User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DYK for Beltrán-Leyva Cartel

On August 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beltrán-Leyva Cartel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Giants27 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Red rain

You are welcome. The feeling is mutual. This is how Wikipedia should work! Silverchemist (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned that the Red rain article touched on your area of expertise. Is it possible to get a reprint of the full paper from the conference, or was just the abstract available? It is really quite sad that such work gets into the literature with little or no peer review. Here is the full conference report from 2008. Have you seen this? [1] It needs to be put into the article. I don't like to give unreviewed reports undue weight and would like to have something to balance it. Silverchemist (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/incidents

Hello, Rowan Forest. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello user Cyclopia. Now that the ANI administrators dismissed your complaints (POV) in the face of scientific evidence, I hope you will adjust your attitude accordingly re: Geysers on Mars. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

May you link where the admins took position on the case? I am not at home these days and check WP not regularly. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No admin showed up in the talk page of the disputed article, nor in the AN/I case (link me a diff if I am wrong). So I see no explicit "dismissal". I don't understand what attitude should I adjust -I politely disagree with the way the article currently interpretates sources, not with the sources themselves.

I sincerely hope that we can both assume good faith on each other and bring the discussion to a more civil tone. I have no reason to "disrupt" this article whatsoever or to be "vindictive" with you. I am simply worried about the interpretation of the sources and the depiction the article gives of current scientific consensus. Days ago I have brought some quotes from the sources that seem at odds with your interpretations, and that would be nice to discuss politely and calmly on the talk page, without personal attacks, sticking to the sources and policies. We could both take a deep breath and start again on a more relaxed and friendly ground. A good idea would be to involve more parties to the discussion. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of Life

Hi BatteryIncluded

I agree that stating a simple one-sentence definition of life may be complicated, not all-inclusive, and challenging. However, the beginning of the Life Wiki article currently uses only "life" terms to define life and in my opinion, this is inappropriate. While, the discussion under "Definitions" is very good and detailed, it would be appropriate to include several of the simpler one-sentence definitions that do not rely on life, bio, or animate terms. To the naive reader, these simple definitions would serve as examples for emphasizing different aspects of life. Taken together, they would also illustrate for novices the difficulty of precisely defining life. 489thCorsica (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi BI,

I originally posted this a few days ago but maybe you never saw it because I posted it on my talk page rather than here:

Thanks for your remarks and excellent work on the extremely complicated topic - Life. The following now appears as the first sentence on the Life page:

"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not[1][2] —either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate.""

I realize that much agony has gone into this, but it's simply not appropriate to define life using life terms such as biota, biological processes, alive, living, the opposite of inanimate, etc. Generally, as you know, forms of the word being defined should not be used in the definition, even as an introduction to the topic. Minor point: Life is a property of matter not "objects" per se.

On another topic, I keep getting bot messages about images on my Wiki pages going from Wikipedia to Wiki Commons. Do you know what that's about? Do I need to do something about this?

I appreciate your comment on my RNA additions very much. Thanks for requesting more references. Much better.

Cheers, Corsica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 489thCorsica (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

SMOS capitalization

Suggest you may want to reconsider this. You moved Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity satellite to Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity Satellite, giving as reason "Capitalization of the last 's' (SMOS)" The last 's' is Salinity, not satellite. Best regards, (sdsds - talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated TiME (spacecraft), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1ee^talk 10:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if NASA has any public domain images of this craft? A picture for the article and DYK would be nice. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigation and the picture. If the DYK is accepted with the picture it should attract more hits while on the Main Page. You'll see I've also added an alternate DYK hook here in response to a query. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for TiME (spacecraft)

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article TiME (spacecraft), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Titan Mare Explorer

Always pleased to hear such things ;-) Actually the info given in the various sources is contradicting itself somewhat. Space.com describes TiME as part of the TSSM, whereas the PDF-presentation done by the creators of the mission seems like they conceived it as a stand-alone project... And the depiction of the lander is the same in any source, even in the NASA/ESA-report on the TSSM :p--Gliese876 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher‎

When I looked into that matter I stumbled upon the article on ExoMars, which was in a disastrous state, too... I could not resist the temptation of clearing things up there first. I'll try to take care of the MAX-C article during the coming days/weeks --Gliese876 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't wanna take false credit for sth :p I've hardly done anything on the MAX-C article. Most of the edits there are on your account ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions: Edgar Valdez Villarreal

Hi BatteryIncluded. I see you're involved in a minor dispute over the title and internal use of the subject's name in the above article. I have undone your move and edits. Please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Common names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names. I think you'll see you're bucking well established policy on this one. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Silentlambs

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Silentlambs. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silentlambs. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mex Drug War

Link is still not fixed...if it continues to be dead than i will pursue its deletion of the 45,000 cartel members detained. (USMCMIDN (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Dude the sources have to be there for them to be relevant . And you found another source or somehow got the old one to work. So... If there is no source the random made up number gets deleted. I am assuming you have something personal in this article and that is why you came angered but you need to understand this. But good job getting that source up. (USMCMIDN (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

I want the right info up and if you cannot see that I was trying to work with you on this than I do not care to work with you in the future. I am sorry to say but I can see you are getting very defensive over this topic and I do not wish to discuss it with you any more. I read the tutorial and I can assure you having the correct sources is what wiki is all about. That is the point to relay correct info. If a source is totally off topic (like the old one was (when you click the source a random page came up)) one could assume authors vandalize the pages and make up their numbers because they want their countries to look good. Please stop commenting on my talk I do not wish to take things further with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USMCMIDN (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Drug War and Timeline

Thanks for fixing the dead links on the Mexican Drug War. If you have time, I found some more on the Timeline article using the Checklinks tool. Out of curiosity, do you reside in one of the conflict areas in Mexico? I'm from Monterrey, but presently live in Dallas. Mahanga^Talk 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert M. Duggan

A tag has been placed on Robert M. Duggan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

References' format

Thanks, the first time i didn't read it but now i think i can do the refs the right way Thanks Again. PolvoMexicano

my comment on the drug war template

Hello,

I just wanted to make sure you see my new thread. 128.59.180.159 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tijuana Cartel

Oops, my mistake, lol. I don't know how I so obviously overlooked that.jlcoving (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)