User talk:FunkMonk

Congratulations, FunkMonk! The article you nominated, Europejara, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, FrB.TG, I don't think it had received a image review yet, though? FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, you are right about that. I could've sworn that I spotted an image review there. I must've confused it for another FAC. My apologies. I just reviewed the images myself though and I found no licensing or formatting issue. FrB.TG (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may i ask you to provide a valid reason for why you removed my edit? I do not seem to see one at all, unfortunately. Facebook is not a valid source? In what context exactly? Pedanttoyou123 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the edit summary, no, Facebook is not a valid source. See WP:reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So should i provide a different source for the clip? Pedanttoyou123 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please see WP:Video links and WP:POPCULTURE. These pages show that there are multiple possible issues with the addition. First, are you sure that the link to the clip is not a copyright violation of any form? Then, has that video coverage indeed been published (outside of a user-generated content platform)? Then, is the information relevant enough to include? Finally, for any interpretation of a primary source like this you need a secondary one. You claim that it was intended to be a juvenile; another interpretation might be that they just said "it's a juvenile" in retrospect to reply to claims of inaccuracy. Better just undo the edit again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack You're absolutely right. I should have thought about the fact that whether or not the source is reputable enough or not and i am certain that the content was not of user-generated origin but rather derived from an external source. I'm very positive about the relevance of the inclusion of this information because it resolves the misconception that the reduction of the animal's size is not an addition or invention of theirs but simply a matter of context. In the meantime, i will try to search for a better outlet for the clip. Pedanttoyou123 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedanttoyou123: As said, this is your personal interpretation, but for that we need a secondary source. I don't see that this resolves a misconception, and I also don't quite see the relevance yet. I will revert the change until we reached a consensus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if this information is so crucial, it should be possible to find a text source that supports it. As is, the current text is supported by the official making of book. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 June 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Europejara, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Europejara (head pictured) is the oldest known toothless pterosaur? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Europejara. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Europejara), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Algerie-Bentalha-Massacre-22septembre1997-1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]