User talk:Ferahgo the Assassin

/Archive 1

Thanks

Thank you for uploading the Royal Tyrrell Ornitholestes photo. This was just what I was looking for. FanCollector (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Heilmann origin of birds.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heilmann origin of birds.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm writing the article now. It's here in my userspace currently [1] and I'll put the full thing on Wikipedia once it's reasonably finished (hopefully within seven days!). Thanks for the notification though. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Ferahgo the Assassin, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Ferahgo the Assassin/Origin of Birds. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Links that might be useful to you

I don't intend to edit any articles you edit but, noting the book you've been writing about, have found the following external links to scanned images of the 3 original journal articles which may be useful to you (they contain the original illustrations):

• Heilmann, Gerhard (1913), "Vor nuværendem Viden om Fluglenes Afstamning", Dansk ornithologisk forenings tidsskrift, 7: 1–71
• Heilmann, Gerhard (1915), "Vor nuværendem Viden om Fluglenes Afstamning", Dansk ornithologisk forenings tidsskrift, 9: 1–160
• Heilmann, Gerhard (1916), "Vor nuværendem Viden om Fluglenes Afstamning", Dansk ornithologisk forenings tidsskrift, 10: 73–144

Please feel to use these links in any of the relevant articles. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I was looking for those earlier this week without success. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of proposed motion

This is to notify you that a request to clarify the terms of Remedy 5.1 of the Race and Intelligence arbitration case has been made and a motion which may affect you has been filed here. For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Velociraptor

Hi,

I'll send you my e-mail through wiki for that paper, si that okay? Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Did you get my e-mail. I wonder weather it worked? Dapi89 (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not get an email from you. As I said before, I'll need your actual email address to send a paper, I cannot send an attachment using the Wikipedia email form. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. It seems to have worked this time. Thanks again. Dapi89 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's sent. And no problem. :) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks E. Dapi89 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Feathers

Hey, thanks for working on a new image! My thinking on the subject of arm feathers in large dromies isn't that they shouldn't be pennaceous (they certainly should), but that they'd more likely IMO lack the closed, zip-up vanes found in basal forms. Not that it would be impossible for them to have had closed-vaned feathers, but I'm just having trouble thinking of a reason for their retention. Modern ratites all have very large pennaceous feathers for both, display, aerodynamics when running, and shade/cooling. However none have retained the closed-vaned feathers of their ancestors, despite apparently having lost flight multiple times. My off the cuff educated guess is that this is due to the high maintenance cost of vaned feathers, extra preening to keep them zipped and free of parasites, etc. While dromies have extra tools in their arsenals (namely teeth, obviously they couldn't preen their remiges with their wing claws), based on living birds it doesn't seem like closed-vaned feathers are necessary for display--the degraded vanes of ostriches do just fine. I'd say give them whatever kind of feathers you like if you have a different reasoning (retention for the iridescent color-producing effects maybe?), but personally I'd choose ratite-style as I did with my image of Achillobator. Since Deinonychus is much, much smaller I think a lot more leeway can be given there (though it is still in Rhea-Emu territory weight wise). EDIT Oh, and I think kiwi-like body feathers are a safe bet, though Microraptor and Anchiornis and even Archaeopteryx do seem to have pennaceous contour feathers over some parts of the body (hips and legs in Archie, not specified in my Micro and Anchie descriptions). MMartyniuk (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in on you Gents (I saw your question on Marins page). One reason for long arm feather, pennaceous or not, that is mentioned here and there and that (contrary to most other explanations) can be backed up with fossil evidence is egg incubation. We know oviraptorids folded their arms in bird fashion over their eggs (see Citipati for a couple of shots), it stands to reason they had a feather wing serving that very function. A number of small to medium size theropods had eggs arranged in a circle or half circle in the nest, leaving room for the pubis, indicating they incubated them by sitting on them as birds today. The fancy wrist flick of the maniraptorans allow them to fold their hand sideways along their lower arms. As a "predatory mechanism" as the name imply it is useless. The only reasonable reason I have ever heard for this flick is to stack the incubating wings safely out of the way when running and fighting. Old Aunty Archy have wings long enough to fly or at least glide with, but wings would necessarily have to predate flight, and the maniraptoran flick gives us a hint of when wings came about. I am fairly sure you will be right in equipping Utharaptor with proper closed or semi-closed vanes held in typical bird position. As for body feather I agree with you and Martin that Kiwi feathers (or perhaps emu?) would be a reasonable comparison.

Sorry for the rambling, it's late here in my neck of the woods. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and interesting interpretation there (though I am a lady, not a gent ;)). I have difficulty imagining why zipping/locking barbules would be necessary for incubating feathers, though - the cost of maintaining them is high enough that it's hard to imagine that the benefit of zipping for incubation would outweigh the cost of maintenance. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Amendment request

Here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Race_and_intelligence --Captain Occam (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refactor

Please see this comment at the amendment request and act on it.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I have altered the statement. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Utahraptor

I understand, you worked hard to create that Utahraptor restoration just for that article, so I won't ruin your hard work. In my opinion, which you dont have to heed, you should have made the color a lot less bland. Why'd you make it muddy brown when it could have been any other color? In the small thumbnail pic in the article it just looks like a silhouette. Also, putting feathers all the way down to the end of its snout makes it look cute, contrary to the ferocious predator it likely was. Otherwise, good job. I could never create a drawing like that, so maybe I shouldn't be talking. Cadiomals (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments on my work. The reason I chose to make it look "bland" is simply because it's probably more accurate to depict it that way. You're right that we don't (and probably can't) "know" what coloration Utahraptor had in life, but there are certain things we can infer. First of all, it is very uncommon for extant predatory animals to be brightly-colored. This is very true of birds, where the vast majority of bright plumage is found in herbivorous or insectivorous animals; chiefly predatory birds, like hawks and owls, tend to be exclusively earth-toned. The brightest color you'll find in a hawk is the russet of the red-tail's tail, which is similar in hue to the head-top I've given my Utahraptor.

There is a more important reason, though. Even though bright coloration is usually restricted to non-carnivorous animals in life, the type of feather that Utahraptor had simply would have been unable to display certain hues. The structure of Utahraptor feathers would have been fairly primitive, and could not have displayed the structural coloration seen in green and blue feathers. Additionally, its diet would have not included the plant-derived carotenoids necessary for the formation of bright yellow, red and orange pigments. The feathers of Utahraptor are most likely to have resembled the feathers of the modern kiwi or emu in structure, which are both very drab birds. These kinds of feathers are not made for flying - Utahraptor obviously could not fly - and lack the complex structure of interlocking barbules that traps air bubbles to refract blue light. Since no true blue pigments exist in birds, blue coloration is effectively restricted to aerial birds. There is one single known green pigment in birds, turacoverdin, which is restricted (insofar as we know) to one group of birds. All other green coloration in birds is produced by the combination of blue refraction from air bubbles overlapping yellow carotenoid pigments.

The image was also replaced because the former image contained certain inaccuracies. This is discussed somewhat in this thread on the talk page. It has a bald head, blue and green feathers (even if real Utahraptors weren't as drab as mine, they almost certainly could not have had green and blue colors because their structure would not permit that), and the hand feathers do not obviously connect to the second digit. It doesn't really matter that snout-feathers make my version look "cute" - phylogenetic evidence from basal dromaeosaur fossils that have given us actual feather impressions, like Microraptor, show that the ancestral state of dromaeosaurs is to have feathers extending to near the tip of the snout. This may change with future evidence, but for now, it is most parsimonious to reconstruct dromaeosaurs this way. Anyway, all of this goes to say that my reconstruction of Utahraptor contains very little of my own preference - most of what went into it reflects very careful phylogenetic, comparative and mechanical inference dictated by parsimony. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Great work!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For this beautiful and carefully reasoned illustration. Shyamal (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My first Barnstar! Thank you very much, I am honored. I hope to contribute many more illustrations to Wikipedia in years to come. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A query

Please take a moment to look at [2]. I recall Arbcom asking him to drop this, but I do not know if there is a problem here. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Arbitrators have asked him to stop this four separate times. It would probably be wise to not engage with him there, you'll just make it worse. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Case

Good luck with your case, but I suspect that you will not succeed. The person in question seem to have managed to persuade AC that they are an injured innocent and it is quite possible that the result will be that they get a licence to continue or even expand the activities complained of. I seriously suggest that you consider as your plan B simply dropping your current user name, adopting a new one with no references to external identities and continue editing as before under the new name. You should not make any kind of link between them on-wiki, but equally it would be imperative that you privately communicate the link to AC and assure them that you intend to respect the restrictions applicable to your current name while they are in force. It is an annoyance but that seems to be what happens to people to are here to build an encyclopedia, as opposed to playing some kind of game. 94.197.106.100 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This message was deleted by a user involved in the case on the pretext that it had been placed by a banned user. This is not true, and the user who deleted knows full well that it is not true. You may wish to ask AC to rule on whether it is wise for a user involved in a case with you to be removing messages from your talk page, especially ones which are attempting to offer useful advice, on grounds which they know to be spurious. On the other hand you may wish to view it as supporting my suggestion. But do be clear about this. Wikipedia is the sort of game in which you win by losing, and lose by winning. You will either lose your case against your adversary, which will establish a precedent that he has continue to attack you and your friends, or you will win, in which case he will be even more ferocious, and attack you through your friends. But if you simply change names, like a judo wrestler using their opponents strength against threm, you lose nothing that you want (since you are trying to build the encyclopedia, not win the game) and put him in the wrong. Linking your new name to your old then becomes outing, which for reasons I fail to understand is still considered a wiki-crime. 94.197.232.73 (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)