User talk:FunkMonk

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Your edits to Multinational Force in Lebanon

You deleted the infobox military conflict on that page according to this edit. I believe this is unwarranted as there was a conflict in Lebanon although it was unconventional. There were multiple belligerent forces engaging in combat within a specific location which means I would define this as a military conflict, so I am interested in the rationale for your deletion of the infobox. Thank you very much.
File:Budweiser.jpg226Trident 01:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a conflict. The conflict has several articles (Lebanese civil war, 1982 Lebanon war, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, so on). The MFL was not a "conflict" in any sense of thew word, but, obviously, a multinational force. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear FunkMonk

I've reverted your merger of Living dinosaur (which is a disambiguation page, a category of pages much needed in Wikipedia) and Living dinosaur (cryptozoology), a particular issue within that general phrasing. Thank you and regards! --Againme (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Possibly_merger_the_artice.3F One of the articles is non-needed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Which one is non-needed and why? The disambiguation article incorporates much more than simply the cryptozoological aspect of the phrase "living dinosaur" and gives a general frame. What do you think about it? Should we wait for more thoughts? --Againme (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure anyone else really cares. But anyway, I think an article about the one meaning of living dinosaur that refers to birds is simply redundant. Just leave one cryptozoology article with a note that says it can also refer to birds. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. There are a couple more meanings, like Paleocene dinosaurs and Creationist dinosarus. --Againme (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how are paleocene dinosaurs living? And what do you mean by creationist dinosaurs? If you mean ones still thought living, they come under cryptozoology, and if you mean recently extinct, that still does not make them living dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point... but I liked that dab page... :) --Againme (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a nice collection of interesting stuff, but what the articles it directed to really had in common was that they were about dinosaurs surviving past the cretaceous, not necessarily living today. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dinosaur-planet-dvd-cover-art.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dinosaur-planet-dvd-cover-art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Funk,

A random IP editor removed the image. I've fixed this. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Homo erectus skull

Hi FunkMonk! I have been wondering about your photo of the Homo erectus skull: It is a very good picture, but do you not think it would give a better feel if you gave it lower saturation (only at the skull)? This is just my opinion, but what do you like the bright colors? /Conty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just automatic colour correction in Photoshop, the original is orange tinted, so the new version should be closer to the actual colours. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopid

It is original research because the "Ethiopid" concept (i.e. an essentially Europid sub-race hybridized with various later Negrid elements) did not really exist in Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's day. He also used the term "Ethiopian race" as a stand-in for "black people", which is not the same racial concept we are talking about here. The Ethiopid/Eastern Hamite concept came about way after Blumenbach, and was the baby of Charles Gabriel Seligman, among others. Soupforone (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, the problem was that "Ethiopian race" has also been used to refer to the Ethiopid type, so some clarification had to be made. The disambig page should take care of that. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

Well, accepted, but I can see why you would get suspicious, judged on my recent edits to that navbox template, which, I'll have to admit, is rather a tasteless one. But heck, I didn't create it, I only edited. Or there is maybe another reason? I would appreciate an explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)