User talk:FunkMonk

Welcome!

Hi FunkMonk! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ArthurWeasley 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Hi Funky,

Thank you for your many edits tonight on articles relating to dinosaurs. You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. Again, thanks for your efforts. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Dinosaurs, Funkynusayri! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Funkynusayri 08:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Scandein0012.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Scan001dein2.jpg. The copy called Image:Scan001dein2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 08:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Galleries

I have noticed that you have been adding galleries to many dinosaur articles. Please note that Wikipedia is not an image repository. Articles should generally only include images that support accompanying text. Wikimedia Commons is the place for image galleries. Regards, Mgiganteus1 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realised that. I was going to add accompanying text later though, I'll do that in the non-featured articles. Funkynusayri 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shi3eh el akh? ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey. My father is Alawi, so I guess I'm half-Shia. I'm not too good at Arabic, by the way. Funkynusayri 01:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you need any help, let me know. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 12:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, same to you. We should start a Wiki project or something like that. Funkynusayri 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one actually. Shi'a Task Force in Wikiproject Islam. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 12:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, have you joined it? Funkynusayri 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Would like to join us on Arabic wikipedia . We have a lack of very important articles and of serious contributors and I think that your experience on wp:en can help us a lot to make wp:ar better . Sorry for my English and if you can pass this message to any interested contributors i would be very grateful .ar:user:Omar86

Heh, I'd like to, but I'm unable to write in Arabic, so my help would be useless. I'll pass the message on though. Funkynusayri 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make redundant templates

When you need a small addition to an existing template for a closely related topic, if it can be done with optional variables there is no reason to make a new template, as it simply increases complexity. Basically the two templates share 90% of their variables so it is best to reduce maintenance effort by simply using a single template with optional variables. The fact that the name of the template is not a perfect match for all uses is not really a concern because that doesn't show up in the rendered article. —dgies^t_c 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will change the similar variables, and that's also why I've requested help for changing the template to the better. You could help if you care.

The thing is, cryptozoological creatures and mythological creatures are not the same, so those two sharing templates would be the same as paranormal creatures sharing templates with regular animals. Funkynusayri 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They're both imaginary creatures. What type of fictional canon they come from is just a detail. What specific changes do you want to make? I just added those two optional variables to Template:Infobox Paranormalcreatures; what else is needed? —dgies^t_c 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it won't fit with the cryptids, but okay, they can be left out of course. I'm too new to the template stuff, so if no one with better skills create a completely unique template for non-existing mythological creatures, I'll just stick with the paranormal template. And that's the big difference, Cryptids are believed to actually exist, whereas no one believes in creatures like minotaurs and centaurs. Funkynusayri 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying cryptids and mythological creatures are the same thing, but as they are both in all likelihood imaginary creatures they share a lot of the same characteristics, and can easily share the same template. —dgies^t_c 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, never mind, the main reason why I requested a new template is that I wasn't aware that it was "allowed" to add sections to templates (like "mythology"), which do not exist on the "mother" template. But well ,if you can, case closed. Funkynusayri 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Some crap

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Laura Prepon, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I added a picture of her, as was requested by the current image name "Replace this image1.svg". I added this image. File:That 70s Show - Radio Daze.jpg

That is a screenshot and qualifies for "fair use". Funkynusayri 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you removed the fair use rationale of the image. Why? Funkynusayri 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

cryptid

Good catch, thanks for pointing that out. Until(1 == 2) 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Funkynusayri 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

cryptic

Hi Funkynusayri, I noticed you edited the article Australoid, I reverted it. You need citations for this extraordinary claim. What are your sources please? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• First, what is my extraordinary claim? Racial classification is only disputed, take a look at the article on race. Social anthropologists are skeptic towards racial classification, whereas biological anthropologists aren't. Funkynusayri 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not legimate source. Please provide a source that unequivocally states that a foundation of modern science was over turned. Then continue your campaign. There is only one race. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the Wikipedia article links to external sources. Stating that there is only one race is heavy POV, race in the biological sense is the same as sub species, and the definition of sub species is easily applied to different human populations. But Wikipedia is not for us to state what we believe is right, but to explain what the views are. Social race can be discredited, biological race is much harder to discredit, and is only disputed. Funkynusayri 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was referenced, have you read the paper? It is a completely arbitrary categorization with no factual basis. If I said they were from Iapetus, does their earthly origins become disputed. I saw a reference! Show me the sources please, the ones you read. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 22:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I'm still not sure what you're referring to. Is it racial classification in general, or specifically physical classification? There are many definitions of race, and I need you to explain what you're referring to before I can post an article for you. If it is about physical classification, here is a counter article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html Funkynusayri 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict, Funkynusayri rewrote own comment] 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)As you have said, opinion is not the issue. You are advancing the view that an obsolete term has become a discernable fact. How? And for heavens sake - Why? Perhaps I can short-cut this discussion. Is this self identification or a verifiable criteria by which these people are categorized? Please review the policies on WP:Weight. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can add that article as a reference to balance things out. Funkynusayri 22:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Because everything else would be POV. The word "disputed" reflects both views. Again, take a look at this article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html Funkynusayri 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will accept that Gill has advance that view also. Shall we note that his other job largely relies on the establishment of this codswallop view as fact? We now have one dubious reference, from the web, that has a demonstrable conflict of interest. It does not contain the word Australid, australoid or Austral - anything. Your POV argument is bunk, you would be wise to refrain from using it. Your own actions are exemplary of advancing a unverifiable and nn POV. Please find something to improve. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More sources: http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06E2D81331F933A15750C0A9659C8B63 Funkynusayri 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See above and get back to me, on my talk page please. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bunk? Are you getting emotional? This is about POV, not what we think, and if different scholars have different opinions, only referring to the one who argues in favour of our own view would be extreme POV. He does not mention the exact term Australoid, but this is irrelevant, as he defends the general concept of physical classification of humans. I'm not sure why you scorn me for presenting alternative views. As for the links about genetics, I'd advise you to take a look at the third one.

Excerpt:

Abstract

A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic research. Some claim 'no biological basis for race' while others advocate a 'race-neutral' approach, using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity.

A major discussion has arisen recently regarding optimal strategies for categorizing humans, especially in the United States, for the purpose of biomedical research, both etiologic and pharmaceutical. Clearly it is important to know whether particular individuals within the population are more susceptible to particular diseases or most likely to benefit from certain therapeutic interventions. The focus of the dialogue has been the relative merit of the concept of 'race' or 'ethnicity', especially from the genetic perspective. For example, a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1] claimed that "race is biologically meaningless" and warned that "instruction in medical genetics should emphasize the fallacy of race as a scientific concept and the dangers inherent in practicing race-based medicine." In support of this perspective, a recent article in Nature Genetics [2] purported to find that "commonly used ethnic labels are both insufficient and inaccurate representations of inferred genetic clusters." Furthermore, a supporting editorial in the same issue [3] concluded that "population clusters identified by genotype analysis seem to be more informative than those identified by skin color or self-declaration of 'race'." These conclusions seem consistent with the claim that "there is no biological basis for 'race'" [3] and that "the myth of major genetic differences across 'races' is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence" [4]. Of course, the use of the term "major" leaves the door open for possible differences but a priori limits any potential significance of such differences.

In our view, much of this discussion does not derive from an objective scientific perspective. This is understandable, given both historic and current inequities based on perceived racial or ethnic identities, both in the US and around the world, and the resulting sensitivities in such debates. Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view.

Funkynusayri 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad you are not answering on my talk now. Other than support my contention that it is bunk, it also illustrates the key point. Self identification. No one in australia identifies as the pernicious term. I have a book that says different races are from different planets in our solar system, shall we put that in? Why is this important to you? If you could impart the answer to that, I would be grateful. Interesting fact for you, the same person who advanced the theory also dropped it in less than a year. If only his later work received as much attention as his discredited does by impoverished small town academics. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What does self-identification have to do with anything? This is about the notion of biological race, not social race, which is irrelevant in this case.

As for the different planets thing, that is not comparable at all, as physical anthropology is based on science, a science still used by forensic experts, so that you would even make such a comparison is beyond me.

What are you arguing against? The concept of race in general, or the concept of Aboriginal? Funkynusayri 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything, I'm drinking a cup of tea, reading early twentieth century metafiction. Oh, and waiting for a reference from you. You are advancing a view of firstly social terminology and now, apparently, indisputable biological determinants. Not what the abstract (do you know what that is?) above states, quite the opposite in fact. Am I an Australid? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reference on what? Where did I defend any social terminology? Why the uppity arrogance? Funkynusayri 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Neatly evaded. And my mistake, I don't meet many racialists. You haven't advanced the sociological basis. However, your ref contradicted your view again. Your diversionary tactics and suppositions give no credit to our work here. The view is discredited since two years after its inception, this was ratified by a UN study that covered the social and completley discredited the biological basis of what you state. The only trangression of NPA has been by yourself and your denigrating terms. I am unequivocally warning you to refrain from this. Please address any point I have raised, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yet again, what are you arguing against? The existence of biological human races, which is by no means discredited, or the validity of the term "Australoid"? By the way, seems like I fucked up and used the term interchangeably with Aboriginal earlier, which was of course wrong.

And on the racialism remark, well, I'm a biological realist, races exist among animals, and the same criteria used for defining animal races can be applied to humans as well, that people today find this repulsive is beyond me. Funkynusayri 02:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is uncitable. The reference you have provided directly contradicts the the position that you have advanced. I invite you to answer my questions or remove the edit, and strike the particularly repellent question at 00:16. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• For the fourth time, make clear exactly what it is you want to have referenced, otherwise I can't provide a source. You haven't explained what you're arguing against, the existence of biological race or the validity of the term Australoid (which is largely irrelevant in relation to my edit), if you don't clear that out, I can't help you. Funkynusayri 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I thought, uncitable. Early South Americans Australo-Melanesian- like does not mention the contentious name given in the title, either include the citations or remove your edit. You are arguing a change to a cited sentence and to change the Race article to fit your preconception; I'm not going to ask you to prove or disprove the solar orign hypothesis, that was a rebuttal. Back to my novel, dont forget to to strike that comment above. It is very distasteful. Thanks, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 02:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like you're dodging my questions for whatever reason. Again, I couldn't care less about the term Australoid, my edit has nothing to do with it. It is about the validity of racial classification, which is not universally discredited, but disputed. I have provided several references, yet you want something else. What is it? And heh, yes, I added to the race article as it does not take these newer studies from 2005 into account, but relies on an article from 2001. My edits there have nothing to do with our little skirmish. A lot is happening with the field of genetics these years, and the scientific opinion is changing in favour of the medical definition of race. Funkynusayri 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just read this little debate, as an outsider, I've got to say Fred.e is dodging the question and being very vague. I'll assume good faith on this one but Fred you should try to be more specific if you want to ellicit clear answers from people. Jono1970 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Egyegy 17:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue before reverting my edits, please. This has nothing to do with vandalism, but with facts. Funkynusayri 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, be aware that you are in violation of WP:3RR. You are edits are being construed as disruptive and that is why they are being reverted. You should have continued to discuss the issue before trying to enforce these changes. — Zerida 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the articles be merged. Therefore it is necessary for the tags to be there. It is only a proposition, as the tag says, no one says it will be merged. Please argue against me instead of simply reverting. Funkynusayri 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to continue arguing your point on the relevant talk page before making your changes. If you edits are being challenged, it's best to continue discussing without making the controversial changes until a consensus is reached. — Zerida 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that my edits aren't challenged by arguments, but by revisions. That is extremely insufficient. If you have a point, argue, or stop reverting. I'll contact and admin right now. Saying that modern Egyptians aren't an ethnic group isn't controversial, by the way, it's common sense.

If an article claimed the ancient Vikings were a modern day ethnic group too, I'd delete it in seconds. Funkynusayri 18:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)