User talk:Ferahgo the Assassin

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 00:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Hi, a regular vandal sock-puppet has uploaded one of your images[3] to Commons, seemingly without permission. I have tagged it as a copyright violation, but thought it would be best to notify you (in case you somehow did give permission). FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk, thanks for letting me know. The irony is that I'd have been happy to release that particular illustration under Creative Commons, if asked. Should I wait for that one to be deleted, then upload a version from my WC account? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's a good question... Maybe you can just state on the talk page of the image that you agree with the licence and remove the deletion tag... Or you can upload it yourself, and then I'll tag that image as a duplicate... In the last case, there will be no doubt you agreed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went ahead and uploaded it myself with the correct caption and etc. Not sure what to do about the copyright vandal, but from the look of his talk page at Commons, it looks like some sort of community action might be in order... in any case, I'll replace the image in the Sciurumimus article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've now deleted the "duplicate". That guy keeps coming back with new accounts, so it's almost pointless to block one account. On Wikipedia alone, he has all these blocked aliases:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.genetics.org/content/211/4/1131, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

origins of birds imagined

Thank you for quality articles about paleontology such as The Origin of Birds, Balaur bondoc, Specimens of Archaeopteryx and Wing-assisted incline running, for exceptional art work illustrating the field, on professional background, for efforts towards stability and fairness, - Emily, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

Hi, since you wrote the The Origin of Birds article, I wonder if you own the book? I am currently expanding the Podokesaurus article, where I am summarising some of Gerhard Heilmann's Danish writings about that genus in the Danish journal of ornithology. So since the book is based on his earlier articles, I wonder if he also mentions the genus in the book? FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have any thoughts about what would be the best approach to addressing the issue on

I think it's best to let the issue go for now, but not permanently. As I said in SMcCandlish's user talk, I'm planning to eventually try to address it myself within a few weeks. I don't think this dispute has yet reached the stage where Arbcom would accept it as a case, so I would advise against bringing it there until after there's been at least one more failed attempt at dispute resolution. It may eventually require their intervention, but let's hope that won't be necessary. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stonkaments: BTW, the RFC is up now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_sourcing_in_relation_to_race_and_intelligence I was hoping to get initial input from uninvolved editors, but that ship has sailed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stonkaments: Given that the RFC I attempted was a failure, you might reconsider requesting arbitration if you still want to do that (though I am not sure that would be helpful either, you’re welcomed to try). If you do, you might want to first discuss the matter with DGG, as he may have some advice about what issues a potential arbitration request should try to address. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I'll wait for the current discussion to resolve and then consult with DGG to see what would be best. Thank you for your effort and contributions—it's disheartening that the discussion got hijacked and derailed immediately. Stonkaments (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stonkaments: If you think that the current RFC is inappropriate (as you said in your comment here), and if you also plan to request arbitration, it may be best to request it sooner rather than later. I don't see the benefit in waiting for an inappropriate discussion reach a conclusion, and in waiting for whatever further changes to the articles it will produce. I think ArbCom will consider themselves bound by the result of that discussion regardless of what process was used to reach it. But if DGG decides he thinks it's best to wait, I'll defer to his judgment. --AndewNguyen (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure. I've reached out him here. Stonkaments (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferahgo the Assassin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

. All the best, Nerd271 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 08:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Please note that this editor had previously been site banned by ArbCom for her editing in this subject area [5]. Her full editing privileges, except for a two-way i-ban with Mathsci, were restored in January 2019. [6]. If she has returned to editing in the R&I area, that is a significant step on her part, and she should probably not be accorded an abundance of leeway if her editing is in any way disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, this notice is the routine non-controversial neutral notice; great effort has been madeto find a wording that does not imply a judgment; please don't try to make use of it to argue the case. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC at

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned on my email, and you find me on twitter @Stonkaments also. Best Stonkaments (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your work on polygenic risk scores. Nice work. There's a draft article for a polygenic risk score analysis website that you perhaps would be interested in taking a look at? It could use some expert eyes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Impute.me Yinwang888 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your good comments here. I have looked at some history and discovered that some editors persistently remove views they don't like, though there are many studies / secondary source from mainstream publications supporting them. These people seems to have unlimited time of editing here and Wikipedia has to be in their way. Does Wikipedia work like this? --203.186.250.135 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that the list of secondary sources I posted in the earlier discussion was useful to you, but I don't think making that article consistent with the majority of recent secondary sources will be an easy task in the current editing environment. Unfortunately, yeah--Wikipedia does seem to work like that. Good luck to you if you want to take a crack at improving the article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read more such discussions and decided not to. I also suggest sensible people like you to quit Wikipedia and find something better to do. "Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ Anonymous --203.186.250.135 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Generalrelative (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Julio Lacerda for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julio Lacerda is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio Lacerda (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

--Animalparty! (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

. Thank you.

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]