User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Your GA nomination of Heterodontosaurus

The article Heterodontosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Heterodontosaurus 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A little help please?

Hi friend! I may have been around for five years now but I used to edit only once in a blue moon. As such I needed a bit of editorial help from someone more experienced, like you, about some editing I am engaged in. You see, I am interested to bring Camel and Dromedary, and may be Bactrian camel too. I have nearly finished work on Dromedary, and you may like to take a look at it before it goes in for FAC. As it happens a lot of content of Dromedary must also be included under Camel, and I am not sure if two articles should look so similar - of course I would not copy and paste material, but they will still look very alike. What could be done in such a case, do you think? P.S. : I have just nominated Hartebeest for FAC (here). Could you spare some moments to leave comments on it? Thanks. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'll be back Saturday night, but in the meantime, you can maybe have a look at the FAs woolly mammoth and Columbian mammoth I wrote, they have some shared text as well (mainly some of the evolution, description and palaeobiology stuff). And thanks for the review below! FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your "second-best known species of mammoth (after the woolly one), and being from America, also one of the largest"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Heheh, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, Sainsf, after looking at the articles, I don't think there should be a problem with similar text, and I think parts about evolution could even pass if being duplicated. Plenty of other articles about closely related species have similar "issues" without it being a problem. Might be a bit more tricky to have the genus article make sense, but I guess it should summarise the info of the other articles even more conciesly. I was surprised the dromedary does not exist naturally in the wild and is not covered by the IUCN, so the former fact should definitely be explained in the intro. And the wild Bactrian camel also seems worthy of at least GA... FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I am new to genus articles. The lead of Dromedary is still a mess, I am gonna work on it. BTW, that camel is not exactly extinct in the wild, do not forget the feral populations. Sure, I want to make "Camel" a Good Topic, may be even a Featured one, it is so vital. Let me see when I can take on wild Bactrian camel. I already have two standing GA nominations, seems I am soon gonna flood the GAN page! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems they're all (apart from Camelus ferus) just feral, so not "really" wild... Similar to feral horses, which descend from domesticated ones, though the wild ancestor of all is extinct. I'm suprised dromedaries are not covered by the IUCN, since they're the only representatives of a distinct species, as the wild form doesn't exist... As for flooding GAN, there's some kind of GA review competition coming up, and I'm thinking of participating... FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, what and when is that? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No specific date yet, but seems it could be February:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey. This to tell you that I am gonna be a bit irregular just now, it's my studies. But I'll come up at least once every three days for all those GA reviews I have taken up and other stuff. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, considering how quick you usually are, the pace will probably only be reduced to that of regular GA reviews, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I do hate to have reviews last for months when you can help it! And hey are you not blitzkrieg in your responses? You too are a culprit in this, hehe... Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should both enter that review contest to see who's the baddest... FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Together we will sadly kill the traditional GA backlog, we should preserve our history. Well, seems I can take out time for reviewing. I am attacking Biology and Geography GANs, what's your territory? And has formal participation for the contest begun? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think they're still figuring out a date (as you can see in the discussion link), so I guess we should save some articles for when it begins... And I've been reviewing quite eclectically, but mainly biology... FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have already pounced on many, but the backlog is still endless. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spotted green pigeon

The article Spotted green pigeon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spotted green pigeon 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus

Hi, well I must say that I'm not familiar with the literature about this particular dinosaur, and much of what I've seen is in English. However, if you need I could looking for any relevant information in Spanish... also, improve the article to FA could benefit to the Spanish version too! --Rextron (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool, if I can get my hands on this Spanish source[2], you might be able to help... FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to get this article, but it appears to be hard to find... actually, I remember seen this journal in a library, but a number of the year 200, also about dinosaurs.--Rextron (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have it! see [3]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Rextron, feel free to add anything you find relevant from that article... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that was fast! this is more like a divulgation article, not technical, but still gives some context to the discovery of Giganotosaurus and its importance for the Argentine paleontology.--Rextron (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Passenger pigeon

Just noting that I've seen the ping- I'll do my best to find some time! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Since this is a pretty visible article, it is good that the most experienced writers have their say... FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Undulatoolithus

Hello FunkMonk--would you mind having a look at this DYK nomination? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Hey dude! Dropping by to sign up for the GA Cup? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Gray wolf

Hey, I have left a note/concern on the talk page in regards to the mass expansion that has undergone recently. Could you take a look and have some kind of opinion? I'd post this at any relevant wikiproject but I'm not sure if it would fall on deaf ears or not. Btw I should be able to post some comments on the Passenger pigeon FAC soon, so far I haven't spotted any major problem that should be dealt with. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Burklemore1 I agree. The article really needs to follow summary style. Unless repaired it would lose its GA status. I may be able to take out some time to shorten this article, I am busy just now. What do you think needs to be done exactly? Thanks for letting us know. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all I think we should go through the history of the article and see where this major expansion began, or pinpoint the exact time. I note that a large chunk was from a bot fixing up the refs, but that shouldn't be an excuse to diverge my concerns. In particular the "New World gray wolf subspecies" and "Relationship to the dog" sections must be checked out first. A lot of the info in the second section I mentioned a sentence earlier (the relationship to the dog) could be moved elsewhere since there's a main article for it. Well... that's if it isn't there. Would it be better suited there? I think it discusses too much of it in the gray wolf article and should be simplified. The other section is just too complex and lot of it is unnecessary. A lot of it could also be moved elsewhere IF other editors believe it should be included. The biggest thing is to cut a lot of the info out (less is sometimes more). I'd do some myself but I fear it could cause edit wars over those who think it should be retained.

Next we could view the "range and conservation" and "relationship with humans" sections. A lot of information has been placed there recently I believe. Anywhere from the description, behaviour, communication and ecology seem ok, but it wouldn't hurt to go through them. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This revision after it was promoted seems to be an ideal key to view. At the moment the article isn't in top notch in contrast to what it was like nearly four years ago, but that doesn't mean we should remove everything added since then, just the unnecessary portions. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. It will be a tough task to hunt for the source of this expansion, but I believe we can contact the major contributors who had nominated the article for GAN. I am sorry I can not come to this article until a few weeks as I am preoccupied with Cheetah. Good luck with Gray wolf! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's best to keep discussion on the talk page of the article to make it more visible, but thanks for notifying me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. Hey FunkMonk, are you not going for the GA Cup? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it even on? FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe signing up is on. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, got a link? Or is it maybe the Wiki cup? FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Go here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Sign-up. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, done! Seems there will not be many biology related articles left to review by that time... FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well we must grab anything we can; the backlog in biology is usually too less for the GA Cup! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dinosaur

I started a topic at the talkpage. Any thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Would you, as an expert on images, be able to comment on the point raised on this page? My understanding of copyright issues is very limited. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Caipora bambuiorum listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Caipora bambuiorum. Since you had some involvement with the Caipora bambuiorum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Research Publishing

Hi. I am an admin cleaning up a problem, use of a predatory publisher as a reference in a number of articles. As a predatory publisher, there are questions over peer review which indicate that the journals are unlikely to be reliable sources. Most of the content sourced to these journals actually has other sources without the problem. Feel free to help out: Special:LinkSearch/*.scirp.org. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the very serious problem that you are actually leaving statements without sources, even in FAs. You can't just mass delete sources without dealing with this issue first. If you don't bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard, I'll do it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nala GA Review

Hi there, I just wanted to quickly thank you for taking the time to review my article Nala (The Lion King) for GA, and I look forward to your comments and suggestions.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool, will begin soon! I remember reviewing your Belle song article as well log ago. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

WTF?

There is clear and unambiguous agreement that the source journal is unreliable. I removed it, along with a statement referenced to it. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that *everything* must be cited, only that it must be *citeable*. If you find text in the article which you consider is not supported by other sources, then remove the text, but it is unambiguously wrong to reintroduce an unreliable source simply because you want to tick a box that says "text is sourced" - sourced on Wikipedia means *reliably* sourced, reinserting an unreliable source, as you have now done several times, is worse than having no source at all. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The source is used twice. You have left the statement in the article that precedes the second time the source is used. That is a pretty half-assed edit. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banksia aculeata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Specific epithet. 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) 09:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Something that I find you deserve more than anything else, but no one has given you before. A bit all of a sudden, but I have got to know you better only in the past few months, and you have turned out to be the one editor I can joke with anytime (most of our conversations are dominated by fun, too much of evidence! :P ), and one of the best I have come across! And I never knew you could be such a splendid reviewer as well (worse than me!) Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Awww, thanks a lot! Yeah, the more we interact, the more it becomes clear we need to collaborate on something! FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats!!!

Just saw where Passenger Pigeon was promoted to FA!!! Great work, FunkMonk!! Atsme^📞📧 17:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I appreciate the last tweaks you suggested right at the tail-end! FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Never say die!

Hey! Looks like you and I will gobble up the whole GA backlog ;) ! Now I must take up some more to catch up with you. I was amazed to see you review so many articles, reviews have rarely crossed 30 in GA Cup's history! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, but you have the most points! My main problem now is absent nominators... I can't get points before I've passed or failed an article. And while I wait for them, I can't do much but review other articles in the meantime... FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sad! I hope you do not have to fail them if they take more than a fortnight. It does feel bad to have to fail articles for such a silly reason. But if you are able to complete all those, you would be the top scorer! BTW save articles for the upcoming rounds, we will need them more there! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, it seems there are plenty of articles left, the question is just whether we'll be willing to review articles about subjects outside our comfort zones... I draw the line at sports! FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And I at movies and songs! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I can review those, but there's a lot of crap there... I just had to quick-fail the film Cloverfield the other day... Waste of time... I also almost reviewed Aja (song), but when I asked the nominator about it, he retracted it... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am having a tough time reviewing articles that should have gone to the GOCE first, but that does yield review comprehensiveness points! This Cup looks the most furious one, the reviewers are all adrenaline! BTW I have made some new GA nominations... Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed, hehe, when I finish my current batch, I'll have a look... Good time to nominate! FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Spare them for the next round, they will be tastier then! And hey, congrats for Passenger pigeon! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, just nominated the spotted green pigeon, which you reviewed... So I actually have two articles you reviewed at FAC now (with Heterodontosaurus)! FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, will see if I can join at the FACs. What are you up to? I am focusing a bit on the wildlife of my country... You always have sympathy for the extinct, so I guess Bluebuck may be palatable to you... something we could collaborate on, finally! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already stuffed it with images, hehe! As always, I can do the taxonomy... FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy is my favorite nowadays, it's the easiest at least for antelopes. I have to check out if there are enough sources though. Wouldn't you do anything else but pics and taxonomy?? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, when I say taxonomy, I mean the really convoluted stuff, looking up all synonyms etc, as in for example quagga... I can also write the section about its extinction, have a good deal of experience with that... And contribute to other sections as well. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohhhh!!! o_O I hope bluebuck is like other antelopes, not so complicated! But I loved Quagga, awesome work as always! Don't worry, I am enough for the rest of the article! Will see when I can start working on it, join in whenever you are done with your mountain of reviews! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool! I always prefer to work on articles about subjects which have lots of available images... I'm still annoyed I can't find a better version of the one with the klipspringer... Also, would really like to find a higher res version of the photo at bubal hartebeest... FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I never thought of Bubal hartebeest! But I don't think there is much taxonomy stuff there. Why don't you write taxonomies for families like Cervidae? I wish to work on that one someday, but I am a bit afraid of the taxonomy and evolution part, I really had a hard time due to it at Bovidae! Your help there would be awesome. And I bet there are images galore there. I think you have some duties toward the living as well! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I actually have a phobia for higher-taxon articles as well... Just very hard to determine what info to include or exclude when so many sub-taxa are involved... FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks you will not give in to any non-extinct taxon for a collaboration... come on, give a try at Deer, it is a really important article. Look, what you really have to do is to tally all the subfamilies and their kids (done already), and then hunt for all sorts of phylogenetic analyses (nah, there usually are no more than three studies of that sort! I can hunt them down for you) and focus only at the level of subfamilies. That's what worked at Bovidae, and even a non-expert like me could make it a success! It is gonna be something new I bet, we can work together on taxonomy and evolution if you are afraid of a go-it-alone! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ouww... Don't tell me all those scary stories! I didn't even want to do Raphidae (only assisted a bit), that should tell you about my feelings on higher taxa... But if I do a living taxon one day, I think a species would be an easier start... I kind of like the saola... FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That one is surely a monster! Don't worry, Deer will be my go-it-alone. If Raphidae is what you do not even wish to touch, then plzzz never look at Canidae, one that I reviewed for GA. Yeah, saola is on my worklist, you should start working on it right away. I would love to help you whenever I can. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else has been working on it a lot lately, which is also a bit scary, I like to write the bulk of an article myself... At least I took one of the only photos in the article myself... FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I like to "own" articles as well, but only when I work on them :) So this is gonna be our first collaboration! Saola is indeed very interesting and can be expanded well. The taxonomy is a bit confusing, good luck with it. Late here, must go. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 19:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any relevant sources, though. What do you mainly use, books? My zoology library consists almost entirely of palaeontology books, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigues solitaire

Oops! Obviously! I was thinking "dates" vs "seeds and leaves" in the body of the article and got it mixed up. Thanks for spotting. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The article actually needs a bit more work, an article just came out[4] which I have yet to fully summarise under reproduction. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. Reminded me of totally unrelated practices I have read about over time - one, the polyandrous trios of some eagles in resource poor territories, and; two, species of finches in which the female selects the male based on what she thinks will make a good caring parent, but then on the sly mates with more 'macho' specimens. Fascinating stuff. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting that two old texts can still lead to intense speculation... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Metal corset GA review

Sorry about that!! Just started a new job so have been incredibly busy with that. Mabalu (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just had to make sure, since other nominators seem to be absent... FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's been waiting around for quite a long time, THANK YOU again for reviewing the article. Mabalu (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Chital

Saw that you complained about the Taxonomy section over a year ago. How does it look now? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Much better, I think! FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sex reversal in pigeons

Hi FunkMonk. Re your comment "interesting that two old texts can still lead to intense speculation": The fact is that it comes across clearly that these texts are 100% genuine, could only have been written by someone who had a passion for what he was doing and dedicated a lot of time to observing these creatures. So, I would like to share this anecdote with you about my own experience in observing columbidae. I started raising pigeons at age 6, starting with 6 birds, but in effect only four (two females and four males, out of which two breeding pairs formed). We moved to a small farm outside the town and I freed the birds (when we lived in town they were in a cage th size of a mid-size bedroom - and had never bred). They formed two pairs and immediately set about cooing and building nests. By age 12, I had about 500 and I spent so much time with them that I could tell the exact genealogy of each one and remembered the ones that had hatched on special days. Obviously not much to do for a young boy in rural 'backward' Angola of the early 70s ;-).

Now to the real story: Of the first brood of one of the pairs when we moved to 'the farm', two huge squabs grew, both much bigger then their parents and pigeons in general. I guess you would know that pigeons lay two eggs, sexually dimorphic (one more pointed, the other more rounded), from which a male and female hatch and normally the siblings form a breeding pair. The pair in question followed this pattern and nested and raised their first brood. Then one day I saw the two fighting and it went on for ages. When they finally stopped fighting each went its way. A few days later I saw that the male had found a new mate, so I went looking for the female to see what she was up to. To my utter dismay I found her with another female, the two going through the initial courtship rituals. Within days, they were mating, the erstwhile female was developing a larger operculum and the neck feathers were becoming more iridescent, just like the other males. Once the female had laid the two eggs, the new male assumed the usual brooding hours of the males. After the usual 18 days, the eggs hatched. Now more than 40 years later I remember this as if it was yesterday. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that is pretty amazing! Are such occurrences documented in the literature? What species was it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

These were the normal household/ domestic pigeons. See third paragraph at sex change, and mention of ovotestis. Then google "birds" + "ovotestis". What a feeling, the first time I looked into this a few years ago and discovered that what I witnessed back then was in fact a real documented phenomenon. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I wonder why this fact passed me by! Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Palazzo Rusticucci-Accoramboni

Hallo FunkMonk, thanks a lot for reviewing the article! I am the author, not the proponent (actually, I did not know that anybody else except the author was allowed to propose an article to GA status), but since at the moment Louis is busy in real life, I will do it. I totally agree that this article (like all my articles) needs a robust copyedit: I am Italian, and my writings in English unfortunately are washed in Tiber's water, not in Thames (or Potomac ;-)). I will try to go through your whole list by the end of this weekend. Thanks again and bye Alex2006 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeldific (talk • contribs) 06:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I will review the rest of the article then, but remember to answer on the GA nomination page after the comments I make there. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA review

FunkMonk, just wanted to say a big thank-you for the Within You Without You review. The article's massive, so I really appreciate you sticking with it! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, but sad you had to wait that long, it's a nice article... FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Bushbuck

Just a little discussion before I start working on the article. I checked the Ungulate Taxonomy source that puts kewel, imbabala (if such names are there at all) and five others as subspecies of "bushbuck" (T. scriptus). So do ITIS and Mammal Species of the World. These are the 3 main sources I consider, and I mention all other types of classification (here supported by just [5]) in a few lines in Taxonomy. So should it be alright to rejig the infobox a bit and keep just one article, "Bushbuck"? Anything you want to say, Cwmhiraeth? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

But when are those other sources from? If they are from before the genetic results, they are of course outdated in comparison. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I will check the two newer (2008,9) sources in the article that support two separate species. The Ungulate Taxonomy book does not seem to have considered these developments even in the 2011 edition; not sure if the ITIS and MSW sources have been updated. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Authorities like Birdlife International can also be pretty slow to act on new research, but unless they specifically state they reject a particular new finding, it can be assumed they simply haven't taken it into account yet... FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Right. Well, it is actually two studies (one in 2007 and another the next year) by the same people. The Gnusletter (2009) source simply reports these findings. This analysis of the bushbuck seems the first of its kind, which makes it all the more interesting. In the first study they found numerous phylogenetic ecotypes of bushbuck that could be divided into two separate lineages. This prompted them to do another study in which though they could not prove these to be two separate species, they did show how separate the two lineages were in the cladogram of Tragelaphus. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is always a bit tricky so soon after such a taxonomic reshuffle, but when based on genetic results, they usually remain somewhat stable, unlike morphological results, which change significantly from study to study (since they are much more subjective/arbitrary)... Which is why the taxonomy of prehistoric animals is so unstable... FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess the best we can do here is to keep one article and put it as T. scriptus as has been done for years. All this speculation can be added to the Taxonomy. Reminds me of the spotted green pigeon! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, at this early time anything goes. I'd personally favour a split (as it will most likely happen anyway), but it's up to the main writer to decide, Id say. Perhaps ask for opinions at the mammal project. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Giraffe sounds

Could you upload the giraffe recording from here? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Which one? I can see there is also a video. For the record, I will use this site, it is pretty easy: http://video.online-convert.com/convert-to-ogg FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hallo FunkMonk, thanks a lot for your work! I also learned that before asking for GA evaluation, I have to make a stop at the guild of the copyeditors... ;-) . Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I always do that myself too, so suggesting it isn't an insult! FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course not! I am intelligent enough (I think) to acknowledge my limits. Anyway, I just put an article on the ce pipeline... ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Image licensing question for French Mandate Syria

Hey FunkMonk, do you know whether pictures taken/published in Syria during French Mandatory rule come under French copyright or Syrian copyright? I'm asking because this question has been raised in an image review at the FA nomination of Hasan al-Kharrat, particularly concerning the image of Fakhri's execution in Damascus. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Good question... I think it warrants a question on Commons...[6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

GA

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeldific (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. Thank you very much!

No problem, seems you had it nominated for a while there! FunkMonk (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ali

Hold on man! See this, we had exams till 28 ; though we in primary school take only five exams. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, but you should make a notification on the GA page then! FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Saola

Hey, a little update. I will try to finish my work on the article in the next few weeks; literally nose-deep in reviews! Trying to access the sources, sad that the 1993 paper where they describe the species is not free. Seems you will have to see to that. Meanwhile I spotted these for you - [7], [8]. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, how about bluebuck which you suggested? More images, perhaps easier to find info too... And extinct! FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That will have to come later, I have been sympathising with big cats for quite a while... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[[9]] is gonna elate you. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally! And oh, you'll move away from bovids for a while? FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Good for a change. There are really important yet dilapidated articles there, which is a pity. They deserve a GA status at least! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Any taxon in particular, or the group as a whole? I guess I've been in that territory as well with Smilodon... FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You won't leave the extinct till they are FAs, would you? ;) Well, I have begun work on Cheetah and Leopard, you may like to have a look... Cheetah will soon be at GAN I guess. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Yeah, first thing I can think of is that such important articles usually have a lot of text already, which may or may not match the sources used in the article... So it is a good idea to check for copyvios and text that simply isn't supported by sources... And funnily, a lot of what I know about living animals I know from reading literature about extinct animals... FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Cheetah article was a real mess when I first saw it; yes there were a lot of weird sources and some copyvio. And how on earth is that the non-living teach you about the living? Any spooky stuff? ;) P.S. I am sorry I am worse than you at the GA Cup, check the updated scores... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, last time I checked, your score (579) was better than mine (413)! A lot can be learned about living animals from reading about extinct ones, since inferences are often made about them by comparing with living animals, and because the behaviour of many recently extinct animals was essentially the same as that of their living relatives... FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I envy your double profit, I am naive about the extinct... thankfully the extinct spirits don't visit your home! ;D Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I feel I'm doing them a favour, kind of reviving them in a way... If you think about it, when you write a GA or FA, you influence how the world sees a specific subject... Quite a responsibility, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My respects to them... Hey, are you not doing anything except reviews nowadays? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, working! Which is why I suspect I won't be reviewing as many articles next round, I'll be quite busy from next week... But in the context of Wikipedia, I have the two FACs up, and it seems I'll have to do quite an expansion on dodo soon, since an all-dodo issue of Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology was just published: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ujvp20/35/sup1 And then trying to get Giganotosaurus promoted... FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if there is much left to review in the 2nd round, I wonder what to take up now. A great line-up indeed, I would love to take up Giganotosaurus the second it is nominated! I am going to create a frightful queue in the Biology GAN soon... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, it seems the last round of reviews hardly made a dent in the number of nominations... I think it was a little more than 500 when we started, now it's down to 400... FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I thought you didn't do songs, was just about to review that Beatles song, but you've snatched it! And wow, the points racked up so far surpass those from the last rounds in earlier cups... I think I may have upped the ante by starting reviews for many articles early, but you guys are quickly driving me to extinction...FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am away from here this week but I could not help a laugh when I saw this from my watchlist! I had to take in a whole lot of reviews yesterday; this Cup is indeed the fiercest, they grab articles the second a round starts. Wonder what would be left when I return next week! Sorry dude, we guys turned out cleverer! Never mind, grab all those I line up this month, they will be forth at least 150 points! And would monsieur be so kind as to forgive me for snatching Antlion as well? Sorry if I was too informal... why don't you start pocketing some old noms for yourself?Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm slowly accepting that I will only be in the top three/four at most, and I'll have to slow down from next week due to work anyway... So well, I guess it'll maybe be a review a day from me hereafter... But in any case, this round has been very good for the project overall! FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Same here. I am amazed how voraciously MPJDK reviews! I am struggling to keep up with him. But I would be happy only if I have a friend like you till the very last! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll stick around! I think you still have a chance of winning, though... FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You have to! What's the fun in such plays of you can't enjoy with friends? But for any of us to win, we should ensure that we top each round, if there is a tie in the finale then these old points can help! So I am creating a sea of reviews. I will try to wrap up as many reviews as possible in the second week this month and return to our dear saola, bluebuck, and mammals in general. Reviewing too much is growing mundane! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Aww, my name isn't even linked in the newsletter below! Waaaah! Congratulations! FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, how did they not link your name? Happily amazed that you use a typical Indian word to congratulate me here, and this is possibly the first greeting from the Baltic... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, you mean waaah? I tried to mimic crying, but I guess I also know the other meaning from some Indian Facebook cartoon stickers I have, hehe... Oh, and a bit too far east, I'm in Scandinavia, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It hardly sounds like wailing :P The word actually means something like "bravo!" in our words. And proud that my guess was not very bad! I was really amazed how many languages you know, you could have come from anywhere from Svalbard to Gibraltar! ... one more reason I should envy you! ;) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

When you come from a small, insignificant country, you have to learn many languages to get by in the world, hehe... But to my knowledge, you learn many languages by default when being born in India, the difference being that many of those languages are indigenous... FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What unheard-of-land do you come from? It almost sounds like a lost island somewhere in Greenland! Me, I am a bit too obsessed with the atlas.... and about India, yeah, such a cradle of languages. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Denmark, but my ethnic background is a bit, eh, eclectic, so a few languages are thrown into the mix that way... How the heck did we end up on the English Wikipedia? FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I win the trophy... my first guess was Denmark, though I went far too north as Norway!... and don't call it an insignificant country, I don't know why I love these Baltic countries... I think I ended up here as I wished to make friends in every continent (which I literally have... except for Antarctic polar bears). Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, the Danish Wikipedia has a pretty bad reputation, and since all Danes have to learn English, they mainly check the English Wikipedia for information... The Danish one is almost redundant (only 5 million speakers, and all articles are short), if it wasn't for a few articles about local subjects that aren't notable enough for the English one... Do you have a Wikipedia in your native language (I don't mean Hindi)? FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hindi and English are nearly native for me, but yeah, there is the newly created Odia Wikipedia, but it is so dilapidated and difficult to edit. And who would care about all our extinct creatures and mammal stuff in wikis that need to work on their regional backgrounds first? The English wiki, well, accommodates everything and serves such a large number of readers... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, I see it has 33 million speakers, so a much larger audience, at least! FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, we have made two curves in one section... the blessings of the saola that we got to know each other better! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, next stop, we actually write a damn article! FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What is left to babble about in our third collaboration? ;D Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Segnosaurus

Hi Funkmonk! I see you are very busy but if you can find the time, it might be interesting to put an extra picture in the Segnosaurus article: figure 5D of page 11, showing the unique extra carina on the hindmost teeth. Figure 3 might be worthwhile too :o).

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Both added, uploading images doesn't require much brain activity from me, but darn, you're right, little time for writing the coming time! FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Just keep in mind, one picture is worth a thousand words ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the text is just there to make room for more pictures! FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Saola (2)

Hey, great to have you back! I was wondering if you undid my edit to "Description" somehow while adjusting the caption... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea! But if so, you can just undo mine, and re-add the caption stuff... Not entirely back, though, will be busy the entire month... FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No troubles, I will finish my part in both articles. Just checked if it really was a mistake in your edit. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I'll be back, of course... By the way, all my current GA reviews have stalled, so a bit disillusioned about the cup... FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Put up a note or something on your "Hey^" page. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hey, slackers!" By the way, I was thinking I should maybe try to get some close ups of the individual items shown in the picture of the saola skin... When I go there again. We are unlikely to get other images of the animals, and even the taxobox photo seems to have a rather dubious source... I think Copenhagen is one of the few places that has saola remains? FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I like checking your "Stuff" when I have nothing else to do... well, it helps me pull myself together to write at least half the number of FAs as you have! I will be done with the Description details today, you may read it and see what we can focus on in close-ups... Trying to dig out more info from the Vietnamese wiki. Stamps [10] look clearer than the taxobox image! I tried to translate the Vietnamese file description for the taxobox img, it seems it is from the Red Data Book of Vietnam. Not sure if Copenhagen is the only one, but it's indeed lucky to have you in this collab! ;) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you know of this[11] FA list? Not sure if those stamps are PD, though? Seems the taxobox image might have to be deleted in the end... Or we could have a fair use image. Yeah, the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen has some nice things I've added to articles, like one of only two complete 16th century dodo skulls, and the original fossils of Smilodon... On a sadder note, I do most of my edits from work these days... FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been stunned by the list, your number seems more realistic to me for now! I think I will become a dormant volcano once again after a few months, back to much work IRL! Would love to make most of my time here, I have never been as active in my years here before... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

More taxa named after the dodo

Hi, here's another dodo ant: Pheidole dodo. From the source: "The species is named after the iconic and extinct endemic bird of Mauritius – the Dodo, which hasbecome somewhat symbolic for the accelerated number of human caused extinctions." And there's also Hansenium dodo[12] on Wikispecies. jonkerz ♠talk 01:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool,will add! Seems funny that two ants from the same island would have the same species name, perhaps taxonomically risky? FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Originally two P. dodo at that :) I don't mind as long as they're not too closely related, because that would be so annoying if the species' genera were ever synonymized. Luckily the two dodo ants are in different subfamilies, so we don't have to worry about that. jonkerz ♠talk 14:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1

I started the procedure to have the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article promoted to WP:FA. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 needs discussants. Since you were the WP:GA reviewer, I am hoping you might give some comments. Lewismaster (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A debate has risen during the review about the term "movement" used to describe the NWOBHM. It would be greatly appreciated if you could add your opinion on the matter. Lewismaster (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bluebuck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology. 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) 11:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semitic people

I wish that page were at "Semitic": after all, Hamitic and Japhetites are not at "Hamitic people" and "Japhetic people" and they are the same topic. I'm also having trouble with that talk page because Cathry is engaging in borderline problematic behavior: I had to warn them a few times to stop chasing my edits and they're refactoring their own comments on the talk page so that what I rebutted isn't there anymore or has changed. (That's aside from the speciousness of their "argument" and the fact that they don't actually respond to any comments, such as "what is a Semitic person", in the first place.)

I welcome any suggestion as to how we might deal with the issue of that page being problematic and also attracting all these nationalists and racists. Ogress 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a well-argued move request would be a good idea. But I think the article was actually moved to its current title from Semitic some years ago, I tried to circumvent this by making Semitic a disambig page instead of a redirect to Semitic people, which is a much narrower topic. I also moved the page to "Semitic cultures" to make it more inclusive, but was reverted... FunkMonk (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

RX request

Hello, FunkMonk. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Adding timestamp so this can be archived. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Teleost FA

We replied to all your concerns. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'll be back with more comments soon. I've been really busy with work the last couple of weeks, and had a bunch of standing GA reviews to finish (leftovers from the GA cup which I'm silently resigning from...). I'll continue my review tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)