterwards, nothing lost, but thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered forking some of the more important conversations onto personal talk pages? I think a major concern is non-article-related conversations would derail otherwise productive article-related conversations. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We're getting better at stopping them in time. And in any case, I think it is healthy to understand the viewpoijts of other editors, we don't edit in a vacuum. Whether it happens here or on the article talk pages doesn't concern me, but it is more visible for all others involved there. Which is good. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FunkMonk. You have new messages at Talk:Pornography (album)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Choiseul Pigeon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tarsus, Choiseul and Culmen

Dire wolf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timber wolf

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I updated the template after reading the March 8 page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_8_Alliance#Collapse) which has a sourced section about the alliance 'collapsing'. --99.38.186.92 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Too early to tell at this point, it seems they are negotiating at the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're an admin on Commons aren't you? I tried to add these screenshots of a Youtube video [14][15][16][17] to the 2013 Ghouta attacks article, but a user removed them, saying that the copyriht status are uncertain. Can you check these images to see if they are copyvio?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The main problem I can see from the description is that the video is a collaboration by several people, so a single one of them would not be able to release it alone. But perhaps the others agreed to the license, and to him putting it up on his own Youtube channel. But you'd have to ask him. If not the others.

Another problem (for Wikipedia use, not so much Commons) is verifiability. Has this video been covered by reliable sources? If not, I don't see how it could be used here, given the controversial content and unverified claims therein. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, how do you alter/change an existing Wikimedia image? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia or Commons? In both cases, you just click on "Upload a new version of this file", and choose the new version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, however the image is still the same as before. Even though my recent load is labeled as the current version in the file history. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What did the adjustment entail? It could be cache that is not catching up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, it caught up now. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Good, I often have that problem, I just refresh the page, and it usually shows up afterwards. Sometimes it doesn't, for days. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are working on at the moment, but would you be interested in collaborating to try to bring the article Extinction to FAC? Apart from the subject being interesting, I am impressed by the number of points the article would score for me in the final round of the WikiCup. This finishes at the end of October, so such a collaboration would need to be completed in the next month or so to fit the timescale. You seem to be an expert on extinction and are presumably well equipped with suitable source material. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Haha, wow, that's a very broad topic, kind of scary! I mainly know about extinction of specific taxa, and specific extinction events, never tried to write about an all-encompassing topic like that. I'm still practising FA-writing on more obscure species. Maybe one of the guys who wrote Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event would be a better help? Or maybe LittleJerry, I think he participates in Wikicups as well? And he wrote quagga with me, also an extinct animal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a pity. I'm sure you could do it as part of a joint effort if you tried ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Not sure where to start with the literature, though. Most I have about palaeontology focuses on evolution, not extinction... FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But for the record, I'd be happy to collaborate with you on something one day, but I might not be too good at reaching Wikipedia deadlines the rest of the year due to school. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Woolly mammoth (estimated annual readership: 466,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Woolly mammoth to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd think Dodo would be more popular, but not sure how to figure it out. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out--my search for qualifying articles is very unsystematic so far (I was simply working through the WP Mammals popular pages this morning). Looking at the stats, Dodo actually qualifies for the Million Award, but I'm just about to sign off so don't have time to add it to the list, etc. Expect to win one in about eight or nine hours, though. (Sorry to ruin the surprise.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Dodo (estimated annual readership: 1,007,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Dodo to Featured Article status.

Well done! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dromaeosauroides, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Morphology, Marine and Jurassic Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you, I'm having a little wikibreak. I'm all for helping out with the critter.

Here we have a lot more to go on though. Multituberculates are crown-mammals, so there's less guesswork and less funky transitional features. I suppose the critter looked more or less like a medium sized rat with echidna ears and a scaly tail/feet. Perhaps even manipulating a photo might be a decent solution. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Any skeletons of relatives to go on for proportions? And I think I'll just draw as usual, not too keen on photo manipulations. This paper indicates it could have had spurs? http://app.pan.pl/article/item/app51-393.html FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spurs: Yes, all primitive mammals apparently had them. I haven't found any reasonably whole multituberculate skeleton, but I suppose any generalized mammal of the same size would do as a guide. It is tempting to base it on a rodent, but rodents are fairly derived in their own way, I'd go for a marsupial like a bandicoot for general shape. Notice the one pictured has a scaly tail with lizard-like proportions. For ears, we'd have the high mammalian position, but I'm tempted to suggest no or very small pinnae. If the echidna ear slits are primitive, then the multituberculates probably had them too. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post it on the paleoart page whe I have something to show. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Any relation to Cherodon?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, have no idea... Know very little about this group of mammals. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dromaeosauroides you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

	Good Article Barnstar
	For creating a good article about two teeth. Amazing job. Iainstein (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi funkmonk, I noticed that as a thumb, File:Dromaeosauroides size.jpg appears opposite what it actually is. Do you know why that is and if you can fix it? Iainstein (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean mirrored? Not on my screen, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Btw I'm going to start a GA review on Dromaeosauroides. I've already read through it once. Iainstein (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright. If this is your first GA review, you can also request a second opinion from someone more experienced, just to get it thoroughly done. I'm thinking of getting it to FA later on, so better get most manual of style issues fixed before then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Who should I get as a second opinion? Iainstein (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Just like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Asking_for_a_second_opinion FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I await a second opinion before promoting GA status? Iainstein (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you promote it already, there can't be one. But good work with the review so far. I'm confident that you are experienced within the topic. The second opinion is more for the sake of annoying style formalities that I can't even remember (also to see if non-dinogeeks can understand any of it). And since I can't nominate a new article for FA until my previous nomination is processed, it'll take long before I can nominate this one anyway. So no rush to pass it, better be thorough in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of anyone that has reviewed your nominations? Like Dinoguy2, MWAK or Firsfron? Iainstein (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone will come a long, Dinoguy and other dino-editors usually don't do GA reviews. Also better to get someone random who doesn't understand dino-jargon to give it a fresh look. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Iainstein (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure most of them have it watch listed anyway, so they'll probably fix stuff up/notify me if they find something to fix. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Are there any cladograms in the references? I don't have access to them but I thought you might. If there are then I could make one for you in my sandbox so you can copy it. I can't add it to the page because reviewers can't make significant contributions to the article they are or will be reviewing. Iainstein (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, but if there was, there would be no problem for you adding it. I often do some edits to the articles I review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Would Jens L. count as a second opinion? If he does than Dromaeosauroides is a GA! Iainstein (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, other issues can be dealt with during copy edit. Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New updated data on Geographic Range of the Green Anaconda ("Eunected murinus"), this time in English (the previous reference is outdated and in Spanish):

http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've replied. --TIAYN (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I know you're waiting on a lot from me- I promise I will get to everything eventually, but I've got a lot going on right now! J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand! The FAC isn't even in the "old" section yet, so no hurry. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you could find time to make some comments on Sea FAC. Some people made comments on the article initially but then the discussion has got rather bogged down and is turning on what the article should be called, should it be merged with Ocean, which article should redirect to which and so on. I'm hoping to find one or two uninvolved others who will review the article on its failings and merits rather than its name. Thank you. (PS. I see the Mascarene Parrot FAC is mentioned above. I will have a look at it.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look, and thanks for comments! FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a comment, but it kind of drowned. I don't feel qualified, really! FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Things have livened up there a bit now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, hence the drowning! FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's done now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello funkmonk, I am curious as to you assessment that fair use for this image is not necessary. The replacement of the fossil image and outline with a reconstitution does not appear to me as educational. I actually purposefully did not use the reconstitution of ERMNH HFV 197 available on the net because I thought _that_ was unneeded use of a "work of art". Thanks for clarifying. EspritCurieux (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, it is a very short article with little room, and we have a dozen free images of this animal on Commons. Fair use should only be used when there is no free equivalent. But we have plenty. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not understand why the article size would be an issue (aside of the presentation aspect since inserting another image leads indeed to a somewhat ungainly result - although I thought that could be solved by someone with more experience in wiki page formatting). As to images in the Commons, I have seen none that illustrates the point: a fossil of Prognathodon showing the outline of the tail fluke. I'll leave it at that though. Cheers.EspritCurieux (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The point with article size is that if the article is short, it cannot support so many images. But if we have few free images, it's alright to add fair use, but in this case we have many. And that restoration does show the outline of the tail in accordance to the new paper, so it is a free equivalent, which is always preferable. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I have updated my Troodon and Zhuchangtyrannus illustrations and would appreciate feedback on them. Thanks. Iainstein (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look today. FunkMonk (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi "FunkMonk". For the moment, I rarely participate on Wikipedia, which is why it took time before I came to read your message. But thank you for bringing my attention to MR Holtz' use of my image! Really fun! Conty 14:08, 19 September 2013

Yeah, must be an honour! Any plans of coming back? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I made this image of the skull of an astrapotherian, Granastrapotherium. Do you think that it could be used in the proyect? --Rextron (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure if it could be considered a "derivative work", though, as it is closely based on another image. But I won't complain, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, certainly is based in a image of a thesis, although I reconstructed the superior part of the skull, so I'm not sure if it could have copyright problems. --Rextron (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok, the more modified, the better! FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

So long as the image doesn't promote unsupported/poorly supported/original research idea, that the image isn't a copyright violation, and that the image (more or less) clearly depicts the organism, one is free to post/use the image.</pedantry> Having gotten that out of my system, it's a great drawing of the skull.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps indicating which parts are reconstructed would make it more useful? Dashed lines? FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

One time I tried that, and everyone then thought I drew a picture of Phyllis Diller's face diagramming her plastic surgeries.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, in the original image the upper part is precissely a dotted line, although not detailed, since that the original skull of the animal missed the uper part of the skull. And the lower jaw is from another specimen, so if you need I can modified the image to reflect this. Hmmm, the article need improvements too.--Rextron (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lesser Antillean Macaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. Seing as you are interested in Danish Dinosaurs I was wondering if you would help me create a draft on User:Reid,iain james/Jydegaard Formation to move into the article space. I decided not to create in the article space because I have currently forgot the coding for wikitables. If there are any references for danish dinosaurs from the formation could you please add them. Thanks. Iainstein (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, there is only one definite dinosaur from there, and then a possible titanosaur. The rest is all sorts of other vertebrates and invertebrates. I can send you some papers through mail? FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah but there are still fish, crocodilomorphs and turtle carapaces. I haven't added it in references but the coprolite review lists Jydegaard fauna. Other papers would be good to. Iainstein (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems your account doesn't have email enabled? Should be in preferences somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Under what tab? Iainstein (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The first one, near the bottom. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I just confirmed my email and now it works. Iainstein (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice, check your mail! FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Left a message at Wikipropject Dinosaurs. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, missed it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FunkMonk. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.
Message added 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Technical 13 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I requested some time ago to an user of DeviantArt an image of Incisivosaurus, I want to know if you could upload it. The image is here: http://www.deviantart.com/art/Incisivosaurus-403838326 --Rextron (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Look no further! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review#Incisivosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok :) --Rextron (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be this user?[18] Because if so, you have some nice work yourself, which would be welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, in fact that's my account in DevianArt, but I'm not sure about what images could be approved to use here. Could you suggest me some of them to upload? --Rextron (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd say most of it! Especially because you've illustrated many obscure taxa we don't have images of yet, and are unlikely to get... Lke your astrapotheres and other digital paintings. Only three of your images have (subtle) inaccuracies, as far as I can see. I don't know if you've seen it, but we have the paleoart review page, for non-dinosaurs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't know about it. I'll start to upload some of my images. Cheers! --Rextron (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice, see you there! FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk! Could you upload some figures from the Asperoris article? The most interesting ones are 1 (for the Manda Beds page), 2, 3 or 5, 7 and 10. My difficulty is to deal with the high resolution of the images. I understand this is a bother, but if you might find the time, it would be greatly appreciated! Rnnsh (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No bother at all! I was going to do it anyway, but didn't get to it... Don't hesitate to make similar requests in the future! Also if you want something form older papers. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! :D Rnnsh (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually kinda enjoy it, especially if the subject is interesting. If you're preparing an article for FAC or GAN, and you'd like some help with ref issues, look me up, and I may be able to assist. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've been looking for "Wiki Otters" for that, to no avail... FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are ever bored, there are two refs over at Rodrigues Solitaire (18 and 20) which I never got myself together to format properly along with the rest (they were added post-FAC, and yes, that's how much I hate it!)... FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! – Quadell ^(talk) 01:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)