User talk:FunkMonk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:44, 24 October 2007

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

cryptid

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We have had our discussion, I will change it to my improved version, the actual work you keep you keep flicking back. Feel free to take it to the fringe notice board. Fred ☻ 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I've added was sourced statements and pictures that illustrate the object. Let's discuss this on the talk page of the article in question, where I made my arguments, not here. Until now, only three individuals have participated in this discussion, with two being in favour of my edits. That's democracy and the closest we'll get to consensus. Funkynusayri 03:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please, be aware that you are in violation of WP:3RR. Your 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, am I the only one getting a warning when Zerida and that other guy have made as many revisions as me? Funkynusayri 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Egyptian as modern ethnicity

Hello, I recently stumbled across this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptians

It treats modern day Egyptians as an ethnic group, though this view would only be held by a very small minority of Coptic nationalists and similar. Egyptian obviously refers to either the ancient Egyptians or the modern day Egyptians, who are a heterogeneous national group. The users Zerida and Egyegy, who appears to be Zerida's mute sock puppet, keep reverting my proposition for merging the Egyptians article with demographics of Egypt, or simply remove the nonsense about them being an ethnic group, without ever arguing against me on the talk pages. They also keep adding "Egyptians" as an ethnic group of the Middle East, though this is preposterous.

As I believe you are an admin, could you warn them or similar?

Here is my arguments against them which they didn't respond to:

"I'm not talking about whether modern Egyptians are related to ancient Egyptians or not, but the fact that Egyptian doesn't refer to any living ethnic group, but a nationality. Different Egyptian groups identify as Arabs, Copts, Berbers, Nubians, so on, but they are all Egyptians by nationality, which is the only thing the term can be applied to, when it comes to modern, living populations. Otherwise you could say that the Swiss, Belgians, Americans, so on, are all ethnicities, which would be absurd. You don't make an article called "Vikings" and write about modern day Scandinavian either." Funkynusayri 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the issue. Please remind me in case it would be late. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting =

I did not realise you were editng. Plese get the information to support this stuff, then add it. The evidence you have provided did not support your vision of this future discovery> Fred ☻ 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, explain what you're referring to. I provided a source that argued for the validity of racial classification. What do you want? Funkynusayri 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore citations, that you made me read, that did not say anything like you contend. It is vandalism and a waste of time. Try to find something constructive to do. Thanks. Fred ☻ 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obsolete term, not reality. I am not here to explain why what you believe is wrong, sorry. Read the other articles and some proper books on this. Fred ☻ 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you not to edit war. Read the policy on WP:3RR Fred ☻ 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== 7/20/2007 9copyright-edit1.rtf "Zerida" ==

Ancient Egypt the same as modern Egypt? (and/or Zerida)

For what it's worth, Funkynusayri, I agree that modern Egypt can not be the same ethnic group as modern egypt; though, modern Egypt may be an ethnic group of its own.

Let's look at Ancient Egypt for a moment, or Egyptiacs, as they are now referred to. We can find in Webster's Third New International Dictionary a famous quaote of a famous writer/editor about Egyptiacs. Quote: "Egyptiac: of or relating to ancient Egypt<Egyptiac society....bacame extinct in the 5th century of the Christian era --- A.J. Toynbee>.

Now, as for "Zerida", she has interuppted and "vandalized" posts which I too have made. I made edit to a page and she totally deleted (:destroyed) the edit/post and then took the nerve to self-create my "UserTalk:FadingPaint" page to tell me she had "vandalized" my edit by accusing me of "vandalism", wherein my edit was merely mis-placed. There is no excuse for her self-appointed haughtiness and "delusions of grandeur". Sincerely, FadingPaint 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above

Fred ☻ 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources DO NOT USE the term. They ARE NOT reliable! STOP trolling! Fred ☻ 03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC) [1][reply]

Quit making baseless accusations. The first source refers to physical anthropology in general, and therefore includes Australoids. Anyhow, the sentence says that racial classification is disputed, not the term Australoid, so your current objection is irrelevant. Footnote five clearly mentions the term on the other hand, so I don't see why you want to remove that. As for the pictures, the first one shows what the term refers to, and the second picture does too. You better come up with some better arguments, so far they aren't convincing. Or let's at least wait for a third party, even as such has already made an opinion. Your constant mention of yourself in this discussion makes me believe that you have something personal involved, which would make your arguments POV. Funkynusayri 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, how is that other discussion you linked yo relevant? Bottom line, I believe in the existence of biological race, you and Mutawandi do not, that is why we are arguing. We are both providing sources for and against, which is good for consensus building, but the fact that you keep removing sourced statements is preposterous. Funkynusayri 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negroid

The page is concidered as controversial. See the talk page banner, they don't put it on the article space. The image has been removed. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't see that, and I reverted, revert back if you want, but please, could you explain why the image is irrelevant? Funkynusayri 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please be mindful of the Three revert rule on the Australoid article. See WP:3RR. Muntuwandi 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sabra and Shatila image

I have explained on the talk page why I removed the image from the List of massacres. Please discuss there before restoring the image. Thanks! --Knulclunk 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, I just couldn't find your original explanation in the history blur. Funkynusayri 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the Alawite articles

I always wanted to learn about the Alawites from a Nusayri instead of what other people say about them! Its different than what I learned, but then Columbus thought they wee Indians! --Skatewalk 06:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm only half Nusayri actually, and quite secular. My particular edits on the article have mostly been small, as I can't draw on my own experience, which would be original research, and the reliable sources on Alawites are sadly few. I think the article needs a lot of work, and there are many important facts that have been left out, so if you want to add anything, just do so. Funkynusayri 06:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like whats written about the Alawites, because it was mostly written by their enemies and you know how that goes. Up until the 19th century the Alawites were being persecuated by the Ottomans.

These days the term "Nusayri" took a more secular term, because it easier for them to avoid religious persecution. So you should findout more from back home, Older people. Because most are Nusayris are secular today either in Syria or Turkey --Skatewalk 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Arabs

Hi Nusayri, I am looking forward for your contributions to the Ancient Arabs article as of now it is still under heavy vandal activity (Assyrianist user), he keeps merging the article into PreIslamic Arabia, because he thinks the Arabs didnt exist in the ancient era!. Anyways, if you have time pull the article out of the merge and see by yourself, it has a long talk page attached to it.--Skatewalk 12:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the Assyrian? Are there problems there now? "Pre-Islamic Arabia" is good enough, don't you think? It covers a lot of things. Funkynusayri 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring and vandalism of sourced info

Stop edit-warring, vandalizing sourced information and making personal attacks as you are doing on Middle East. You have been warned by users and admins about that before. Egyegy 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit being so pompous. You started the insults by calling me a troll. Bring it to the talk page of the Middle East article if you disagree with the edit. Funkynusayri 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you a troll, it's your editing (deletion) that is trolling. And we've already had this discussion. Egyegy 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the Egyptians page stopped simply because you and the two other Egyptians ganged up. But you don't own the Middle East article, so keep your misinformation to your own Egyptians page. Funkynusayri 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your fourth revert has cost you a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation. When the block expires please use the talk page rather then revert warring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind sir. Funkynusayri 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian people

I have made some statements why Egyptian people article should be deleted, you may support this cause [[2]] Balu2000 18:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But it should rather be re-written I believe. Funkynusayri 18:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful of 3RR

I notice there seems to be a revert war at Negroid -- please be careful to avoid breaking WP:3RR or, better yet, make use of the dispute resolution process, instead of edit warring. Sending both of you an identical message. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted anything, only added content. My "opponent" is not arguing in favour of his own edits, as I am, so I feel obliged to add the content. Funkynusayri 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of forty-eight hours for violating the three-revert rule on Middle East and Negroid, coming off previous block. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 03:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FunkMonk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I haven't "reverted" anything, I've edited.

Decline reason:

Clearly false. This edit, for example, reverted Jeeny's edit. — Yamla 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"False"? When I say I haven't "reverted" I mean that I haven't clicked on the "undo" button. Which I haven't. If removing and adding content is reverting, then I have reverted. Excuse me, English is my third language. Funkynusayri 13:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Arab article

Hi Nusayri, I am satrting to accept tha (Al-Andalus) version, except for the part where it says 500,000 Bedouins are the Arab minority in Egypt! instead it should be left alone like the rest of the other countries. I tried reasoning with Lanternix but we seemed to have a communication problem and I am going to stick to the official version, for the articles sake! So we can focus on fixing the rest of the article.--Skatewalk 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there isn't much we can do. It's like with some of the Assyrians, you can't argue with hardcore nationalists... What do you think we should work on next? And hey, isn't it odd that there isn't an Arabian Wiki project? I think we should have one started. Funkynusayri 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Nusayri it should be Arab wiki project (I signed for it).
Wiki project Arabia should be later on its own.
Thanks for creating the project--Skatewalk 22:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't created yet, I'll see how many people are interested first! Funkynusayri 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 9 people so far--Skatewalk 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arab article

As I did read this article, it contains a lot of unusual information, propagandistic views and weasel words in the article Arab. I therefore would like to get a group with me who are able to rewrite this article in a best way to get best results. Anyone who want to join our team add your name below in the Arab Talk page. Please note that after the team has gathered, we will place "under-progress" tag. Irqirq 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the ARab wiki project?

We have 10 members so far, let me know what we do next = )--Skatewalk 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to agree on what to name the project, and more important, what to write on its page. We might want to create a draft first I think. Funkynusayri 05:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arab wiki project is nice? Tell me what you want on it, I will do it. All credit goes to you for doing this, because you were the first person to bring this idea. Also the team I didnt join it because I feel its going to hurt the normal article editing. BTW I am American born, my parents are Arab Christians from Lebanon our roots go back to known Arab tribes in Yemen. I been to most the Arab world because of my fathers work. You can look up most my edit history it is neutral Arabian tribes edits. So I dont want you to confuse me with the Anti-Arab Copts or Assyrians! I am an ethnic Arab and I associate myself with the Arabs no matter the religion or nationality. I dont like the whole flag posting thing, since anybody could claim a fake identity and try to wipeout the article. And I never recognized these nationalities anyways.

I will appreciate it if you make sure we dont have extra unnecesary additions (infobox, or this is Arab this is not) we should focus on the genral idea and offer links to the articles where you can read more.--Skatewalk 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think credit is irrelevant, as long as we can have a good team of editors who know what they're doing, and who won't abandon the project, I'm happy. I agree with pretty much all your ideas regarding the project, so maybe it should just be created? I think we should maybe take a vote about the name though, on the Arab talk page maybe, just to be sure. After all, it could be both "Arabs" or "Arab", and maybe "Arab people/culture/civilization/ethnicity" so on. By the way, are you Greek Catholic/Orthodox? I'd imagine they might identify as Arabs, more so than Maronites for example. Funkynusayri 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in Negroids?

You said you are half Lebanese? _I thought you were Syrian = )_ Is your other half African or Nordic?
I am just curious because Arabs rarely get into this discussions usually reserved to the Nordic and Negroids, I find these subjects fascinating, but its alot of headache for me.--Skatewalk 11:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My father is Lebanese and my mother is Faroese and Scottish, but I live in Denmark. Pretty complex, heh... On top of that, my father's grandmother was some kind of Catholic (non-Maronite), not Alawite like the rest. On Negroids and all that, I've been slightly interested in physical anthropology for some time, for several reasons, one being that I'm going to draw for a living, so knowing how people of the world actually look is a pretty good thing, so I've been visiting anthropology fora and downloaded anthropological plates for a few years now... Funkynusayri 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an exotic mix we got. So your dad had it for the Nordic girls = )
You know the Arab wiki project is ready. I will start fixing it in a draft tonight, then you tell me what you think --Skatewalk 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, North European by chance, but not really "Nordic" in the racial sense, my mother has dark hair and eyes as well, just a little lighter than my father's.

Sounds interesting with the draft, I look forward to seeing this thing getting up and running! Funkynusayri 23:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Project

I think you've gotten enough members to start the project. If you want any help in setting up the project page, let me know. Alternately, you could find the page of a project you like and substitute in the appropriate info. In any event, though, it looks like the project has a very good chance of being a success once it's started. Good luck! John Carter 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll ask when/if we run into trouble! Funkynusayri 23:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newest WikiProject

Announcement

Hi, and welcome to the newly started Arab world WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the Arab World.

The project birthday would be celebrated every August 24.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPARAB Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and other tasks.

Important notice

We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful. These guidelines can be subject of discussions at the project talkpage or simply WT:ARAB.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask User:FayssalF for the time being, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Perfect! Funkynusayri 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proto Semitic vs Proto Afro-Asiatic

- Semitic starts 4000BC-3000BC

Ethiopia only has 1 branch only! and it loses Semitic elements East to West (coming from Yemen).

1 Ethiopic family>>>(Tigray/Tigriniya) direct descendants of Southwest Arabian (6th century BC)
2 Aksumite Expansion>>(Amhara)Semitic expands into inner Ethiopia and begins absorboing non Semitic elements. (3rd century AD)
3 The fall of Aksum>>>(Semitic creoles) and the isolation of the Armies, this created the rest of the Semitic creoles in Ethiopia, which were basically the result of the isolation of the Aksumite Garrison towns in Ethiopia. (10th century AD)

Yemen also was settled East to West and North to South. (Ma'een, Saba'a old capitals were in the desert interior regions), Saba'a expanded into the mountain regions 7th BC and Himyar settled south west Yemen 1st century AD (most the tribes moving from Qataban in the desert, creating small towns).

Central Arabia is the logical location, because the Semitic expansion came from the west/south in the Akkadian period. And South to North in the Amorite. North to South in Qahtan. A'adid descendants (closer to the empty quarter)still speak Archaic Semitic in the East of Yemen. this language is much more pure than the SouthWest Semitic group (Yemen and Ethiopia).

- AfroAsiatic claims are very weak, because:
Ethiopia was settled by the Semites and later invaded by the Oramu giving them the multilingual claim that Ethiopia is the origin, just like Spain can claim its the origin of the IndoEuropean languages, because they have Celtic, Germanic and Latin on Iberia! Which was a result of invasions not origination!.
The DNA claim is also weak, because Ethiopia was settled by the Yemenites 6thBC to 6th centruy AD. and the Yemenites settled all the mideast and North Africa, covering the AfroAsiatic region (through early pre-Islamic migrations and later Islamic invasions), SO the DNA reflects the DNA of the Semitic invaders and a later reverse invasion of Yemen (by the Aksumite Mixed afro-Semites).--Skatewalk 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I thought Afro Asiatic just referred to the languages of the family being used on both continents, and that it didn't indicate origin? Funkynusayri 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

I did not remove any sourced statement from the race article. This is an unfounded accusation. I rephrased it to more accurately reflect what Risch actually says. Furthermore I included another source that disputes this claim. You then removed my source. So the upshot is that you accused me of doing something I did not do, then you did the same thing yourself. Not only is it a false accusation, but you yourself are guilty. You clearly do not want to be neutral or ballanced when editing Wikipedia. commie scum 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply add your critique source and let the other sourced statement be, and I'm of course referring to this: "whereas a it has been proposed by geneticists from Stanford University that it should be a valid mean of categorization, although in a modified form based on DNA analysis." You did' remove that, so I don't see why you're denying it. Funkynusayri 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I modified it to be more accurate. You accused me of removing a sourced statement, this is not a quote, I simply rephrased it. We are all editors here. You removed my whole edit, I did not remove this information, nor did I remove the source, only the ones from newspapers which should not be used for science, as I stated on the talk page. But I don't even think you read my post. You made no clear response to it. This sort of aggressive editing is really out of order. commie scum 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, this part: "whereas a it has been proposed by geneticists from Stanford University that it should be a valid mean of categorization, although in a modified form based on DNA analysis.", is a sourced statement from this Stanford article, which sure isn't from a newspaper: http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

From that article: "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."

What is your problem with including that? You can still include what you added before if it's there.Funkynusayri 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you've tweaked it further. I agree with the current version. Funkynusayri 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway the article stated that the classification was based on DNA analysis, but this is incorrect. The paper states that "self described" classification, not genetic classification. What they did was claim that self described classification was a good indicator of genetic background. Therefore they say that for medical and social policy purposed self described race/ethnicity is a useful way to classify people. There's more from this group Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies. But we need to stress that this is self identified classification and not a biological classification. This is what the papers both say. Alun 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maronites are not Assyrian

Elias has some serious issues, next thing he will start claiming my dad was Assyrian! I am tired of talking to him, The Maronites are a religious group not a race; Arabs, Arameans, Phoenicians and Some Franks...belwo is a list out of the (Lebanese Encyclopaedia):

The Patriachs below account for more than 70% of the Maronites Patriachs in the last 400 years. All are well known ethnic Arabs. The Crusader period had a Frankish influence that I can't verify but atleast the first Douaihy was a Crusader, then he married from the Makhlouf Arabs. 3 more Patriachs will come from that lineage.
Arab Maronite Patriachs:

Ghassanid Arabs Qahtan

Mikhael Rizzi (1567-1581)

Sarkis Rizzi (1581-1596)

Yosef Rizzi (1596-1608)

Youssef Tayyan (1796-1809)

Tobiah Al-Khazen (1756-1766)

Yohanna Helu (1809-1832)

Joseph Al-Khazen (1845–1854)

Nasrallah Sfeir (1986-current)

Mashrouki Arabs Qahtan

Youssef al Sem'ani (1687-1768)

Yaqoub Awwad (r 1705-1733)

Sem'an Aawwad (r 1743-1756)

Boulos Massead (1854-1890)

Ghaythi Arabs Qahtan

Antoine Arida (1931-1955)

Boulos Meouchi (1955-1975)

Other Etnic Arab Patriachs

Youssef Hobeish (1823-1845) From Qais 'Ailan

Antoine Khoreysh (1975-1986) From Bani Hilal

Frankish Patriachs A Crusader from Douai, France

Jeremiah El Douaihy (1199-1230)

Mixed Frankish/Ghassanids Douaihy/Makhlouf

Yohanna Maklouf El Douaihy (1608-1633)

George Omaira El Douaihy (1633-1644)

Stephen El Douaihy (1670-1704)--Skatewalk 06:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I already removed some bogus about Assyrians from the Maronite page. Some guy had a source that stated Maronites belong to a "Syrian race", so he claimed that "Syrian" referred to "Assyrian", when it obviously referred to the region of greater Syria! We gotta watch out! Funkynusayri 22:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elias seems a bit motivated about the Greater Assyria, I really don't mind an Assyrian identity if he is going to make an imperial one! as of now it seems more related to the church and the whole Assyrian nation depends on Elias!

Modern Syria is Greater Syria minus Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Parts of Southern Turkey and Western Iraq. --Skatewalk 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Race

Hello. What kinds of pictures do you think should be included on this page? Maybe one North African, one European, one West Asian, one Central Asian and one or two South Asian? I thought the Armenian girl was a good representation of West Asians. --Gerkinstock 06:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I believe it's enough with the old picture from the lexicon actually, most types are represented, and South Asians are only partial Caucasoids, so well, if you can find some old pictures from anthropology books I think it would be better than if we cherry pick pictures of different peoples... Funkynusayri 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it's less that South Asians are "partial Caucasoids" than it is that South Asia is a multiracial region. Most of its inhabitants seem to be Western Eurasian, but many are Australasian and some in NE India and Bangladesh are Eastern Eurasian. According to Stephen Oppenheimer, South Asia was the post-African place of origin of non-Africans. Proto-Australasians settled in southern India and Sri Lanka, then spread east and south. Proto-Eurasians settled in the north, with Western Eurasians occupying NW India and Eastern Eurasians occupying NE India. Western Eurasians spread as far south as Sri Lanka and into Central Asia, West Asia, North Africa and Europe. Eastern Eurasians spread north into Siberia (later migrating to The Americas) and East Asia (and, later, into Southeast Asia as well). Despite all these migrations, Colin Groves has told me (via email) that all non-African peoples are monophyletic, meaning they represent only one major branch on the human family tree. Sub-Saharan Africans represent multiple major branches, though I don't know how many that would be (which is somewhat subjective, I suppose). Spencer Wells has stated that the Eurasian sub-branch represents about 90% of the non-African populace, which comes to about 5 billion people (!!!). -- Gerkinstock 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, about your mother's dark features. It seems that there is a not insubstantial minority of Scandinavians who have dark features, making them look more like Southern Europeans (or some Eastern Europeans). I've wondered why that is. Here are some examples of Brits I've found with dark complexions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1660000/images/_1661921_becca150.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1660000/images/_1661191_horne150ap.jpg

http://www.brunningandprice.co.uk/images/staffpics/508.jpg

http://www.justinelowes.com/gallery.htm#null

http://www.lsc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3A702A8C-2B29-418A-BCB8-EF8E346E598E/0/kirstygallacher.jpg

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/73425260.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1932BBB80AB57C97602C7EDD32AC9E3DDC07E837FEF4DFF6D0D

http://www.bbcprograms.com/pbs/catalog/coupling/images/0105coup.jpg

http://www.strangegirl.com/austenquiz/catherine.jpg

http://www.londons-burning.co.uk/janderson.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerkinstock (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, many South Asians are Caucasoids, but that of course means that you can't use just any picture of a South Asian, you need a source that states the specific individual is Caucasoid... I have some old pictures that could work, but I don't think their copyright has expired... About dark North Euros, when it comes to Brits it's actually because the aboriginal population of the British Isles were/are related to Basques, therefore you find many Scotsmen, Irishmen, Welsh, so on, who could pass as Iberians. Later, lighter elements have entered the islands. My mother is Faroese and Scottish, so she has plenty of native British ancestry... Take a look: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

Have you read the book The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story? The aforementioned Stephen Oppenheimer postulates that Basques contributed about 80% of the genes in modern Britons (discounting recent immigrants). The other groups connected with the British, including the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, did contribute to the British gene pool as well but in comparably small amounts (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817). -- Gerkinstock 23:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I believe the two first ones you posted must be of recent mixed ancestry, they hardly even look European! Funkynusayri 21:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... not sure about Rebecca Govan, the first girl, but I think Juliet-Jane Horne is unmixed (at least as far as her recent ancestry goes). Here's Krystle Gohel, a popular Page 3 Girl (and a MAJOR knockout): http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4130/krystle2131004big8tj.jpg.

American actor J. Carrol Naish was of Irish descent: http://blogs.salon.com/0003139/images/lifewithluigi.jpg. -- Gerkinstock 23:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Brits have Celto-Roman bloodlines, the dark features could be from the Romans who included: Iberians, North Africans, Near Easterners...etc.--Skatewalk 02:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite interesting, some of the genetic stuff should be included in the Celt or Brit pages, if it isn't already... Funkynusayri 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maronite population

Hi Nusayri, I saw you add 15Million with a source, but the info box says 3 million? I am not doubting the numbers, since many Maronites were singles and married other Non-Maronites adding to the population.

The number should be changed in the infobox and the article Christian Arabs should be changed to (15~20Millions). --Skatewalk 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I have no idea who added the number! Funkynusayri 05:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question?

Email me.. --Skatewalk 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come back

Hey - come back to the negroid page - everyone supports you - it's just Mutu that doesn't - and frankly at this point there's nothing more that needs to be said to him - consensus was established with a straw poll--daniel folsom 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, there's not much more I can do, I've stated what there is to state. But I'll come back if the page gets very problematic, which it probably will in the near future... Funkynusayri 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW some confusion might have arisen when you referenced the german encylopedia page as 0236 rather than 0263/0264. Hope this is helpful. --Mathsci 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, I'm unable to keep track on those page numbers, all I know is that the human race article refers to the two human race plates, what page they're on I don't really know! Funkynusayri 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind having you back there, as this doesn't seem to be anywhere near over. I was hoping yesterday that I could just maybe push this in the right direction, but reading what I did after the initial comment I made... ehhh. I'm involved now, and I may as well stick it out 'til the end. Maybe someone should actually take this to RFC or something, though, rather than just perpetuating the bickering on the talk page. It's not going anywhere, and it's not going to go anywhere, you know? Lychosis ^T/C 23:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, they're really pushing it far. First it was about racism, then about wether we should illustrate an obsolete term or not, then about respect for the long dead subjects, then sources, then nudity, then definition, then translation, and now we're down to whether an image is irreplaceable or not. This is pathetic.

One thing is for certain though, Mutu's credibility has been deeply hurt during this affair if you ask me. Funkynusayri 12:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

Hi, could you please delete this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Knigts_militia&redirect=no

I misspelled the name... Funkynusayri 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Please stop referring to Muntuwandi as "Mutu." It's incredibly immature to intentionally refer to someone by a nickname they've made it clear they dislike. Picaroon (t) 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing it out of love. What's so offensive about "Mutu"? It's incredibly immature to feel insulted by something that harmless. Take a look at Jeeny's "Moronitz", it's fantastic how people ignore Jeeny and Mutu's antics while noticing every time I express a little bit of passion. Funkynusayri 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, love. I'll do a text search of these talk pages to see where Jeeny has called MoritzB "Moronitz", which is similarly unacceptable. Picaroon (t) 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, darling! Funkynusayri 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the Egyptian article

I added it to the Arab world project, it needs to be fixed so we can clearly mention the non Arab minority in Egypt (the Copts) and the Arabized and Ethnic Arab muslims. The article is a mess now, plenty of Afrocentric and Anti-Arab trolling.--Skatewalk 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added it, and it seems that they now agree... Funkynusayri 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self identified Arabs

Hi Nusayri,

Most of the Greek Orthodox/Greek Catholic are ethnic Qahtani tribes that migrated from Yemen in the 3rd century. We were allied to the Byzantines till the end (some converted to Islam). However the religious alliance was always weakened by our strong tribal connection with the muslims, especially the Aws and Khazraj (both Azd tribes very closely related to us), who were the first tribes to support the Prophet in Medina. The Caliph Omar used this to his advantage by putting the aws/khazraj in the front lines in Yarmuk and prior contacts...made the Ghassanids defect to the Muslim side.
The way I see it Greek orthodox Lebanese families are more pure (atleast gentically) because they are Kahlani Arabs, we were isolated from the Europeans due to our Eastern rite, so we kept to ourselves, while the Maronites mixed with them and fought along them. Most the Arab Muslims are actually more mixed than us (Turkic, Persian, Circassian, European/African slaves and Crusader converts).
Keep in mind Modern Yemeni Arabs absorbed a big number of Africans after 525AD, these groups populated most of the Muslim Arab world. Opposed to the prior Migrations that was mainly of Kahlan prior to the African influx in Yemen (which explains the slightly lighter complextion. However, Lebanese/Northern Syrian Muslims are slightly lighter than us, so you decide who absorbed more European bloodlines -since you love DNA digging lol-). Ofcourse I am not saying that the Muslims or Maronites are lesser Arabs. If you speak Arabic and in general recognize your Arab origin you are Arab.
I didnt want to edit that part so tell me if you want me to change that part, or replace (self identified with, ethnic or PanArabist)--Skatewalk 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one are you? Orthodox or Catholic? As far a sI know, the only North Arabians who can be said to be "pure" Arabs are the Bedouins, all others are just Levantines or slightly mixed with South Arabians, but I don't know for certain, as few studies have been done. But you should check this: [3]

Slightly related, I have some anthropological plates of different Middle Easterners, here are some Greek Orthodox men: [4]

Some Nusayris: [5]

Some Muslims [6]

Some Bedouins: [7]

And some Samaritans: [8]

I have plenty of others, but those ones are cool. Funkynusayri 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Arabic

Egyptian Arabic (Maṣrī مصري) is an Arabic dialect.

The only language to branch out of Arabic is Maltese. Can you please help me organize these articles?.

Arabic dialect has to be clearly added in the infobox an openning sentence so it dont get confused as a language!--Skatewalk 03:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to reduce the Arabic language status

A user known for his/her Anti-Arab agenda made it his/her mission to claim that all Arabic dialects are independent languages, starting with Egyptian Arabic dialect. Egyptian Arabic (Maṣrī مصري) is an Arabic dialect. has to be clearly emphasized in the Egyptian Arabic article

The only language to branch out of Arabic is Maltese. Can you please help me organize these articles?.

Arabic dialect has to be clearly added in the infobox an openning sentence so it dont get confused as a language!--Skatewalk 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it too, and made some changes, they shouldn't be allowed to refer to it as simply "Masry" if they don't explain what it is, because this is the English Wikipedia, not Arabic. There could be issues with the Lebanese article too, some of those Phoenicianists believe it is a direct descendant of the Phoenician language! Funkynusayri 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am it biased when it come to Lebanese, my brother tells his freinds he is Phoenician! I identify with the Phoenicians and Arabs (I admit it unrealistic, but its legendary). The truth is that Aramean replaced Phoenician longtime ago. Phoenician ceased to exist even before the arrival of the Qahtani tribes. The Coasts are heavily populated by Arabs 3rd century Ad, 9th century, 13th century, Ottoman period all had waves of Arabs settle the Phoenician coasts, this is the Phoenician lands. The Mountains inner region spoke Aramean (they came from Syria).--Skatewalk 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, I'm rather pro-Levantine too, more so than pro-Arab (which is out of necessity), I prefer to identify with the pre-Arab inhabitants of the region rather than the Arab invaders, as these had a minor genetic influence anyway. But claiming to be a Phoenician is a bit far fetched, just like it is far fetched to claim to be "Assyrian", even if you don't share anything at all with these ancient peoples other than some genes and the region you live in. Our ancestors have identified themselves as many other things in between, and these could be just as accurate. But if I could single handedly revive Aramaic in the Levant, I would! Funkynusayri 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the Arameans as a previous Semitic invasion to the area. Similar to the proximity between the Normans and Germans?

The problem with the Aramiac identity s that it was hijaked by certain groups after the 6th century BC. I am from the coasts so I still reserve my right to identify as Phoenician (unrealistic, but they lived in my area...its an emotional identification) and Arab, after all the Phoenicians are most likely an Amorite extraction that got seduced by the sea. However, Maronites lived in the mountains and came from Syria so I am not sure how they are related to the phoenicians. Aram means mountains in semitic.--Skatewalk 21:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, I've read several places that Alawites are somehow connected to the Phoenicians, and that they adopted Arabic very late. So I believe we have more reason to identify as Phoenicians than the Maronites have, heh... Some articles:

"Various sources claim that their rites include remnants of Phoenician sacrificial rituals, that they claim that women have no souls and that they drink wine (possibly a form of communion)."[9]

"far more serious is the Alawite doctrine's affinity with Phoenician paganism—and also with Christianity."[10]

"But researchers who have studied the group say they drink wine in some ceremonies, incorporate elements of Phoenician paganism, and hold that Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, is a divine."[11]

I don't know if I can include that in the Alawi article, because it seems too far out! Funkynusayri 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alawi article needs to be expanded, most this claims are known to muslims. The Alawis are too far out thats why they were persecuted by the Ottomans. You wil not find any references, so you should explain that the alwaites practiced their faith in (Batiniya)seceret faith, fearing the persecuction of the Ottomans. The Amorites had a huge migration into the Levant, most scholars ignore the Amorites, because they failed to establish a powerful empire in the Levant (they eventually ruled the Old Babylonian empire, Hammurabi one of them).

This applies to most Levantine cultures. (except maybe the Ummayid Muslims, who established the lone Empire ruling from the Levant, but that didnt last long? and the power center shifted to Mesopotamia again!!) The land has to do alot with this, the Geography of the Levant = ( --Skatewalk 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skatewalk and User:Funkynusayri: disruption and canvassing

[THIS LINK] Could I ask someone to review User:Skatewalk and User:Funkynusayri's conduct? Skatewalk has been cross-posting on various users' talk pages for days to encourage them to engage in revert wars on several articles, lastly asking them to deal with a user "known for his/her Anti-Arab agenda" [12]. He is also fond of soapboxing on article talk pages, for which I left him two not-a-forum warnings, which he deletes then posts on my talk page instead. Funkynusayri is the user who frequently responds to his calls [13]. Please review our contribution histories. — Zerida 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on members of the Arab world wiki project, because you are trolling Arabic language pages and claiming dialects as languages!

the only language to split from Arabic is Maltese, every other nation speaks Arabic as its official language and has numerous local dialects. I ask the admin to review Zerida biased edits history to see what type of agenda she is pushing!
wikipedia is a scientific encyclopaedia not a place to play edit wars! 90% of your contribuitions are original research that opposes reality and science!--Skatewalk 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I see fabrications in an article which is supposed to be factual, I change them. Nationalists don't scare me. Funkynusayri 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you still have to explain that to wikipedia admins, who might have little knowldege aboiut the subject or this person they are dealing with!--Skatewalk 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

A friendly reminder that you have violated the 3rr rule on the race article. Muntuwandi 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the 24 hour part. Thanks, Muntu. Funkynusayri 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we speak 22 languages?

Can you please help Zerida (and her sock-puppets) understand that Egyptian Arabic is a dialect (because now she is claiming that its a language!), I think she is already taking it personal! (Egyptian Arabic)I mean once they declare every dialect a Language I will have a beautiful resume with 22 languages on it, but as of now unfortunately the constituition of Egypt and every Arab nation only recognizes one Arabic language as the only Arabic language!--Skatewalk 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, yes, and I didn't know Egyptian Arabic was the "national" language of Egypt? Isn't it just modern standard Arabic? Ridiculous! Funkynusayri 18:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, I just talked with skatewalk and was asking him for help on this article [14] He did recomended you :) , I wish you could help a little thanks. Nick10000 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, what's the issue? Something about the Arab appearance? Physical? I have a lot of anthropological plates if you want to see some of that, and I've already posted some on this very page, if you look here: [15] Funkynusayri 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff is very useful but since I am dividing Arabs by regional like [16] and [17] I think I need a more specific physical headline for both men and woman, I would be very greatful if you could provide those stuffs. thanks in advance. Nick10000 07:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, from what I've read on physical anthropology, North Arabians are more in the "Armenoid" and "East Mediterranid" direction, whereas South Arabians are more "Arabid". You might get into difficulties while researching those terms though, and they aren't really taken seriously today. In general, South Arabians are just darker than North Arabians. There's of course overlap though. This site (the name of the site indicates bad things, but the info is from published authors) cites some definitions: [18]

Descriptions of different types found in the Mid East from that sites:

ORIENTALID

Middle-Eastern/Central Asiatic Europid type, comprising the southern Arabid and northeastern Iranid varieties (in the typology of von Eickstedt). In some systems it is synomymous with Arabid. Carleton Coon, and others with him, considered all these types to be Mediterranids.

ARABID

Southern Orientalid type, primarily associated with Semitic-speaking populations of the Middle East, and typified by the Bedouin of Oman. Lundman distinguished a Syrid subvariety.

IRANID (Irano-Afghan (Coon))

The relatively tall, dolicho-mesocephalic, long-faced, high-headed and hook-nosed type prevalent in Iran, Afghanistan and adjacent territories. In the typology of von Eickstedt, it is an Orientalid subtype, which thereby relates it to the Arabid. Others regard it as an "East-Mediterranid"-Arabid blend, but the Iranid is morhologically more similar to Mediterranids and even Nordids (cf. Corded type) than to Arabids.

ARMENID (Assyroid (Deniker); vorderasiatischer Typus ("Hither-Asiatic type", Günther))

Mostly brunet, large-headed Taurid type, first carefully described by von Luschan (as Armenoid). It resembles the European Dinarid, with the main exceptions of greater absolute facial dimensions and a larger nose. Armenids are prevalent among Armenians, and common throughout the Middle East, where they blend with Arabids to produce an easily recognizable Middle Eastern phenotype (cf. Assyrid). According to Coon, the Armenid (Armenoid, in his typology) type is the result of dinaricization of Iranids (Irano-Afghans, in his typology). Cf. Anatolid, Caucasid.

ASSYRID

Mostly Armenoid blend with Arabid, of moderate stature and rather heavy build.

MEDITERRANID (Westisch ("Western", Günther))

A para-family of mostly brunet Europid types, all more or less dolichocephalic, orthognathous, meso- to leptorrhine, narrow-faced, fine-boned, and of medium head size. Mediterranids can be short-, medium- or tall-statured. The Mediterranid family, by no means a tightly knit group, subsumes the majority of peoples living in a belt running west to east from the Iberian peninsula and southern Italy, and throughout North Africa and the Black Sea area. Some anthropologists include Orientalids and even Indids in this already sprawling category. Some generally recognized Mediterranid types are Atlanto-Mediterranid, Gracile-Mediterranid and Pontid. The term is also used more specifically to refer to the Gracile-Mediterranid variety.

EAST-MEDITERRANID

Refers to the Mediterranid varieties, including Pontid, which are indigenous to the eastern Mediterranean areas. The term has also been applied to a larger selection of eastern European and Central Asian brunet dolichocephalic types, including Orientalids.

ANATOLID (Anadolid)

Mostly Armenoid blend with Mediterranid (mainly the old Cappadocid strain) which constitutes the prevalent racial type among the Turks (of Turkey). Anatolids are usually finer-featured, more leptomorphic and somewhat longer-headed than Armenids proper.

CAPPADOCID

A Mediterranid variety, prevalent in Asia Minor and adjacent areas in prehistoric times; nowadays it has largely blended with Armenoids (this blend is known as Anatolid).

Funkynusayri 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racy photos & Phoenicia/Zertida

The Sarmatian guy looks scary. I know now why the race people keep chasing you, I like those photos though. I am one of those who lost fait in the race/mideast, because you can find big racial variation just by looking at my own cousins! We are not as pure as your Nordic people. (no one invaded them, so the race remained isolated. Some areas in the mideast were overran by every race. SO you have to be a patient person to deal with that) , thats why I sent Nick your way = ). I added Phoenicia within the Arab world project, because its within the Arab world. And there was already some rubbish posts claiming the Phoenicians came from Africa! When the Britannica people clearly say that the Canannites are an Amorite extract. And the Amorites came from Arabia, mixed with the people of the levant. The ancient Arabians had no Negroid presence at all! (the modern South Arabians look darker, because of the Ethiopian invasion and later big slave Omani trade. This happenned after the 4th century AD).

This is Zerida/Lanternix/Egyegy latest desperate attempt to block me! (HeShe is claiming I am a sock puppet group?!), add your opinion, maybe I am missing something! [19]

--Skatewalk 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Fayssal to look into it... Maybe his admin tools can clear something out. Funkynusayri 05:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyegy

To answer your question on User Talk:Egyegy, apparently you hate Egyptians. I don't know why you are involved in this situation, but it is basically User:Egyegy and User:Jeeny have both added personal attacks to their pages about eachother, however Egyegy also included you in them. - Rjd0060 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, hilarious. Funkynusayri 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "Sala'am" means but I should I trust that it is nothing that could be considered a personal attack? - Rjd0060 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It even has a Wikipedia article: salaam. Funkynusayri 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. Learn something new every day! - Rjd0060 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilad al-Sham

Please don't merge without discussion (you left no comments on the Bilad al-Sham article talk page), and please don't merge in a poorly-done way (for example, the first paragraph of the "Greater Syria" article now defines Bilad al-Sham as an "irredentist" term, which is a very unfortunate oversimplification). AnonMoos 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be quite easily fixed, am I right? I didn't comment on the Bilad al-Sham site, but the merge tag was there for weeks. Why exactly do we need two articles about the same thing? Bilad al-Sham is Greater Syria, it's just the Arabic name for it. By the way, I only made the redirect and minor edits, the actual work was done by the editor before me (Al Ameer son). Funkynusayri 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the purpose of adding the merge tag was for you (or someone) to make arguments in favor of the merge on the "Talk:Bilad al-Sham" page, so that the pros and cons of the merge proposal could be discussed; however, you did not do this. Second, "Bilad al-Sham" and "Greater Syria" do not always exactly mean the same thing (certainly not in predominant English language usage, where "Bilad al-Sham" most often refers to pre-20th-century history). In the previous state of affairs, a somewhat artificial distinction was drawn between the article "Greater Syria" discussing modern Arab nationalism and "Bilad al-Sham" discussing everything else. This was a slightly artificial distinction, but the way things are now jumbled together on the Greater Syria article is probably worse. AnonMoos 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assumed people would do the obvious and follow the link to the Greater Syria article and read the comments there. Anyhow, that Bilad al-Sham can sometimes refer to something else is rather irrelevant, because it is an Arabic term, which has an English equivalent, Greater Syria, and this is the English Wikipedia. "Bilad al-Sham" is translated as "Greater Syria" without exceptions today. The logical solution would simply be to redirect Bilad a-Sham, and then explain the minor differences between the terms in the Greater Syrian article, everything else is completely identical, and the Bilad al-Sham article is highly redundant. If you don't like how the Greater Syria article is now, then simply change it. Funkynusayri 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edit

Hi, why are you reverting my edits on pages like Image:Moa-Wellington-Museum-NZ.jpg. If the bot has determined it is not on commons, what is the point of keeping it listed under a very old category? If you want to say that the image is still on commons, at least reset the tag so that it will show up in the process right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they are on Commons (check yourself by following the links), the bot doesn't say they aren't on Commons, but that they don't have categories there, I've since fixed that. All we have to do is wait for the bot to check them again, then they'll be eligible for deletion. I already explained this. The reason I used an old tag is simply that I have different tags saved in a text file, not necessarily updated, but it doesn't matter to the bot, it reviews them anyway. Funkynusayri 00:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 04:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Shouldn't be necessary when reverting vandalism. Funkynusayri 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's important whatever you are doing. When we are monitoring Recent Changes to revert vandalism we may have a doubt about something, but if you added an edit summary, we will automatically suppose your good faith. We also use statistics about editors's usage of the edit summary. But don't take offence, this is not a warning message, it was just a standard information notice. Have a good day. Martial BACQUET 07:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here are your statistics:

Time range: 169 approximate day(s) of edits on this page (169 day(s) passed since first edit) Current time: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:53:30 UTC || Last edit: 00:46, October 17, 2007 || Oldest edit: 08:10, May 1, 2007 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 70.3% Minor edits: NaN% Average edits per day: 23.93 (currently, for last 1000 edit(s)) Average edits per day: 24.1 (since last active, for last 1000 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 507 edits): Major article edits: 65.48% Minor article edits: NaN% Encyclopedia contributions (out of all 3482 edits shown on this page and last 82 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.09% (3) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.32% (11) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 36.44% (1269) Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 18 (checks last 5000) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 0.08% Project contributions (as marked): Articles for Creation: 0% (0 edit(s)) Peer Review: 0% (0 edit(s)) Pages for Deletion: 0.03% (1 edit(s)) Copyright problems pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0.46% (16 edit(s)) Bot approvals pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) RfC/RfAr pages: 0% (0 edit(s)) Requests for adminship: 0% (0 edit(s)) Identified RfA votes: 0% (0 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s)) User warnings: 0% (0 edit(s)) User welcomes: 0% (0 edit(s)) Special edit type statistics (as marked): Page moves: 0.03% (1 edit(s)) (1 moves(s)) Page redirections: 0.06% (2 edit(s)) Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s)) AutoWikiBrowser edits: 0% (0 edit(s)) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 728 | Average edits per page: 4.78 | Edits on top: 9.13% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 69.01% (2403 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0.09% (3 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 5.11% (178 edit(s)) Unmarked edits with no summary: 25.76% (897 edit(s)) Edit count by namespace: Article: 61.72% (2149) | Article talk: 25.79% (898) User: 0.72% (25) | User talk: 5.86% (204) Wikipedia: 1.12% (39) | Wikipedia talk: 0.92% (32) Image: 2.81% (98) | Image talk: 0.14% (5) Template: 0.8% (28) | Template talk: 0.11% (4) Category: 0% (0) | Category talk: 0% (0) Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martial75 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I just assumed it wasn't necessary after reading this: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." But thanks! Funkynusayri 14:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skatewalk is blocked

Hi, Fayssal, could you re-view this block of Skatewalk? [20]

Other people have questioned the block, and it seems to have been a mistake. Funkynusayri 13:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Funky. Thanks for letting me know. I'll verify that and see what i can do. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've had a look and i believe i agree w/ the block. The account was disruptive anyway and showed similar patterns of those of Serenesouldnyc. We don't need that behavior here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs and images

Hi Funkynusayri,

Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia's dinosaur articles. Your edits are appreciated.

It is my worry, however, that some of these images do not fall into the rough guidelines established at WP:DINO, which is why a few of them were removed the other day. I did see that you fixed several of them, and that is appreciated. Now you have inserted an additional batch, many of which suffer from the same problems. The images are lovely: very artistic and dynamic. But at least a few of them suffer from anatomical problems. Watch out for theropod (the "meat eaters") images where the palms of their hands are facing downward or even backward: they are often depicted this way, but it's been shown in studies that they could not have held their hands in this position without breaking their wrists or doing severe injuries to themselves: the bones just don't fit that way. Watch out for theropods or ornithopods with snake-like tails: only the sauropodomorphs had flexible, whip-like tails, and even they only had those at the back half (or so).

There is an Image review process where team members weigh in on which images are encyclopedic, which might be suitable for historic use (see Diplodocus for examples of images no longer considered accurate, but which are used in a historic ("this is how we used to think they looked") section discussing depictions through the years), and which ones are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. This is important because the images shown in an encyclopedia should be accurare. If you plan to add more images, it would be beneficial to bring them up on the image review page first, as it saves us time having to go through each article, looking for new images.

Thanks again for your efforts, Funky.

Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidelines, I've been adding pictures done by a Russian guy whose images have been uploaded to Commons by the dozens, so I've been checking out where those images were used, and added them to the English articles when not in use, as I believe his drawings are at least quite technically good, but I realise now that some details, like the bunny hands and the rubber tails, are unscientific. But the images have been released into the public domain, and illustration is my occupation, so I can fix them when it's necessary. I think it's sad to see his drawings go to waste, when just a slight refinement could make them more accurate so they could meet the criteria for inclusion.

So well, I'd love to get some guidelines for fixing such images, but I'm afraid that I've already uploaded all the images by him that I could find on Commons, hehe, so well, I'll just fix the rest of the images as they are removed, if they are inaccurate. I'd love to contribute with some original drawings myself, but I'm afraid that I don't have the proper references to work with, as most of my dinosaur books are outdated, so I'm almost shocked sometimes when I read some of the new info about certain dinosaur species here on Wikipedia. Funkynusayri 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
+|maxarchivesize = 80K
+|counter = 3
 |algo = old(7d)
-|archive = User talk:Funkynusayri/Archives
+|archive = User talk:Funkynusayri/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
 {{welcome}} [[User:ArthurWeasley|ArthurWeasley]] 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)