User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 7
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
October 2012
Hello, I'm Jeancey. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Syrian civil war that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Your comments were not on topic, and could be construed by some as an attack. I suggest you take a day or two and cool off. Jeancey (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Free images
Hallo, FunkMonk! As you probably already know, several magazines this month have free access. Among them is Philosophical Transactions B which includes some very old papers from Mantell (Iguanodon, Hylaeosaurus, Pelorosaurus), Owen (Archaeopteryx) and Hulke (Hypsilophodon). The very nice lithographs in them are obviously free from copyright and would make for some valuable additions to the extensive range you have already made accessible to the general public. Likely you have been aware of this but I considered it wouldn't hurt to tell you anyway ;o). Greetings,--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't notice actually, you have links for the papers? FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see I have made a mistake: at the time the magazine was simply called Philosophical Transactions...
- The links are here:
- Mantell:
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/140/379.full.pdf+html
- Owen:
- Hulke:
- And in the real Phil. Trans. B this gem:
Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hilal Khashan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Akhbar (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) 10:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Macaw or not
The image you added here is interesting, but it does not look like a macaw to me. Its tail is not long enough. Note that it has a pale beak. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Remember, it appears the only person who classified Gossei' parrot as a macaw specifically is Rothschild, based on a vague description. So it could really had bee any kind of parrot. But I will add a source. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Upon reading up on it, it appears the description by Gosse is a second hand description, based on a recollection by a "Dr. Robertson", who had seen the now lost specimen at one time, and claimed it was very different form any other macaw he had ever seen. What this means is of course uncertain. FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying the wrong image I placed in Prestosuchus. I have since had the file renamed. By the way, I agree the image of Camptosaurus was a dated one. I believe it has been at the ROM for many years and is currently in their "From Our Vaults" display. Cheers. Dger (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, as for Camptosaurus, the weird thing is it has the updated skull, so it might not be so old. If you look at the image of Uteodon, a relative, that too is mounted with a hand on the ground, which is pronated, yet the very paper it was first described in specifically explains why this would be impossible (so I had to blur out the pronated hand to make the image usable). Some outdated ideas die slowly, even in museums. FunkMonk (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Lebanese Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Black September
- Thambetochen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lamellae
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Avian Paleontology at the Close of the 20th Century
Hi, FunkMonk. It's possible download "Avian Paleontology at the Close of the 20th Century: Proceedings of the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution" here. Regards Burmeister (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reunion Ibis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tract (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Elephantidae
Please reconsider your position on merging Elephantidae with elephant. I'm so close to prefecting the article for FA and a merge will further complicate things. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, my position probably won't change, but I can remove the merge tag, which is the only thing that would hinder a FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- But if it does pass FAC. Adding in the info from the Elephantidae could degrade its FA status. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you think so? You don't have to include the long list, prose is always better. Long taxonomic sections are not a bad thing. Most of those species aren't considered part of the group anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't we have to add in more information on the mammoths though the rest of the article? LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well there still will be reorganizations in the taxonomy section. Will you try a sandbox? LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you think so? You don't have to include the long list, prose is always better. Long taxonomic sections are not a bad thing. Most of those species aren't considered part of the group anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- But if it does pass FAC. Adding in the info from the Elephantidae could degrade its FA status. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Help needed
In the Amphibia FAC, it has been suggested that the compilation image you created needs improvement. I wonder if you could help. Working with images and their sourcing and status is really not my thing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, I'll make a new one later today, I didn't create that image actually, just found it on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- That amphibian collage looks good to me. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This image needs a fair use rationale now. —innotata 14:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I hope you're not upset about my challenging the copy-paste/merge thing. I reflexively freak on those, but I think you were right, and just boldly getting things done. Best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Old books
Old historic books seems to be one of your strong points. I stumbled upon Historia Naturalis Brasiliae published in 1648, when I was browsing the Wiki for anything on Spix's Macaw. Are you familiar with this book. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've stumbled across the front piece before while searching for a Dodo image, but haven't read it. Yes, here: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/search/objecten?q=brasiliae&p=1&ps=12#/RP-P-1890-A-15567,0 Perhaps it can be found in digitised somewhere... Is it needed for the article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is said to contain Marcgrave's 1638 description of the Spix's Macaw. I do not know what it contains, but it is probably interesting and potentially useful. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Whole thing is here: http://www.s4ulanguages.com/marcgrave-montanus.html But my Portuguese is a little, well, non-existent! Apart from the little Spanish I know... FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- It causes my browser to crash. I can not get past the plants at the beginning of the book. I might try with a different computer later. It contains a lot of illustrations of plants. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can't get past the first pages either... Would be interesting if there was an image of the bird we could use. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- An image would certainly be interesting. The two books on the same webpage load the RAM until the browser crashes. I might try on a friend's computer, which is new and has 6 Gbite RAM. Or try to inactivate downloading from the other book at the same time. Snowman (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a more accessible version: http://archive.org/stream/marcgrave/marcgrave_1648_historia#page/n17/mode/2up FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I deactivated the other book from the first page you listed and it downloaded. After the plants there are fishes. There are some pictures of animals, but not as many as plants. The parrots are on pages 207 and 208, I recall. There is one picture of a Blue-and-yellow Macaw and no other parrot pictures. There are pictures of other types of Brazilian birds. I do not know what language it is, but there is a suggestion that it is in old Latin on the Spix's Macaw GA page. You might like to contribute to the discussion again there. Snowman (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly is Latin. Here's the specific parrot page[1] FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Could that be the first picture of a Blue-and-yellow Macaw to reach Europe? Snowman (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly is Latin. Here's the specific parrot page[1] FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I deactivated the other book from the first page you listed and it downloaded. After the plants there are fishes. There are some pictures of animals, but not as many as plants. The parrots are on pages 207 and 208, I recall. There is one picture of a Blue-and-yellow Macaw and no other parrot pictures. There are pictures of other types of Brazilian birds. I do not know what language it is, but there is a suggestion that it is in old Latin on the Spix's Macaw GA page. You might like to contribute to the discussion again there. Snowman (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a more accessible version: http://archive.org/stream/marcgrave/marcgrave_1648_historia#page/n17/mode/2up FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- An image would certainly be interesting. The two books on the same webpage load the RAM until the browser crashes. I might try on a friend's computer, which is new and has 6 Gbite RAM. Or try to inactivate downloading from the other book at the same time. Snowman (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can't get past the first pages either... Would be interesting if there was an image of the bird we could use. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- It causes my browser to crash. I can not get past the plants at the beginning of the book. I might try with a different computer later. It contains a lot of illustrations of plants. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Whole thing is here: http://www.s4ulanguages.com/marcgrave-montanus.html But my Portuguese is a little, well, non-existent! Apart from the little Spanish I know... FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is said to contain Marcgrave's 1638 description of the Spix's Macaw. I do not know what it contains, but it is probably interesting and potentially useful. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
3RR
I reported the IP to AN3 for edit warring. Though I think you should self-revert that last edit of yours, because depending on the admin assessing the request you might also be blocked for violating 3RR (which you technically did; as none of his edits constitute blatant vandalism - except for the blanking one). It should be resolved soon enough. Yazan (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Adding unsourced, slanderous content is vandalism. But just to be sure, I'll do it, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello FunkMonk/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Woolly mammoth, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nuclei and Egg cell (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) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Description of Broad-billed Parrot
Hi, I made some edits to the description of the Broad-billed Parrot yesterday just before you went off-line. I made some changes and also offered some queries and suggestions in the edit summaries intended for you as the main editor. I sometimes find that progress can be made quickly to an article by editing it directly and with the main editor of an article considering my changes and making his or he own enhancements almost simultaneously to the same section without the need for a prolonged discussion on a talk page. Another editor has done some copy-editing in the interim and left a long message on my talk page. My main point is that you might be able to take something from the my edits to the article (including edit summaries) and the discussion on my talk page to improve the article. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, seems to be a long discussion, I'll have a look. As for the bifurcated tail, it puzzled me too, but that's what the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- ... but the Wiki article implies that a bifid tail is apparent in the sketch and does not mention anything about additional details in a written source. There appears to be an inconsistency between the drawing with shows a medium-sized pointed tail and a written source that describes a bifid tail. If this inconsistency exists, then is not covered well in the article. It is probably worth double checking the written source. Could historical documents be describing another bird? Is it possible that the bifid tail was more apparent when it was flying or perching in a tree? Snowman (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a little odd that the drawing in the infobox appears to show one toe backwards and three forwards, which is not a feature of a parrot's foot. However, it is not totally clear which toes are from which foot in the drawing. However, it we assume that the illustrator was not out to deceive anyone then the foot show most clearly in the drawing shows three toes forward and one toe backward, which would be consistent for a crow, raven, and many other sorts of birds. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed why the description of the sketch is more detailed than the actual sketch (forgot it before for some reason), and I'll add this now. As for the toes, who knows, could be a reversal? An error? No toe bones are known as far as I can see. But maybe it's just something that was left out of the original pencil sketch, and therefore not added when it was finished with inks later. The paper doesn't mention it. Heres Hume's tracing of the underlying sketch: [4] As you can see, something weird's going on with the toes. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Look at its feet in this illustration: File:Lophopsittacus.jpg. It has two toes forward and two toes backward. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's just a restoration based on the old sketch (or rather the tracing of the old sketch) with some modifications, so it doesn't provide any actual information. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Look at its feet in this illustration: File:Lophopsittacus.jpg. It has two toes forward and two toes backward. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed why the description of the sketch is more detailed than the actual sketch (forgot it before for some reason), and I'll add this now. As for the toes, who knows, could be a reversal? An error? No toe bones are known as far as I can see. But maybe it's just something that was left out of the original pencil sketch, and therefore not added when it was finished with inks later. The paper doesn't mention it. Heres Hume's tracing of the underlying sketch: [4] As you can see, something weird's going on with the toes. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a little odd that the drawing in the infobox appears to show one toe backwards and three forwards, which is not a feature of a parrot's foot. However, it is not totally clear which toes are from which foot in the drawing. However, it we assume that the illustrator was not out to deceive anyone then the foot show most clearly in the drawing shows three toes forward and one toe backward, which would be consistent for a crow, raven, and many other sorts of birds. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- ... but the Wiki article implies that a bifid tail is apparent in the sketch and does not mention anything about additional details in a written source. There appears to be an inconsistency between the drawing with shows a medium-sized pointed tail and a written source that describes a bifid tail. If this inconsistency exists, then is not covered well in the article. It is probably worth double checking the written source. Could historical documents be describing another bird? Is it possible that the bifid tail was more apparent when it was flying or perching in a tree? Snowman (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nomingia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Currie (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) 11:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012
There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that may concern you [5]. Regards -- Director (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Algerie-Bentalha-Massacre-22septembre1997-1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Algerie-Bentalha-Massacre-22septembre1997-1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Broad-billed Parrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma (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) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Broad-billed Parrot
Hi FunkMonk. Just to let you know that I'm afraid I'm going to have to abandon this and take both the article and the FAC review off my watch list. I realise that Snowman knows a lot about the subject, but I'm getting truly fed up with defending against his careless introduction of grammar errors, malformed citations, munging of sentence structures I took pains over, and his general failure to consult. Please understand that I have enjoyed working with you and that I love the article, but it's time to move on. Kind regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Main page appearance: Mauritius Blue Pigeon
This is a note to let the main editors of Mauritius Blue Pigeon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 2, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Mauritius Blue Pigeon is an extinct species of blue pigeon formerly endemic to the Mascarene island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar. It has two extinct relatives from the Mascarenes and three extant ones from other islands. It had white hackles around the head, neck and breast and blue plumage on the body, and it was red on the tail and the bare parts of the head. These colours were thought similar to those of the Dutch flag, a resemblance reflected in some of the bird's names. It was 30 cm (12 in) long and larger and more robust than any other blue pigeon species. It could raise its hackles into a ruff, which it used for display. Its call sounded like "barf barf" and it also made a cooing noise. It fed on fruits, nuts, and molluscs, and was once widespread in the forests of Mauritius. The bird was first mentioned in the 17th century and was described several times thereafter, but very few accounts describe the behaviour of living specimens. Several stuffed and at least one live specimen reached Europe in the 1700s and 1800s. Only three stuffed specimens exist today, and only one bird was ever depicted when alive. The species is thought to have become extinct in the 1830s due to deforestation and predation. (Full article...)
![[4]](http://oi45.tinypic.com/33e1jig.jpg){kind=link}
2012
Kingroyos (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Woolly mammoth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grit (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) 19:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
JSTOR
If you are going to add {{cite jstor}} references to articles; please create the appropriate {{cite jstor}} template. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- One Temnodontosaurus you added {{cite jstor|4523589}}, which ends up as
McGowan, C. (1995). "Temnodontosaurus risor is a Juvenile of T. platyodon (Reptilia: Ichthyosauria)". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 14 (4): 472–479. doi:10.1080/02724634.1995.10011573. JSTOR 4523589..
I am just suggesting you expand them by hand when you make them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then there's no point in using them. A bot is supposed to fill them out, so it's the bot that needs fixing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, there is nothing wrong with the bot. JSTOR shut down the service. Really annoying of them. Makes the template almost useless. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- What? Shouldn't the page about the template mention this? And isn't it possible to make a bot which gathers this information by itself? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- The template page does mention this, and you right that somehow a new bot needs to be created before the backlog gets crazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_incomplete_JSTOR_references AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are there problems with their DOIs as well? I added this[6] one, and nothing has happened yet. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Only JSTOR DOI's are broken. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are there problems with their DOIs as well? I added this[6] one, and nothing has happened yet. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- The template page does mention this, and you right that somehow a new bot needs to be created before the backlog gets crazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_incomplete_JSTOR_references AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- What? Shouldn't the page about the template mention this? And isn't it possible to make a bot which gathers this information by itself? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, there is nothing wrong with the bot. JSTOR shut down the service. Really annoying of them. Makes the template almost useless. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I here what you say but I don't think we should be so quick to alter accepted taxonomy when experts such as Adrian Lister and Victoria Herridge disagree with Li et al's conclusions. Especially when they're based on interpretations of art and low-res photos. David Peters would be proud! 124.149.95.164 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Where does Lister disagree? His mammoth book from 2007 uses Palaeoloxodon, not Elephas. Li et al are far from the only authors who have reached the same conclusion, it's just the source I used. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I need to lay off the Christmas sherry. I was confusing the raising of Palaeoloxodon from subgenus with the recent claim by Li et al that elephants depicted in 3000 year-old art are Palaeoloxodon rather than Elephas. I'll put back my two copy edits and everything will be back to how it was y'day.
- You've done good stuff over the years so I was initially surprised by the article move (prob shouldn't have been tagged "minor" tho'). Anyway, sorry to have wasted both our times! 124.149.95.164 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you add a section to the talk page of the Ardipithecus explaining why you think the Ardi article should be merged into it. I would like to remove the tag because it is common practice to have a separate article for commonly named finds (eg: Lucy (Australopithecus), Selam (Australopithecus), Taung Child, Krapina, and many many others on the List of human evolution fossils). If my argument has convinced you to change your mind, go ahead and remove the tag. Otherwise, please start a discussion section because I would like to give an opportunity to have this brought to everyone's attention. I will revisit the page in a few weeks. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red-and-blue Lory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sangihe (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) 11:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Precious
extinct creatures
Thank you for quality articles in Palaeontology and the Arab world, for bringing extinct creatures as Dodo and Mauritius Blue Pigeon back to the "life" of our attention with scientific precision, and for GA reviews, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
GA and FA
Thank you for reviewing Black bean aphid for GA. I may take it on to FA at some point because it would be satisfying to take an article the whole way from start to featured. I guess I would have to make it more comprehensive. We'll see.
I have just been "told off" for too easily "supporting" articles at FA. See my talk page for details. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you make a DYK for the article, there is some kind of label it would fall under, not sure what it's called... When an editor starts an article, gets it to GA, DYK, and FA. As for easy supports, I guess it's because they want each editor's FA review to be similar to a GA review in itself... I haven't reviewed many for that same reason, heh... FACs are way too nitpicky for my taste. I'm not really a sucker for wording either, which is why I find GARs more straightforward and enjoyable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Re:Potential FACs?
I'm rather busy at the moment; working with you and your articles is always a pleasure, so I certainly will find some time to take a look at these in the next couple of weeks. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nyala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zululand (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) 11:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Funkadelic and Parliament templates
Hi FunkMonk,
You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 7#Template:Funkadelic and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 7#Template:Parliament (band). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Red Rail and FAC
Hi there, hope things are well- I've taken a look through Red Rail, and left some thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Images
You seem to be skilled at getting images from the web. I'm currently writing an article on the Furry Coral Crab (Cymo melanodactylus) and found this image on Flickr and this one.
What is the procedure for trying to get such images suitably licensed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- What worked for me in one case, which was quite successful[7], was writing to a user, asking if he would change the license of some of his images to a Commons compatible one, so that they could be used on Wikipedia. Such a goal seems noble enough for most people, and I haven't encountered anyone turning such a request down, only that didn't get an answer. You may have to create a Flickr profile to contact their users, but in that case, I can do it for you. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I managed to create a Flickr profile and have sent an email to the photographer. We'll see what happens. I now know what to do next time I need an image off Flickr. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep me updated! And remember, it needs to be a commercial licence and the image should be allowed to be modified. Commons doesn't accept free images that cannot be used for commercial purposes or modified. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- He did reply but turned me down. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep me updated! And remember, it needs to be a commercial licence and the image should be allowed to be modified. Commons doesn't accept free images that cannot be used for commercial purposes or modified. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I managed to create a Flickr profile and have sent an email to the photographer. We'll see what happens. I now know what to do next time I need an image off Flickr. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Island Emu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trochlea (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) 11:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
About Your Recent Anti-Vandal Commentary
Thank you! Thank you so much!--Mr Fink (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- My pleasure, trust me! FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- If I were to change my sex, could I have permission to bear your child?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can do better palaeontological gold-digging than that: http://jezebel.com/5879659/dinosaur-expert-becomes-most-december+y-husband-ever FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- If I were to change my sex, could I have permission to bear your child?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
January 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Hilal Khashan. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's the "three revert rule", right? So how come the IP isn't blocked yet? FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well i've just come across this page because it popped up on my screen, and looking at the history of the article, i issued you both with a note about edit warring. The IP has only reverted you 3 times with is not in breach of WP:3RR, however I've asked for the page to be protected for now until it can be sorted out. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- He has reverted me three times, but if you look at earlier edits frõm today, he has reverted the very same edits when done by other users. Therefore he has reverted the same edit more than three times. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- from different IP's. Ive asked those edits to be looked at, but to stop the edit war, the article has now been protected. I suggest discussions take place on the article's talk page to iron out the issues at hand. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- He has reverted me three times, but if you look at earlier edits frõm today, he has reverted the very same edits when done by other users. Therefore he has reverted the same edit more than three times. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well i've just come across this page because it popped up on my screen, and looking at the history of the article, i issued you both with a note about edit warring. The IP has only reverted you 3 times with is not in breach of WP:3RR, however I've asked for the page to be protected for now until it can be sorted out. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Eurazhdarcho
Hi, FunkMonk! I have seen you've uploaded all those nice pictures from the Eurazhdarcho article. However, in my insatiable iconic hunger, I have set my mind on one more: figure 16 showing the Cretaceous Earth map with the several pterosaur finds projected on it. It would also be very useful in various other pterosaur articles. Of course, it is quite possible you have already made it available and I simply missed it. If not, could I ask once more for your assistance?
Greetings,--MWAK (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I've actually refrained from uploading it, because I recall that some of these maps have been used in other Plos articles and later uploaded here, only to be deleted. It appears that the maker of the maps has not released them under a commercial license, he has only "borrowed" them to various researchers. But I'll double check the issue, good call! If I'm wrong, I'll upload the image afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paleogeography_of_North_America_during_the_late_Campanian_Stage_of_the_Late_Cretaceous.png){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azhdarchid_map.png){kind=link}
Countershading
Hi FunkMonk, thanks very much for the GA review, I'm glad you liked the article. I'm in the process of trying to get Camouflage through FA, a new experience... the whole area still needs a lot of work as there are some quite scrappy articles e.g. on underwater cam.... but very glad to know there are other people about who care too. All the best -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I find the topic fascinating, but I was a little hesitant in taking up the review, since I've mainly reviewed animal species articles so far, and was unsure if I could pull it off. But I just couldn't resist in the end, heheh. Keep up the nice work! FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- And by the way, this fair use image[12] may be in the public domain, if it was indeed produced by the British Army, and if what the British Army produces is considered "works of the government". See for example:[13] Could be worth finding out. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I put it there in fear and trepidation. It is certainly an aerial photograph, and we know it was taken at Cott's request for the demonstration. How would we find out the exact status? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have more info on where it was published? Where did you find it? FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Forbes's book. He attributes it to Glasgow University Archive Services - sounds unpromising! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, only unpromising because it doesn't really say anything about the original source... An archive doesn't obtain the copyright of what it archives. Maybe they could be asked where they got it from? FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nearly sure I know the answer to that - papers of Cott's mentor, regius professor of natural history at Glasgow, John Graham Kerr. Cott almost certainly sent Kerr the photos in 1940 as they both tried to persuade the authorities to use better camouflage. So unless the photos are actually stamped "W.D." on the back, Glasgow archives probably won't know more than we do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, only unpromising because it doesn't really say anything about the original source... An archive doesn't obtain the copyright of what it archives. Maybe they could be asked where they got it from? FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Forbes's book. He attributes it to Glasgow University Archive Services - sounds unpromising! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have more info on where it was published? Where did you find it? FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I put it there in fear and trepidation. It is certainly an aerial photograph, and we know it was taken at Cott's request for the demonstration. How would we find out the exact status? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- And by the way, this fair use image[12] may be in the public domain, if it was indeed produced by the British Army, and if what the British Army produces is considered "works of the government". See for example:[13] Could be worth finding out. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countershaded_Rail-mounted_Gun_Camouflaged_by_Hugh_Cott_1940.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stamp_Nauru_1916_5p.jpg){kind=link}
Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Countershading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phyla (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) 11:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, I really appreciate it. I do have a few thoughts as to improvements, and I do think that it has FAC potential. One quick note- you forgot to add the article to a Wikipedia:Good articles subpage. Something to remember in future! J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:COATRACK, I'm thinking of moving Extinct Caribbean macaws to Macaw, as it's not specifically about the Lesser Antilles macaw and I think it belongs in the more general article. What are your thoughts on this? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's already there! I wrote it specifically forthis article, however, since I think a thorough disclaimer is needed to put it in the right context. Most sources treat them collectively, and they are kind of hard to separate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- No worries; I'll leave it alone. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Done - feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit; good luck with your planned nomination, though I recommend seeking a peer review before nominating from FA. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! It's pretty short, so shouldn't take too long! Not sure if it can get to FAC, though, very little is known about the bird. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- If only some of the others were as easy as these two! :-) Done - feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Lord Ligonier Uprising
Hello FunkMonk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lord Ligonier Uprising, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the Roots series was founded in fact, and this was a real ship. Needs referencing to make clear how much is fact. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Lord Ligonier Uprising
Hello FunkMonk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lord Ligonier Uprising, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
DRN thread
A thread on the issues at Talk:Syrian civil war has been posted on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Syrian civil war".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Second opinionWould you be prepared to give an informal second opinion on the GA review I have undertaken on Mont Aiguille. I consider the article is too lightweight and that it does not fulfil the criterion "broad in its scope". Some of the limited amount of information in the article is really repeating information already provided. Although the nominator dealt with a couple of brief matters, he has had 10 days to make further improvements along the lines I have suggested but has not done so. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
ARBCOMWow.. even DRN is looking like it might fail. We may really have to take this all the way to ARBCOM. -- Director (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Your Assad dictatorship propagandizing will fail at ARBCOM too. Go do something productive wih your time. Like reading a book. I recommend 'The Fall of the House of Assad'. Might actually adjust your misguided views (really). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.30 (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: Extinct macaw paperI just looked at an old request of yours and realized that you added additional request. To me, it isn't clear which article you want (I actually have access to both). Can you specify? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Re:3RR etcIn his defence, you shouldn't really be adding to a closed discussion. If it really needs to be said, a note on the user's talk page or even under the closed discussion would be more appropriate, but modifying what's within a "closed discussion" box is generally poor form. J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 27Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Réunion Ibis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (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) 14:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Homo sapiens palestinus listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Homo sapiens palestinus. Since you had some involvement with the Homo sapiens palestinus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 6Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Réunion Ibis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congeneric (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) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Hey FunkMonk, I've replied to your comments on the review, so if you could address them it would really help me. I've got more to say but I'll keep them till after I edit the article more. Thanks, Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 02:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC) WP civility"See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories Find scholarly sources or forget it. Many such rumours have been created over the centuries, and some retards keep believing them today." Umm, calling other users 'retard' is quite a serious violation of WP:civil. If the Alawites article is causing you so much distress that you are losing your temper then step away for a few hours before responding. Alatari (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The article does not make it clear that it is a pejorative term along the lines of 'cracker' or 'honkey'. If that is true and you object to it as a WP category then maybe the Ghulat article should at least have a source and information on how hateful a term it is and how it could cause a fight when used by one person to another. I can understand how being told you are not Muslim when you consider yourself one can be hateful but the article ghulat is very academic and doesn't portray the emotional content of the term. Alatari (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The article itself cites a source calling the Alawites a ghulat sect: # ^ a b c d Moosa, Matti (1987). Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects. Syracuse University Press. pp. 282–283. ISBN 0-8156-2411-5. Alatari (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and please prove that it is a derogatory term with a source. Alatari (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The burden of proof of your claims falls on you, not me. [[Category:Heretics in Christianity]] is a category on Wikipedia. Heretic itself is not a pejorative term as is calling me a honkey. You still haven't proven the emotional content of the term as it is being used in Jerusalem papers and historic texts that are sourced into the Alawite article. Alatari (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe the category [[Category:Heresy]] would be more appropriate as this is an English language encyclopedia as opposed the Arabic term ghulat. Alatari (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I can become an Alawite if I wish but I can not change my skin color or my genes. This is the difference in the pejorative content of the ghulat term. Alatari (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
See the Matti Moosa text on ghulat sects cited 4 times in the article. [21]. Alatari (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Heretic is derogatory term used by the mainstream but the people being called heretic might be proud to be called that term as in the case of the Free Zoners Free Zone (Scientology) Alatari (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC) And your understanding of pejorative is incomplete. Heretic is an academic term, 'nigger' is not. Galileo was called a heretic by the church and put on trial but no one is going to censor that from his article because it is hate speech. Heretic has never to my knowledge been considered hate speech before on Wikipedia. Moosa DOES categorize those sects as ghulat even in the title of his book. His academic knowledge and opinion carries great weight on Wikipedia and it is not fringe. Alatari (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
|