User talk:FunkMonk

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Archive 28. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Your nomination of Mauritius scops owl is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Mauritius scops owl is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A message of formal apology and gratitude

Hi, it's been five years since I've started editing in Wikipedia. It honestly surprises me how quickly time passes, and I think I should formally apologize to everyone who I have annoyed in the past before it's too late (especially in my earliest two years). I was naive, overconfident, careless and sometimes pretty rude just because I thought I (for some reason) knew better, and believed in fringe estimates/info that aren't robustly really supported by literature. I really regret that I actually thought the people who suggested such information like Greg Paul were competent, but I have changed my opinion since at least 2024, and the recent NCSM 40000-related preprint and "Paulodon" incident further substantiated my mistake. And I argued with others immaturely, even if I could've worded myself better when others rightfully criticized me; admittedly I still argue sometimes if it doesn't seem right yes, but I try not to be the same person I was back in those days if I ever do so.

As you can tell, in my earliest years editing here in Wikipedia, I wasn't even aware what the WikiProject was, how to properly cite peer-reviewed journals, what differentiates a proper and improper source, the existence of Dinosaur Mailing Group (I only realized this last year), etc. Editing here really humbled me a lot by making me realize that my contribution was a lot less significant and more detrimental than I thought of myself, that the recent study is not equivalent to an 'updated truth' or something, and that there are certainly a lot more interesting aspects in the field of paleontology even if I probably will never officially be part of it, which is why I decided that I should change my behavior. What I did was not something to be excused, and I will keep remembering my mistakes.

I honestly thank you for still allowing me to stay here. If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have developed as a person though I obviously still need improvements. I really thank you for a lot (even if it may have been a minor issue for you), and I will express my apology to you and other users who had to tolerate me (already started with writing on talk page of Palaeotaku). The only reason it took so long for me to actually admit this was because 1) I was a coward 2) I just didn't want to bother or upset anyone anymore like how I did back in my very immature days. Once again, I am sorry for how I behaved back then and thank you for letting me stay in spite of that. Junsik1223 (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, no need to apologise, it is very clear how much you've improved since you began, and to tell you the truth, I and many other editors were pretty bad when we started. So it's just great to see you're doing good work now, and I hope you'll continue! FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Aucanquilcha § Pre-FAC review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Species Conservation Award
Awarded in appreciation for your work on Echo parakeet, bringing it to Featured Article status in 2019. I stumbled on the article while researching animals that recovered from the brink of extinction. Made me happy to find others that care as well. Noleander (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yeah, that's one of the less depressing articles I've worked on, might do more like it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Mauritius scops owl has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Mauritius scops owl has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi FunkMonk,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)