User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Hello again. If I could, I wanna ask about 1 another problem. Sb has added biological dark matter to Organism template. It is controversial to me, but sth has interested me. You are an experienced and really helpful user, so maybe you could help solve it, if you have some time. :) In biological dark matter's article it is written that it's genetic material which doesn't fit to any of three domains and there is a taxobox (?) also where we can see biological dark matter belongs to unknown domain and unclassified kingdom, all of which suggests it's sth like unknown, new and yet unclassified type of life. Maybe all that informations let us adding BDM to the template or sth in that article should be changed? If you find some time, please could you think about that question and analase it? :) Thank you in advance and I'm sorry for interrupting. Greetings. :) Pinoczet (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Biological dark matter page, your edit caused a PMC error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up. That whole chunk of the article is useless fluff. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what the article was trying to say. Here to sway (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/mars-life-viking-landers-discovery-120412.htm

I don't know what to make of this.

Seems they analyzed the data and it matched up with circadian rhythms?

Is it worth mentioning in the Life on Mars article? DN-boards1 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@DN-boards1: Factual answer: No. They did NOT find living microbes on Mars.

You are probably too young to remember this, but there is a handful of researchers, 6 - 8 people obsessed with the Label Release Experiment and, for more than 30 years they have been torturing the 2 landers' data through the most unlikely scenarios (they call it re-analysis) to make it say 'yes' somehow. Lavin is the leader, and welcomes anything that could cast a shadow on the "inconclusive" outcome and consensus.

Today, the collective wisdom of modern microbiologists is unable to culture/grow 99% of all microorganisms that live on Earth. That is by the most experienced and complex laboratories on Earth. Imagine to succeed with a single assay to grow/feed a Martian bug on their very first shot; It was unlikely to succeed but was worth the try —and an admirable one. Fast forward more than 30 years to the present, and following a zillion hypothesis on the positivity of the original result, this dude makes a computer program that deals with 'mathematical speculations', and on command, it says "yes" to circadian rhythm on the soil sample that grew nothing and has no organics, on a system with no sensors to measure any kind of circadian rhythm and was ultimately, contaminated with perchloride from the surface. Their speculation went nowhere as you can imagine. So no, it is not worth including it in WP, per WP:FRINGE.

BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

So basically, these guys are basically the fringeist of the fringe? DN-boards1 (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No. They are fringe when formulating scientific hypotheses and interpreting their biased science. True fringe are the guys running the Journal of Cosmology (owners): Chandra Wickramasinghe and Rudolph Schild, investigators include Richard Hoover, Wallis, and Gibson. Wickramasinghe has done exceptional science in the past, but for several years now he let his fantasies/expectations run his interpretations and stories.BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Do Dirk Schulze-Makuch, David Grinspoon, and David Darling fall into this LR group? And I've heard of those Cosmology guys, they're real nutters. Panspermia on its own makes sense, but the nonsense about SARS and AIDS coming from space is just...kooky. But panspermia leading to abiogenesis is an interesting thing. But back to the main topic - do Schulze-Makuch, Grinspoon, and Darling fall into the LR-obsessed group? DN-boards1 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@DN-boards1: I do not recall those people entering the LR fray. Yes panspermia has its merit, and it is only recently with the discovery of extremophiles that their resistance to outer space has been assessed and it points at scientific possibility in nature. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

With the discovery of a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus, and the influx of writing on said ocean and the possibility of life, is it now a time where it could be feasible to restore the Life on Enceladus article, due to having enough material on it? DN-boards1 (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

An objective stub specifying life is a speculation. Multiple refs stating the same speculation is not data nor consensus. But as far as I can tell, a global ocean in contact with the rocky core raises its potential habitability as much as the subsurface ocean of Europa. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I also saw in the comments of the Universe Today report of that April 12, 2012 paper something that said this:

"The Viking LR didn’t rely on pyrolysis (heating) as the other experiments who failed to get positives. The LR just checked for gas release in case of the (radio-labeled)nutrient solution would be metabolized by microbes in the soil samples. In all cases the LR measured a steady (radioactive) gas release in the active samples which was expected as sign of respiration. The same samples didn’t show any gas release after they were heat-sterilized (160°C) or after sample storage for 3-4 months in the dark but otherwise ambient but isolated conditions. Interestingly the soil samples showed a lower release of gas after the sterilization temperature for the control run had been altered to ~46°C and 50°C respectively. The 50°C control almost eliminated the gas release like the 160°C controls. Any biologists and especially astrobiologist should become keen-eared by this kind of data shouldn’t they?

The LR data was dismissed after the Viking GC/MS instrument failed to detect organics – here comes the Phoenix finding of perchlorate into the game.

Alltogether the Phoenix findings strengthened the biologic interpretation of the LR as it explained the failure of the Viking GC/MS to detect organics…

so the choice still is either a false positive of the Viking LR or a false negative of the GC/MS (like it got in antarctic dry valley test runs where the Viking LR readily detected microbes with a positive result)."

I think the perchlorates' existence has been acknowledged and incorporated into more recent experiments around the Viking data, right? I believe Dr. Schulze-Makuch described a hypothetical Martian microorganism that utilized hydrogen peroxide: http://news.softpedia.com/news/study-describes-alien-lifeforms-on-mars-and-saturn-s-moon-titan-490151.shtml

Basically, during the day, they use hydrogen peroxide instead of carbon dioxide to perform photosynthesis, and during the night they use hydrogen peroxide to attract water.

Essentially, a theory that manages to reconcile the Viking data with the perchlorates - the Viking landers, after collecting soil samples, not only got ahold of perchlorates, but a small amount of life. And with the life coming into contact with the perchlorate and with the harsh open air, it pretty much died instantly, and what Viking saw when it was performing the biological experiments is analogous to what happens when you pour water on an ant - the experiments, instead of looking for life, ending up killing the life in the soil, producing the result that the LR and PR experiments detected the dying life, while the GEX and GCMS failed to. The GEX didn't produce a positive because the scientists were looking for more widespread life, possibly even lichens. The GCMS completely failed because by the time the GCMS had gotten the soil into the oven and begun heating, the perchlorates and the life had come into contact, resulting in the death of most life in the soil.

But yeah, they're grasping at straws here, but the Phoenix results don't necessarily invalidate the LR experiments due to the perchlorates, in fact it makes practically no difference to it. Either way, we're not certain what the hell Viking found - whether it was life or if it was a bunch of chemicals, or even both - but it's quite possible that it's a combination of both explanations - both the perchlorates and some sort of microbe ended up being detected. We weren't aware of what we were looking for. We assumed life would be widespread if it existed, we thought there could be lichens and such. We didn't know there were perchlorates in the soil - how could we have known? We'd never put a lander on Mars before! - and we sent a poor set of experiments looking for a kind of life on Mars that simply did not exist. The shame is that NASA hasn't sent a microscope to Mars yet - why haven't we done that - and the last time we looked for life on Mars directly was Viking. Curiosity looked indirectly, so did MER, and Phoenix looked for the unknown oxidant. But the next time we look directly is ExoMars and Mars 2020. After years and years, we still haven't sent a microscope. It's a shame Beagle 2 failed, if only somehow we could unfold those solar panels! But no rovers are nearby, and I doubt Opportunity and Curiosity are up for the task! If Beagle 2 had succeeded, if the Mars Polar Lander had succeeded, then we might be in a very different position here. We'd have the data from Viking, from Pathfinder, from the orbiters, from MER, from MPL, from Phoenix, from Curiosity, and from Beagle 2! We'd have a wealth of knowledge, but we don't. We truly know very little of what happened when Viking touched down. Did it just heat up an empty soil sample of perchlorates, or was there a small amount of microbes mixed in with it that got killed when it performed its experiments? I kind of feel that the latter is the case - the experiments detected life, but the results were produced by a combination of microbes and perchlorates that were killing the microbes. It's not necessarily an either-or situation, but yes, it could be that Viking found no life at all. But we can safely rule out the possibility that there were no oxidants there - we know there were now. The question is, was the only producer of the results perchlorates, or did dying microbes play a hand in it?

Sorry for the wall of text there, I just wanted to throw that out there. Just to comment on the Phoenix remark. --DN-boards1 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to see you are reading on it. The fact is that the experiments and controls were limited, so we are left with a wide range of interpretations from a biological perspective as well as chemical (pro and against life). That is why the overall result was declared "inconclusive". No mater how hard anyone can argue, there could always be a different interpretation of the data. The tipping point was the cold, dryness, low pressure and merciless radiation on the surface of Mars, so its surface was more likely to be sterile than thriving. Had you been around NASA then, you would have been submerged in an engineering "culture" that looked down on astrobiologists because their lack of models and numbers. They figure that bringing a soil sample from the subsurface is the best cost-effective solution (remember we can only culture 1% of the microbes on Earth, so there is no way to build in-situ experiments to satisfy the goals of an astrobiology mission focused on metabolism. See, biology cannot make predictions based on physics or mathematics as engineers and planetary scientists do, so the engineers were very annoyed to work on anything related to astrobiology. It just didn't look good in their resume, especially after Viking's biology results. They wanted to work on projects that succeed! Astrobiology was relegated to a small department and small funding, where only the most sagacious, astute, and conservative biologists survived, Christopher McKay and David S. McKay are 2 of them. Had you been involved in the development of the MSL (Curiosity rover) mission, you would not have dared to mention "astrobiology", but "habitability potential" at most. NASA directors were not interested in a joint effort with the ExoMars rover (because of the focus on astrobiology) but wanted to join with their own Mars Science Orbiter for atmospheric studies (it later became the Trace Gas Orbiter). Now with the evidence of an ancient wet, warmer Mars, and likely past habitability, NASA has warmed somewhat to astrobiology, but mostly to heed planetary protection requirements, and to use extremophiles for life-support systems in some future surface base. They figure that bringing a soil sample from the subsurface is the best cost-effective solution —remember we can only culture 1% of the microbes on Earth, so there is no way to build in-situ experiments to satisfy the goals of an astrobiology mission focused on metabolism. Alternatively, soil samples can be searched for DNA (see polymerase chain reaction) without the need to feed, grow and culture finiky microorganisms.

Regarding the WP article on the Viking experiments, it is noted that the consensus is an "inconclusive result", so please be very careful to lean one way or the other if you go there. The recent MSL radiatiojn measurements suggest that even the most radio-resistant Terran spores would not be able to survive on the Martian surface; that is why the ExoMars rover will dig down to 2 m, but a recent estimation says 7 m should be safer to find some preserved ancient DNA if present. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Should we really be ruling out the possibility of current life just yet? And expanding our horizons to Venus - what's your take on the idea of life there? Just throwing that out there. --DN-boards1 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The consensus at the present time, based on the physical environment, is that life on the surface is not possible (some have written "sterile"), and that future searches should look into the subsurface. I could give you nearly 10 high quality refs stating that. So yes, life on the surface (as suggested by the Viking) is extremely unlikely or impossible. As a scientist I will never NEVER close that door, but I am not going to hold my breath either. In the Wikipedia environment, especially in science articles we have to be extremely careful when inserting a fringe claim (such as extant life on the surface) because of all the published research stating the opposite. However, this is not religion; the scientific method has a self-correction feature, so a single research paper -if correct- can override 30 years of negativity. We just have to watch and report. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never actually stated the possibility of life on the surface, I've always been thinking there's likely life in the subsurface. So, moving on from Mars to Venus. I attempted to bring this up earlier - what's your take on Venusian life in the clouds? What is the consensus there? I recall the VSTAR mission proposed for the Discovery Program was intended to look for life in the atmosphere of Venus, but don't quote me on that. --DN-boards1 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that life in the atmosphere of Venus is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. I am not aware of any mission proposal to probe it for life. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well it's not IMPOSSIBLE, nor unlikely. Just a subject that is less often discussed than say, Europa, Mars, Titan, or Enceladus. The conditions are right for life in the atmosphere - the temperature averages 82 degrees Fahrenheit, there's trace amounts of water vapor, there's an ozone layer, there's hydrocarbons, etc. And there's some strange things in the atmosphere. Like the fact that sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide are both in the atmosphere, when they react quickly with each other (or maybe it was some other sulfur compound and sulfur dioxide, I know sulfur dioxide is involved though), carbonyl sulfide is also present, a substance that is nigh impossible to produce through inorganic means. The only ways it could be on Venus is volcanism and life. One problem with volcanism: As far as we know, only one volcano, Maat Mons, is active. One volcano cannot produce that much carbonyl sulfide. Lastly, there's carbon monoxide in such low amounts - practically a deficiency, in fact. Lots of carbon dioxide....but little carbon monoxide. Basically, there's an explanation involving free-floating microorganisms in the Venusian atmosphere that produce those carbon and sulfur compounds. It's also been stated that said life might use sulfur instead of carbon as its building block, rather than carbon - something I haven't really heard before. Interesting explanation. It's indeed highly unlikely any life could possibly hope to survive on the surface, but the atmosphere, especially the lower cloud deck, is where certain kinds of extremophiles like those on Earth would be right at home in. --DN-boards1 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are so many wrong things with the speculations above I would not know where to start. I am not aware of any astrobiologist that would support those ideas. As I said, I am not aware of any concept/proposal to seek life in the atmosphere of Venus, as it is not remotely likely. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please point out the flaws for me? Not to be rude, but I've been wondering exactly what is wrong with it. Please help, your input would be appreciated. --DN-boards1 (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You are systematically biased; you believe in life on XYz and won't accept moderate thought for an answer. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not outright stating "there's life". I'm stating "It's possible there's life, and we shouldn't reject it outright." --DN-boards1 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The same was said about unicorns. Come science, write down what is. The rest, you don't have to "disprove", but you don't have to type in an encyclopedia either. Read and think of the PURPOSE of the scientific method. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I never attempted to disprove anything, I just stated there's a possibility that there's microbial life in the clouds. I'm not saying there's a certainty - very few things, such as the laws of physics, are certain in science - of life, I'm just saying it's not improbable. --DN-boards1 (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And back to square one. I give up. Even a non-scientist should be able to tell the difference between a speculation and a hypothesis. I tried to help you. I'm out. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I couldn't tell if it was a hypothesis or speculation.--DN-boards1 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

So don't edit science articles. Please. Good bye. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The article Earth system science might interest you? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it may get my attention. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (Monday, September 28, 2015@11:30am/et/usa) - NASA will detail a "Major Science Finding" about the planet Mars^[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: They have more evidence indicating that the recurring slope lineae are produced by the flow of brine - very salty water. The most exciting part of it is that the brine flow could mobilize and expose biosignatures (both fossils and biomolecules) from the deep surface. The bad news is that the target places (inner crater walls) are inaccessible to rovers, so they may have to crash-land small gliders or small drones. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you *very much* for your *excellent* well-stated comments about the Mars findings - they're *greatly* appreciated - somewhat suscepted such findings but didn't know for sure - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I updated the article and expanded the current hypotheses section, in preparation for Monday's announcement. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for your note re your recent edits to the "Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes" article - all your edits seem *Excellent* - Thanks again for your note - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: The paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2546.html

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the reference to Nature Geoscience^[2] - there's a related NASA^[3] and New York Times^[4] news articles as well - conference (videos^[5][6]) seemed to pretty much support your earlier thinking about all this - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: FWIW - Somewhat related Nature (journal) (1979) reference re lifeforms in the hypersaline (and/or brine) water of Don Juan Pond, Antarctica^[7] may be of interest - iac - Enjoy! Drbogdan (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: NEW - Seems Emily Lakdawalla reference^[8] may be worthy - esp re "Forward-contamination" & related - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Yes, I think we can/should make a BRIEF mention that the recurring slope lineae are now considered "special regions" capable of supporting Terrestrial life (forward contamination), so they are out of bounds. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: more regarding possible estimated forward-contamination by the Curiosity (rover) (at least at launch)^[9] - and also - possible detection of Recurrent slope lineae on Mount Sharp^[9] - finally - what should NASA do next?^[10] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If interested, a newly created "Exposing Microorganisms in the Stratosphere" (E-MIST) article has been created - based on a recent NASA reference.^[1] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Hello! I almost created that article last Friday and then I decided to wait until it is launched, but I forgot all about it. Sure, I am interested in nurturing it now and seeking the results when they become available. It will be interesting to find the species they use and the different variables they are using (alive/spores). What do they measure while up there? UV, presure, temp? A key question is to constrain the upper limit of the biosphere, so I don't think they are using the hardiest microorganisms as in the exposures in outer space. We'll have to read...and have fun! Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I am starting to research the topic now and will use my sandbox for a while. Please give me a ping when you take a break so I can work on it without simultaneous edit conflicts. Thx. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes - all's *entirely* ok now if you like - no problem whatsoever - at least from me - I have several other projects at the moment - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I know today will be busy with the Cassini flyby of Enceladus, but before I forget, we should keep an eye open for an update on the E-Mist. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the ping - yes - hope to be aware of this of course - incidently, made a new userbox (see below) of possible interest, comments welcome - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

{{User:UBX/LifeInUniverse}}

Sorry, but I think the IP's edit are very likely to be correct. Have you checked his reference? Huritisho (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho:, You two are correct. I saw a large deletion and the number of orbits was changed without changing the reference. But upon review, the reference supports the changes/update. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. So, I was wondering if you could help expand the Earth flyby section. I'm tired now and can't think of a way to organize into text the information about the flyby... Huritisho (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it requires expansion at all. It was done for a speed boost and that is already mentioned. Its only target is Jupiter. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		Thanks and nice going updating the Discovery program article, and getting those spacecraft articles started. Fotaun (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fotaun: Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Paul Moller and his company the "joint venture" announcement is just one of the latest hullabaloos he's done to try to raise the profile of his project. This talk by User:Nagle perfectly illustrates this pattern. I'd say it'd be best to leave it in as it just helps to plainly show for anyone with common sense what is really going on. 90.44.214.96 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

For your information, DN-boards1 has come out as a sock: [1], [2]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom About 6 weeks ago I reported DN-boards1 to be a sock puppet. I am glad he pissed off an administrator bad enough to look into it. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom, that sock puppeteer has a very long history in Wikipedia going back to its conception. In the dark web he volunteered his name (Bryan See, but he changes his last name every one and then), from Malaysia ([3], and Ecyclopedia Dramatica: Starkiller88), [4]. He was in the west coast of USA for a while but went back to Malaysia a couple of years ago. He is the epitome of a troll. Expect him back. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

KIC 8462852 - interesting star - related to ETs? - perhaps worth a view? - if you haven't already - iac - Enjoy! ;) Drbogdan (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan, yes, very interesting. But the possibility of asteroids is much more likely than Dyson sphere. Worth to follow up! Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan, An interesting asteroid flyby to monitor: 2015 TB145. Article: [5], NASA: [6]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend. Don't worry. This is the first company in Spain that is trying to develop launching small satellites but it's true that at the moment they are in the first step (developing the launcher). So, after your edit, I saw you had reason.--Benjamín Núñez González (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Of possible interest => US Congress Report^[1] on Astrobiology by Andrew Siemion, Director of Berkeley SETI Research Center - also related video^[2] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: BRIEF Followup - just finished viewing the *entire* video of the Hearing - opening statements^[3][4][5] by the participants were great - but the *Q&A* was even better - actually, *Excellent* imo - and *Highly Recommended* (Note: The Hearing begins about 62:42 into the video clip) (Note: there doesn't seem to be a transcript of the *Q&A* - only the video afaik) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: NEW & Somewhat Related => Scientists report finding fossil evidence of life on the very young Earth 4.1 billion years ago, 300 million years older than known earlier. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."^[6][7][8]

That is funny. We were sharing that simultaneously. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream and/or NASA-Audio (Monday, October 26, 2015@2:00pm/et/usa)^[1][2][3][4] - NASA will detail an "Historic FlyBy" through a "plume of icy spray" of Enceladus on 11:22 am/et/usa, Wednesday, October 28, 2015 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan I will watch that one, but the results will take time to trickle down. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan Never found it and does not seem to be programed for today either. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - Seems I misrread the original announcements re dates/times/urls - tried to make corrections - albeit belatedly - heard a replay (at => http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2) - may try to post a followup link for other replays if available - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - Followup - Seems, for now, the "Replay" (on-demand?) is at => http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2 - conference is worthy imo - and still relevant I would think - i agree with your earlier statement that the results will take some time to trickle down - iac - hope this helps - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw that one from the 26th. I thought there was going to be another one, live, during the flyby. I was mistaken. Thank you.! BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies of course - Yes - exactly the same thing here - thought there was going to be another one live also - checked - and rechecked the announcement - and found my error - tried to correct but too late of course - at least I found a replay link - and several relevant refs - hope this all helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - REPLAY LINK (Audio; 43:41)^[5] => http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/76308203 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: FIRST NASA Report (After Flyby; October 30, 2015)?^[6] => http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/saturns-geyser-moon-shines-in-close-flyby-views - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like you to keep an eye on the edits of Kerberos (moon). The edits by kwai may be wrong and/or disruptive. See my message I left in his talk page. Cheers, Huritisho 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moons of Pluto too. His edits are disruptive and I don't wanna get into a discussion Huritisho 05:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho:, I decline your request. If you don't want to get reverted by user kawai, then don't post false information and don't post a reference that does not support your data. Specifically, your quoted paper states: "measurements of Styx and Kerberos have not yet been downlinked". (Reference: Stern, S. A.; Bagenal, F.; Ennico, K. (2015-10-16). "The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons". Science. 350 (6258): aad1815. doi:10.1126/science.aad1815. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 26472913.)

I find it strange you ask me for help on an edit war when I am supporting the sock puppet investigation against you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, let's make a few things clear. The images of the probe have already been downlinked, and I updated the information and added a reference to my update (see [7], and it was reverted by kwai for an unknown reason). I never quoted that paper you mentioned.

Also, in kwai's edit, he added once again a question mark in an infobox field (he was told lots of times not to do so), changed Pluto's to Pluto’s, and those are the type of thing I was referring to, but I'm sorry for having come ask for help. Huritisho 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm. My revert is to the version with your values and reference. What are you whining about then? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What? It was not. I had to re-add my information manually. All my edits were perfectly fine before kwai reverted. Also, I'm not accusing you of anything. Just relax. Huritisho 15:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just saw your post in the administrators notice board. Just to be clear, I never added the numerical information Rudy added. Perhaps you should check the revision history more carefully. (Edit: I might have added his numerical values when I reverted kwai, but my intention wasn't to re-add those values. I was just reverting other bad edits he had made, and Rudy's values just we're readded along). Huritisho 16:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So, user Huritisho was just banned for disturbing Wikipedia with his 5th sock puppet: [8]. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		For common sense, kindness to editors, and patience. Fotaun (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For keeping an eye and editing many, many pages. Fotaun (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For continuing efforts to keep the peace and pieces of Wikipedia. Fotaun (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. I endeavour (among other things) to parse the hype in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. The Dress was one example of extensive media hyperbole dealing with actually unexpected meat for science; the 2010 purported proof that P vs. NP was, in a minor key, another. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/science/17proof.html?_r=2

That said, this is in a sense OODA loop stuff which shall stick, so bear with me. kencf0618 (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the like. Must admit I had avoided editing it until now due to conflict of interest. I happen to be one of those Planethunters members who found it and an author on the paper! If you think any edit of mine goes to far just let me know. Thanks ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I see an improvement in grammar and syntax. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If interested => VIDEO (55:48)^[1] - NASA: "Human Space Exploration - The Next Steps" (including steps toward a human journey to Mars?) by Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator, in a speech given at the "Center for American Progress" in Washington, DC on October 28, 2015^[2] - REPORT => "NASA’s Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration (October, 2015)"^[3] - also - a new related NASA web tool for Mars exploration was presented^[4] - and - a "health hazards report" re human Mars missions^[5][6] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a question about one of your edits. Your most recent edit to water on Mars deleted what I thought to be good info about Development of Mars' water inventory and added a merge proposal even though your edit summary said consensus was no merge. Can you explain this? Thank you for all your other great edits. Brian Everlasting (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While I have little doubt that you are correct that no moon was found in the MESSENGER data, since that was unlikely in the first place, it doesn't do to simply cut the material out of the article along with its sources if you don't offer an adequate reference for the update. Further, MESSENGER wasn't searching for a moon in 2015, so the changes you made aren't quite accurate. I encourage you to find references and sources and update the article accordingly. Cheers. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to follow up, re-adding sentences not found in the sources cited, along with an immature and insulting edit summary, doesn't cut it either. Why is it unusual to you that I would ask you to find references that back up your additions? That's Wikipedia policy across the board. I've already told you that I know it's unlikely Mercury has a small moon, but that we need a source that states it. Please keep a level head - we're not actually in disagreement here. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that an experienced editor would behave this way. You just can't cite a 2012 article for a claim about data analysis conducted from 2013 onward! You seem competent to locate a definitive source to cite for your changes, so please do so, and if you'd like to engage with me, please follow Wikipedia guidelines and do so on talk pages rather than through bellicose rhetoric in your edit summaries. I know you're trying to help. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

From comics? No, from university, as I imagine you think you got your education too. Unfortunately, you have to cite sources on Wikipedia, just as in science, although the two have blessed little in common otherwise! I've reverted your edits to prepare for full protection. How hard would it have been for you to bother finding and adding a source? Instead, you have decided to behave in a way severely beneath you as an experienced editor. I'm not happy with this outcome either. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mercury's (hypothetical) moon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

On 11 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article KIC 8462852, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Kepler space telescope has seen unusual patterns in the light from KIC 8462852? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/KIC 8462852. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated Enceladus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please argue in Talk:2015 for Akatsuki to be included in the 2015 article. Thank you. --LL221W (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

LL221W Hello. I don't know what are the criteria to include articles in there, but I imagine it is always in retrospective, meaning, once the event showed to be historic or very relevant, then it is included. Even if Aksuki gets to be injected in orbit, we still have to see if its instruments work. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you.--LL221W (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#December 7--LL221W (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your continual and tireless edits of the Akatsuki article. LL221W (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LL221W (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LL221W: Thank you; you too worked hard at it.  :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the EXPOSE page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Battery, you might find this interesting: [9]. It is many things, including ugly. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom The incapability of Wikipedia to block such abuse is very frustrating. Thank for the update. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the recapture of El Chapo at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent expansion of Accretion (astrophysics). This important topic finally has an article it deserves. A2soup (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It still has room for improvement. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If interested => In 2016, astrophysicist Rosanne Di Stefano of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts suggested that star clusters may be inhabitated by intelligent extraterrestrials.^[1] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, in Gbreen.jpg, are you Breen? DS (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If interested => Life's Rocky Start - NOVA Video Program (53:07) - with Robert Hazen (astrobiologist) - also - related videos => Trailer (00:30) and Discussion (50:09) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Battery, did you mean to remove the Weidenschilling citation with these edits, since you had previously added that same citation? I may have mucked that up when adding a citation name which was the same as another, leading you to think it was a duplicate citation? If the citation is good, can you give me the page number in that book? I tried finding it in Google Books, but couldn't find anything specific. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Huntster, Yes, there was duplication of "Weidenschilling1997" and it took me a couple of edits to get it right, and I did not remove it finally. But it is not a book, it is the abstract of a paper: [10]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my brain is malfunctioning. I meant to ask for the page number for the Krishna Swami reference "Physics of Comets", ref #35. Regarding Weidenschilling, the ref wasn't actually duplicated...the one remaining is "Accretional Evolution of a Planetesimal Swarm", but both that and "The Origin of Comets in the Solar Nebula: A Unified Model" were published in 1997. I assigned a duplicate ref name without realising it, leading to the ref error you saw. "...A Unified Model" still looks like a valid reference for the major structural features sentence. I just wanted to make sure of it, since you are obviously much more knowledgeable about these things than I am. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. It is page 364. I hope I got the format right. Thank you! BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kuiper belt into Accretion (astrophysics). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.