User talk:FunkMonk

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Euoplocephalus and Gorgosaurus.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Euoplocephalus and Gorgosaurus.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Evanyu35outlookcom (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinogorgon face[edit]

Hello, my name is Amirani1746 and I regularly make changes to pages on "mammal like reptiles", and I suggest you with all my respect, to put the old version of the Dinogorgon image made by Dimitry Bodganov. The reconstitutions of gorgonopsians with lips that do not cover their canines and incisors are widely accepted by paleontologists. Amirani1746 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exact image are we talking about here? I don't think I've seen any scientific articles that discuss how much of gorgonopsian teeth were covered or exposed. But I agree, we don't need to cover the incisors entirely. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saddam Hussein..jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Saddam Hussein..jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ypatch (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kronosaurus restorations[edit]

I know you've taken note of the name Eiectus longmani being erected for MCZ 1285, but I wanted to ask if the Kronosaurus image File:Kronosaurus queenslandicus.JPG that you uploaded from Wikipedia is based on MCZ 1285 (holotype of Eiectus longmani) or any of the Kronosaurus specimens from the Toolebuc Formation (e.g., QM F2446, QM F18827, QM F10113), because QM F18827 and QM F10113 are from the same stratigraphic horizon as the Kronosaurus queenslandicus, and MCZ 1285 is from the older Aptian-age Doncaster Member of the Wallumbilla Formation. Molnar (1982, 1991) suggested that MCZ 1285 may not be the same species as K. queenslandicus holotype and instead probably represents a different taxon, and a paper by Thulborn and Turner (1993) concurred, listing MCZ 1285 as possibly a distinct species of Kronosaurus. Many people on Twitter have expressed opposing ditching Kronosaurus due to its widespread use in scientific literature, but they might concede that the pliosaurid specimens from the Wallumbilla Formation are a distinct taxon from the pliosaurid material from the Toolebuc Formation because, as noted by Noè & Gómez-Pérez, the referral of all pliosaurid remains from Aptian-Albian deposits in Australia to a single genus and species is untenable given that more than one genus of pliosaurid is known from the Paja Formation of Colombia. As noted by McHenry (2009), QM F18827 and QM F10113 are suitable candidates for a neotype for K. queenslandicus in accordance with Article 75.3 because they preserve sufficiently diagnostic cranial remains and come from the same type horizon as QM F1609 (the Toolebuc Formation is middle-late Albian and is several million years younger than the type horizon of Eiectus longmani). Therefore, by treating QM F18827 and QM F10113 as holotypes for Kronosaurus queenslandicus, stability of the name Kronosaurus will be preserved.

Therefore, you can ask several users on Wikipedia if the images File:Kronosaurus.jpg, File:Kronosaurus BW.jpg, File:Kronosaurus2 NT.jpg are morphologically based on MCZ 1285 or specimens from the Toolebuc Formation like QM F18827 and QM F10113.

Molnar, R.E., 1982. Australian Mesozoic reptiles. In: Rich, P.V., Thompson, E.M. (Eds.). Vertebrate palaeontology of Australasia. Monash University, Clayton, pp. 170–220. Molnar, R.E., 1991. Fossil reptiles in Australia. In: Vickers-Rich, P., Monaghan, J.M., Baird, R.F. et al., (Eds.). Vertebrate palaeontology of Australasia. Pioneer Design Studio, Monash University, Melbourne, pp. 605–702. Thulborn, T., Turner, S., 1993. An elasmosaur bitten by a pliosaur. Modern Geology 18, 489–501. McHenry, C.R. 2009. ‘Devourer of Gods’. The palaeoecology of the Cretaceous pliosaur Kronosaurus queenslandicus (PhD thesis). University of Newcastle, viii + 616 pp.Extrapolaris (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Hi, I didn't create that image, but there is a whole discussion about the identity of Kronosaurus restorations here[1] that you're welcome to join. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]