/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3

Glad you decided to return!FunkMonk (talk)21:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading the new version! I think as long as it doesn'tcontradict published info it should be fine. It could just be considered a different interpretation done for unspecified reasons. Artists update their stuff all the time so it should be ok.Dinoguy2 (talk)16:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, especially in order to be consistent with the size chart. ;) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)23:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Mark Hallett (artist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing toNational Geographic andAmerican

Raúl Martín (artist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing toSpanish andNational Geographic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page,Wing-assisted incline running. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page –Origin of avian flight#Wing-assisted incline running. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged forspeedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out atOrigin of avian flight#Wing-assisted incline running – you might like to discuss new information atthe article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a requesthere. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest thearticle creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.TheLongTone (talk)17:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding here as opposed to your talk page as per your request) Thank you for the notification. I have defended my choice of creating this article on the talk page, if you or someone else wants to review it.Talk:Wing-assisted_incline_running -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On24 April 2014,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleWing-assisted incline running, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was... thatwing-assisted incline running (WAIR) is a hypothesis about theorigin of avian flight used by modern partridges? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Wing-assisted incline running. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,live views,daily totals), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a very elegant picture; thank you for making the world a more beautiful place through it! —Sebastian23:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the kind words, Sebastian! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)14:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my English is not that good, however direct questions in encyclopedias are rather goofy. I speak of your revert on my edit atMicroraptor. Perhaps you could rewrite that sentence removing the interrogative tone. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk)07:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note--my reversion was based on the grammatical confusion of the edit (and terms like "birdsavian"), but I do agree that the sentence should be reworked to remove the rhetorical question. Take a look at it now and see if it's an improvement. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)16:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the newWikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join!Harej (talk)21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you drew this cool restoration ofAnkylosaurus a while back, which is now in a featured article. A paper just came out that criticised Carpenter's cervical hald-ring configuration, suggesting there would have been two half-rings, as in related genera.[1] As your restoration shows a gap above the armour, it would appear you followed Carpenter's hypothesis, perhaps it could be modified to reflect Arbou'rs more well founded proposal? Also, the eyes seem a tad too big...FunkMonk (talk)21:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think standard practice with new research and reconstructions is to wait and see how the new paper is received before changing anything, but I don't pay attention to ankylosaur research so I don't really know whether this paper is changing consensus. That said, I probably won't have the time (or expertise; ankylosaurs are not my thing at all, and that illustration was originally made for a chart) to edit this recon, but you or anyone else is welcomed to have a go at it! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)22:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I might have a go at it. As for new versus old hypotheses, Arbour's is based on phylogenetic bracketing, whereas Carpenter's was pretty much just made up...FunkMonk (talk)22:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sounds like good occurrence to revise, then. I've just been burned by things like the venomous Sinornithosaurus hypothesis and other things people were very excited about when they first came out. ;) If you want, I can email you the PSD of the Ankylosaurus if that would make it any easier to edit. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)22:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice! I'll send a modified version back for your approval once I get to it... By the way, I thought the venom thing was discredited? Or well, no spoilers!FunkMonk (talk)22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I have your email (and can't send attachments via the Wiki email form), so how aboutshooting me an email and I'll reply with the attachment. And yeah, the Sinornithosaurus venom study has been discredited (despite subsequent attempts by the authors to justify it), and that's my point: editors often read an exciting new study in paleontology and want to make immediate article changes, without waiting for the new study to be critically analyzed by other researchers in the field. For that reason I'm always reluctant to make immediate changes when a new paper challenges a long-held paradigm. Paleontology articles are not subject to the same guidelines about primary vs. secondary sources as many other topic areas at Wikipedia, because the turnover rate is so slow (if we waited for every new taxon to show up in secondary lit before including them here, we'd have half as many dinosaur articles!). But it does mean we should be especially discerning about immediately making changes to include the conclusions of brand new papers. Like I said, ankylosaurs aren't my thing so I'm happy for others to make the call here, it's just a general principle to keep in mind. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though the authorship of the venom theory already rings alarm bells by itself... You mailed me some time ago about a silhouette, so I've just replied to that one...FunkMonk (talk)22:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved bymotion that:

For the Arbitration Committee,Kevin (akaL235 ·t ·c)02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

Hello, Ferahgo the Assassin. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you of amotion involving you:

Opabinia regalis (talk)05:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferahgo the Assassin. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI,Emily Willoughby was just created. All the best,--Animalparty! (talk)18:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm under the impression that it's bad form for the subject of an article to make any edits on it, is that generally accurate? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)18:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main relevant guidelines areWP:BLP,WP:Conflict of interest, andWP:Autobiography. Editing articles about one's self is not forbidden, especially if there are obvious errors or privacy violations: seeWP:BLPKIND andWP:BIOSELF. You should generally avoid writing about yourself, perWP:COISELF, but it is considered acceptable to pose edit requests (or perhaps additional sources) on talk pages, perWP:AUTO#IFEXIST. Problematic content can be addressed perWP:AUTOPROB.--Animalparty! (talk)19:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The only error I see so far is that Ohio State is not my alma mater, though I attended there for two years.http://www.isironline.org/2017-isir-prize-for-best-student-paper-emily-willoughby/ -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)20:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Congratulations and thanks for all the images you've contributed. SchreiberBike| ⌨ 22:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)23:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request for clarification that includes you as a party:[2] --Captain Occam (talk)09:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theclarification request in which you were involved has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee,Miniapolis15:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferahgo the Assassin, your ARCA request has beenarchived. The Committee's majority clarification is that the topics you asked about are covered by the topic ban. For the Arbitration Committee,Kevin (akaL235 ·t ·c)15:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPaleoart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMark Hallett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)23:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I saw your paleo art Edits which were good, but would request that you include edit summaries.Shushugah (talk)23:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note--I admit to having fallen into lazy habits in the absence of much collaboration on the article, but I will add summaries nevertheless. Cheers! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)01:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTodd Marshall (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCharles Knight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ferahgo the Assassin,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedDavid Krentz for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you cancontest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note onmy talk page if you have questions.

Etzedek24^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)}22:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferahgo the Assassin,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Julio Lacerda should be deleted. Your comments are welcome atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio Lacerda.

If you're new to the process,articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide onhow to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Elmidae(talk ·contribs)14:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Dinosaur Barnstar
		Long overdue, for your illustrations and writing! And of course, for rescuing thepaleoart article from its sorry state.FunkMonk (talk)11:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly, FunkMonk! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)15:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferahgo the Assassin. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferahgo the Assassin! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:52, Sunday, December 30, 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articlePaleoart you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofJens Lallensack --Jens Lallensack (talk)21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articlePaleoart you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Paleoart for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you cannominate it to appear in Did you know.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofJens Lallensack --Jens Lallensack (talk)18:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators are considering a motion which concerns you atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Race and intelligence. The proposed motion can be foundhere.

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 anduploaded 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 theSciurumimus 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 fromhttps://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'scopyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedGene–environment correlation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRegression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

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

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

origins of birds imagined

Thank you for quality articles about paleontology such asThe Origin of Birds,Balaur bondoc,Specimens of Archaeopteryx andWing-assisted incline running, for exceptional art work illustrating the field, on professional background, for effortstowards stability and fairness, - Emily, you are anawesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.2384 of Precious, a prize ofQAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you wrote theThe Origin of Birds article, I wonder if you own the book? I am currently expanding thePodokesaurus 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]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have any thoughts about what would be the best approach to addressing the issue onRace and Intelligence, where the RfC is being used to justify misrepresenting the sources? Is it something that should be brought to ArbCom? Surely RfC cannotrequire the inclusion of material that failsWP:Verifiability, but that certainly seems to be the argument being made.Stonkaments (talk)17:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 withDGG, 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 commenthere), 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 himhere.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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{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 doesnot 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 calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. 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 talk08:00, 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 atTalk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year atWP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic atWP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

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. BestStonkaments (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.meYinwang888 (talk)23:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your good commentshere. 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 doesnot 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 calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. 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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleJulio Lacerda is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia: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]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of anArbitration Committee decision. The thread isFerahgo_the_Assassin. Thank you.

Precious

Three years!

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

I want to emphasize that I harbor you no ill will. We disagree strenuously about a topic we both clearly care about quite a bit. And I will always reply with the firmness I think is appropriate to an important topic, with real-world implications, where well-funded misinformation abounds. But I want you to know that this doesn't imply any personal enmity toward you. I do believe that you're acting in good faith, though I genuinely wonder how and why you believe the things you do. Is there some especially persuasive text you think might cause me to think differently? Maybe not win me over entirely to your side, but give me some new perspective? I know there is a lot of trickery in this topic area, but this is not a trick. It's a genuine invitation to dialogue. If you'd prefer to have it off-Wiki, feel free to email me.Generalrelative (talk)01:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I'll think about it and get back to you.Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I look forward to it.Generalrelative (talk)23:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related topseudoscience andfringe science. This is a standard message to inform you thatpseudoscience andfringe science is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk07:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]