User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 20

Abandoned GA reviews

FunkMonk, I noticed that you recently took over a GA review that had been effectively abandoned by Lythronaxargestes, Talk:Arktocara/GA1. The editor has just posted a "retired" template on their talk page.

The problem is that they also have another GA review open: Talk:Thomas's pika/GA1. I was wondering whether you would be willing to take this one over—I see that you suggested there a couple of weeks ago that a second opinion might be requested, but it's going to need someone to continue and conclude the review, not just render an opinion.

Please let me know. If you don't feel you can take this one on in addition to the other review, I'll see if I can find someone else. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I just took another look at the Thomas's pika review, and the nominator, Adityavagarwal, hasn't made a single edit to the article since the end of October, despite significant recent activity. If you do take it over, I would suggest that you give one week—two at the outside—for significant edits to begin. If they don't, I'd close it, but it would be up to you. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was considering taking up both reviews, but I need the nominators to respond first... FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, FunkMonk. It looks like Dunkleosteus77 made a bunch of edits recently and responded to about half a dozen issues on the Artktocara review page at the same time. So some progress there. I've just posted an end-of-the-month deadline for Adityavagarwal to finally start some edits at Thomas's pika, in the hopes of getting a response. It they do start, then you'll have something to review. If they don't, then I'll close the nomination myself; it will have been four months without any edits, and that's plenty long enough to close. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Lord Howe swamphen copyedit

Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure; it's a real nice article, although recently-extinct-species articles always make me sad :-). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Paleoart review

Hello, FunkMonk. I have seen that you are an active user in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review, and I wanted to ask you some questions. I want to upload an image of Paleomerus, here I have an illustration, and I would like to know how I could do it. Are there programs that help you do this or can i do it by hand? Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 10:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You can upload images here:[1] But it doesn't seem to me the images in that PDF are free to use? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not know if they are free to use, but I thought about doing it using the PDF model. Super Ψ Dro 15:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You mean basing a new drawing on it? That should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And how could I do it? Super Ψ Dro 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

How you could draw it? Well, make a new drawing with colour, for example, but don't make it too close to the original. You can do it by hand or digitally. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Super Ψ Dro 15:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And what drawing programs could i use? I have used Paint and it has not gone well. Super Ψ Dro 19:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gimp should do the same as Photoshop, but it's free:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Email

Hi! Just checked into my Wikipedia account after months, and got a notif about an email you sent me. Sadly that account is not working anymore, so if possible inform me about it here. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! I think I was just asking you where you had gone, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lord Howe swamphen

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lord Howe swamphen 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) 12:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lord Howe swamphen

The article Lord Howe swamphen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lord Howe swamphen 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) 07:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dinosaur FAC

I don't know if I'll have much time to edit this fall but in the meantime, I would be willing to help out with Brachiosaurus and/or Kentrosaurus. Though it would probably be good to find other nominator as well. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that HMallison, who nominated Kentrosaurus (with you, I see), might return to it for FAC some day once some new info about it he is working on has been published.[3] He said he would prefer keeping it on hold until then. He was also the main writer of Brachiosaurus[4], but I'm thinking he may be too busy these days. I will try to email him if he doesn't see this ping. Anything else you'd be interested in? FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

IJReid who reviewed Kentrosaurus, and has been working on some other brachiosaurids, might be interested. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, although I think Giraffatitan might be more stable than Brachiosaurus proper. Any brachiosaurid would be fine. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In a sense, Giraffatitan is actually also more famous than Brachiosaurus, since almost every popular depiction of the latter (including in Jurassic Park) is based on the former... I think Heinrich also wrote a good deal of that one. But of course, Brachiosaurus is the one that gets the most hits, as that's the name people know, which could be an argument in favour of expanding that first. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm warming up to the idea of doing Brachiosaurus, but I also think I would maybe focus on one section, probably history, which I guess most other people wouldn't want, haha... Doing two for something with a history like Elasmosaurus was already a bit of a mouthful, and this one is also quite complicated. IJReid, you mentioned stability, what do you think is unstable about Brachiosaurus? It doesn't seem like any of the referred species are going to stick, so the only contentious issue seems to be the referred North American material. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I know of a few people who doubt the referral of some of the referred material. If we focus on the holotype (the better described specimen anyways) we should be alright. I am good with classification work, history or some description, but not paleobiology. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and a new genomic study on living and extinct elephants has important information for the Columbian and woolly mammoth. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, the part about the mammoths seems to be confirmation of what has been suggested for some years (the interbreeding is mentioned in the articles). FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems Euoplocephalus has just been further exploded[5], with the well-known specimen ROM 1930 (which we show many times) now assigned to another genus, so good we took Ankylosaurus back then instead... FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in science communication

Hi FunkMonk: The Wiki Education Foundation is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to science communication, and I’m reaching out to a small number of experienced editors with interest in science topics on Wikipedia to see if they’d be interested in providing feedback. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that students consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d appreciate any feedback on the draft by 3/12. Would you be interested in taking a look? —Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I'll look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, very much appreciated. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks good, Cassidy (Wiki Ed), the only thing I can think of that could maybe be stressed more is comprehensiveness. For example, there was just a mass GAN-nomination of butterfly and moth species articles by students, and many of them lacked taxonomy sections entirely, which is of course a very important part of any article about a taxon. So maybe something about all major aspects of a subject being covered should be added? FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, FunkMonk! We’ll look into how we can work that in. Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope the initiative will be successful! FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Catopsbaatar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Molar, Enamel and Fovea

Nothrotheriops (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nevada State Museum

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Paleo questions

Hi FunkMonk! I've been going through User:Sanajeh's page creations and changes now that they've been banned to try to make sure their disruptive edits have been undone, but for some articles my lack of background in paleontology makes things hard to judge. For example, Chenoanas is definitely a proposed extinct genus of duck, but has only ever been written about by one author, Nikita Zelenkov, who proposed it and its type species in 2012[6] and a new species quite recently[7], but there is no other scholarship on it, other than Zelenkov referencing it elsewhere, and a couple citations of their papers by others who aren't actually discussing Chenoanas like [8]. Additionally, I can't find it in fossilworks.org or the Paleobiology Database.

In my general understanding of scientific literature, this typically would indicate an idea which has not yet been accepted/verified/reviewed by others, or a failed proposal of restructuring ideas or even a summarily dismissed fringe theory, none of which would be particularly notable, so I'm not sure about the protocol regarding having an article on it. I mean, on the one hand, it's not necessarily misleading anyone, but on the other hand, having an encyclopedia entry for a genus about which only one person has published two papers and which is not listed in public fossil records, seems a bit odd.

So I guess my question is, is this typical for paleontology? Are there so many taxons being proposed and fossils being found that it is usual for only one researcher or group to publish evidence of something but for it still to be valid and accepted? Or are there criteria for what is valid and what is just a proposal? Is there some other sort of authority I can look to in order to determine its standing in the field. I'm not overly concerned with Chenoanas but it brought up issues I wasn't sure about. Sorry for the ramble, I've just been falling into the rabbit hole and am quite curious and confused, and you seem to be knowledgeable. Feel free to foist me off elsewhere! ElfLady64 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is not uncommon that years will pass before a taxon is evaluated, especially if obscure (see for example the references for Catopsbaatar, most of which are by the original describer, and it was only dealt with independently many years later). And Wikipedia articles are often created for new taxa within hours of their publication, so there is obviously no effort to wait until they become evaluated, which can take years anyway. So in this case, I think it's alright. But if papers are included in the references that aren't even relevant to this taxon, they should be removed. As for the publication of this particular duck, it appears to have been done in a reputable journal, in articles which would at least have been peer-reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, I will continue just making sure the sources are reliable and relevant to the article. Thanks for your help! ElfLady64 (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And thanks for checking! It is a pretty confusing situation, with a user both creating valid articles as well as outright hoaxes... And note that Sanajeh is possibly an alias of User:Ozarcusmapesae, which appears not to be banned. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is what makes it so difficult to address! Yes, I had suspected that before Sanajeh was blocked, but wasn't sure enough of intent to take action regarding it. It's difficult to judge intent when, as someone put it, they might just be a young enthusiast who's a bit misguided, and sometimes adds content that seems like their best attempt at interpreting academic literature. But at this point, regardless of intent, it's just too disruptive and incompetent, and they are unresponsive to communication. I had thought Ozarcusmapesae had stopped after the block, but evidently not, they've returned after 5 days and I've just given them a 3rd warning. I would create an ANI or a sock investigation, but a) I've never done that before and b) I'm away from the computer for a week and compiling diffs and such evidence on a phone is a bit hard. Hopefully it gets sorted out before they make too many more unsourced edits to sort through! ElfLady64 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not very experienced with such investigations, so let's see if things start to improve... FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may lurk in quickly... based on the most recent stunt at Petralcinae (thanks ElfLady64 for cleaning up), I suggest we kick off something official if the next production is a similar time-waster. That this seems squarely located in the borderland of good-faith efforts and incompetence in an arcane literature area is going to make it more difficult to present, but I don't want to have to spend 30 mins error-checking whenever this editor turns up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think enough chances have been given. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If Ozarcusmapesae starts up with more OR nonsense, like the gobbledygook he posted about placoderms, should we start giving him warnings?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a block is in order... FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: @Elmidae: @Apokryltaros: @Graeme Bartlett: Since there have been many warnings given and they have continued with the unsourced edits and questionable article creations, I am going to be creating an ANI, unless any of you think I should do something else first? I gave them a "final warning" message (after they received 5+ from various people) on the 9th saying that they could be blocked, but they continued with unsourced edits and a potential hoax article. I'm alerting all of you b/c I'm a bit nervous about being too hasty or not going through the proper protocol, but I'm pretty sure this is the appropriate course of action. I don't think alternative attempts at conflict dispute will be helpful since they have never been communicative.ElfLady64 (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that User talk:Cryolepis is also the same individual. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJReid: Gah! Thanks for letting us know! I have written up an ANI, so I will post that, but I decided not to go through the sockpuppet investigation process despite my almost certainty they are Sanajeh, since they created the ozarcus account before they were blocked, but we may need to do that if this new user continues with the same constant disruptive editing. ElfLady64 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh - good catch. Yes, that very likely is the same person, doing the same crap on alternate days. - I'd say go ahead with the ANI report; they are just creating too much work for the useful part of the content to be worth it. Thanks for fielding this, will chime in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ozarcusmapesae, a bit long-winded but I wanted the issue to be clear, and for all of the information I was basing my claims on to be available up front, so as to avoid seeming like a personal issue I have with them or something. I feel kind of bad about it, I wish they would start following policy! But as you said, cleaning up everything and having to double-check their edits is a lot of unnecessary work and ultimately hurting the encyclopedia. ElfLady64 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

FINAL UPDATE HOPEFULLY: Without having to go through the whole rigmarole, the admin who blocked Ozarcus then, I guess, CheckUser'd them and found User:Sanajeh, User:Cryolepis, User:Lapitavenator and them to be socks, along with User:Rhaeticosaurus, User:Santanasauris, and User:Shartegodon altai who I hadn't seen anyone mention... hopefully this will be the end of it. I almost wish I'd made an ANI sooner, but erring on the side of caution and not jumping in without all the info is usually a good strategy. Thanks everyone for your help! ElfLady64 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that was prompt! Thanks again. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Since I can't use Wikimedia

https://i.imgur.com/qYXQEe7.png

• Who is "Sheater", and what is the work? As you can see, that is pretty miserable proof of anything... Also, Wikimedia isn't a "personal work". FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You know who he is. Dylan Bajda. AKA the guy I have paid for the commissions, which technically makes me their copyright owner btw. Should I show you the Paypal transfers as well?

Paying for art doesn't make you the copyright holder unless you transfer copyright as well. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It does, actually. The artist has toe right to disassociate himself from his artwork, but I have the freedom to use it as I please.

This is an edited screencap! I am Sheather AKA Dylan Bajda, and I do not provide permission for this image on Wikimedia - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ichthyoconodon.2.png - at this time and request its deletion. The actual conversation features additional detail edited out by this user where I say I do not want it on Wikipedia! https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/190230479318941697/420043824841228298/Untitled.png?width=862&height=393

~ Dylan Bajda (Sheather/Sheatherius) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheatherius (talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That certainly puts into question earlier copyright claims by Falconfly... And no, paying for commissions does not mean copyright has been transferred at all. FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll find those doubts erased by the countless emails Dylan, Julio and others have sent themselves. Also, said conversation is edited, but I do suppose its no less valid than the image above as far as determining which one is correct.

If the artist has never given permission for a free CC licence of this image to Wikimedia, which there is no indication of having been done, then yes, there is still plenty of doubt. FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

He sent emails, several in fact. And, again, I paid for this. If he wants, he can disassociate himself from his artwork, but I hold the copyright.

The work was paid for but I have never signed the copyright to anyone else. I granted casual permission to use this picture in any personal works Falconfly wants and that still stands but I do not want it here - and neither does the Wikimedia community. It's not even an accurate illustration. These highly speculative illustrations have a place but that place is not in a scientific encyclopedia. Sheatherius (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems Falconfly has completely misunderstood how copyright works. No matter how many times it is repeated, no, commissioning art does not transfer copyright unless there is some kind of document that specifically states this. See for example what DACS says: "Under current copyright law, the artist generally owns the copyright in work commissioned by a third party, unless they have signed an agreement to the contrary."[9] FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

How long does it usually take to have the image file (and the others I have requested) deleted in an instance like this? Sheatherius (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends on how long it takes for people to discuss it. I am an admin on Commons, but since I've been involved in these cases, I think it would be better for someone uninvolved to close them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have any contacts with others who can do so then I would much appreciate if you let them know to take a look. The quicker this is resolved, the better I will feel. Thank you! Sheatherius (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it will take too long, but in any case, your own reputation isn't damaged (you wrote you were worried about it), Falconfly's bafflingly confrontative behaviour and POV-pushing is well known here by now, and it's not your fault. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"POV pushing" = responding to unwarranted pettiness apparently.Falconfly (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think you're having these problems? Because there's a Wikipedia-wide conspiracy against you? Or simply because your behaviour is increasingly rude? FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The later would imply the former, given the sequence of events you acknowledge yourself.Falconfly (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Falconfly: You offended me personally and polluted multiple projects with your boorish behavior. Short of a personal apology, I will continue to oppose your efforts and your improper claims of copyright on commissioned works.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

.::::@Jeff G.: With as much respect as it can be had in a situation like this, you provoked me out of irrational reasons, including an outright prompt for response, and are now essentially making a declaration of pettiness. I think its very clear that I'm not in the wrong here.Falconfly 19:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I just have my art taken down please? Sheatherius (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sheatherius:Which reminds me, you said this to me long before this. Are you going to pretend its edited as well? Falconfly (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As you can see at the picture I nominated for deletion, people are agreeing[10] it should be deleted, so it will happen soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That tends to happen when you deny one of the sides the possibility to protest, yes. Falconfly (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You have protested plenty, just not on a sound basis. You don't own the copyright to commissioned artwork unless the artist has explicitly handed it over in some sort of document, end of story. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Lesser Antillean macaw scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Lesser Antillean macaw article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 9, 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/April 9, 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? 16:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catopsbaatar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catopsbaatar 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Paleomerus

Here it is: [11] Even using Gimp, I get it wrong, so I made a capture and changed a few things. It's okay like that? Super Ψ Dro 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I knew little about these animals, but you could put it up for review at WP:PALEOART. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catopsbaatar

The article Catopsbaatar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Catopsbaatar 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Paraceratherium conversion

Hi! I don't think my edits on Paraceratherium are worth mentioning to be on the talk page. It's just that 66000 lb is 33 tons, which is less accurate conversion to 30 tonnes than 33.1 tons, and 24000 lb is 12 tons, which is less accurate conversion to 11 tonnes than 12.1 tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.204.96 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But why would we want to convert to tons instead of to pounds? How does it benefit the general reader? FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, isn't it more common to use tonnes or tons for such a large animal than kilograms or pounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.204.96 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, is it? We would have to look at what other sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to my internet experience, people rarely use kilograms or pounds for animals larger than the largest rhinoceroses of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.204.96 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But do they then convert to short or long tonnes instead? Perhaps we should look up if there are Wikipedia guidelines about this., Maybe Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers should be looked at. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

According to my experience, short tons are much more commonly used. It's possible to use both long tons and short tons in the article though, as I saw that at a number of articles, e. g. at Dreadnoughtus.

Dreadnoughtus and other non-promoted articles cannot be sued as precedence, though, only articles that have been reviewed at FAC or GAN. But first and foremost, the manual of style linked above must be examined. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Another example I know Is Apatosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.204.96 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Slate blue listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slate blue. Since you had some involvement with the Slate blue redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Catopsbaatar copyedit

Thanks a lot yet again! FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Lesser Antillean macaw, "a species of macaw that may or may not have existed. At the time of writing, the species is not recognised by the IUCN, though it was until at least 2013. Since then, more evidence to support the bird's existence has been discovered, and the status of the species may be re-evaluated in the future. In any case, this is one of the best documented "hypothetical species"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of style

Really sorry about this. I really hate the new watchlist features that were introduced not too long ago, which I'm assuming use JavaScript. It's not so bad on my desktop and laptop, but on my tablet, it can take 30 seconds or longer for that whole menu bar to load. I always forget about that and think it's loaded, scroll down my watchlist, and go to tap something. Nothing works, but once the bar loads, the tap registers. Unfortunately, when it finally loads, the page shifts, so whatever is where the tap happened is what is actually tapped instead of what I wanted. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I was confused at first, but when I saw your subsequent edit summary it was clear a mistake had been made. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs Newsletter.

What I mean is that I would like to make a newsletter, to see an example of a newsletter, click here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PW102281 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, I don't think the project is active enough to have much to write about... Compared to military history, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Syria#RfC: Ba'athist Syria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Syria#RfC: Ba'athist Syria. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, this guy... FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant FAC

I nominated the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article for FA status here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. I saw on the Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC page that you have an interest in history, so I believe the subject of this article may interest you. This building played a huge yet mostly unknown role in the early years of the automotive industry in the United States. Any input that you would be willing to provide on its review page would be helpful, but what will help the most is confirming whether it meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 02:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, note that mentoring is supposed to take place before a FAC nomination, comments after the fact are just regular reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Restoring Anomalipes

Hello there FunkMonk. Remember how we used to have a page about the new-ish oviraptorosaur Anomalipes? Well, a user named Bbb23 deleted it as the user who created it was blocked, also removing the Tratayenia page in the process. She's? (I presume she's a girl) since restored the latter page; when I asked her to restore Anomalipes she couldn't do it because she couldn't verify the source, and asked me to go to an editor with a better editing history to talk to, so I came here. So what do you think, should we restore the page of Anomalipes? Atlantis536 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources for it can be found, sure. But note that I think the page was deleted partly because it was created by a user known for making hoax articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, [here's] the paper describing it. It's definitely not a hoax. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, of course, it should definitely be recreated. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Lord Howe swamphen

This is not listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.--Grahame (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I added the FAC blurb prematurely because I thought my current nomination was about to pass. Hopefully it will pass within the few coming days, and then I will list the new article at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Heterodontosaurus scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Heterodontosaurus has been scheduled as today's featured article for 12 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of nominating another dinosaur for June, Ealdgyth, will that be harder to get through when this one has been featured the month before? FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so ... @WP:TFA coordinators for other input. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We normally accept noms for similar topics as long as they are in different months. Almost every month there is a bird, a fungus, a hurricane... so dinosaurs aren't likely to be an exception Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All right. Worst that can happen is that we run out of diosaur articles, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallimimus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gallimimus 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) 13:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

How

I do not know how to do that. I do not know how to consult editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ask editors on article talk pages before making edits, to see if they are a good idea. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

You were right on some of the things about me however I fill kind of uncomfortable with some of the things that were correct like the fact i was a teen. I know you are just trying to help. Sorry i might have a lot of questions. I joined Wikipedia because my parents thought I was not a very good writer so i created this. I do not make nonsense and i am sorry about how you try to clean stuff up. I don't do that in the Physical world either (JOKE). I will clean up next time just remained me and i will get the procedures. OH and those copy write images it's because I have tired to ask permission and somethings i put are actually mine or just stuff in the public domain websites.Some are in Copyright yes but i sometimes not find authors but i will try to do best i will create work of my own. I do have a devenint art page but i upload cartoniy stuff. Sorry i get your frustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, you can practice your writing and editing in your sandbox, which should be visible at the upper right. Then you can maybe have someone from the palaeontology project check your edits there to see if it can be used. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding

Thanks for some advice and support. I was shocked when my Australian Spinosaurid article was gone and kind of sad because i was very stressed because it was the night before a test. I do not mean any harm to this wonderful sight that is so nostalgic to my childhood. Also Here are some sources i added on the allosaur pageI did include it but it was still pushed to the Jurassic. Sorry for the to many thank yous.

It's fine, I think many others of us who started editing here as teenagers must have been extremely annoying for the more serious editors at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Giga edit

It showed both 1.8 m and 1.95 m as 6 ft on my browser before I edited it. I checked it again after you reverted my edit. It showed the same thing. Also, who cares about that template. It shows the same thing either way. OM2003 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If others don't have the problem, I doubt it's the article that's the issue. Perhaps try on another device or browser. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

TFA for June 4, 2018

This is to let you know that the King Island emu article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 4, 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/June 4, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, though note I have another TFA request for June, if that poses any problem:[12] FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Heterodontosaurus, "a small dinosaur which became quite important to the study of dinosaur evolution upon its discovery. It is notable for its eponymous teeth and primitive features, and for being the basis of a family of dinosaurs."! - DYK that I have a FAC open? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I know very little about classical music, but I might give a layman review at some point... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Baryonyx

Just wanted to let you know that two peer reviews are in. (We may get a third one but one can't count on it.) Cheers :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting! I'll be away the upcoming week, but will they to address the points later on of course. Is there any time limit? FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It is being fondly imagined that the first issue can come out in May, so that would be a useful threshold. But otherwise, it's done when it's done, I guess ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the reviewer suggestions are pretty extensive, and came kind late, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to fix the issues in time, but we'll see... FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks

Thanks for the welcome back, yes, I had other activities to do. I think we will ever have the disagreement about the images. Now I've seen the site on a widescreen computer and I understand the point about the white spaces now, I didn't see that before, not with any resolution or device (mobile) tried. But we will always disagree about the amount of images, I am a very visual person, as I think many other geologists and interested people in these subjects are, so the more visual support for the story told, the better. Of course it needs to be relevant, but in my opinion the images I add are relevant to the points made in the article.

Also I have planned some new articles and want to spend time on those. For me it's good enough if they are B-class and not boosted into GA, I know they're good anyway, you know my standards of work and referencing. ;-) Have you seen the South American land mammal age? I think we have a great list with lots of possible infill. Also linked it at the Portal:Prehistory of South America, which I think has become quite nice, can be improved still, but the main core is there. We will stay in contact anyway, I have now completely maintained the South American paleontological articles outside of the dinosaurs (and of them some too), with proper and neat categorizations and catsorts. Once in a while I will do some ce work on the Paleontology WP, like today with Tikitherium that I saw. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, prehistoric South American mammals need a lot of work, which is also why I've been gearing up to expand Thylacosmilus... Hopefully it can be a Featured Article at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, great you take up that task. One of the objectives of the admittedly huge but hopefully informative rework of the SALMA was to add the bibliography, that can serve as references for future articles. Still a lot of formations lack a reference, but at least there is quite some info to use already. Mamayuco has done great work on the Chilean geology, I try to expand Colombia and Brazil, my working areas and in need of heavy expansions and proper articles, but it would be nice to get others to work on for instance Peru, Venezuela and other places. It is a nice niche though, because there is still so much to do. Hopefully the portal will help with it, for the Prehistory of Antarctica we got already 2 new articles, though one was mislinked to be Antarctican, but still, there is movement. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallimimus

The article Gallimimus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gallimimus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Troodon is valid from only one specimen. Is this right.

The latest paper on the issue says "Although the validity of Troodon formosus may be contentious, future discoveries may provide the osteological information required to sort out true relationships in North American troodontids. For any specimens that are positively identifiedas Troodon formosus, however, they must originate from the Judith River Formation in the region from where the holotype was re-covered. For this reason, Stenonychosaurus inequalis is resurrected and considered a valid genus and species herein. At the time a new specimen from the type locality is described, specimens from different formations and times can then properly be assigned to Troodon formosus".[13] FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I did create the western seway IMAGES.JPEG

I did create that useing modelin softwere i just modeled it of this image.and used this for accurete refence. https://www.google.com/search?q=western+interior+seaway&rlz=1C1REZA_enUS798US798&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNhcbmrLDbAhUhLn0KHQq4BXMQ_AUICygC&biw=939&bih=559&dpr=1.1&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=E0qoJfaC9ja62M: i did make that image though it is mine.

In that case, you should state it in the image description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC))I will do that. The main Question is whether i should include it or not.

(Bubblesorg (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)) It would be great if you could respond.

What do you mean by include? FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC))put it in a article

Well, it's better to keep discussion at the review page. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC))ok

Sources

Assessment

Would you take a look at Synodus intermedius - particularly this diff? The edit summary aroused my curiosity, so I reviewed some of the edits made and found citation overkill, and unnecessary detail. Your thoughts would be appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I know very little about class assessment. But if we're talking about quality in general, it would seem the article has comprehensiveness issues, and also needs a citation for the last section. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Canis mosbachensis

Another dead wolf brought back to life on Wikipedia. You dino-folk may be interested in quality assessing its Talk:Canis mosbachensis page........... William Harris • (talk) • 11:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Good to see more canids getting some love! As indicated in the section above, I actually know little to nothing about article assessment. And I'm honestly not sure what the various categories between stub and GA are for, most readers won't even see that... Only noticed now that "A class" is supposedly higher than GA, but it is rarely used... Reading WP:Assessment leads me to think the article is at least C class? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Level "C" is what I thought, however if you do not do assessments on behalf of WikiProject Palaeontology then please leave it - someone from that project will get to it at some stage in the future. William Harris • (talk) • 01:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doing it systematically, it's kind of a slap dash affair with these ratings... FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What's this about Sockpuppets?

Hello there FunkMonk, I was wondering why you accused me of being sockpuppet? I'm kinda freaked out here.

Monsieur X (talk) Monsieur X (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it was because of a remark someone made that you were a Hungarian guy who keeps coming back every other week with new sockpuppets, sorry, that certainly wasn't a good basis, I'll revert. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting it. I've checked my watchlist and it seems like someone posted some links to deviantart on my request for a better reconstruction of Geikia, what do think should I do with the links and accusation on my request? Monsieur X (talk) Monsieur X (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you can just say that you have nothing to do with that Hungarian user, he never actually denies it himself when people call him out. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

ah, I see it wasn't even you who was accused of being the Hungarian guy, he just hadn't signed his comments when he pasted links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

bubblesorg here

Dude i am not editor is X that is someone who uses my school computer. he is kind of a bully to me and calls me a nerd and thinks paleontology is bad. Could you unblock my main account as this is just a back up account. Please believe me i would never cause any harm. I am a nice person and i trust you so can i please gain your trust. Summer issoon so i will be free and he is going to a different school. Please stop. FunkMonk i trust you. Could you help me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranavisiyer (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am not an administrator, unfortunately, so I do not have the ability to do anything. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for King Island emu, an article that "collects practically all known information about this extinct bird (including recent genetic work), and it is doubtful that much more will ever be known about it"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a FAC open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems that with four supports, it is basically already promoted? FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So you think? Archived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yikes, guess I overestimated my understanding of the process. I'll have a look when it is renominated. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for Dilophosaurus, "a dinosaur that was made famous by the movie Jurassic Park, and is therefore one of our most popular articles about a dinosaur genus. The movie also took great "artistic" liberties with the dinosaur, so this article is a good place to set the record straight." - The FAC was for 2026, I won't renominate soon. (No Bach cantata with a certain date in 1718, made me think of looking ahead. - The precess is that an oppose is like a veto, especially when it comes from the FA veterans. Look now, to understand the process, - I thought I had responded to all questions, but that doesn't matter, it seems.) - I have set my mind now on a cantata which will be 300 years in 2019, keep it watched ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

All right! Hope I will have anything useful to add, seems the issues brought up at the former FAC was about wording, and as I am also a non-native Anglophone, that's not my strongest feature... FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Dilophosaurus. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't add subpar writing to featured articles. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Permission for Lacerda pics

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ST_fZ3RYyND59I4aFkDI037a9XBNLlJJ/view?usp=sharing

Now kindly restore them.

Ha ha ha go away we still cannot use the images because of the "non-commercial" license clause. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And more petty excuses. The staff in this wiki really should have higher standards.

There is no staff, no one is paid. But if the rules says non-commercial licences are not permitted, there isn't much we can do anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for "non-commercial" uses. Do bother to read the actual text.

In any case, a linnk to an impermanent Google drive file doesn't cut it, yet again, you need to confirm it through otrs emails.[[14]] FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, he has sent you several, plus there's his signature. Again, obtusity for the sake of obtusity.

Then take it up with the OTRS department, I'm not part of that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hans Severin Holten

I wonder if you could take a look at the article Hans Severin Holten which I have just translated from the Danish Wikipedia with the aid of Google Translate. The second paragraph may be a bit off. The third paragraph came from elsewhere, and was the reason I was writing the article in the first place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get some time for it tomorrow. I just linked it to the Danish page, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I found another source and was able to sort out the second paragraph, there having been previously some confusion between "Christian" as a religion, and "Christian" as the name of a prince. One remaining problem, what is a "slotskantor", a descriptor used for "P.A. Wittendorff" in the last paragraph? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry forgot about this, seems a kantor is a leader of a choir (see English Cantor (Christianity)). Slot is castle, so could be "royal cantor". The rest looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Quagga

I think this article is relevant for quagga. LittleJerry (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Very much, if you don't have access, try the link in the Sci-Hub infobox... FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Made some changes. You might want to look them over. I'll also send you the paper. LittleJerry (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'll have a look. Got the paper already through the link above... FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The text looks fine to me, seems the paper invalidated all of the old taxonomic names... Though it is the old cline vs. discreet population argument, how do you define a subspecies, etc. I wonder what name the Namibian population corresponds to... FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

hey funk monk could you help upload a fair use image

Hey dude i just need help on The chased by dinosaurs dvd as you know you uploaded the sea monsters dvd cover could you do that with chased by dinosaurs?

It should be rather easy, what are you having trouble with? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

yeah i took a picture of the dvd at my house then uploaded it to the wikicommons with the fair use tag but it got taken down--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Commons doesn't allow fair use, and such images have to be in low res. You are supposed to upload them locally here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

but is int there a way to add fair use images like dvd covers like in the case of walking with dinosaurs dvd case or the sea monsters dvd that you uploaded. You add the fair use tag. it looks like this (Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free video cover for Walking with Dinosaurs).--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC) i figured it out how to upload it from wikipedia.

This would be the place to do it:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Dromaeosauroides TFA for September 20, 2018

This is to let you know that the article mentioned above has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 20, 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/September 20, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Cetiosauriscus FAC

Thanks for pointing that out, much obliged. Trying to do several things at once with a few windows open can lead to disaster. I've reverted myself, and will try to concentrate harder! Sarastro (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I hope the nominator IJReid doesn't feel like I spoiled a freebie! FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If he does, he's more than welcome to come and shout at me! Sarastro (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brachiosaurus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brachiosaurus 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I don't know how many of my GA nominations you've reviewed over the years, but it's an awful lot, and your constructive feedback and comments are always very much appreciated. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It is the only way I feel I can contribute to Wikipedia's classic rock entries; I have read a lot about it, but don't feel experienced enough to write about it myself, so there you have it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

is Paleodictyon nodosum the only extant paleodyction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paleodictyon_nodosum

Seems no one knows. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Species name

Regarding the species name you wondered about: after delving into a lot of old USB-sticks, it transpired that the name was given in a chapter and a popular science article draught but rejected for (and thus unpublished in) the final dissertation. I will remove any mention in any of our articles...--MWAK (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, could be worth a mention maybe, if only we know of the exact publication? FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, these would not qualify as verifiable sources, though they were on the internet once.--MWAK (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Do you know what's the difference between Veldmeijer 2005 and 2006? Just reviews of mainly the same stuff? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Basically. But we may not be referring to the same texts. The dissertation has apparently been accessible in three different versions.--MWAK (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For now I have just cited his 2005 paper, which is now citaton 6. Not sure if that is the most appropriate one of the two, but it is the earliest at least (and both could support the same information). FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brachiosaurus

The article Brachiosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brachiosaurus 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Mascarene parrot scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Mascarene parrot article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 27, 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/October 27, 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? 09:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright! FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)