User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Geniac 13:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on Hang gliding!

If you're interested, you could even shoot for featured article status. Here's the FA criteria. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Help?

I noticed a message on your user page mentioning that you wanted to contact a moderator for help. Is there something I can help you with? Have you tried leaving messages on user talk pages? Regards, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Life page; proposed change

...I guess this is what a talk page is for? I'm really sorry if I'm messing your page up here. I'm desperate to get in touch with someone to make a proposed change to the "life" page. Seems like you generally watch that page. I left a message with source on the talk page. Thanks and cheers. Edleob (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Edleob

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edleob (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to know how to communicate my questions (leave messages) to an editor or moderator. Today when I log in I saw your message. Now I am editing it. How can I leave mesages to you or other assistants? I have the feeling this user talk is not the means to do that. I thank you. BatteryIncluded 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Best thing to do is leave a message on the talk page of the user you wish to communicate with. If you're looking for help from anyone, you can try the {{helpme}} tag on your own talk page. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the information. I know now how to communicate within the Wikipedia system. Using now more tutorials and Help function. BatteryIncluded 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Regarding edits to Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, BatteryIncluded! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barry-Palmer_1960.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barry-Palmer_1960.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to your comment left on my user page (which I moved to my talk page), the reason the above noted image was nominated for deletion was the fact it was not being used, ie an orphan. Normally the image nomination would be open for discussion for 5+ days. The image has already been deleted; you can tell because the link to the image is red. The reason for the quick deletion was the fact that after nomination was done, it was determined that the image was an exact duplicate of Image:Barry Hill Palmer (b. 1937).jpg. Because it was a duplicate and not needed, it was speedy deleted. I hope that answers your issues.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Vandalism

Certainly, I'll watchlist it. It seems to be a dynamic IP; they change addresses frequently. That's quite annoying cause it means a block won't work. The other option is semi-protection but the vandalism isn't frequent enough to warrant a semi-protection which is also frustrating. Perhaps I'll semi-protect it if they keep returning. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's semi-protection, if it continues I'll semi-protect it for a week which is usually enough to deter anonymous users. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Powered hang glider. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And your not blocked :-) from editing the page. I just saw a large removal of text. I believe that you should leave a short amount of that section, in a format such as:

Main article: Main Article

Summary of the main article

I have stricken out my warning and reverted myself on that page. Thank you! ~ Wikihermit 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryan XV-8 and Parasev

My pleasure! I'll take a look at the Parasev in a moment. I'll also let you know that I've had to mark Image:Fleep2.jpg as a copyright violation, since it's a scan of the whole magazine cover - the layout of which and the logo on which is subject to copyright. If the cover photo is indeed credited to NASA, you could re-upload just this photo, and in the source info note the page reference in the magazine that credits it to NASA. --Rlandmann 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

You are very welcome - thanks for an interesting article and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: History of hang gliding GA review

I wasn't aware of any problems with the timeline in the article, or obvious conflicts between editors based on the development. That said, the best way to handle it is probably chronological, since it seems the technologies involved don't really overlap or compete all that much. But let me know what you think. —Rob (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merida Initiative

Thanks Battery. It's a passion of mine. I started researching it back in January. I was surprised to learn that there wasn't even an article out there for it. So I created one in February. Since then it's really taken off thanks to your dedicated work. You've reinvigorated my desire to keep it updated and well researched. Greentico (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks for starting the article on Beth Sarim! I had been meaning to work on it for quite awhile and your start got me going! Dtbrown (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Mexican Navy Article

I have put some Historical ships and i will try to find the date's of those wars.I also added a photo for historical ships.Villagomians (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

John W. Dickenson

Thank you for making sense of this and getting the facts straight - I couldn't figure out how to word it! Here is an ASCII barnstar: * :) Best, Neıl ☄ 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of getting dragged into a John W. Dickenson-related kerfuffle a while back. Not a problem. I'll keep an eye on things. Thanks for the heads-up. Neıl ☄ 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Viking biological experiments

{{help}} Hello, I need assistance finding the message template that requests intext citations for this article, which has some references but it is impossible to know which statement they are sourcing: Viking biological experiments. I placed this message for now {Refimprove}, but it is not quite what it nees. Thank you! BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean {{nofootnotes}} ? Not sure if you were referring to that, which is in Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, or {{fact}} which is in Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mars, again

Hi, BatteryIncluded; biomolecules couldn't have been found as I understand TEGA & the other analyses. Even if they were, the planning is epistemologically mistaken: they aren't life. Croccco found a source of permanent liquid water and quantified a minimum for its flow; Möhlmann set a maximum; others have only looked for macroscopic bodies of liquid water. Croccco's work on neurobiological interstices (in the early '60s) allowed him to discard the structured water layers and assess the remaining flow. The holotype issue is also important, I think. Please go back to the changes I introduced and kindly try to rescue the ones that, on second thoughts, you might find valuable, or comment here. Later, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.34.238 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Army.

De momento estan incluidas muchas armas de las cuales no se tiene registro en la pagina en ingles de el Ejercito Mexicano, Veertlte habla acerca de un tal U.N. small arms registry, pero la verdad no encuentro nada hacerca de ese registro, crees que me puedas hechar la mano con ese articulo?, de momento me estoy encargando de traducir todo lo que viene en la pagina en español. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacker ARG (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

History of hang gliding

Hi BatteryIncluded,

I made this edit to History of hang gliding because the subjects involved appear to be fairly unsubstantiated (even in the sources). I came across the mention here after making some changes to the Celebi articles, as well as a history of flight article. These are essentially tall tales, and have no place in the actual history of hang gliding articles. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC on " Astobiological Potential "

Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IP canvassing spam from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . dave souza, talk 12:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Air Force

Please visit the discussion page on the Mexican air force. urgent. .Homan05

Entropy is the magic word

On the other corner, an editor here believes that entropy is the magic word that would vest almost any object with life. Energy by itself is not enough;

Why are you talking about energy? Entropy is defined not only in physics, but also in information theory and mathematics. Lookup Entropy_(Information_theory) --Mitra (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

it has to be expressed in a physical form (matter) and carry on with complex biochemical pathways that support the structural and functional elements of metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, etc.--Mitra (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Simple statement from pure biological standpoint. But from the standpoint of physics and mathematics you are using very complex and undefined terms. --Mitra (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Life

Hi, and thanks for your nice message. I was delighted to see you archive the "Offended to the very soul" thread, etc, and sympathize with your problems, defending scientific respectability in the Life article. We are all so profoundly ignorant, almost infinitely so outside of our own little islands of expertise, and it does get tiresome correcting other ignorant and naive folks who know nothing about our subjects (and don't know they know nothing). I've just gone through a big battle on the LHC (planetary safety issues, mainly) which was very educational for me about the Wiki process, which I think is almost as interesting as the material itself.

I knew I was really cheating on WP:OR by trying to get my information ratio idea into the literature on a Wiki talk page, and it is certainly hopeless without good supporting publications. So I expected resistance and rejection, and was mostly just hoping to find someone who could help me get into the literature, and find out what has been done. Not having an academic background in biology (almost all I know I've learned by trying to read Science in the past ten or twenty years), so doing the research myself to write a respectable paper from scratch seemed formidable (I'm handicapped from birth and can now barely walk with crutches, so lugging huge tomes in a library is daunting; thank god for the Internet!!), and doing all that work just to get it rejected as "common knowledge from decades ago", seemed like a losing strategy too, since I do have a job I am struggling to hang on to here. But: I now have from you, a genuine expert, some evidence that the idea is maybe interesting and maybe somewhat new, which motivates me to (maybe) do some real work. And I'm collecting references, such as the one from Tim Vickers (the lead author is/was even at JPL, so I can maybe talk to him a bit), and also from other Wiki articles on subjects I never dreamed existed.

It is a bit discouraging that simply tying together these disparate cross-disciplinary fields in Wikipedia is itself OR, but so be it. I am more and more convinced, after about ten years, that the central issue about Life is information, and that is inevitably the flip side of entropy. But of course I could be wrong about that being really important (as about anything), so your criticism is very interesting and valuable. I realize I may have wasted some of your time, and appreciate your consideration. All the best, Wwheaton (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I really have no problem with Wikipedia's OR policy, at least in the sense that I see no viable alternative to it (with the possible exception of the ban on linking the information from reliable sources together unless the link has been explicitly made externally). As I say, I was cheating, knowing it was only on the talk page, in the hope of getting some critical fertilizing feedback (with the lame justification that it might suggest some relevant improvement to the article). I apologize for the violation, and will try not to inflame the discussion further. I got some of what I was looking for, which I appreciate greatly. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. The issue of all that extra DNA is very interesting and provocative. Until we have a better idea about its function, I think I can't say much. Some of it is no doubt truly junk, but clearly not all. It would make sense that the organism would need more core information to allow it to cope with more challenging environments. These are such exciting, fertile times, eh? Wish I were a freshman again!! Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my childish behavior. I apologize here, if I've created any inconvenience for you or other Wikipedians with my actions. And I was cheating these absolute rules a bit. Please excuse me and take a gift of friendship from me - a recommendation of a few excellent books - "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter. And "The Feynman Lectures on Physics". --Mitra (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image size

I have removed image size forcing from MSL article. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images. 200px is too low for some screen resolutions, so it is a way better to let user to decide what image width he/she will prefer. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Churchill, Manitoba

The 2001 census information is actually reference #13, perhaps the cite web template should be edited (to give a proper title) I fixed the references by adding a cite web template, perhaps the link be removed from the external links section? Thoughts?--kelapstick (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ExoMars

After the ministerial [1] the funding problems became undeniable and the mission was shifted for another 2 years. The BBC article [2]is quite good and states a launche date in 2016. All teams have been given notice and nobody is going for a launch in 2013 anymore. Jorge Vargo made it clear that the delay is to reduce costs.--Stone (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The ESA page is outdated. The search for money to cover the gap between the amount ESA wantes to pay and the estimated mission costs which should be covered by additional money from other agencies will give the mission a much different look until the next ministerial in autumn 2009.--Stone (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AEXA

Hello Battery! The Mexican Space Agency (AEXA) does not exist, has never existed, and is not "in the process of being created." It is simply an initiative still being debated for approval in the lower chamber of the Mexican Congress and we cannot speculate about its creation, particularly in the midst of an economic crisis. Please take a minute to read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. - José Gnudista (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read your comments and it seems to me that you have some troubles understanding what an initiative is, so I am going to oversimplify it a bit. An initiative is simply an official proposal that is discussed in both chambers of the Mexican Congress. If they both agree on the same text, it is turned to the President, who must sign it and make it a law. An institution is not created just because is presented to Congress. What you are linking is the text of the initiative that was approved by the Senate but may get rejected in its second vote at the Chamber of Deputies or by the President. The agency has never existed. - José Gnudista (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

This is the third time you revert the article without arguments. You know perfectly well that the initiative has not been approved by Congress, just approved by the Senate and sent back to the Chamber of Deputies for a second vote: La minuta fue devuelta a la Cámara de Diputados, en virtud de que sufrió cambios con relación a como había llegado de esa colegisladora. En caso de que los diputados ratifiquen las modificaciones, el decreto será turnado al Ejecutivo para su publicación en el Diario Oficial de la Federación. (Crónica)

Even the fansite (that you incorrectly use as a third-party source) is rather clear in a press bulletin published barely 7 days ago: "El Congreso del Estado Libre y Soberano de Hidalgo enviará a la Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Cámara de Diputados Federal un exhorto para que considere dictaminar de manera positiva el Pliego de Observaciones del Senado de la República sobre la Minuta de decreto que crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana (AEXA). El 4 de noviembre de 2008 el Senado de la República publicó en su gaceta oficial la minuta en donde aprueba la creación en México de la Agencia Espacial debido a la trascendencia que ella tiene en el desarrollo tecnológico del país. En el curso del proceso legislativo la minuta regresa a la Cámara de Diputados, por ser la cámara de origen y específicamente a la Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología." (ProAEXA) - José Gnudista (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I hope this is the last time you revert the List of space agencies as I am posting the complete document published today (26 February 2009) in the Gazette of the Mexican Senate where it clearly states that the initiative was sent back to the Chamber of Deputies and nothing was created at all:

SEN. GUSTAVO MADERO MUÑOZ PRESIDENTE DE LA MESA DIRECTIVA DEL SENADO DE LA REPÚBLICA LX LEGISLATURA

P R E S E N T E

Los que suscriben Francisco Javier Castellón Fonseca, Jesús Murillo Karam, María Beatriz Zavala Peniche y Ángel Heladio Aguirre Rivero, Senadores de la República de la LX Legislatura al Congreso de la Unión, con fundamento en lo dispuesto por los artículos 66 numeral 1 inciso c) y 67 inciso g) de la Ley Orgánica del Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, así como el artículo 21 fracción XVI del Reglamento para el Gobierno Interior del Congreso General, respetuosamente solicitamos se formule Excitativa a las Comisiones Unidas de Ciencia y Tecnología; y de Presupuesto y Cuenta Pública de la H. Cámara de Diputados, a que presenten el Dictamen relativo a la Minuta que contiene Proyecto de Decreto que expide la Ley que crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana, al tenor de los siguientes:

A N T E C E D E N T E S

1.- En sesión ordinaria celebrada el día 25 de octubre de 2005 por la LIX Legislatura de la Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión, el Dip. Moisés Jiménez Sánchez, integrante del Grupo Parlamentario del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) presentó una Iniciativa con proyecto de decreto que expide la Ley que crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana (AEXA). En esta misma fecha, la Mesa Directiva de la Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión turnó la citada Iniciativa a la Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología, para su estudio y elaboración del dictamen correspondiente.

2.- La citada Iniciativa fue dictaminada y sometida a votación del pleno de la Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión, el día 26 de abril de 2006, aprobándose por la colegisladora con 224 votos a favor, 83 en contra y 6 abstenciones.

3.- En la fecha señalada en el numeral anterior, la colegisladora envió a esta Cámara de Senadores el expediente con la Minuta Proyecto de Decreto por el que se expide la Ley que crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana (AEXA), turnándose ésta el 27 de abril de 2006 a las Comisiones Unidas de Ciencia y Tecnología; y de Estudios Legislativos, Primera.

4.- Posteriormente, una vez constituidas estas mismas comisiones legislativas en la LX Legislatura, dieron inicio al proceso de análisis y consulta, a efecto de elaborar el dictamen correspondiente.

5.- Con fecha 7 de octubre de 2008, la Mesa Directiva del Senado de la República aprobó la participación de la Comisión de Hacienda y Crédito Público en el análisis del presente Dictamen, únicamente para emitir opinión.

6.- Con fecha 9 de octubre del presente año, las Comisiones Unidas de Ciencia y Tecnología y de Estudios Legislativos, Primera, aprobaron el dictamen por virtud del cual se crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana.

7.-En sesión ordinaria del día 4 de noviembre del año 2008 el pleno de la Cámara de Senadores aprobó por unanimidad con 85 votos a favor el dictamen que contiene el proyecto de Decreto por el cual se expide la Ley que crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana.

8.- En la fecha señalada en el numeral anterior, esta Cámara de Senadores envió a la colegisladora el expediente con la Minuta Proyecto de Decreto por el que se expide la Ley que crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana, turnándose ésta a las Comisiones Unidas de Ciencia y Tecnología; y de Presupuesto y Cuenta Pública.

C O N S I D E R A C I O N E S

PRIMERA.-El acelerado desarrollo científico y tecnológico a nivel mundial, obliga a nuestro país a dedicarle un lugar prioritario a la educación e investigación, impulsando y apoyando específicamente la Ciencia y la Tecnología como condición indispensable para garantizar la viabilidad futura de nuestro país como una nación desarrollada, libre y soberana.

SEGUNDA.- Los indicadores a nivel mundial comprueban que la inversión de recursos en ciencia y tecnología es un detonador económico, que no sólo estimula el crecimiento, sino además la productividad, la competitividad y el ingreso per cápita, lo cual redunda en creación de empleos de alto valor agregado y, por ende, en mayor bienestar para la sociedad.

TERCERA.- La creación de una Agencia Espacial Mexicana que cuente con el aval del gobierno mexicano permitiráal país integrarse a la Comunidad Espacial Internacional, con lo que se daría un paso adelante en crear las condiciones para contar en un corto plazo con tecnologías a las que, en otras condiciones, sólo podría tenerse acceso en el largo plazo. Del mismo modo, el funcionamiento de esta Institución trae aparejada al país beneficios en los sectores educativo, económico, social, industrial y ambiental, por otra parte su creación impulsará e incrementará las capacidades nacionales en materia científica y tecnológica.

CUARTA.- El rezago social y la pobreza en nuestro país deben atacarse con medidas que permitanavanzar en la creación de proyectos que estimulen las inversiones, el empleo y por lo tanto, la generación de riqueza, una Agencia Espacial en México no sólo permitirá el desarrollo de oportunidades para el valioso capital humano con el que contamos,sino también permitirá desarrollar proyectos que tendrán un impacto positivo en el desarrollo económico y social de las regiones donde se realizarán. Hay países como Perú, Paraguay, Nigeria, Turquía, Brasil, Argentina que ya cuentan con una agencia de este tipo y que los coloca en la posibilidad de realizar proyectos conjuntos con las grandes agencias espaciales del mundo desarrollado.

QUINTA.- Económicamente, de acuerdo a un estudio de NASA, por cada dólar invertido en proyectos espaciales, se obtienen siete en beneficio del sector privado y en aplicaciones que pueden ser comercializadas. Por su parte en China se ha comprobado que por cada dólar que se invierte en terreno espacial trae a la economía beneficios de impulso por un monto de 8 a14 dólares, más de 1,800 tecnologías espaciales han sido aplicadas en diferentes ramas de la economía nacional y, el 80% de los más de 1,100 nuevos materias desarrollados dominados en los últimos años fueron logrados bajo el impulso de la tecnología espacial.

SEXTA.- Gastamos más del 15% del PIB en dependencia tecnológica y alrededor del 1% del PIB en dependencia en el área espacial, por lo que nos hemos convertido en consumidores de tecnología en vez de desarrolladores.

SÉPTIMA.- Más que nunca y en el marco de la crisis económica mundial, es necesario emprender acciones que fomenten las actividades científicas y tecnológicas en el país. La inversión económica para la creación de la Agencia Espacial Mexicana es mínima en contraste con los resultados y beneficios que su puesta en marcha trae aparejada, se requieren de pocos recursos para un máximo desarrollo, su aprobación es urgente para revertir la caída en la competitividad mundial y la dependencia tecnológica a la que México ha estado sujeto.

Por lo anteriormente expuesto, y habiéndose cumplido el plazo que establece el artículo 87 del Reglamento para el Gobierno Interior del Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, en uso de las atribuciones que nos confiere la ley, nos permitimos solicitarle ciudadano Presidente, la propuesta de la siguiente:

EXCITATIVA

ÚNICA.Se turne la presente a la Cámara de Diputados, a fin de que la Mesa Directiva de la colegisladora excite a las Comisiones Unidas de Ciencia y Tecnología, y de Presupuesto y Cuenta Pública a efecto de que presenten a la brevedad el Dictamen relativo a la Minuta con Proyecto de Decreto que expide la Ley que crea la Agencia Espacial Mexicana, aprobada por la H. Cámara de Senadores el día 4 de Noviembre de 2008, y en caso de que las Comisiones no presenten el dictamen respectivo durante el presente periodo ordinario, se proponga un cambio de turno a otra Comisión de acuerdo con lo dispuesto por los artículos 21 fracción XVI y 87 del Reglamento para el Gobierno Interior del Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

ATENTAMENTE

SEN. FRANCISCO JAVIER CASTELLÓN FONSECA SEN. JESÚS MURILLO KARAM SEN. ÁNGEL HELADIO AGUIRRE RIVERO SEN. BEATRIZ ZAVALA PENICHE

Salón de Sesiones de la Cámara de Senadores del H. Congreso de la Unión, a los veintiséis días del mes de febrero de 2009.

Source: Gaceta del Senado

I hope this time you finally get it. - José Gnudista (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Flies and swine flu

I responded to your comments at Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Source_of_the_virus. I don't think that it has been demonstrated that flies are a realistic vector for influenza, but the paper I found is suggestive enough that I think the municipal agent's idea deserves fair consideration. We're not peer reviewers here. Mike Serfas (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Rowan Forest. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5