User talk:FunkMonk/Archives/2021
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!
Dear FunkMonk
Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.
After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.
The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.
As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.
Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up! FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Please take a short survey regarding UCoC
Hello FunkMonk,
I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.
As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.
You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.
Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've sent my answers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Homo antecessor male.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. |
Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
File tagging File:Dilophosaurus JP-version MUDECH.png
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Dilophosaurus JP-version MUDECH.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dilophosaurus JP-version MUDECH.png]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear FunkMonk,
As you are no doubt aware, File:Chinle fish.jpg is no longer available on Flickr, and the fish in this image labeled Xenacanthus (genus name in quotes) is now placed in the separate genus Mooreodontus Ginter et al. 2010, in which case the Chinle fish previously assigned to Xenacanthus is now Mooreodontus moorei.
Ginter, M., O. Hampe, & C. Duffin. 2010. Paleozoic Elasmobranchii. In: Schultze, H.-P.(ed.), Handbook of Paleoichthyology Vol. 3D. Verlag Dr Friedrich Pfeil, München:168 pp. Extrapolaris (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
- Oh, nice, feel free to add a better list in the description if you have time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Crocodylus anthropophagus
Hi! Why did you delete the reconstruction of this taxon? It's from this link (https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/RIPS/article/view/15771), a Creative Commons work, as you can see. Thanks! --Ghedo (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't delete it, only nominated it, you can see it has a Commons incompatible license: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License." Commons files need to be allowed for commercial use and modifications need to be allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
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. |
Evanyu35outlookcom (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Dinogorgon face
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)
- 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 canines entirely. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
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. |
Ypatch (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Kronosaurus restorations
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
- 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)