User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 19

ancient reptile FA

If I'm decide to do more FAs with you I may like to do more non-dinosaur ancient reptiles. Would you be interested in another, perhaps more famous pterosaur or a plesiosaur (like Elasmosaurus) or mosasaur? LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course! There are of many contenders, we could maybe make a pool and evaluate the complexity of the literature (and available imagery). Apart from the above groups, a "mammal-like reptile" could perhaps also be interesting. After writing Istiodactylus, I also have a lot of pterosaur literature ready, and I was thinking of doing Dimorphodon at some point (which is somewhat famous, just appearing in monstrous form in Jurassic World). The most famous ones, Pteranodon, Pterodactylus, and Quetzalcoatlus, are a bit too taxonomically unstable at the moment, I think (key papers appear to be on their way). FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Dimorphodon would make a nice edition, but Elasmosaurus holds my interest the most. LittleJerry (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, it also has a very interesting and famous history, with the head on the tail-end and so on. I don't have any plesiosaur-specific literature, though, so I'll have to do some digging... FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I own the Oceans of Kansas book. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I've long known of the website[1], maybe I should get the book... It has nice artwork, doesn't it? I see there is a new edition just out (today?!):[2] FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Remember, your gonna have to use US English :). LittleJerry (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, also helps that most of the literature seems to be American... I guess we start the usual way, you take paleobiology, I take history? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Believe it or not. I actually helped write much of the current article long ago. Before, I created this account. So I'm revisiting. LittleJerry (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So it has been a long-term project. A fitting end, unless of course it makes you write more later... I'll go on a trip during the coming week, so I will probably not be around here until I get back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be busy this week and upcoming week but I intend to expand on paleobiology and paleoecology. LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It struck me that you might find it amusing to write at least the early part of the history section, LittleJerry, so I should maybe focus on the description? FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess I could try. But just one paragraph, I'm not that into the history of discoveries. I wouldn't be able to do it until Monday. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No rush from my side, I'll do the more taxonomically oriented stuff, and details about the discovery of the fossils themselves. Now I just need to figure out which sources to use... Has there been a redescription of the genus? And by the way, I have modified the last life restoration to reflect newer interpretations (added tail-fin and broader paddles). FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There was a redescription in 2005, which is already cited in the article. You think the description section should be re-written? I also found this, and this article may be useful if we want to get into some evolutionary topics. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily rewritten, but it could be expanded. I see no description of the shape of the teeth, for example. Also, if you see a good cladogram, we can ask IJReid to make it. What I put in now is only preliminary, and doesn't even show the species itself... FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The current restoration already seems to have a fin but I don't like the coloration much, I think it should be countershaded. I found this cladogram but it doesn't have Elasmosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean this one?[3] Seems somewhat counter shaded (at least at the head and body)? Maybe I can modify the neck to be darker as well... The one I modified is this one, where they are green (and seem to be counter shaded, if you ignore the shadow underneath?):[4] FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the dorsal side should be more uniformly dark while the ventral side should be more uniformly light. The stripes on the belly don't work for me. One of the papers I have depicts then possible flexion ranges of elasmosaur, which I think would make a nice image. We could also us images from here. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So the history section should be rewritten? I can agree to that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be expanded at least, and we need to mention the many other species that have been assigned to the genus, but where later moved to their own genera. And I can try to fix that restoration so the countershading becomes more uniform. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the colours more uniform, and removed most of the stripes (some of the darker areas left look like shadows and creases, though), any thoughts, LittleJerry?[5] FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That's better. But I fell like the underside of the neck could be lighter. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I begin the rewrite of the history section, but you could probably expand it and do better. This is not my strong suit. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I just found some of the recent papers, and will try to expand description and history soon. I see this paper, solely about Cope's wrong reconstruction, isn't cited, but would probably be useful:[6] This paper by Everhart would also be a good addition (about bones later recovered that may belong to the holotype):[7] I'll also try to finish correcting the restriction tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Now the underside of the neck in the restoration is lighter, and the neck slightly longer. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Looks good. LittleJerry (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

So, you are staring when you done with the GA review? LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look tonight, I only have a laptop with me now, so I haven't been doing any major edits the last weeks... FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I added some text, but it is a pain to cross-check pdfs and write on the tiny screen of my laptop, so I will probably have to wait with the bigger expansions for when I get home in two weeks... FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not already?

Are you not an admin already? Your stats and contributions are way too impressive! I think you could apply for an RFA, and I feel 100% that you would become an admin (even though I am far from an admin, I strongly think you will get the mop). Cheers! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconded... Particularly since you are joint #22 on the all time Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. In this great encyclopaedia of 5.5 million articles. There are just 21 people who have written more of our highest grade articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks, but I think it would suck the joy out for me, since there would be too many obligations, besides writing/editing, which is what interests me here. I'm already an admin on Commons, but even there I barely do the minimum amount of administrative work I'm obliged to do... FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on your logical mind, helpfulness, knowledge, and polite manners coupled with an ability to achieve your objectives in the end, you would make a fine admin. However, it comes down to what you like doing here on Wikipedia. I concur that, from what I know of your interests, it would probably take the fun out of it for you. William Harris • (talk) • 22:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the only admin tools I would like to have here is to be able to move articles (this is not always possible for non-admins) and delete local files that have been moved to Commons... Could be nice if it was possible to get selected admin tools, if it would also take some load off the "real" admins... FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I honestly thought that you were an admin already. But I do agree with the above, that it would probably make it less fun for you. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour RFC

Hi FunkMonk,

The Balfour Declaration FAC has made good progress. I think all comments have been implemented, and the only open point is the discussion with Brian regarding the notes, in which he was kind enough to confirm that he is happy to yield to other views.

Any advice on how to progress from here would be much appreciated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you recall, I pointed out that that many direct quotes were no doubt going to become a problem, so these issues are to be expected. But as for now, I guess all that ca be done is to present Brian with what the RFC concluded and see what he says. But I suspect it won't be the last we'll hear of it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, yes I agree - I wrote a detailed assessment of the notes question to Brian, which he responded to really well. I feel that question is in a reasonably good place as a result

I was really asking about the rest of the FAC review, because there is nothing else open and I'm not sure how to build momentum.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewers drop by over time, the wait can sometimes be very long. But one thing that might step up the process, and which reviewers are encouraged to do if a nomination stalls, is to place notices on the talkpages of relevant Wikiprojects, to make the nomination visible to people who may not be watching the FAC nomination page. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. I have just posted reminders at the three core WikiProjects and put new notices at seven others. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The nomination has just been closed, with a two week waiting period for renomination.

I am considering giving up my quest to achieve TFA by 2 Nov. I've been trying very hard but it doesn't seem to be enough.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a very difficult subject, and everyone has an opinion about it, so it is a much more bumpy ride than writing about, say, birds. But I think you should just use those two weeks like Sarastro recommended, by polishing further and talking to the reviewers. I have never seen an article get such a sudden and furious activity on the talk-page, so I think this has messed up the "plan", since the current article isn't exactly the one I reviewed. But it's worth to keep on pushing, articles are archived much faster now than in the past, so you shouldn't take it too hard. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree the surge of talk page enthusiasm didn't help with the timeline. Whilst the prose clearly suffered a little, on the plus side the article benefitted from the discussions greatly in terms of actual content.

I've put a huge amount of effort in to get this far, at least relative to anything I've ever done before on Wikipedia, and at the expense of some things in real life. But I'm not sure I have the energy to fight what is now an uphill battle to try to get this over the line at FAC and TFA in just seven weeks. It just seems completely out of my control. I'm going to think about it. Thanks for all your support. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if you don't hit the exact date, most of the work has been done, and it's an important subject even after its anniversary, so it would be a shame if it wasn't wrapped up. So perhaps you could take a break from it and return later? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I do need a break! I am in two minds though - it just won't be the same to miss the centennial.

Anyway, in the meantime I have opened another peer review. If you have time to review it again it would be really valuable.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I missed the passenger pigeon extinction centennial (which attracted a lot of attention as well) by little more than a year myself, so I know how you feel... But I felt it was worth doing it anyway, and it has been on the front page a couple of times since. I'll try to have a look at the peer review, but juding on the FAC, the main issue seems to perhaps have been wording, which is not really my strongest side (as a non-native Anglophone)... FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Achelousaurus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Achelousaurus 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Achelousaurus

The article Achelousaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Achelousaurus 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Image Help

Hello, FunkMonk! I was trying to upload the cut out image of the egg in the article, the common loon. It asks me the source and author for it. Any clue on if the ones in the original (3 egg) image should be retained for the description template (uploading the first image on commons, so learning the ropes)? Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You can just copy the entire file description from that file into the new one, and paste it into an empty upload form:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Done! :D File:Eggs of British Birds Seebohm 1896 Plate21 The Common Loon.jpg Thanks again. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks much better than the huge image! FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah lol. I wonder if I could ever gain as much knowledge as you, on editing! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Took me six years on Wikipedia before I even started nominating articles, so you're definitely ahead! FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ankylosaurus scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Ankylosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 October 2017. 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/October 22, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

COol, I just added some info to it, so it was just in time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for today's Spotted green pigeon, "a mysterious bird, known from just a skin and an illustration, and only confirmed as a distinct species, related to the dodo, in 2014. In case anyone is wondering why the version of the illustration shown under description appears quite different from the one under taxonomy, and partially contradicts the text, I did contact the author of the most recent article dealing with the bird about it, and he was unaware of the existence of the second version." - Detective stories ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, yes indeed, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Archaeoraptor.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award

Your joint work with Little Jerry is further recognised! William Harris • (talk) • 08:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

• Aww, thanks! I was only involved in the FAC, though... FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, my error now rectified! W

Yay! FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your restoration of the conquered lorikeet and good humor dealing with yet another dipshit trying to make insinuations about user-submitted restorations being intrinsically WP:OR. Abyssal (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hehe, thanks, at least now I have a cut and paste response I (and others) can submit whenever it happens! FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodrigues rail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rail (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) 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nil desperandum

It can be done:

--MWAK (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

We're gonna ant-FAC it! FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, MWAK, I hope the latest ant-orgy hasn't killed your enthusiasm, because I think we can already say Achelousaurus is the best, most comprehensive ceratopsian article on Wikipedia so far! FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Compared to the subject matter, certainly! I'll slowly work my way through the sources the coming days.--MWAK (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ceratosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnegie Museum (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) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Saw your comment

...here. Would you like the page and file mover rights? You're obvious a trusted user and meet all the requirements, so I'm fine with granting you them. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be nice! I didn't know it was possible for non-admins, but it has long irked me we have a lot of free files here that should be moved to Commons and deleted locally... FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy! Anarchyte (work | talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anarchyte, I tried to move the page Kawekaweau to Hoplodactylus delcourti following discussion, but it doesn't seem possible for non-admins? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be because there's more than one entry in the history. I'll make the move for you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

BD

Hi FunkMonk,

Thanks for your continued support. I really appreciated your post earlier at TFA.

Do you know how many supports are needed to pass FAC? I looked around but I couldn’t see a guideline. It has four so far (youself, Dank, AustralianRupert and BrightR), and with a bit of luck I might get support from Mightnightblueowl and Wehwalt.

Onceinawhile (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, three supports pretty much means a pass, but if some reviews are unfinished, or if it is an editor's first nomination, the coordinators might keep it open a bit longer to secure more views. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. So if I address Wehwalt’s final round of comments satisfactorily, then hopefully it is done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seems quite likely, the image and source reviews are already done, and those are usually the ones you'd have to wait long for... FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

With this many supports, I think it can pass before the "deadline", the question is just whether the last minute rescheduling can be done... The alternative might be a later date in November... FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello FunkMonk:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Yikes! And thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Extinct Species

Hey, FunkMonk! I thought it would be better to ask here instead of the FAC page. :P The lagomorph looks cool, but it would be highly likely that I would be needing your guidance at any point, so a topic with which you are familiar too, would be good to go with, I guess! Currently, other than alpine pika, I have no other articles in my sight for FAC, so would get to the article you recommend, right away! If you are familiar with the lagomorph, we could go with that too! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am most familiar with writing about recently extinct birds as well as dinosaurs, but I've written about both recently extinct and prehistoric mammals as well. If you want an easy start, I think it would be best with a recently extinct animal, since you'll avoid a lot of heavy anatomical description of skeletons that go with most prehistoric species... An easy bird could be the Seychelles parakeet, as not much is known about it, it went extinct pretty recently, and it has also been comprehensively dealt with in a recent source (Hume 2007). Turns out there is a recently extinct pika as well, see Sardinian pika, if you want to continue your series... Labrador duck, Carolina parakeet, and Eskimo curlew are other well-known and recently extinct birds with a lot of nice imagery to go with them, including photos of stuffed specimens... But if there is another specific kind of animal from a specific region of the world you'd want to write about, I can give recommendations along those lines. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So that is a real veteran prehistoric editor forya! I don't have any preference to a specific region, really. I prefer any species! Since this would be the first prehistoric/extinct species I would be editing, a relatively easier one would be helpful. So, the Seychelles parakeet would be awesome as you suggested. Yeah, I surely would be more comfortable with the Sardinian pika, as I have edited quite a bit on pikas now. Be it any species, it should be easy, as it would be the first (of probably 100 more? :D) GAN/FAC I would be contributing to. So, would the parakeet or the pika be the first one (or any other), on the easiness scale? Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely the bird, because the pika seems to be only known from bones, so there would have to be mainly osteological description there, and little about its external appearance... Also, I've written several articles about close relatives of the parakeet, so I can send you the relevant literature... FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! So, would start off with the bird next (after the alpine pika is done). :D I digressed to editing on hares, but now would be going back to birds, and editing the parakeet. It was so very helpful. All thanks to the interesting article on Rodrigues rail by you, that is awesome enough to influence a person to edit on extinct species! May I also know the close articles you have edited, so that I would understand the basic structure of the article? Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad it inspired you! Bringing attention to species exterminated by humans is also important in the grander scheme of things... Yes, the closest (and most similar) relations I wrote about are Newton's parakeet, Mascarene parrot, and Mascarene grey parakeet, and I'll probably work on Echo parakeet as well soon... FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! The structure is pretty much the same. After I get done with this parakeet, it should be easier to contribute to extinct species, and could go for tougher articles on extinct species! Thanks a ton for all your awesome help! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, it is feeling a bit lonely being the only one left here nominating articles about extinct birds! FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that! At least you are sticking to editing on extinct birds despite being the only editor to do so. Now, we are together. I might not be as quick as I edited the pika species, for about 20 days (exam), but after that, would be quicker. In the mean time too, I would try getting the parakeet to GAN and then to FAC. Also, how about we have a WikiProject on extinct species (or is it WP:EXTINCT)? We could attract people through that too! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, there's already a project. There are a few others writing about recently extinct mammals as well, sea mink was just made an FA, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added my name in that. I think you should your name too! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the project is kind of dead (extinct?) though, not much coordination going on there... I think the most active animal project is the bird one by far. The palaeontology and dinosaur projects aren't too bad either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we could revive it slowly, now that we are having some active contribution to it. It has just above 1000 articles I see, which may be a reason for less activity? Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It's always hard to say why a project becomes inactive, but as for that project, it was never very active to begin with. I think it might be because most editors are more interested in what kind of animal they write about whether than if it's recently extinct or not... Also, it has some scope-issues that were never solved; is it only about recently extinct species? Does it also cover endangered species? So on. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so true! I see so few articles on extinct species being improved, compared to BLPs. Hopefully, it should get a boost! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

In the mean time, would you like to check out the super short article, the Forrest's pika for GAN? :P

May sound strange, but I prefer reviewing (and working on) articles that have images of the subject, so I'll poribably take Turkestan red pika or Moupin pika soon instead. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly cool! Pick up whatever you like. :D It is natural for an image expert (along with being content creation expert, of course) to pick up an article having images! I have also stopped nominating any more pikas to GAN, as I have to get started on the parakeet next. Have a great rest of the day! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice, tell me if you need any sources for the parakeet, most of the old ones can be found online, but I can send you Hume 2007 if you can't get it. It is a very good starting point, as it covers everything known about the bird, then info from the older sources can be added later to flesh out the article. There are also some books I can send you photos of pages from. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, surely! It would help. Just one thing to note that the maximum size of a mail I can get is 15 MB, so if there are more pages, they can be split into more than one mail. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, check out WIR and WAM! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That of course opens up some more possibilities if one wants to go that way... I've long thought Mignon Talbot might be quite important, supposedly she was the first woman to name a dinosaur, but I'm not really a biography writer myself. A for Asia, there are of course a lot of animals from there, extinct as well as extant, which are important... The pink-headed duck I mentioned earlier, for example, which may or may not be extinct... Looking closer, though, it seems an article should be newly created, which of course restricts the pool, but there should be enough prehistoric animals without articles to go around for that... FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

:P I mean, you should be adding your name to both the places... Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well, I don't intend to compete, I don't have any relevant articles in mind I would work on myself, so there's not much I can do, other than help others out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hot articles

Hi, I responded to you on the talk page for the hot articles bot configuration and I can add you to the page if you're still interested. Just let me know what parameters you want the bot to use! Enwebb (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I linked to the dinosaur project there as an example. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Once the bot runs, your page will be at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Extinction/Hot articles. Cheers! Enwebb (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I can add it to the project page already, or should I wait? FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I just checked and it's live! Yeah, you can link to it or embed it on your project page.Enwebb (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

6 edits	Neanderthal
5 edits	Smilodon
3 edits	Late Pleistocene extinctions
3 edits	Neanderthal genetics
3 edits	Endangered species
2 edits	Woolly mammoth
2 edits	Valeriana extincta
2 edits	Neanderthal extinction
2 edits	NatureServe conservation status
2 edits	Late Ordovician mass extinction

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. Last updated 6 May 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Thanks, added to project! FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Resistance - My Life for Lebanon (book cover).jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Golden jackal pix

'morning FM. Most of the pix on Flickr etc have copyright or are stamped with the "budding professional" photographer's name. There is a tool referred to at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial but it is not intuitive to use - do you know how to drive it? https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/fist.php? William Harris • (talk) • 21:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You can pick what licences the images should have, see for example this search string:[9] Also works with the binomial. I could imagine many of these are already uploaded to Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. A search on "Canis aureus" and "All Creative Commons" delivers many more - I might upload the shot of the man in purple with the pint of "golden jackal" beer in his hand as an unusual "outlier" representative of the species! William Harris • (talk) • 08:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think "all Creative Commons" includes images for only non commercial use as well, so that needs to be ticked off... But it should be pretty simply to upload fro there, just paste the link.[10] Heh, and that "Golden Dress" image seems quite aberrant as well... FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Under "Description" I have added another pix, but I am not convinced that the other 2 under that section add much value; any opinion? William Harris • (talk) • 10:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Showing a skull is nice (a photo could be better), but I'm not sure about the low quality photo of stuffed animals... FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actioned! William Harris • (talk) • 21:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Passenger pigeon

Hi FunkMonk, thought you might be interested to know that a major new publication on the passenger pigeon was released this week: [11]

Also of interest is a project to revive the species by the same group of scientists: [12]

I saw it in passing and remembered you telling me about your FA on the topic.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll definitely add that! Happy editing... FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this again

I look at the para and see if it's likely to be contentious, supported in other sources, and so on. Restoring a shit source is not an appropriate response to disputing how much text is left. You can use {{cn}} if you like. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It is up to you to add the tag. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FunkMonk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ankylosaurus

Also LittleJerry. Will Ankylosaurus be ready to run at WP:TFA by, say, mid-January? I remember you were adding updated material Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, still a good deal to add, but I think it can be done before... FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, FunkMonk. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, but I can't guarantee how active I'll be... FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That's ok. We need all kinds of reviewers, even those that only review a few articles a week. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Cuche Formation/GA1

FunkMunk, unfortunately, the nominator's most recent edits were on October 27, a few days before you opened this review at the beginning of November. It's been over a month without any response or edits to the article, so it's probably time to close the nomination. Should they eventually return, you've given them plenty to work on; once they've done it, a peer review might be useful before bringing the article back to GAN. Thanks for taking this one on. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll send him an email and see if I get a response... FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Raptor Red

Hey Funk, I saw you added images to the article. I'm a bit concerned about whether they are appropriate for inclusion, given that they aren't actual illustrations from the book, instead basically fan art, and the depiction of the dinosaurs therein is far different than the book as well. It seems like it's giving off an incorrect impression of the novel. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no strong feelings about it, so remove if you want. But I think the one with the snow is appropriate for the reception section at least, to show that people have been inspired by the book. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Teresa Maryańska

Hi:

Peter Dodson (1998 p. 9) claims that in 1974 Maryanska together with Halszka Osmólska were among the first "women to describe new kinds of dinosaurs".

- after your edit his claim sounds different, mixing his opinion with the facts. Could you edit this sentence to be more precise? -- kocio (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've used the similar wording at Deinocheirus. I think what should be done is simply to remove the in-text attribution. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus

Hello, FunkMonk – As you can see, I have completed the copy-edit you requested. There are a few things I wanted to ask you about, but I will have to get to those later today.  – Corinne (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! Ask whenever you're ready. 20:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Giganotosauras

I don't understand why you changed it back to the wrong pronunciation. How is a video of the person who named it saying it out loud "original research"? Wouldn't a video of its namer pronouncing it the way it's supposed to be said more correct than a random book which is giving the wrong pronunciation? If you look at 5 different dinosaur books, you'll probably see 5 different pronunciations.

The problem is that your transliteration of it is original research. If we were to use his pronunciation, we would need a source transliterating it as such. We can only use published, reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ankylosaurus scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Ankylosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 15, 2018. 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 15, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice, chipping away at the huge redescrption, I think we'll get there in time... FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've now added all information that was missing, Jimfbleak and LittleJerry. Should be ready content-wise, but could maybe need a proof-read, as there is quite a bit of new text. All that would be needed now is updating the armor of some of the life restorations accoridngly, but that is less important. I'll try to get to that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC):::

Maybe John can copyedit? LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

duplinks-alt

Following on from your comments at the FAC[13], I've adjusted the script so that the first occurrence of a duplicated link also has a dashed border instead of solid border, which should make it a bit easier for you - Evad37 [talk] 09:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice, much more visible to me now, and probably to others! FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And here's a Christmas mammoth for you: FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

1912 Christmas card and poem by Charles R. Knight

Thanks, so cool of your extinct species! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elasmosaurus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elasmosaurus 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) 08:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dilophosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (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) 10:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, FunkMonk. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,602 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit more time

Hi there, I hope you are doing great! :D I would be away for 4 to 5 more days, after which I shall be done with my schedule. Although I have been telling you I would take "a bit more time" since a long time, but I was not aware either, of taking such a long time. After being back, I would like to go on both the parakeet (and alpine pika, as it is already close to FA I guess?). Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine! I'm also busy with Elasmosaurus and Dilophosaurus now anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elasmosaurus

The article Elasmosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elasmosaurus 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) 17:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yay! FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Review Help!

Hi, I hope you are doing great! While this is under review, I have two questions. I would be greatful for your help. First, as in "A typical landscape of Pirin National Park featuring lakes and marble peaks", the name of the article "Pirin National Park" should be avoided in the caption as much as possible, right? "A typical landscape featuring lakes and marble peaks" might do it, I guess. Second, the source of the image is "own work", so is it alright to have that? I guess it fails WP:V? Thanks a ton for your help! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It should be avoided because it is unnecessary to spell out the name, but you can still say "typical landscape of the park" or some such. As for the image, you mean the one in the infobox? Own work is fine for images, per WP:original images. Hope this helps. FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! That was pretty quick. :D I mean the source for File:KartaPPiNP.png. This is because, if it were own work, then would the precision of the colouring might be questionable, right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, a source would be needed on the file page to show what the info was based on. FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! :D Thanks a lot! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The nominator does not need to know wat exact source the uploader had used, as long as an equivalent source that shows the same information can be found. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dilophosaurus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lenticular and Cordiform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Pagemover rights

(Posted here because not relevant where we started.) "Page mover" confused me too for quite a while; in the English Wikipedia, unlike Commons, confirmed users can all move pages, so what does it mean? As I understand it, it actually confers the right to move a page without leaving a redirect. So if A and B need their titles swapped (B perhaps being a redirect to A), you can move A to a new temporary page T; move B to A; and then move T to B. If you did this without page mover rights, you would end up having created a new page T which is a redirect to B. T isn't needed and needs to be deleted, which only an admin can do. If you have page mover rights, you can make the round robin moves without leaving redirects, and the problem disappears. The Javascript I linked to does all the moves for you. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, now I only need to try it out on one of those pages I've been wanting to move for years, if I can even remember which now... FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Cuche Formation/GA1

FunkMonk, Wizardman has just posted a note to this nomination that you are reviewing. I thought you might want a friendly ping, since it's been moribund for so long. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I even sent the nominator an email long ago, but got no answer. I will close this soon, but note the nominator also has three other nominations. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Ankylosaurus, "one of the most famous dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Stegoceras scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Stegoceras has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 February 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/February 26, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool! It should be pretty up to date. It is two days before my birthday, oddly enough... FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dilophosaurus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dilophosaurus 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 Lusotitan -- Lusotitan (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus

Hello, FunkMonk – As you can see, I have completed the copy-edit you requested. I have a few questions for you, but I've got to take a break for a couple of hours now. I'll try to get to it later this evening, but if not today, then tomorrow.  – Corinne (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick! FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I figured I'd better complete it all at once. If I take a break in the middle, I might not get back to it for a few days. I fixed the punctuation in the paleoecology section. I have just a few things I wanted to mention:

1) Early in the article I noticed that, several times, using the conversion templates, you gave metric measurements before what I believe is called imperial measurements – i.e., kilograms before pounds, meters/metres before feet. I thought, since the article is written using American English, the pounds and feet should go before kilograms and meters/metres, unless there is a particular reason to put them the other way around. There is one with kilometers before miles in Dilophosaurus#History of discovery. Let me know if you want me to work on this and make the changes.

I was told once that it is best to use SI units in science articles here, regardless of English variety. That is also what is stated at WP:units, it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

2) In the first paragraph in Dilophosaurus#Paleoecology, you have these sentences (I've highlighted some words):

• It is composed mostly of two facies, one dominated by silty deposition and the other by sandstone. The siltstone facies is found in much of Arizona, while the sandstone facies is present in areas of northern Arizona, southern Utah, western Colorado, and northwestern New Mexico. The formation was primarily deposited by rivers, with the silty facies as the slower, more sluggish part of the river system. Kayenta Formation deposition was ended by the encroaching dune field that would become the Navajo Sandstone.

In the second sentence, you use "siltstone facies", but the word "siltstone" appears nowhere in the article. The reader is left to assume or wonder whether "siltstone facies" means the same thing as the first type of facie mentioned in the previous sentence. Then, in the third sentence, you use "the silty facies". I wonder whether "siltstone facies" should be changed to "silty facies" or "siltstone" should be linked, or if you think it is clear enough as it is.

That is actually one of the few sections I haven't rewritten from scratch, so I've changed "silty" to siltstone... FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

3) In the section Dilophosaurus#Classification, there is an image at the right next to the cladogram whose caption begins, "Skullbones of Dracovenator. At the end of the caption are the letters "ROM". I assume that these are the initials of a museum somewhere, but to non-experts these letters will be meaningless. There is another caption in Dilophosaurus#History of discover that contains the letters "RTM". I don't think readers should have to guess, do you?

All of these museum names are spelled out at their first occurrence in an image caption. After that they are abbreviated. So for example ROM is first spelled out in the taxobox caption. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

4) Regarding my comment at User talk:Apokryltaros#Dilophosaurus about the word "restoration", to which you kindly responded, I understand your response, but for the images that are clearly artists' renderings, would you consider changing "restoration" to "artist's rendering"? I'm thinking particularly of the one at the left in Dilophosaurus#Motion:

• Artist's rendering of Dilophosaurus in resting pose...

and the one at the right in Dilophosaurus#Paleoecology, which could be either:

• Artist's rendering of Dilophosaurus chasing Scutellosaurus, or
• Artist's depiction of Dilophosaurus chasing Scutellosaurus.

The other captions can remain with "restoration". I think it would introduce a little variety to the vocabulary of the captions, and utilize language more comprehensible to the average reader. It's up to you, of course.

Yet those other images are also artist renderings? Here, the main purpose has been to distinguish between illustrations of the skeleton, and illustrations of life appearance. The palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs": "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." This of course doesn't state what to do with drawings of skeletons, but I assume they would be reconstructions too. I could link restoration to paleoart to make it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

5) In the section Dilophosaurus#Taphonomy you have this sentence:

• The holotype skeleton was found lying on its right side, and its head and neck were recurved – curved backwards – in the "death pose" in which dinosaur skeletons are often found.

I added "curved backwards" within a pair of en-dashes after "recurved". Since, I believe, "recurved" means "curved backwards", to say "recurved backwards" is redundant. If you don't like the explanatory phrase that I added, you can remove it. In that case, I would leave out "backwards" and perhaps link "recurved", either to an article or to the Wiktionary entry.

I think what you did is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

6) Toward the end of the Dilophosaurus#Skull section is the following sentence:

• Though the number of alveoli in the dentary indicates the teeth were very crowded, they were rather far apart, due to the larger size of their alveoli.

To the non-expert reader, the first part of this sentence seems non-sensical:

• Though the number of alveoli in the dentary indicates the teeth were very crowded, they were rather far apart.

How is it possible that "the teeth were very crowded" but at the same time "rather far apart"? Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The alveoli are just the sockets, and since the teeth were smaller than the sockets, even if the sockets are crowded close together, the fact that the teeth are smaller means there will be a larger gap between the teeth. I have changed it to "would seem to indicate", if that makes it clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll respond to these tomorrow! Answered a few above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to the rest now, Corinne. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Of interest?

I found this shot: File:Tar and flora.jpeg which may be of use on "the cat" under "Natural traps". William Harris • (talk) • 11:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks cute[14], though I think it might be a better fit somewhere in the La Brea Tar Pits article? I think the image with the wolf[15] would be more relevant, since it also shows Smilodon... And it kind of mirrors the restoration which is sown above. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Licence

Hey friend. I have created an article about a renowned scholar Malatius Jaghnoon. I could not find free photos of him so I approached him on facebook and he gave me two photos. I have the permission in my messages with him and he sent me the photos in the messages which are all in Arabic. Now, I uploaded the photos to wiki as if Im the copy right holder (well I did acquire them from the owner and im free to use them for wiki according to him) but is that okay here ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! That kind of permissions are best handled through the OTRS process:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Emails of Hillary Clinton

Hello FunkMonk,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Emails of Hillary Clinton for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Turgan ^Talk 20:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dilophosaurus

The article Dilophosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dilophosaurus 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) 22:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus

Should I list the article for a source spotcheck for accuracy and paraphrasing? LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the source review that was done is enough for the coordinators, though? FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. The promotion process seems to have been going slow lately. So maybe that's it. LittleJerry (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's much more we can do at this point... But seems to have enough support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations with another successful co-nom, LittleJerry! FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)