User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Regarding your revert, Robbedale redirects to the formation of the same name (Robbedale Formation). So the sentence as it stands confusingly says that the formation is in another formation, which the paragraphs below say is not correct. We don't seem to have an article on the valley, which is why I removed it completely. I guess we could write It was discovered in the Jydegaard Formation in Robbedale valley with no wikilink? Or am I missing something here? Modulus12 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in that case, the link should simply be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, described "The first, and so far only, named Danish dinosaur. So it kind of has sentimental value to me, as a dinosaur geek from Denmark. I've created all but one of the images in the article, and I consulted the author as well as the finder of the fossil when I drew the restoration."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm actually surprised how few vandals it has attracted so far, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thalassodromeus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thalassodromeus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Specific name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You know what you did. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For reviewing two of my spinosaurid GA nominations: Oxalaia, and Cristatusaurus. Your comments and feedback are always helpful and appreciated! Here's a little celebratory drawing as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and keep 'em coming! There has never been a featured dinosaur topic (though it was attempted with Tyrannosauridae[1]), so your project will be a bit of a milestone. FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I found the change (User talk:Citation bot/Archive 7#Change ISBNs to ISBN 13?) where the citation bot was modified to change isbns to isbn 13s, "now a requirement", but WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY still uses isbn 10s. Can you point me to the requirement? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where the guideline is, I've just been told so repeatedly during source reviews... FunkMonk (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

With regards to this I think that Triceratops and Styracosaurus could use some improvements. Triceratops has a meager description section and Styracosaurus could be longer. Wouldn't it be more well known than Achelousaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes to both. And again, same goes for pretty much everything promoted before 2009, they are out of date and have very skimpy descriptions. Can't say if there have been any recent redescriptions of those ceratopsians, or if we were just lucky with Ankylosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Stegosaurus definitely improved with the new paper on the nearly complete skeleton found. Anyway, after Brachiosaurus is passed, I think the project should focus more on improving pre-2009 FA articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There is currently work going on over at Thescelosaurus (see talk page), perhaps good to keep an eye on that as an example of how it can be done. Maybe it needs a statement on the dinosaur project talk page. I think I'll write something soon... FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote something here[2], feel free to add. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time cutting down and summarizing the locomotion section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't have to be as drastic as the FAR nominator suggests. As you can see in my discussions with him, his grasp of various guidelines is a bit lacking, and he is a bit of a hothead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Re [3]: The reason is that the article was not marked as having been on the front page at Wikipedia:Featured articles. There may have been a Bot problem back in September 2017. There's no point in trying to update Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page; I might add an edit notice to this effect. I have corrected Wikipedia:Featured articles for you, and the problem should not recur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Has been an issue for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FunkMonk. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Thalassodromeus at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with GA and all the best, Miniapolis 16:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see that you have some interest in horror films as you reviewed the article for Zombi 2 and I was wondering if you would like to review an article I nominated for GA: Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Thanks for your consideration!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Sadly haven't watched the film, and I prefer to review media articles about stuff I know at least a little bit about. I do know that Home (The X-Files) appears to have been inspired by the film, which could maybe be mentioned in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I addressed all of your concerns about the article for The Hills Have Eyes.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Cool, I'll review the rest tomorrow. By the way, you only have to ping me in one comment for me to notice it (I just got 12 ping notifications). FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brachiosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atalaia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What is our policy when it comes to uploading such files? They're mostly fair use, right? I'm asking in particular about the one here at the top, which is a poster by al-Mourabitoun (al-Qaeda affiliate), and the one here at the bottom, which is a cropped ISIL poster. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Would have to be fair use; even if you're a criminal, you can hold copyright... FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Which one is my safest bet? And which template works best in such case? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You could probably use the template I used here[4] once. As for which poster, I think it doesn't matter legally, but probably best to show the one that provides most information and is clearest at thumbnail size. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look? Hope you don't mind the fact that I copied part of your file's summary. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I'm pretty sure I copied the summary from somewhere else too, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

So for some reason I realized just now that it's a video screenshot, not a poster (per the source from which I got it, and which I hadn't read until now). I changed the template accordingly. What do you think? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

could you head over to the citation bot talk page and defend converting isbn10 to isbn13. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That fast, low-word-count, and effective! AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no consenus at FAC to require all ISBNs to be 13 digit. It's not part of the MOS and it actually is against the point of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... who's requiring the changing of 10 digit ISBNs for works prior to the use of 13 digit ISBNs? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It has been asked of me during most source reviews of articles where I hadn't converted ISBNs prior to nominations, by various editors. I can't say if this is officially any kind of consensus, but since we're usually asked to change it anyway, the bot is a good help. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, good gods. That's not required. There's no reason for it to be required. It's just plain-ass make-work to make it seem like you're doing something with a review. That's not a "source review" that's a "picking on tiny things that aren't required" review. Next time someone does that (or any similar crap) ... please let me know? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can send you some examples of my nominations where it was asked, by various experienced reviewers:[5][6][7][8] I have even been asked to change this during GANs. Seems this could warrant a guideline or something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems Tony thinks there should be copyedits. Should I list it? LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, he's a little cryptic. It'll probably take longer to get the copy edit than the FAC will be kept open... FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giraffatitan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Mascarene parrot, desrcibed: "Every aspect of this species is complicated, but I have tried to show every viewpoint, including obscure historical ones. It was excellently copy edited today, so I feel it is quite good now, and I like the complexity of the bird's history, and hope others will find it interesting."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! There are still some mysteries about this bird, so it'll probably continue to be a work in progress... FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Thalassodromeus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thalassodromeus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —howcheng {chat} 03:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Archaeodobenus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generic name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Just saw your article Nemegtomaia on the main page. Thanks for the great work! Zanhe (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a pretty nice animal after all! Also, thanks for creating and linking the Lü Junchang article shortly before this article went "live" on the front page. FunkMonk (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Nemegtomaia has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 8 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 8, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, the "first ever nomination of an article about an oviraptorid dinosaur, a bird-like group first thought to have been egg-thieves, but since redeemed as the parents of said eggs. This particular genus has fortunately had papers published in CC licensed journals, which means plenty of free images. All articles discussing this dinosaur have been summarised here, and for some circumstantial info I have also cited a blog-post interview with one of the scientists who described the nest. I thought it was ok to use, since the blog is owned by a published palaeontologist (Victoria M. Arbour), and it has uncontroversial info not found in any of the journal articles."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk, As you may have seen in the cited article Lueetat20014, the holtype is referred GIN 1001 2112 etc, just as I described. And there are many articles using the old names.

Btw I do not know if there are any official rules that placing a comment after a citation, I never had any problems doing so up to now. Please keep in mind that many authorr might estimate just deleting their update as ridiculous and will keep away from Wikipedia. If updates are reverted by just a click I can understand more and more why Wikipedia is loosing her authors. This is not the only time that such things happen, and it's really boring! Authors like me may not always have the time to respond, just keeping away from further edit and spending time for more useful things.

My request:

Instead of removing this information because placed in a way that you do not like (for what reason ever), just add the information again in an appropriate way you like.

Thanks in advance.

--Ernsts (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, an additional problem to adding the text within a citation (which won't show the text where you want it) is that the source ending the sentence need to support the information given. If you only use a single source, then it won't support your mention of various specimen numbers, as you'd have to give a citation for each of the sources that uses a different number. And it's up to you, as the person adding the information, to do it properly, instead of leaving it up to others. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panraogallus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generic name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, FM - will you take a look at the taxobox for Chirostoma attenuatum and fix as needed? Thx in advance...^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 10:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like you have added an automatic taxobox, but there is no available hierarchy for its genus or family. You might have to just copy and adjust a taxobox from one of its sister species articles, such as Chirostoma bartoni. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi FM, could you help me out with these two remaining points @ the FA review?

• "File:Trastevere_-_santa_maria_della_scala_01586-9.JPG: as Italy does not have freedom of panorama, this will need an explicit tag for the original work."
• "Use upright scaling rather than fixed image sizes"

I'm a total newb/noob regarding this kind of stuff, so I have no idea what to do. :/ Thanks much, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will reply on the FAC page. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback re the dicyndont Lisowicia bojani - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology&diff=870155156&oldid=870153948

You wrote "We shouldn't' start the article before the name is formally published."

Of course.

Can you point me to any primer on what does versus doesn't constitute "formal publication"?

E.g., IIRC publication in National Geographic was considered to be formal publication of the name "Archaeoraptor"

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor#Ongoing_confusion

(As I understand it, that is independent of the fact that "Archaeoraptor" was revealed to be a hoax.)

Thanks again for your help. - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The science article you linked is the official description and naming of the animal, so that's what we need. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but in general terms, can you point me to any primer on what does versus doesn't constitute "formal publication"?

If not, of course that's okay - and thanks again. - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, usually it is a scientific journal. And the text would always specify that it is naming a new taxon. For example in this case, the abstract says "Here, we describe the dicynodont Lisowicia bojan". FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, it was very helpful! I have done it! Qwerty number1 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, WP:galleries goes into detail on this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Would you mind revising this. Your review was most instructive, and I think all demands :) now addressed. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I see a bunch of unanswered points, could you say "done" or something under them, if they have been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah ok would be helpful if I run though and cmt so you know whats what. Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the reason why I haven't answered since then in any case, I didn't know you were through with the points. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. One of the reasons I was slow in coming back is that many of your points were substantial and aligned with some of Johnbod's concerns, it took quite a bit of work to resolve, but lead to significant article improvement, so tks. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Xixiasaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I enjoyed this article, quite different to reading about extant organisms because of the methods used to understand the creature. Reading about dentition prompted me to look for discussion of replacement teeth in the article, or evidence of these if that is a thing. Am I overlooking something or is this not mentioned (or relevant)? Hope this is a bit of helpful talk page stalking, regards, cygnis insignis 18:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, as all other (toothed) dinosaurs, its teeth would have been continuously replaced, the description of this particular specimen deosn't mention anything about them, though. Looking at the pictures, it seems the teeth that are present were all fully erupted, so the replacement teeth would still be embedded within the jaws. Perhaps there will be more to say about them if the skull is CT scanned one day... FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Xixiasaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Xixiasaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Mascarene grey parakeet article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 30, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 30, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus on December 8 and Cuban macaw on December 17. You know the drill.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool, though I guess it's a sign of the FA-well drying up, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

When there's no convert template, the TFA blurb typically gets edited by someone to add it, so I just added it ... that introduced a tiny change, to "8.3 to 58 metric tons (31.2 to 63.9 short tons)". Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Since I didn't write the parts about size, maybe MWAK is more qualified to approve. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The weight conversion seems justifiable. You could perhaps remove the false precision in the length estimate.--MWAK (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently it says what it said before I fiddled with it, "18 and 21 meters (59 and 69 ft)". What should it say? - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The 59 and 69 feet are false precision, best replaced by 60 and 70 feet.--MWAK (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's follow the usual TFA rule: make the change to the article. If people are fine with it there, then I (or anyone) can update the TFA text. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for Brachiosaurus, "one of the most iconic dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome as always! FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

... and today for the "only extinct macaw known from stuffed specimens, and this article seems to be more comprehensive than even most of those covering living species of macaw"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, seems there's a new extinct animal TFA every month now! FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk your opinion would be appreciated on this topic for TyrannosaurusMcelite (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. Since you're currently one of the most active FAC reviewers, I was wondering if you'd be able to review my nomination, which has 5 supports, but also an oppose. I know it's a crappy time of year to be asking this sort of thing, but I genuinely believe the article meets the FA criteria; me and Czar – the one opposing user – had been discussing the article on its talk page for several weeks, so I genuinely believe there's an element of "can't see the forest for the trees" in several of his points for opposing. This might seem like a strange request, but I was hoping you could provide an aggressive review—'aggressive' in the sense of you reading Czar's comments before reading the article, and then being an impartial commentator in whether those opposing points genuinely preclude the article from meeting the FA criteria. I'd love to get some additional feedback before the nom is closed. If you can't, please let me know, so I can ask someone else. Thanks, and merry Xmas. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, since I don't know anything at all about the character other than that she is from Resident Evil (a game I only played once as a kid, not even getting past the first zombie), I'm not sure if I can really weigh in if there is a disagreement between editors who are more familiar with the subject and the literature. I will have a look at the discussion, though, and see if there is anything proposed outside the bounds of FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey. I made some large scale adjustments to the article and responded @ the FA review page. Please let me know what you think when you have time, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi FM, sorry to bother you again. Small question; as you probably noticed, I created a "sources" section to deal with the historic/primary sources in relation to the figure in question. However, as a result, the article now has two sections with the title "sources". Do you perhaps know a better title for this new section I created? Thanks alot, - LouisAragon (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You could just call the second one "bibliography", "sources cited" or "cited literature"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Just thought I'd send you a quick message to let you know that I appreciate your help with Jill Valentine's FAC review. I don't know if the article will be promoted this time around or not, but I appreciated the time and effort you put in reviewing the article and offering feedback. Happy holidays, and good luck in 2019. All the best, Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, might have a look at the other issues and see if I can make sense of them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty damn good! Looking forward to the day when taste can be emailed! FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Echo parakeet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you have a great year! FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to thank you for your helpful advice and kind approach during the FA review. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, was it your first FAC? Hope it makes you want to nominate more! FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was my first FAC :-) For sure, more will follow!
Happy New Year btw; may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness. Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and right back at ya! FunkMonk (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As of right now, Iraq is not included as a combatant in the infobox because one user gets to filibuster. I'm not eager to get blocked for violating the 1RR, but something is clearly not working when someone gets to prevent the inclusion of sourced content despite having nothing to contribute at the relevant talk page. No doubt that administrators will fix this eventually, but in the meantime, our readers are denied important information. Any involvement would be appreciated. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the safest bet would just be to let the RFC run its course, right now it hasn't really attracted comments from anyone who wasn't already part of the discussion. Syret navn, forresten! FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

As I just had confirmed, letting the RfC run its course effectively means letting this disruptive user dictate what the infobox should look like for the next 26 days. The fact that a single user can censor Wikipedia for a month is no less than a scandal, and I'm shocked that this has gone on for days already. (Du har også et noget spesielt navn:) ) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Yeah, I know that I have been like a snail with the parakeet species, but I was not expecting that I would get so busy! However, I am planning to start on that soon! I really wondered why people took long gaps from editing but I do not wonder that anymore. Also, feel free to edit on that article if you would like to. I am well aware that you may get that to FAC in no time if you start editing that article, but I could also seek your help in choosing another species later. Besides that, a very merry christmas and a happy new year! Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a cute image! I am actually working on a relative of our bird right now, the echo parakeet, so it's fine for me to wait. FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks again. Also, credits to NorthAmerica1000 for that wonderful template! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

To Northamerica1000* Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Would you be able to create a range map for the black mamba using this? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look later today. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, forgot this, will try tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it going okay. LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How is this?[9] FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks! LittleJerry (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you too, best award ever, because only we can get it, hahaha! Unless someone else goes ahead and nominates another Brazilian taxon affected by the fire, of course... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, both on my reading list, they look excellent. cygnis insignis 12:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the Mascarene grey parakeet, "about an obscure, recently extinct parrot, which lived alongside the dodo and other extinct Mascarene species. Most, if not all, scientific sources that deal with the bird have been cited and summarised here. As in other FAs about recently extinct species never described in life by scientists, contemporary accounts are quoted in the article, as little else is known about the animal. I have included a selfmade restoration of this parrot based on the sources, which is one of the few (I only know of three others) ever made that depict it." - I like it to share the page with Werner Bardenhewer on his 90th birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, certainly more pleasant to share the main page with than all the disasters in the upper right... FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Had to supply two there, Wilma Lipp and Jean Guillou (who is still there), a sad job, but better than leave these immortal people's articles in a sad state. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Funk, if you have some spare minutes would you be able to look at the changes I'm about to make to the Antarctosaurus article? Which can be seen in my sandbox here: [10] Basically, because the genus is founded on specimens of questionable association and all the referrals have been questioned, so I've been trying to not have general genus level statements about appearance, etc. For example, a true 'Description' section seems misleading, so I've basically reduced it to, 'The remains are titanosaurian and titanosaurs look like X'. I haven't found a copy of 'Age of Dinosaurs' 1993 by Peter Dodson, so I can't check any statements that reference that book. Grammar is not my strong suit, please feel free to make edits and changes. Cheers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it looks fine grammar-wise, but I wonder if you should structure it so that all the info about discovery and etymology is collected in a history section? Now the discovery info seems to be lumped with description, but it might be best to present that before you go into description. And do you have The Dinosauria, which is also cited there, by the way? I know where both editions can be found... FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll look into doing that. Yeah, I do have both copyies of The Dinosauria. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

At the moment there are three very short blurbs for dubious species, the wording in those blurbs would fit nicely into a Discovery and Etymology section, however, it would be hard to mention them elsewhere as there isn't much else to say about them. Would you recommend that I move those up into Discovery and just not mention them elsewhere or should I leave them where they are? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just move them there. But is there nothing to say about their morphologies which could be placed in the description? FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If your objection is that you think the link is "akin to advertising", you might actually want to actually remove the link. All you have accomplished so far by repeatedly reverting my edit is to repeatedly remove the italics I added to the wikilink added by another editor since its target is a documentary (works are italicized); you have not removed the link. Also, the link is to a Wikipedia article about a documentary movie apparently found to be notable and which is largely about woolly mammoths. I'm not sure why or how you conclude the wikilink is akin to advertising. We regularly link from various articles to articles about related and notable media works without any thought that we are promoting or advertising the works. General Ization ^Talk 19:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The whole section should be removed then. Dozens of documentaries about mammoths have been created over the years; arbitrarily linking just one of them is absurd. We don't do that for any other species either. And if we do it, nothing will stop people from adding every other random documentary for the list, which is not what the page is for. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 22, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Echo parakeet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I keep thinking this is something you might be interested in, unless you already do know, about species Nyctophilus howensis. A possibly cryptic cryptid, the only evidence of which is a skull found in a crypt, on the trophy shelf of a mercenary owl. Any sort of collaboration on this one is helpful, I am adding what limited info is available while looking over some related species. You would also be welcome to take it off me and promote the heck out of it, if you fancied that then be my guest. Or alert a DYK crafter if it is eligible: as I remember it, you also don't want the bother of that process, but they are mostly boring non-biotic articles and people do not know about bats. Hope this finds you well. cygnis insignis 12:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly looks interesting, and I've dealt with Lord Howe island fauna before. I much prefer working on articles that have plentiful images, though, but I think I can contribute by adding a map and maybe an image of a related species... As for writing, I'll be busy with echo parakeet in the foreseeable future (even that is going slowly, not much time for writing anymore, mainly commenting now). And by the way, Xixiasaurus which you read is at FAC, if you have any comments for it... FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Another little oddity, maybe extinct, or misdiagnosed, or just odd looking, nobody can decide: Dusky flying fox. cygnis insignis 07:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see it features an image I uploaded years ago, nice to see it be of some use! FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

		The Dinosaur Barnstar
		It gives me great pleasure to award you this richly deserved and hard earned barnstar for your work in bringing Xixiasaurus to featured article status. Only one of a large number of articles which illustrate the high quality of your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and it wouldn't have gone as smoothly without your copyedit and review! FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I do a fair bit of GOCE work and I have rarely come across a request requiring less work. I spent far more time admiring how well you had explained inherently complex aspects than I did copy editing. And reviewing the article mostly gave be an opportunity to admire the article in its totality; something of a masterclass. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In any case, for someone who is not a native Anglophone, it boosts confidence in a nomination to get such a thorough look at the prose done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As one of the all-time top 3 editors of Diplodocus, I thought you might be interested in a related article I created yesterday (Dippy (Diplodocus carnegii)) – it's considered the world's best known dinosaur skeleton, and has a fascinating story behind it. Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.

By the way, thanks again for your mentoring at Balfour Declaration a couple of years ago. We don’t seem to cross paths very often, but that time you spent in 2016/17 helped me enormously. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool idea, personally I would merge the other "spin off" articles about the London cast and the statue into it for comprehensiveness. As for not crossing paths, well, I hope to see more articles from you to review! I don't write much in the area of history and the Middle East myself, but I have a big interest in it, so I'm always ready to read and review. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you FunkMonk. Re the Dippy spin-offs, that’s a good idea. I’ll see how the DYK and RM discussions go and when cleared up will think about that.

On other middle eastern articles, I have been spending time, on-and-off, on the sequel to the Balfour Declaration – that is the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). This part of the story is the six-year period in which the 67-word declaration is turned into a legally binding document and approved by the League of Nations. It also allowed for the creation of Transjordan. If you ever have time I’ve had the article up for GA for a while and am very keen for outside input. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to have a look soonish... As for Dippy, I wonder if it would be best to show the original specimen in the taxobox? The photo in the Diplodocus infobox is pretty good... FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I took your suggestion on the photo. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see the Palestine article has been nominated since March last year! It's a pretty intimidating subject, but I'll get to it if no one else does (my time here is a bit too limited because of work). FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk. I would like to hear your opinion regarding a newly created article. It titles: the Sons of Antiochus VIII. Simply, all the featured articles about those kings were copied and pasted in this huge new replicat article. I have started a discussion here and would really apreciate your thoughts. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've commented there, but yeah, I agree it shouldn't be an article... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have made a response to why I have the images up on the dystalotosaurus image talk, can you please check? OviraptorFan (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see the Commons discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that in your last edit to Spinophorosaurus you added the reference name "rhoeto" but did not actually add the reference. I'm letting you know so that you can repair this oversight. Would you please be so kind as to do me the courtesy of letting me know when you do so? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can tell you what went wrong I copied the cladogram from the Gravisauria article, along with the sentence above it, and usually a bot fills out missing refs based on the ref name by copying them from other articles that use it. Seems that didn't happen in this case, for whatever reason. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems the bot got to it after all:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay—thanks for the reply. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is in the next queue, due to go live on the main page in less than two hours. If you have time, it would be helpful if you expanded the lead on the article. It got slapped with a "lead too short" tag. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, didn't know that was a requirement for DYK. Is it? FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a requirement for DYK, but an admin questioned it on WT:DYK. But if you want to get rid of that tag before it goes live ... I was going to expand it myself, and I just don't know the terminology well enough to even do a simple expansion. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll do a bit of expansion, but since the article isn't finished yet, writing a full intro is premature. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you read the MOS for numbers and take a (British) English class, you'd see the changes were not "frivolous", but were improvements. So, I wish you would refrain from frivolous reverts. 75.111.203.5 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, as stated before, you should not "correct" UK spellings such as "ise" to "ize" for no legitimate reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not do that. Wouldn't it be easier to correct that than to revert all the other revisions that correct MOS number, poor grammar and construction, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.203.5 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because your bad edits are interspersed with your good edits. Among the few I noticed, you changed behaviour to behavior and theorise to theorize. There is no justification for this, so quit it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk. I need your help with something. I mistakenly uploaded a photo to Wkipedia instead of Wikimedia, this. What to do now? Should I upload it again to Wikimedia and ask for it to be deleted from Wikipedia? Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can just add the "now on commons"[12] tag to the image here, then someone will delete it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey funk, ive been trying to work on the extinct Dorsetisauridae taxonomy and got in a situation I don't know how to deal with. Do you think you can please help? They are in the Diploglossa section. Sorry... OviraptorFan (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it seems the problem is the Dorsetisauridae is devoid of text. So as long as you actually write the article with sources, it should be fine to remove the deletion tag. But never save a page before you have finished it... FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And it seems you have tied to create an automatic taxobox in article space, but that doesn't work. Write the article first, then we can try to add a taxobox than can be filled out. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for Xixiasaurus, "about a troodontid dinosaur, a group noted for their comparatively large brains and well-developed senses (to the extent that they were once suggested to have evolved into reptilian humanoids if they hadn't gone extinct). This particular genus is not a very remarkable member of the group, but I chose it because, unlike more famous troodontids, it has many free images, and a pretty simple taxonomic history without much controversy. Having been named relatively recently, and being known from few remains, not much has been published about it, so this should be a very complete account of the subject." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

	Dinosaur man barnstar
	For your excellent work bringing a Troodontid to TFA. Dale Russell would be proud. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know this image would be used for something like this when I transferred it from Flickr back in the day, haha... I wonder if our reptilian humanoid overlords will feel exposed by this attention... FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there!....again.. anyways, a new pterosaur was described (specifically Iberodactylus) and its description has created the new lineage called the Hamipteridae. So I think that will need to be worked on, think you can help?(since im inexperienced with making new pages). Thanks OviraptorFan (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but to prevent what happened with the other article you created that got deleted, write a stub and add sources before saving an empty article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

at [13]. I was not sure what you wanted for

• "sunhorizontal"?? maybe "subhorizontal"?
• "humanitary"??
• "centra"??)

Shenme (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was just editing the page actually, so I will try to copy my additions separately to prevent an edit conflict. The two first words would be "subhorizontal" and "humanitarian", but "centra" is just plural of "centrum", which is part of the vertebrae. I can fix these issues when I save my edit. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spinophorosaurus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Biomechanical and 3D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, so I noticed a while back that the Isectolophidae and Lophiodontidae had nothing on them aside from basic descriptions. So I tried to work on the Isectolophidae. Think you can assist me with both? Thanks OviraptorFan (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can give you some pointers. Ferugliotheriidae seems to be our only featured article about a higher level, prehistoric mammal taxon, perhaps model on that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Spinophorosaurus has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, looks really good! FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)