Jump to content

User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Here's a token of gratitude for your incredible work in the Mexican Drug War articles throughout the years. You made all of this possible. I hope to someday be at par with your work. Anyways, thanks again and stay in touch! ComputerJA (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Did You Know

I've nominated Mars Geyser Hopper for DYK here Secretlondon (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Titan

I've reverted some of your changes. Please, before you revert them back, have a look at the other atmosphere articles, such as atmosphere of Earth or Atmosphere of Mars and see what is and isn't in them. Climate is of course related to atmosphere, but it is also related to axial tilt, volcanism and many other elements. Usually, planets get their own "climate" article distinct from the atmosphere article. Whether it is time to break off Climate of Titan is a separate issue, but not related to atmosphere. Serendipodous 17:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted before you sent this message. Please stand by and continue discussion. No edit war is needed. So far, my intention is to make the article easier to read (using (WP:SUMMARY) as it is way too long and there is already an article on the atmosphere. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at the concepts you mention. I'm OK with that if you consider that is the norm in astrogeology. Since the Titan article is too long, I don't mind moving that information to a new article, as su suggest Climate of Titan". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is that climate should not be in an article on the atmosphere. It should be in its own article, or left in the main article. Serendipodous 17:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'n not writting about the underground climate, but the atmospheric. I sincerely do not comprehend your logic (or such Wikipedia convention) but given that you are a good established editor, I will just let it rest in your capable hands. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:79.106.106.22

Hello! I noticed on the talk page for IP 79.106.106.22 that you linked to a sockpuppet investigation involving that particular IP address. I thought you might be interested to know that the IP is once again falsifying music album ratings and performing arbitrary changes like before. I just spent the past couple of hours going through his edits and undoing what I could, then posted corresponding warnings to the talk page.

I also suspect that this user is the same one as IP 79.106.106.234 (talk), who is also engaging in an identical pattern of disruptive edits. I haven't reported either IP to an administrator because it's been less than a day since I posted warnings to both talk pages, and as I understand it, I'm supposed to wait a day or two in order to ensure the user(s) has a chance to read the warnings. Please advise how I should follow up in this case. — 173.60.134.88 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is one user that administrators do not seem interested in. When they do block his address is for 24 hr only. He is a disease with the blessing of Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a question about La Línea

Hey bro, sorry to bother but I simply wanted to know if you knew anything about La Línea's foundation. The article says it was founded in 1987 but I couldn't find a single source backing that up. All I know is that it was originally set up by policemen, and that from 2008 and on it was VCFO's armed wing. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a mistake. The cartel was founded by Amado Carrillo Fuentes in 1993 under the tutelage of his uncle. La Linea came long after that, but I was not able to find out when. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! I'll see what I can do. Take care. ComputerJA (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Talk:Mars Science Laboratory.
Message added 14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you have previously commented on proposed Move of this article, you might want to weigh in on a discussion I started on the Talk page. Cheers. N2e N2e (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity rover

Hey Batt, did you split it? I can't find the Curiosity rover lengthy article you were going to split. N2e (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just found it. Thanks. N2e (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
And someone has (helpfully) renamed the article already, and completed an article MOVE: was "Curiosity" rover; now Curiosity rover, which is what I thought was the result of the consensus in the first place. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Great work on the split rover article, Batt. Thanks for your contribution to making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! N2e (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Where to put the rover data?

Hey Batt, you said a few weeks ago (on the MSL Talk page): "Although short missions such as the Pathfinder and Phoenix lander are best covered within one article, we now know from long-duration missions such as the Viking Program and Spirit/Opportunity rovers, that the scientific data generated will be vast, and in those missions, separate articles on their findings/results were useful. Such new article's title may incorporate the word "results" or something like "scientific information from the MSL" or "Findings by the Curiority rover", or Curiosity rover planetary science" in its title."

Well, just wanted to let you know that another editor has asked a question about that on the Curiosity rover Talk page, and I created a section to begin discussing it. Please weigh in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Great job on the article split (of Mars Science Laboratory) and the creation of Curiosity rover article. As a result, they both look really good just nine hours after the successful Mars landing! N2e (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How to cover the rover role in the landing system

Hey Batt, I noticed you changed the section title Rover role in the landing system to Landing, with the edit comment: "simplify". I agree that the section title I had put in was a little clunky. But I'm trying to keep that section from re-ballooning out to cover all of the (very interesting, novel, etc.) aspects of the complicated landing that was effected by the MSL spacecraft—and specifically, by the MSL spacecraft descent stage—which is already fully covered in the MSL article. I believe that, for future CR editors, when they see the simple word "landing" as the scope of the section, will balloon the section with lots of non-rover related landing prose.

So, assuming I'm on to something here, and "Landing" may not be the best section title, but also that "Rover role in the landing system" is a bit clunky, what other ideas do you have? If we can come up with a good title, we might also want to add a hidden note to editors about the distinction between the coverage of the two articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your purpose now and I agree that with my edit, its content may baloon to include the whole MSL system. I will revert my edit to the previous title. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking this one through with me. I also added a hidden note to the section, which might help some attentive editors not expand the scope of that section too carelessly. N2e (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Life on Mars

Just to note that you shouldn't remove the otheruses tag ([1]), as there are many other uses of this term; indeed, this one isn't even the most viewed article, and Life on Mars should really be a dab page. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I meant to remove the "outdated" tag and I did not notice it was together with 'otherusers' on the same line. Thank you for catching that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Article scope discussion

Hey Batt. In the discussion on Talk:Mars_Science_Laboratory#Scope_of_article, if I am interpreting your comment correctly, you are saying the scope should be limited to only the spacecraft and the spaceflight, and not the entire MSL mission. If that is so, would you mind if I put

  • 1, and 2 ...

or maybe

  • topics 1, and 2 ...

or maybe

  • Limit the article scope to topics 1, and 2 ...

in front of your comment? I think it would make it more clear for the discussion, and I'm trying to get more editors involved so we will have a meaningful consensus develop. I think the clarity may help others give clear input as well. (or, should you agree, feel free to mod your comment yourself; then whatever format you use, I'll use for my comment too.) That's all for now. Cheers, N2e (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Will do. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight

You have made so many useful edits to the spacecraft/spaceflight article at Mars Science Laboratory, you should consider joining the lot of us who are working to improve spaceflight-related articles at WikiProject Spaceflight. You would be welcome to do so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission

Hi, since you've been helping with trying to get user Havebased123 and his IP addresses to communicate in any fashion whatsoever, I thought I might enlist your help in watching out for edits to both the Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission and the Curiosity rover articles containing information obviously provided by this user which may be added to the Sockpuppet investigation here: [2]. I'm starting to suspect it is actually an experienced user (knows exactly when to stop reverting and skip to an anonymous IP to avoid being blocked), and may be someone from NASA or JPL itself. Either way, abusing multiple accounts to circumvent being blocked, not communicating with other editors when reverting, and ignoring or blanking all maintenance templates will at some point have to have a cumulative effect of getting this user blocked. I believe the content may, at some point, be worth the trouble. Getting there via ignoring most guidelines on Wikipedia is not a tenable situation. Perhaps when it is discovered this user is abusing multiple accounts, and is temporarily blocked, the importance of edit summaries and discussion will be made more clear to this user. Let me know what you think. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is very stressful to me dealing with edit warriors, I was assuming good faith and that he is simply a newbie, but yes, I can keep an eye open and colaborate with the sock puppet investigaation. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh man! Now I know what you mean. I just took a look at his edits and, yes, he has escalated to a behavior not consistent to a newbie's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. I will b out enjoying my family for the rest of the day, and tonight I'll login and see what I can do to stop this user. By the way, there is no way a person with such IQ was working for NASA, at least not outside their parking lot. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The article has been slapped with a WP:PROD template for an AfD deletion by a different editor. I'm actually conflicted. At first I was completely against the article, but I am beginning to see its potential value, although perhaps not in its current form. I suppose if it is deleted, it can be re-created in some form later, but I'd hate to lose all the work, links, etc. I'm going to copy the code version of the article as it stands now, and keep it for future reference, just in case it is deleted. Cheers. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I quite dislike that article's format and skimpy content. Deletion may be the solution as someone thinks he has ownership over it; We'd need to put the new one online soon after the deletion. Copy the code and lets work on a draft in one of our user pages or talk pages. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Our rouge friendjust started a war edit with User:Fram, an administrator.  :) BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Fram is legendary for being a champion of stub and to-be-developed articles. If you want to get on that admin's delete list, you really have to wake up early in the morning and work hard. We appear to be in complete agreement as to the bits which can be saved. I have saved the code, and we can work on it when there is more content. The user(s) definitely need a wake up call, because the current process is a nightmare of disruption for the community. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 00:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hey Batt, in this edit [3] of yours, I prefer the previous version in almost each way:

  • I've been trying to distinguish between the spaceflight/spacecraft mission and the rover-on-the-planet articles. In my view, since the two are often confused, and the two terms are often used interchangeably, it does no good to say This article is about [TITLE OF ARTICLE] It is precisely the title of the article that is often confused with the "Curiosity rover"
  • I think the Atmospheric entry article does a much better job of explicating the frictional effects of atmospheric entry than does the friction article.
  • "The Curiosity payload is about twice as long and five times as heavy as the Spirit and Opportunity Mars exploration rover payloads of earlier U.S. Mars missions" is better, in my opinion than "Curiosity is about twice as long and five times as heavy as the Spirit and Opportunity Mars exploration rovers." precisely because THIS article (MSL) is about the spacecraft, not the rover payload. Thus, the payload of the spacecraft should be clarified as such because it is in A DIFFERENT WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE (Curiosity rover) where we would expect to find rover to rover comparisons. When we compare things in the spacecraft/spaceflight article, we ought to compare article-related relevant items: ergo, the payloads that the spacecraft can carry.

I'd be happy to start another conversation on the article Talk page, but I think you and I already weighed in on that question, and thought that the MSL article ought to be about the spaceflight and spacecraft, NOT the rover (in the main). What do you think? I'll monitor this page for your thoughts. N2e (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW!!!! It took me a while to figure what happened there because I do not remember doing those edits. I was brousing a total of 6 revisions done by an AP which cought my attention because that editor did 6 sequential "undo" of your edits. When i saw the 'spinning keeps the forward momentum' portion I blew a fuse and I don't remember what buttons I pressed. I think it was simply "undo", thing is I forgot I was looking at intermediate revisions and messed up the corrections that you and other editors did to that AP user. Later I broused the history again and saw other incongruencies that I did not understand and tried to fix them, and now I know is because of the "undo" I did of an old revision.
I apologize to you and will do to everyone else. Yes, we are in the same "page" as to the the difference between MSL and Curiosity content. I was tired and I did not pay attention to what I did. I had a good night sleep and I hope I will be a useful editor again.
CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries, man. That's why I asked. We are definitely on the same page.
And your are doing awesome work on both articles! N2e (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


Potential addition to Curiosity rover article

I found this story, which I thought was intriguing. This is really the kind of "cultural impact" I'd like to see on the article. What do you think? New ScientistOliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, include it! This is one more example of the kind of spin-off technology stimulated by aerospace. I bet it is not the only one prompted by the MSL. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put it on my to do list. The instrument they are talking about as the inspiration is most likely the APXS, right? OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Done, I'll take another look tomorrow when I've had more sleep. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
They must be talking about the Chemin as the Chemin is described as "X-ray diffraction and X-ray fluorescence" and the new instrument is described as "An X-ray diffraction and fluorescence" Nice job! BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I'm a bit confused, although this is nothing new. The description of the Chemin states that it: The rover will drill samples into rocks and the resulting fine powder will poured into a instrument via a sample inlet tube on the top of the vehicle. The powder is introduced into an inlet (like for SAM). Piezo driven actuators at the base of the funnel shake and sift soil probes into the spectrometers for analysis. The inlet design of CheMin and SAM was validated using laser vibrometers. A beam of X-rays is then directed at the powder while additional piezo actuators vibrate it, and the crystal structure of the minerals deflects the X-rays at characteristic angles, allowing scientists to identify the minerals being analyzed."
This would seem to not correspond to the information about not destroying or cutting samples to determine composition. The APXS description mentioned "composition" specifically: The device will irradiate samples with alpha particles and map the spectra of X-rays that are re-emitted for determining the elemental composition of samples.[63] This seemed to be closer to the process which was described. I'll look for additional sources, to be sure, but one clue is the company: inXitu, which I seem to remember a debate about whether they should be included somewhere. That might help. I'll try to dig it up to, after dinner. The source material may also be somewhat confused, as it is suspicious that they didn't even mention the instrument by name. Thanks for keeping me honest. ;0) OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You got a point in that the technology is now used for studyign art because of its non-destructive capability. You may be on to the APXS after all. Let me kow what comes of it. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct! I checked the inXitu website, and they specifically mentioned the owner winning an award for the "powder vibration chambers" and go on to clarify. I will change the existing information and add the source for the new information. I was hoping to work on the article all weekend, but got dragged into the vandalism on the Paul Ryan article. Thanks for your help! OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a fantastic entry you did and a landmark example of technology impacting art and history. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
My guess is that the CheMin has always been non-destructive, but was too large to place in the arm along with the smaller tools. So a sample had to be retrieved and brought to it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

CR & MSL

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Talk:Curiosity rover.
Message added 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would appreciate you looking in on this topic, and consider commenting. Same editor removed the consensus-hatnotes from both the MSL and the CR articles. I was thinking of doing WP:BRD, reverting then discussing, but decided I would leave that evaluation for other editors to consider. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the hatnote served its purpose well. The lines were drawn, the strategy implemented and therefore both articles are currently well defined in scope. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Batt. I see you fixed the hatnote issue, per consensus, on the CR page.
The same editor deleted the hatnote on MSL about the same time, 5 or so days ago. You might want to look into that as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

CheMin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CCD
Curiosity rover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pedology
Mars Science Laboratory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pedology

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline code (old version)

Code of the old MSL timeline version - set as invisible text.

Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission

Although I don't object to your page move, the move isn't mandated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission. Deryck C. 20:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I know it is not mandated, it was the only consensus reached during the AfD and a gramatical improvement. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical biochemistry

Thanks for your very encouraging comment on my talk page. I'd been meaning to do some work on that article for some time. Was finally challenged into action by the tags you put on it a month or so ago... You were right on target, in what you said then in your note to other editors at the top of the page – a WP article about hypothetical questions does have the same need of references as any other WP article. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at ComputerJA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
RED RAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOD WORK. Harishrawat11 (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving sources

Hello.

I'm not sure if you're interested, but I've been using WebCite and WayBack Machine to archive sources (WebCite and WBM). I grew pretty annoyed when valuable references were no longer available, so I've been sticking to archiving them every time I add a source. Perhaps you might find it useful for your current projects. Just a suggestion. Good day. :) ComputerJA (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I never thought of that. I will look into it. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


A Marstar for you!

The Mars Star
For creating numerous articles related to Mars, improving content, and encouraging other editors. Happy 2013! Fotaun (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

..and for good measure the "Space Barnstar":

The Space Barnstar
Long overdue. Thank you for your contributions. Fotaun (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Journal of Cosmology Entry.

Hello BatteryIncluded: I *entirely* agree w/ your edit re the recent Journal of Cosmology entry in the Panspermia article - maybe (if possible) take a look at the similar entry in the Extraterrestrial Life and Diatom articles as well? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! -BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nomination Notice

I know in the past you have shown an interest in Mexican drug cartel articles. Just wanted to make you aware that a number of photos of Mexican drug lords have been nominated for deletion, and you may want to voice your opinion -- whether in favor or against, of course -- at the delete nomination page. The images are these:

and their collective deletion nomination page / delete discussion page is as follows:

Also,

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello Mercy11, and thank you for requesting my feedback. I am retired from that subject and most importantly, I fought that battle before: Who owns the rights of a mug-shot image? The criminal or the society? It went nowhere. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk)
Humm, in that case, you might be open to the idea of helping in the saving of the images in question and their source URLs so they could be available for uploading onto the English Wikipedia later under a Fair Use license??? Thanks for your earlier thoughts, Mercy11 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Chelyabinsk meteor

Minor correction - you cite 1kg or iron as occupying 0.127 m^3. Wrong unit, that's 0.127 liter, or 0.000127 m^3. I changed the Wiki article to reflect 10,000 tons again. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please review your math. Start by Googling the density of iron. Besides, are you reading the references? Reuters, Associated Press, Time, Washington Post quote 10 tons. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way - I realize you're almost certainly asleep at this time - if Reuters, AP, Time, and Washington Post all say one thing about a breaking-news astronomical event and NASA says something else, I know which one got it right. In such a case, it's necessary to sanity check to defend against a typo, but two independent calculations (energy release and volume-to-mass) produce figures around 10,000 tons rather than 10 tons. Your original error was coming up with a volume of 0.127 m3 for a kilogram of iron. That's the volume of a *ton* of iron. Or the volume of a kilogram, in liters. Regards. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed my math. Slow down and check your own math - find a reference giving iron in density per cubic meter, they aren't very common. Much more common is gram per cubic centimeter. See Iron - density of 7.8 g/cm^3. Conversion of cubic centimeter to cubic meter is a factor of a million (100^3 gives 1e6). 7.8 million grams is 7800 kilograms is 7.8 tons. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Reference. Multiply 7800 kilograms per cubic meter by 2500-odd cubic meters, you get 19,500,000 kilograms. 19,500 tons. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Look, yes I am quite tired and cranky. At least we are crunching numbers, which is the definite way to figure this as supposed as using opinions. I will call it the day and take a fresh look tomorrow. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Assuming 3400 kg or 3.4 tonnes per cubic metre (water is 1 tonne/m3)...
2570 m3 * 3400 kg/m3 = 8 800 000 kilograms
2570 m3 * 3.4 tonnes/m3 = 8 800 tonnes
That's close enough to "10 000 tonnes" for me. -- 79.70.229.101 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:2013 Russian meteor event, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Auric talk 14:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I told that user that it happened during an edit conflict, where we both were typing at the same time on the same subject. If you want to throw the book around, have this one: Please asume good faith before asuming vandalism. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry about that. I was indeed assuming good faith, as I used the level one warning. I saw your explanation and was about to remove the warning when you replied. --Auric talk 14:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Have a nice weekend. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Talk:2013 Russian meteor event.
Message added 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See the section: Lead: Meteor, asteroid vs. meteoroid. Cheers. — N2e (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

—again. N2e (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers

I had wondered where all the incorrect information in the papers was coming from. I see now that some of it is copied straight from Wikipedia. There are more stories printed with garbage than with real facts. Perhaps the Wikipedia article should simply be altered to report what the majority of newspapers have reported? Who cares about the truth? -- 86.150.33.145 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like there is a world-wide conspiracy against you. :-) Whatever the news title, we are not reporting that, but te facts. Where in the article it is stated that a human was hit by a meteorite? Please slow down and use common sense. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For finally adding the sources. I know it must have hurt. Hope your hemorrhoids heal real soon. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comments.

Thank you for your recent comments re the NIH Study in the Astrobiology article - your comments are *very much* appreciated - at the moment, I'm favorably impressed with the NIH Studies and thought citing them worthy for several articles (esp Abiogenesis, Astrobiology, Biogenesis, Extraterrestrial life, Evolution, Life, Panspermia) - however, perhaps a better placement (or none at all) may be better? - I'm entirely flexible w/ this - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to specify that it is a hypothesis. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment - and your excellent re-worded text on the Astrobiology article - no problem whatsoever - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You are always so kind and open minded. I enjoy working with you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're appreciated - you may (or may not) be interested in the following discussion re the Sharov material - present consensus seems to favor removing the text/ref from articles? - which is *entirely* ok with me - although the original write-up may still be ok I would think - in any case - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Elba Esther Gordillo

I reverted the comment about organized crime; I don't see a reference for it. The charges presented that I've seen have all been "desvio de recursos" (meaning embezzlement). It's understood that politics in Mexico is a rough business, but I haven't seen official organized crime charges. We have to be careful - this *is* still under WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see the organized crime reference (#3) in the infobox: http://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2013/02/27/886439 "Los delitos: 1. Violación a la Ley Federal Contra la Delincuencia Organizada

In English: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21597680 Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Gordillo

Hey. Thanks for updating Gordillo's page. I've been quite busy this week, but I hope to chip in a bit by the end of the week, if I can. Hope you have a good weekend. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Good to hear from you. Que tengas un buen fin de semana. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Astrobiology template

Battery, your template merge proposal on the Astrobiology template is now at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 3. Please comment on your proposal there. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Russian meteor event requested move

You may have participated in a prior informal discussion on changing the title of 2013 Russian meteor event.

This discussion has been closed in favor of a formal Requested Move.

You are invited to comment on the formal discussion here.

Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Talk:Chelyabinsk meteor.
Message added 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WikiProject:Indian Space Programme

Hello my dear co-editor!
Gaurav Pruthi and I have been thinking over starting a WikiProject for the Indian Space Program. If you are interested in taking part in the discussion regarding the WikiProject, please do leave a message here.
Regards.
Jayadevp13 (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Jayadevp13's talk page.
Message added 04:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Re: User talk:Drbogdan#Lake Vostok

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Drbogdan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drake equation

Hi,Just to let you know, I have replied to your comments on the Drake equation Talk page. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for msg on my Talk Page. Will look forward to your revisions. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Howdy! It's been a while since we've had a chance to chat or work together. I was invited to help out on the Navcam stub, and I started with adding a See also section, and a few tidbits from the Curiosity rover article which were relevant. If you happen to find any relevant information while doing other work on space/Mars articles that might be helpful, I was wondering if you could remember the poor lonely orphan Navcam article? ;0)

Sure I will keep my eyes open for any Navcam info. At the moment I am researching and working on a draft for the Drake equation article, so don't expect to hear from me in a few weeks. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey, Nazario Moreno González article has been nominated as a Good Article. You have over 60 contributions in the article, so here's a cold one as a sign of gratitude. ComputerJA (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the credit and dedication is all yours. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-cellular life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi BatteryIncluded, I had a great time editing Wikipedia. Hope you too will be helpful for me.Benisonpanthaplackal (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Behavior on Talk:Life on Mars

I don't mean to be insulting, nor condescending; I see that you have been an active editor nearly as long as I have, so I'm trying to treat you with respect. However, I find your behavior on Talk:Life on Mars to be nothing short of appalling. You are consistently insulting, rude, demeaning, presumptive of bad faith, and dismissive of the other editor's intelligence and abilities.

I don't care what cause this editor has given for you to feel this way; your expression of these attitudes is inappropriate, and is not the behavior of a mature editor who understands the nature of WP. Even assuming for argument that you are correct in every detail, and the other editor is wrong, I'm afraid it is he who is displaying by far the more mature and reasonable attitude; it is he who comes off the more intelligent in those exchanges. Again, I don't know about and don't care about the substance of your disagreement. And believe me, I do understand the frustration that can come about; I've been involved in a few of these situations myself. But none of that excuses your behavior, for the simple fact that you so clearly know better, and are capable of better.

Perhaps you should take a break from discussion with this User Robert Walker. You do not seem to have any apparent ability to respond reasonably to him. Again, I'm not trying to insult or disparage you, but I am standing in judgement of your behavior, which is really quite bad. Please try to avoid insulting other editors, regardless of how richly they may seem to deserve it. It just isn't helpful for WP. Thanks in advance, and thanks for all your contributions to WP over the years. Eaglizard (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As a good religious zealot, you engaged your mouth before your brain. The difference between me and Walker (&you), is that I did investigate the subject and the POV policy before engaging in worthless judgments. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I bent over backwards trying not to insult you, and you answer me with nothing but insults. You just don't understand how Wikipedia works. If you continue to misunderstand this point, if you continue to break what could be the most important rule of WP editing, then you will continue to have problems with other editors. As soon as I come to a line that says 'Batteriesblahblah is <doing something bad>' or 'Blahblah Walker has tried to <do something bad>', I immediately stop reading your posting, and pretty much forget any good points you may have made about the article. Personal attacks on anyone (no matter how well-deserved) will almost always alienate most editors. If you want respect from the majority of WP editors, you must stop talking about people's motives and intelligence. And you must stop insulting people. Period. Eaglizard (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • are not dark because of being wet.<ref name=voanews/> A flow initiated by salty water [[brine]]) could rearrange grains or change surface roughness in a way that darkens the appearance. How the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Special 26 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2-second-highest-grosser-of-2013/ Aashiqui 2 Second Highest Grosser Of 2013, Beats Special 26] (May 20, 2013</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Concerns for an early Mars sample return for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return 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/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Warren Platts (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Water on Mars

Hi there,

Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts on Water on Mars. I've been meaning to do pretty much exactly what a quick scan tells me you've just done for this article for literally two years!

Hopefully I can find some time this week to look over the text for any errors/confusing parts that might have snuck in in the restructuring, and to help with any firefighting you might have to do regarding complaints on content thinning.

Thanks again! DanHobley (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, this article needs fresh eyes! Especially from someone familiar with the subject like you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rowan_Forest/Archive_6&oldid=1139333015"