User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Curious rock shapes found on Mars?

Images (including image-1) of curious rock shapes (biological or geological?) taken by the Curiosity rover on Mars? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like old pasta to me. If nobody ate the pasta, does the cook exist? :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Crystaline formationS: [1]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link - yes - likely to be geological - not surprised of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Exoplanet page

Hello BI, I would like your opinion on the latest "edits" to the Exoplanet page. User: Fdfexoex deleted a paragraph which was properly referenced on what appeared to be a whim and their own opinion. I reverted back and asked that the matter be discussed on the Talk page. All they have done is reverted back without explanation. I have no intention of edit warring, but these actions appear to be arrogant. As you have had problems with this person before, I wonder if you have any views on whether this is worth taking further? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson:, @Drbogdan:. Hello. Yes, that user is a pain and unwilling to talk, other than a blurb in his summary edits. Having said that, myself have been tempted to delete that same section because the [usual] hearing is mentioned out of context. Basically, scientific institutions are asking for funding for investigators, tools, tech development, etc. so they had to show progress and future aims. All is standard procedure. Showed they are educating the populace on the scientific method and that the public can get excited, implying no opposition at funding space research and missions. They credited certain discoveries to specific grants. More powerful and larger space telescopes needed (after JWST) and whether the SLS rocket will help/suffice. It was not an "ET is coming" kind of hearing. Just the regular red-tape to get federal funding. I am OK with that deletion, not the way it was done. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again BI, letely understand your logic. It is just a pity that the user is so arrogant and I see problems on their account if they continue in this way. Anyway many thanks for your views. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that user's ability seems limited to large deletions without discussion. He is very obnoxious. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Meteorites contain complex organics?

FWIW - interesting science news (see copy below)? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Researchers reported that 4.5 billion-year-old meteorites found on Earth contained liquid water along with complex organic substances that may be ingredients for life."
(based on related entry at => Talk:2018 in science#Potential future entries)

@BatteryIncluded: BRIEF Followup (inspired to some extent from recent studies) - Just wondering: seems the traditional scientific view is that life (and/or related biological chemicals) developed in some way from a lifeless universe to a universe with life (ie, abiogenesis) - but what if this weren't true - what if such life chemicals were there at the get-go, at the big bang - as part of the natural content of this particular version of the universe - if true, seems this would challenge the notion of abiogenesis - at least to some extent I would think - after all - Occam's law of parsimony? - the simpler explanation with fewer assumptions? - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The current model states that the heavy elements had to be created inside stars, so right after the Big Bang they did not exist. It took time for stars to form, evolve, and die. Most elements (from oxygen, an carbon, through iron) were produced inside the stars and upon their explosion (supernovae). So I don't think the primordial soup or its components were at the beginning of the universe (Big Bang), it should have taken a very long time. Now, if your question leans toward a universe that always existed (Steady State theory), I think that model has been disfavored / disproved almost completely. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - and Excellent comments - yes - agreed of course - seems the better - and more favorable (and supported) view - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Regarding the compounds that led to abiogenesis on Earth, my money is in soft panspermia: comets delivering tholins, especially after the Earth cooled down. I think comets are organic compound factories that pollinate the universe. The synthesis of organic compounds happening on their icy surface is the catalyst for the molecular templates needed. And yes, I think it happened in many other habitable environments around other stars. 02:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes - your view re soft panspermia and tholins seems to be a worthy way of thinking about all this - I'm also aware of a Habitable epoch, not long after the Big Bang, which may figure into the overall understanding of the story in some way I would think - your comments are well-stated in any regards - Thanks - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Update on Jupiter Trojan Asteroid Explorer

Yesterday JAXA held the 18th Space Science Symposium at ISAS, Japan and the during the Solar Power Sail session, proposal lead Prof. Osamu Mori announced the new name for their spacecraft. They're now calling it OKEANOS, short for "Outsized Kite-craft for Exploration and AstroNautics in the Outer Solar system". So now the proposal finally has a short, proper name.

There's still no official document released about the name change (except this tweet from the official IKAROS twitter account), although JAXA usually releases presentation slides from SSS at the JAXA Repository website here, around March every year. Once the document is available, I'll update the article to the new name. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, per [2]. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: thank you for the update. It is interesting that now they make no mention of the optional lander. Should we delete it? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I overlooked another OKEANOS paper from the same conference. The one I linked above was about science during the cruise phase (hence no mention of a lander), while this one covers the overall mission concept and studies at the Jupiter Trojans. The lander seems to be baselined, although the sample return option is only mentioned as a 'Plan-B'. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

References

NF4 CAESAR proposal

Steve Squyres's presentation slides about CAESAR at the 18th Small Bodies Assessment Group last Wednesday has been posted online. Might be interesting to have a look. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For the new Wikipedia article Oceanus (Uranus orbiter), on behalf of the space writing community at Wikipedia and explorers everywhere, thank you. Fotaun (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		For the creation of RIMFAX and Mars Environmental Dynamics Analyzer articles!! I commend you on behalf of the spacecraft and Mars editing community at Wikipedia for starting these. Fotaun (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Exoplanet biosignatures

Seems there may be several worthy refs re detecting biosignatures on exoplanets - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Prion

Hi, I saw you left a message on the talk page of User:Rstuniverse saying their edits appear to constitute vandalism. I reviewed their edits however and believe they constitute original research but not vandalism, the only reverted edit thus far is done to prion. I explained to them that OR is not allowed on Wiki and may result in a block if done repeatedly. I told them to discuss any evidence on the talk page of the article as there is some evidence linking prions to Schizophrenia, and there is evidence linking Gender Dysphoria to Schizophrenia, therefore it is not a far stretch to conclude that transsexualism may be caused, at least in part by prions, however edits like that require reliable refs. Origonal research, although not allowed on Wikipedia, is not VandalismSpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your views on homosexuality as disease are yours. Regarding prions, I never saw research remotely linking prions to sexuality. I will revert again his bigotry and ignorance without a second thought, especially in a science article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The research is in Spanish, that's why, I read Wiki articles with chrome translator in many languages.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I am fluent in Spanish and French. A link will be appreciated. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article, it mentions Schizophrenia being linked to prions.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Schizophrenia may be linked (I have not reviewed the sources), as it affects the brain severely. But I still see no publications on a relationship between Prions and homosexuality. Google scholar has zero hits, so it is not even "original research", it is bigotry. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

February 2018

Your recent editing history at Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is an obligatory message. Template is required prior to a 3RR noticeboard report.

Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Instread of re-adding a low-quality opinion as a reference, you should acknowledge my multiple messages in the talk page that the car is NOT in Earth orbit, so your reference is useless. Gaming the system is not a replacement for a reliable source. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• You are now making personal attacks on other editors, such as here. You're insulting their intelligence when in fact it is you who has failed to grasp the simple idea of giving acknowledgement to significant points of view, even when we know they are in error. I think if you keep down this road you are at risk of being blocked form editing. See WP:NPA. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I am simply asking how can you understand that the car is sent on Earth escape trajectory. If you understand that, then why you push for a cheap source claiming that the sky is falling. I know you are gaming the system. I am building an article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I said that several times. Are you drunk? This looks like the work of a drunk person. Do you see what you just did? I suggest trying to calm down or sleep it off or whatever you need to do to get some perspective. You're doing battle over absolutely nothing. "Some people are afraid the car is a space hazard. But it's not, and here's why." What is so hard about saying such a simple thing in an article? You're on the verge of getting yourself blocked for no reason at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Complaining about what you perceive to be personal attacks and then insinuating that BatteryIncluded is drunk and needs to sleep it off is more than a little disingenuous, don't you think? Please drop the bad attitude. Cheers. nagualdesign 00:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 launch

T minus 6 minutes... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYq98o5YS-8 nagualdesign 01:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait, I think it's a repeat. Today's launch is several hours away. "(Feb. 25:) A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Hispasat 30W-6 communications satellite from Cape Canaveral, Florida at 12:35 a.m. EST (0535 GMT)." nagualdesign 01:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

DRN notice

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the classification of Falcon Heavy as a "heavy-lift" or "super heavy-lift" launch vehicle. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Falcon Heavy#Super-Heavy lift or not?". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG ^talk 02:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hispasat 30W-6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C band (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Mars done

Thanks for editing my Mars work, its an important part of a collaborative encyclopedia. I have not studied Mars One in detail, but was content to understand it as a dreamy but optimistic commercial plan. Your edits triggered me to spend more time looking at it and I did not realize what a disgusting mix of unfounded technical ideas, yet seriously taking peoples money and time it is. Pie-in-the-sky dreams are one thing but its disturbing how far they are taking this, and I think it may actually be a real threat to genuine Mars exploration. Across the board they demonstrate an almost criminal disregard for people's lives, glossing over major technical and logistical issues like power and water supply. Fotaun (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The founders have admitted that it is mostly fantasy, and even went on record stating that they want to profit from the public's enthusiasm to space travel with zero investment in technical developments. Yes, it is a scam, and even the TV reality show producers did not buy it! If it was up to me, the text would be a lot different, with less primary sourcing (Mars One sales pitch and references) and more reality. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Lets sit back and take big drink of coffee... on Mars!! Just bake some regolith using solar power in your buried can-house for water while using home-grown coffee beans. Just be sure to send a video clip to Earth for the next shipment of solar panels Fotaun (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

/sarcasm

Stopping by to say thanks for updating Mars One (again). Fotaun (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For updating, copyediting, and improving Mars One. Thanks on behalf of the Wikipedia. Fotaun (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted news about El Mencho

If is not relevant to the manhunt section, is not relevant also for another parts?--Alainbo (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alainbo: It is not clear to me what is your request. Yes, the death of Laguna is unrelated to the manhunt, and Laguna is one of several thousands low-profile victims killed in this war. If you really want that trivia back into the manhunt section, please feel free to revert it. I don't feel strongly either way. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I ask to you because you eliminate entirely the news and I demand to myself if deserved another parts to put it instead the elimination but if is good no problem :)--Alainbo (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, its may be used to illustrate the ruthlessness of the man at some stranger that criticized him in YouTube. I'll take another look. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tiangong-1

In response to your comment: Source: "Areas above or below these latitudes can be excluded. At no time will a precise time/location prediction from ESA be possible." Please do not indulge in false editorials and interpretations.)

What the source actually said, up until a few days ago, was The map below shows the relative probabilities of debris landing within a given region. Yellow indicates locations that have a higher probability while green indicates areas of lower probability. The image in question, which you can see here, has the northern and southern extremes of the range in yellow and the rest in green.

Similarly, http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2018/03/26/tiangong-1-frequently-asked-questions-2/ corroborates this: As you can see in the chart at right in the map above, the re-entry location itself is not uniformly distributed. Due to the geometry of the craft’s circular orbit, the probability of reentry happening at the maximum (42.8 degrees N) and minimum (42.8 degrees S) latitude are higher than at the equator. It then explains Because of the low eccentricity and non-polar inclination of the orbit (in other words, because the orbit of the space station around the Earth is circular and at an angle with respect to the equator), the space station spends more time near the edges of the band then it spends crossing the equatorial region of Earth. This leads to a higher likelihood of reentry occurring near the edges of the latitude band, i.e., the top and bottom of the band in the map above.

I don't want to perform a third revert on you, so I'll leave it up to you to restore the text and image that you removed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ahecht: The percentages were not referenced in the disputed version. Now you are showing [3] above, which seems to support it well. I will revert myself while adding this new reference. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Great work on Spaceflight! Fomeister (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

BFR

Hey Batt. Musk announced in Sep 2017 only 6 engines on the BRF spaceship; but SpaceX adjusted that upward by one just a few weeks later: so 7 on the spaceship and tanker. That is sourced to SpaceNews, which is a really solid source. NextBigFuture is a bit of a squirrelly source; I've personally found NBF articles written with near-verbatim paragraphs of my own prose, taken from Wikipedia.

Net: I don't know that a Feb2018 NBF source would, in my book, come even close to putting into question a SpaceNews source based on a SpaceX update on the number of engines. At least not without a SpaceX source saying they moved back to 6. YMMV. N2e (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I misread the report. I was expecting to see the word 'seven' or the number 7. So I looked for anything else stating the total. I self-reverted. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. N2e (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@N2e: I came across this unusual article by E. Berger (Ars Technica) with a sober perspective on politics, goals, budget, and leadership: [4]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead. Will add it to the reading list. N2e (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

i appreciate your contributions to science Ashtonpoch (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Ronz (talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. My apologies for all the miscommunication and misunderstanding. I appreciate your efforts to make the article encyclopedic. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

@Ronz: Thank you. Given I have volunteered at Wikipedia for more than a decade, some comments like that have a low threshold for conflict, but I should have handled that in a calm diplomatic manner -or even be amused- instead of being offended. Unlike NASA that must disclose its science and developments, a private aerospace company guards its information very closely, leaving the curious minds at the mercy of scant press releases. Peace, and thank you for your patience and hard work. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Substantial viruses falling from the sky?

IF Interested => scientists reported, for the first time, that 800 million viruses, mainly of marine origin, are deposited daily from the Earth's atmosphere onto every square meter of the planet's surface, as the result of a global atmospheric stream of viruses, circulating above the weather system, but below the altitude of usual airline travel, distributing viruses around the planet. - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I think that the Tanpopo experiment on the ISS may be able to capture some viral particles if they reach low Earth orbit. Besides space dust, the Tanpopo mission also has the capability to capture spacebourne organic molecules, so viruses should be detectable too. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your reply - and further comments - they're appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Plutonium-238

Hi. Could you please take a look at the latest edit to Plutonium-238, an article you've edited in the past? I discovered it when reverting an unsourced change to another article. I'm pretty sure it's wrong—certainly it's at least unnecessarily complicated—but being a mathematical dolt, I'd like someone knowledgeable to weigh in. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: - seems another editor rv the incorrect edit - if interested - see the following sources => https://www.isotopes.gov/catalog/product.php?element=Plutonium & https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEGTN0NEAC_PU-238_042108.pdf - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch:, :@Drbogdan:Yes, Half life of 87.7 years is correct. Good catch of an old vandalism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Europa Clipper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EELV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Touching base

Hi. I'm reaching out because I was really taken aback by this edit summary. I'm just trying to make sure the entry is as accurate and conforms as closely to policy as possible, and in my eyes amending close paraphrasing is really plainly in the scope of that aim.
As for the status of the canal, it's really quite important we get it exactly right. Because the canal entry presented it as "cancelled", several other entries on events in Nicaragua followed suit and characterized it as "cancelled" alongside descriptions of the recent social security reforms as "cancelled". As a legal matter, one is and the other is not and in the current situation, getting the distinction right matters. I agree with you that the canal is almost certainly never going to happen; however the legislation permitting it and other projects is still in place, and lots of activists regard this as a going concern (as indicated in several of the sources you cited), and consequently relevant to other political questions: making it really essential to represent all this with precision. I don't know what's raised the hostility but I'm only interested in making the entries as accurate as possible and I hope we can sort it out to work constructively to that end. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should not delete sourced information, such as the Public Relations Office closed for nothing to report. If not hostility, it is bias by censuring well sourced fact under the pretext of a spurious copyvio. On the other matter, the sources do not say "cancelled", but they ALL say things like dead, defunct, abandoned, finished, forgotten, etc. which comes to the same effect. If you want to make the legal statement that it has not been formally stamped by both parties as officially cancelled, be my guest. In fact open a new section to that effect, because the Central American newspapers and magazines (mostly in Spanish language) are talking about possible future enforcement of land expropriation under this contract but for uses other than the intended canal (read corruption). So, saying that the canal is still viable/alive gives the elite room for legalized land grabs (still corruption). That is one of the patterns of corruption in Latin American countries, and likely to repeat. Unfortunately, these reports are opinions or assessments by observers, and Wikipedia zealots would delete it as "rumors" (WP:NOTRUMOUR). What I see is that you promote and repeat the propaganda in Wikipedia that the canal work is active, well, and ongoing, while you censure a credible source stating that there has never been any work done and there is nothing to report. Instead of deleting your repeating the propaganda, I added a sourced counterpoint, which you deleted. That, in my experience in Wikipedia is BS, so I labelled it as such in my summary. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously please take it down a notch; you don't even have to WP:AGF, bare civility will suffice because we agree on the substance. My edit summary specifically said I was about to add it back in rephrased. I was in the process of doing so when your revert edit-conflicted my addition so I came here to discuss. I think your idea for an additional section about the continued legal issues about land use flowing from the original canal legislation is a very good one and I'm actually not concerned about whether we have adequate sourcing for it; like I say, you've cited numerous sources that mention how it continues to be a subject of activism in the country. We don't disagree here. Let's please try to work civilly. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there a "civil" way to delete someone else' sourced info that contradicts the propaganda? I rather edit that article than play wikidramas. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how many ways to say, for a third time, that the very next thing I was going to do was add it back in rephrased to satisfy WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE so I will take your suggestion we focus on editing the entry and just go ahead with that. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Proceed then. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Mars sample return mission

IF Interested, new references, added to the "Mars sample return mission" article, seem worthy - iac - Enjoy! :)

@Drbogdan: Robert Walker / Robert Inventor has been in a years-long campaign in WP ringing the alarm on the impending Apocalipse by Martian microbes. He is not a scientist and certainly not a biologist. His blog is POV and not reliable. That is the reason I deleted it from the article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, yes there are precautions to be taken regarding planetary protection and the center that will receive the samples has not been built yet. That center does not require of new technology development, meaning, we know how to contain bacteria and viruses; it happens daily in Biohazard Level 4 facilities around the world. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Recent news ref of possible interest? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, its good new the TGO has started its science phase. In Tweeter they said they took the first occultation measurements last weekend and are analysing the data. It is an extremely sensitive payload but also the methane release may be episodic, so it will be quite exciting to follow the developments. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

FINESSE, CASE, and ARIEL

A comment on some of your recent edits regarding ARIEL and FINESSE; the team working on the FINESSE MIDEX-9 proposal is also the team behind NASA's proposed contribution to the ARIEL mission. The latter proposal is known as CASE (Contribution to ARIEL Spectroscopy of Exoplanets), and was selected along with ISS-TAO, COSI-X as a finalist for the next Explorers program Mission of Opportunity.[5] This was on the condition that ESA selects ARIEL as the Cosmic Vision M4 mission.[6] Meanwhile, according to this presentation by the FINESSE/CASE team, NASA stated that FINESSE will be terminated if ARIEL-CASE is selected.

As you well know, ARIEL was selected by ESA last month, which means CASE has met its condition. CASE will be funded, and FINESSE will drop out from the MIDEX-9 selection (meaning it's now a race between Arcus and SPHEREx). The problem is, there has been no new information from NASA thus far after ARIEL's selection. So there is no way to confirm FINESSE's current situation, and whether CASE will be funded or not. I've refrained from editing about this matter as it is still an assumption. Perhaps time will tell. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: Wow! You are in the loop. That is a lot for me to digest, please go ahead with the corrections and updates. I'll try to catch up and support your edits. I appreciate it. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

alternate account

Is Rowan Forest (talk · contribs) your account? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Yes. I am trying to if not redirect, at least make the disclosure. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why didn't you just rename the account? I.e., WP:RENAME. It's not too late, they can overwrite (see usurpations at the bottom of the article). Tarl N. (discuss) 00:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm locked out. I received a message within Wikipedia that there was an attempt to hack my account and that I should change my password just in case. When I tried that, it all went downhill from there, as never received a confirmation to my email and had to wait 24h for each try. It is frustrating; I don't know which of my 3 email addresses I used back in 2006 to sign up and none of those received a confirmation email, so I'm opening a new one to keep on going. It seems all robot controlled, but if you could guide me I'd be glad to rename it instead of opening a new account. CHeers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I did change my password successfully, but on my next session the system asked me to log in again and I forgot certain characters of my password. When I used the function "Forgot my password", the system stated that a message was sent to my e-mail to reset my password, but I don't know which e-mail I used back in 2006. I have 3 of them and none has received a message from Wikipedia. Also for each try I have to wait 24h for another try. That is why I opened another account, but if I could revive my account and rename it I'd be pleased. CHeers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, despite his username, is a human editor. Septrillion (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, yikes. Yeah, I got the notification that someone tried to log into my account too, and I changed my password just to be sure. I assume someone was just trying every account in existence with some stupid password. In any case, if your password changed fouled up, there's not really much you can do yourself beyond asking for a password change, which it sounds like you did. Either it went to an account you no longer have, or the system is backed up. I just sent you an email (via wikipedia), which shows you did have an email address specified. If it appears somewhere for you, that tells you what email address Wikipedia has registered for you. It could be just that the password change system is backed up. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 01:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I got a copy of the email Wikipedia sent for me (so Wikipedia sent it), but it (obviously) doesn't tell me anything about what address it sent it to. I will comment on Ninja's comment below, I don't think checkusers are allowed to do verify two accounts are from the same IP unless abuse is occurring. Quote: Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry. Ninja isn't a checkuser himself, so he might be overestimating what they are allowed to do (and I'm not an admin, so I could be underestimating). Tarl N. (discuss) 01:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

On the internet, you never really know who's a human. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything I can do. I could connect the two accounts via the checkuser tool, which would give your claim legitimacy. But I can't see what email address you set in your preferences, and I can't reset your password. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: yes, I am a checkuser. And, you're not – so I think maybe you need to butt out of this discussion. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I didn't see anything in your usergroups saying checkuser, and since I recall you being a relatively recent admin (Yikes. Not that recent, it's been over a year), I evidently made a bad assumption. I'll butt out. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I thank everyone for your input. I have not received the intra-mail from Tarl N, so I am hoping the system is backed up, but somehow I doubt, it as I've been at it since Thursday and none of my 3 e-mail accounts have anything from Wikipedia. If I am not able to rename it (reset password) then the "checkuser tool" thingie you mentioned seems like the best next thing to move on. It is embarrassing to change my password and then forget the fine details of it. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: what worried me initially was that someone was trying to impersonate the BatteryIncluded account by setting up a fake alternate account. The checkuser tool could show that's not the case. But beyond that, it wouldn't accomplish much, unfortunately. If you don't get any emails after a few hours, and you'd like someone to connect the accounts, I could try to do it. Just ping me or leave a message on my user talk page. It seems to me that it's really you, so I doubt anyone else would bother you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am not sure what is involved in "connect the accounts" but it ssounds like the best choice now. Please tell me how to proceed. Thank you. 184.158.80.196 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC) (Rowan Forest (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC))

@Rowan Forest: well, for what it's worth, I can say Rowan Forest is almost certain to be BatteryIncluded. Unfortunately, that's about the best I can do for you. However, I could restore all your permissions (autopatrolled, etc), if you'd like? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for verifying me through 'checkuser'. Yes, restoring the special permissions would be nice help. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, you now have autopatrolled, rollbacker, pending changes reviewer, and extended confirmed. If anyone gives you trouble, just send them to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers! Rowan Forest (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, Tarl N., and Rowan Forest: FWIW - Wikipedia also emailed me several times in the past month re hacking attempts on my account (ie, "User:Drbogdan") - don't recall receiving any such emails ever before (over 12 years) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Everyone: there has been a mass hacking attempt affecting numerous random users going on for some days now. There is a thread about it including an official statement and some updates from WMF on the administrators' noticeboard. It's not likely that BatteryIncluded/Rowan Forest's problem is related to that, just a bit of poor credential management (no offense intended, we've all done it). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the following graph may give some idea of recent failed login attempts => failed login attempts graph - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

2,000 attempts per minute; I'm not a techie but I think it has to be automated. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)