User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Yamato 000593 (meteorite)

Possibly of interest => Yamato 000593, a meteorite from Mars found on Earth - seems to have microscopic spheres rich in carbon that *may* have arisen from biotic activity? - per NASA, February 27, 2014 - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite interesting. I'll check it out with calm. Thanks. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was happy to see that McKay was a coauthor, as he is very level-headed astrobiologist and evidence-oriented. Then I was surprised to read he died last year. That is a huge loss to the astrobiology community. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The researchers indicate that mass spectrometry may provide deeper insight into the nature of the carbon. It will be another interesting paper, even a smoking gun....

--BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments - yes, I *entirely* agree with you - followup studies may be interesting - terrestrial contamination may have to be *really* ruled out of course - fossilized biogenic remains on Mars itself may be the best way to eliminate contamination issue? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan I just found out that McKay also found similar microchannels in Nakhlka meteorite in 2006 ([1]), but back then he called them "channels", "tiny cracks" and "branching dendritic material". Later, another team observed a bunch of aromatic and Cn-alkyl aromatic hydrocarbons. but none was proven to be biogenic. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the link - great read - and - *very* interesting - *might* make a worthy addition to relevant articles I would think atm - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 11:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Herald talk with me 11:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Red Dragon (spacecraft)

Thanks for your update to Red Dragon (spacecraft). When I made a minor one or two sentence update to it yesterday and added that citation, I did not realize that anyone had already used that new source about a potential 2022 sample return mission and the study that supported it. I see now that you got there first. Good on you. N2e (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Life Definition

If interested, added text/ref to Life#Definitions =>

• Some may even consider that life is not real at all, but a concept instead.< ref name="NYT-20140312">Jabr, Ferris (March 12, 2014). "Why Nothing Is Truly Alive". New York Times. Retrieved March 12, 2014.</ref>

Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ALSO, another Life-related ref (fuel cell-like processes lead to living cells?) of possible interest => < ref name="NASA-20140313">Clavin, Whitney (March 13, 2014). "How Did Life Arise? Fuel Cells May Have Answers". NASA. Retrieved March 13, 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan, that last link got me thinking of abiogenesis and protocells, as one advantage of compartamentalization is the generation of an energy gradient - think mitochondria and ATP production. I will be working on a draft in my sandbox to expand the section of protocells in "Abiogenesis" article. I will appreciate your help when I finish it and before its transfer to the article.Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - yes, sounds like a great idea - let me know when you might be ready - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

dear BatteryIncluded, I have in the past offered to wikipedia some recent developments in the field of the definition of life (as a generic property of objects which are called 'organisms', while the concept of what is an organism can be defined from the 'outside' if one uses the operator hierarchy). This way of working avoids circularity (as in: life is a property of organisms, organisms are 'living' beings). I have also accompanied these suggestions by a range of literature references (as was asked for on the Wikipedia talk page about life). Would there be any reasonable chance that this viewpoint will at any moment become included in the range of well-documented viewpoints on life offered by Wikipedia? 137.224.252.10 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am not editing for the rest of the Summer. I strongly suggest you only incorporate one sentence and cite the references. Anything more than that, is viewed in Wikipedia as giving undue weight to a definition that is not in the mainstream of biology (fringe, if you will). That is the main reason it keeps getting deleted. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis

Hi Battery - it's nice to see you again. Will you be sticking around at Abiogenesis? I think there's a lot of potential for easy improvement. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise - Hi there. At the moment I have no special pet topic than astrobiology related research. Abiogenesis is in the menu. What do you have in mind? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in particular at the moment - anything that you feel like contributing. :-) I've written a talk section describing my current thoughts about the article but of course they're subject to change. Sunrise (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise OK. I'll be skiing this weekend so I'll give it a go on Monday. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! In the meantime, I hope you're enjoying yourself. Sunrise (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ...eventually

Hi BI,

Just wanted to say thanks for the new year wishes! Only 2.5 months too late...? Oops. Sorry!

Things have been absolutely nuts for me lately, so I've been totally out of the WP loop. Hopefully back soon though.

Happy editing...

Dan

I miss ya!! --BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discovery Program

These edits are an attempt to fill out the references with more detailed information. As you're one of the editors making regular edits to the article I am hoping you can take a quick look and then either flag or fix any obvious typos. Thanks in advance! -- 79.67.241.235 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Good references and good format make a good article. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks also, that was a lot of references filled in! Fotaun (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's helpful if references are fully populated as they are added, but that seems to be rare. It looks like there are hundreds of pages in the Space section in need of similar work. I have made a start on one such page, but won't be able to continue with this until tomorrow. In the meantime, if you want to have a go at filling in some of the blanks, and creating and linking to archive copies, please feel free to do so. -- 79.67.241.249 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ever since I started editing I have been using this "reference generator" called MakeRef: http://tools.wmflabs.org/makeref/

If this formatting is deprecated, what other quick system can I use? Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:REFLINKS is useful for filling in bare references; Citation bot fills in refs from ISBN/DOI's, and combines duplicate references, and if you click "cite" at the top of the editing window, you get a number of options. You can also turn on ProveIt in your preferences. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I will study those. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52, the Citation bot is a tool I could use often as I cite many research articles; but the instructions state to click on the "Citations" button next to "Save page". I have never seen that button when I edit. Is this tool active at all? Is it browser-dependent? Their talk page has the same question asked months ago without having been addressed. Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a gadget - second option under the "editing" header. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52, No luck. Maybe it is a browser thing? What I found next to the signature icon is a button with the symbol {{ }} that pops up several citation 'versions'. Is that the one? I will explore it any way if it produces the current required format. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

While there are many tools, sometimes nothing beats simply pasting in a bare template and manually filling it in. I use something like this:

<ref name="">{{cite web | last= | first= | url= | format= | title= | work= | publisher= | date= | deadurl=no | archiveurl= | archivedate= }}</ref>

and add additional parameters such as language, doi, isbn, etc, where needed.

I find the output from the Reflinks tool needs a lot of work to make it usable. The title and publisher usually need amending and many additional parameters have to be added and populated before the page can be saved. -- 79.67.241.255 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't previously aware of the MakeRef page at http://tools.wmflabs.org/makeref/ Today, I have spent several hours fixing a number of problems with it, especially replacing deprecated parameters with the new ones. It should now produce better output than before. I also noticed two of the template generators have produced broken output since a botched edit was made in July 2013. I have also fixed those problems. -- 79.67.241.255 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Old habits die hard. I am still trying to learn WP:REFLINKS ... it seems cumbersome and random at times. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks can help with editing but it needs a lot of extra work to produce useful references. This is because it only fills in title, author and publisher and this information often needs to be manually edited to remove junk and fix errors. Additionally, you have to manually add any other parameters you need. Looking at your favourite MakeRef tool, this looks to be a lot more consistent and useful, especially so when most of the form fields (boxes) are filled in. -- 79.67.241.255 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Date-substitution in inline citations

Hello! Thanks for all your WikiProject Spaceflight edits.

Just a small request. Whenever you use inline citations like {{CN}}, it should be accompanied by a date-substitution. The date-substitution template is used to automatically generate the date, e.g., ''{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}''.

Thanks again! - Ninney (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

MakeRef

I have almost finished a massive update to the MakeRef tool. This fixes a number of bugs and typos introduced over the last few years and removes various deprecated parameters. I have also added a few extra parameters on some of the ten different templates that it can produce. Please try it out and see how you get on. Are there any extra parameters you want to see added to any of the generated templates? -- 79.67.241.244 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. At the moment I only have one request: the field for "date accessed" automatically produces the format yyyy-mm-dd, but I always use dd-mm-yyyy. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you add the publication |date= in the correct form field, you can and should blank out the |accessdate= field. The date when something was published is unchanging and always trumps the date when someone read it.

However, |archivedate= and |accessdate= should use the same format as each other but do not necessarily have to use the same format as |date=. There's something to be said for using dd Month yyyy (or Month dd, yyyy) for publication dates and yyyy-mm-dd for those other dates, thereby visually separating them.

It appears the date format is hard wired in the program. There's no option to alter it. -- 79.67.241.244 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bugs recently fixed in MakeRef

• Between 21 July 2006 and 14 August 2012 and between 6 July 2013 and 20 March 2014, the PMID and DOI identifiers generated within cite journal templates were malformed (see below).
• Between 9 November 2009 and 20 March 2014, filling in the issn parameter on the cite journal form input did not result in the data appearing in the generated template. The data was lost.

• Between 13 August 2007 and 28 May 2010, filling in the doi parameter on the cite book form input resulted in the DOI data appearing both in the doi parameter value and in the id parameter value in the generated template.
• Between 13 August 2007 and 23 March 2014, filling in the id parameter on the cite book form input did not result in the data appearing in the generated template. The data was lost.
• Between 28 May 2010 and 23 March 2014, filling in the doi parameter on the cite book form input resulted in the DOI data appearing in the id parameter value in the generated template. Additionally, no doi parameter was created.

• Between 17 August 2007 and 14 August 2012 and between 6 July 2013 and 20 March 2014, the PMID and DOI identifiers generated within citation templates were malformed (see below).

• Between 2 January 2010 and 25 January 2013 and between 6 July 2013 and 20 March 2014, filling in the trans_title parameter on the cite web form input did not result in the data appearing in the generated template. The data was lost.

All of the above issues found in the MakeRef tool have now been fixed.

Additionally, the tool no longer generates the deprecated coauthors parameter and some extra (useful!) parameters have been added.

Malformed PMID, PMC and DOI data in cite journal and citation templates looking something like this:

• | id = PMID PMC2040096 {{doi | 10.1261/rna.658507}} |
• | id = {{doi | 10.1126/science.1137541}} |
• | id = PMID 9742727 |

should be fixed to look like this:

• | pmc=2040096 | doi=10.1261/rna.658507 |
• | doi=10.1126/science.1137541 |
• | pmid=9742727 |

Discussion

Would you like some help cleaning up edits that were affected by the above bugs? -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work fixing MakeRef, my favorite tool. You are like a Wikifairy!:-) At the moment I am working on abiogenesis and protocells, and yes, next time I have writer's block I will cleanup the articles I have been working on. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The above message wasn't meant to be a nag! It's just a heads up as to what bugs were fixed, so you might have a clue as what to look for in previous edits. I know I have come across a number of references where |title= was filled in with a non-English title and the |language= was noted, but no English-language translation of the title had been provided. That was because the MakeRef tool was dumping that piece of data and was not adding the |trans_title= parameter to the generated template. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Newly Created Template - Space Molecules.

@BatteryIncluded - If Interested - New Template {{Molecules Detected In Outer Space}} Has Been Created (at least as a start) - Presently Added To The List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules Article - Comments Welcome - *Entirely* Ok To rv/mv/ce Of Course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Lots of work! Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank You for your comment - had the time and interest - the activity seemed to be a lot of fun for me today for some reason - in any case - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Enceladus

Between these two points two references seem to have vanished (and two other references with the same name as each other were resolved)). I don't know if the removal was intentional. There were several people editing at the same time and a number of edit conflicts. I have fixed most or all of the obvious conflicts, but have you got time to take a deeper look, especially at the references? -- 79.67.241.229 (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have started to read the article and taking notes. I will have go into the chronology of the discoveries (published papers) and weed out the debunked hypotheses/models in favor of the most current models, and then reorganize the article layout. It will take a long time but it will come into shape with some help. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Enceladus is looking way better, thanks Reedman72 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Did you mean to...

Did you really mean to delete those figures?

One set of figures are for the stratosphere, the other set were for the troposphere. -- 79.67.241.227 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NASA - Life & Water World

Of Possible Interest =>

< ref name="NASA-20140415">Clavin, Whitney (April 15, 2014). "New Study Outlines 'Water World' Theory of Life's Origins". NASA. Retrieved April 16, 2014.</ref>
ALSO related => < ref>http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/astrobiology20140415/</ref>
ALSO New Kepler Find (2pm/et/usa-4/17/2014) => < ref>http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-hosts-media-teleconference-to-announce-latest-kepler-discovery/</ref>

In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan Thank you, I will check it out. By the way, this article is fascinating. They encompass abiogenesis as well as environment restrictions:

Westall, Frances; Loizeau, Damien; Foucher, Frederic; Bost, Nicolas; Betrand, Marylene (2013). "Habitability on Mars from a Microbial Point of View". Astrobiology. 13 (18). doi:10.1089/ast.2013.1000. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan Interesting that NASA noticed molybdenum. Please check out the protocell hypothesis called Jeewanu, where its inventor mentions molybdenum as a key ingredient for abiogenesis. Well, as the NASA article states, this team is connecting the dots. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan, Check this out: 'Most Earth-like planet yet' spotted by Kepler. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for *all* your above comments - and suggestions - they're *all* appreciated - seems we're both presently editing the Kepler-186f article - *very* interesting NASA find - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Titan - References

The first block of references (currently commented out, and previously marked as dead) have recently been amended to link to archive copies. Would you care to move them back to wherever they used to be within the article? -- 79.67.241.227 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know their history and I do not know where they used to be in that article. However, when I have time I could read those references and find an appropriate slot for them. Is that OK? Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiBlame ([2] and [3]) can find where and when they were originally added. Looks like they were in a "notes" section. I'll leave it to you. -- 79.67.241.227 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just when I thought people could not invent more Wikigadgets.  :-) I think it will be easier for me to just read those references (messed with in 2005) and assess its relevance today. I may have time tomorrow, as I'm on the move today. Cheers and thanks again for your attention to details. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I'll leave it to you. WikiBlame has been around for years. It is very useful for finding out who did what. It's the Revision history search link at the top of every article's history page. -- 79.67.241.227 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Andyjsmith's talk page.
Message added 11:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

andy (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the commendation on Abiogenesis

Thanks Battery Included for the commendation on Abiogenesis. John D. Croft (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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 find a resolution. The thread is "Abiogenesis". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ganymede's oceans

Thanks for updating that! If you have better info on any of the Category:Astronomical bodies with possible subsurface oceans, it would be appreciated. The modeling for the TNOs was simplistic, and 8 ya, so hopefully more's been done since. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Categories?

Hello. I often work on newly created pages (new page patroller) found at WP:New pages. One challenge for me is to find the most appropriate category for any given subject, and I have not ben able to find a "list of categories" similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types for finding available stub tags. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You may want to check out Portal:Contents/Categories. You can also start with Category:Articles and look for sub-categories until you find ones that are appropriate, but I doubt that's an efficient method. We also have Special:Categories which lists them all, but again I doubt that's efficient. Personally I usually try to find a well-categorized article on a similar topic and to re-use its categories, or to find a sufficiently general category I'm sure the topic belongs to, and then check for appropriate sub-categories. Huon (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Cygnet Health Care

I take exception to your comment on my article. It is not written like an advertisement. I suggest you go and look at some adverts.

Expand it in a neutral manner. Reference its quality care with neutrality and mention why it is notable. WP:MOS. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I expect an apology. Your comment was based on no evidence what so ever and was libellous.

Your reaction to my comment above suggests that you are an editor with a conflict of interest (WP:CONFLICT) posting spam for a company you may be closely related. I can think of two more interesting tags for your Cygnet Health Care article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither are true, nor backed by any evidence. I didn't even know Cygnet healthcare existed until this week.

Look, it did not take me long to review your history of conflict within Wikipedia, especially creating BS articles and arguing their subsequent deletion. I have no time for you or your BS. Good bye. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Congratulations, you're the first who reviews my articles within a few minutes. Usually i just see a notification weeks after I've written an article. Cheers and keep up the good work. Eden10Hazard (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Alien Life-Form Created?

@BatteryIncluded: Of possible Interest? => http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/business/researchers-report-breakthrough-in-creating-artificial-genetic-code.html - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

More to the story if interested =>

copied from 2014 in science#May

Researchers announce the creation, for the first time, of an "alien" life-form based on artificial genetic chemicals.< ref name="NYT-20140507">Pollack, Andrew (7 May 2014). "Researchers Report Breakthrough in Creating Artificial Genetic Code". New York Times. Retrieved 7 May 2014.</ref>< ref name="NATURE-20140507">Callaway, Ewen (7 May 2014). "First life with 'alien' DNA". Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15179. Retrieved 7 May 2014.</ref>< ref name="NATJ-20140507">Malyshev, Denis A.; Dhami, Kirandeep; Lavergne, Thomas; Chen, Tingjian; Dai, Nan; Foster, Jeremy M.; Corrêa, Ivan R.; Romesberg, Floyd E. (7 May 2014). "A semi-synthetic organism with an expanded genetic alphabet". Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/nature13314. Retrieved 7 May 2014.</ref>

Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is huge for synthetic biology. Thanks! I'll read it tonight when there is silence at home. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

PHEIC

Thanks for the initial fleshing-out of this article! kencf0618 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hi BatteryIncluded. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Aj lee, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please read the definition of nonsense in WP:G1 Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. GB fan 00:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello BatteryIncluded. You tagged "Heyllama" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan, Thank you for the guidance. There is so much junk created every hour, I got overwhelmed as if I was dealing with it by alone. I guess I should pick one article and tag it & shape it meticulously before moving to the next review. I will take my time next time, and hope some speed will come with experience. Thanks. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Artificial gene synthesis

Thanks for your interest in the artificial gene synthesis article. I think this information is new and exciting enough to nominate for an WP:In the news item. What do you think? Do you have any experience with "In the news"? I don't! --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I decided it needs its own article: Synthetic DNA. And I nominated it for ITN, hope I did it right! Any improvements to the article would be welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: I'd love to look it over and expand the article. "Synthetic DNA" has existed for a while, the innovation is this synthetic DNA that uses a new nucleic base AND is recognized by the replication system; I don't know about its translation. I will read more about it during Friday morning, and will make specific edits, questions, comments, and requests. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Added UBP Redirects.

Hello - *Excellent* work with the Unnatural base pair material - added a few "Redirects" - # REDIRECT [ [Base pair#Unnatural base pair (UBP)]] - to help the effort - including Unnatural base pair, Unnatural base pairs and UBPs - also, an [ [UBP]] item was added to the UBP (disambiguation) page - hope this is all *entirely* ok - ok with me to adjust and related of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I knew I was forgetting something. That is excellent. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

ET testimony - US Congress

Of Possible Interest? => < ref name="US-20140521">Shostak, Seth (21 May 2014). "Using Radio in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (PDF). US Congress. Retrieved 22 May 2014.</ref>< ref name="ABC-20140521">Kleineidam, Alina (21 May 2014). "Astronomers Tell Congress They're Almost Certain ET Exists". ABC News. Retrieved 22 May 2014.</ref> as well as < ref>https://www.facebook.com/drbogdan/posts/10152416969629691</ref>
Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I saw in Astrobiology Web [4] that they were going to do a "testimony", but I figured it was a way to request funds for SETI so I did not follow on that. Interesting....

BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Added: The SERENDIP project using the Arecibo antenna is brilliant: "By piggybacking on this antenna, the Berkeley group gets virtually continuous use of the antenna, but the price is that they have no control of where it is aimed. However, over the course of several years, this random scrutiny covers roughly one-third of the sky."

Holly smokes! 1/3 of the sky!!!! I thought they had done only a tiny fraction. On the other hand, it shows that the Milky Way is NOT teeming with radio signals. Oh well, all it takes is one. Right? CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reporting your incivility

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 141.6.11.18 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Voyager 1. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bon Voyage

Thanks for your message, but it made me think; no, it's better to try and work from within to correct the abuses perpetrated by POV pushers and zealots of all kinds. So I'm still here. Be seeing you! SkyBlackStar (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

SkyBlackStar, and I will be there to revert your misogyny again. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is a personal attack to label others as misogynists or "PC Nazis" when they are simply debating an editorial decision with you. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 20:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Scottywong, please get your facts straight before you come flinging labels: their disruptive actions are clearly misogynic, and THEY called me PC Nazi. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up the the comments. But seriously, calling people names is never a good way to carry on an argument. Just because people oppose the word "humankind" because they are less familiar with it than "mankind" doesn't necessarily mean that they hate women and think that men are superior. You're more likely to convince people of your point of view if you debate the issue in a mature, rational manner. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 22:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Scottywong, No worries. I know, but after months of discourse, there is no still no good-faith to use gender neutral language nor do a logic and encyclopedic compromise: use "spacecraft" instead of "manmade object". Likely the sexist and "Nazi" IP editor is one of them, and did it anonimously to avoid a block. Call the disruptive attitude what it is: sexist. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. To be clear, I'm not putting forth any opinion on mankind vs. humankind, or spacecraft vs. manmade object. But I disagree that the argument necessarily has anything to do with misogyny or sexism. Until someone comes out and says, "I think we should leave it as 'manmade object', because men are the ones that build things, and women just pop out babies and cook meatloaf all day", you shouldn't assume what someone's motives are for disagreeing with you. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 22:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• "And the vast majority of women are quite happy with it anyway "
• "I'm sure there were one or two women working on the program, but what's that got to do with anything?"
• "Sorry, but men created the probe, and only PC Nazis care about language being "gender neutral".
• In addition, user Richard Harvey is concerned for the historical accuracy of including the female engineers.

Do you honestly think it is an innocent grammar/syntax issue driving these people? BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

In a word: yes. You cannot seriously think these people are "anti-women", or have stone-age views of women and their abilities. That's what you're suggesting, and it's just plain wrong the panda ₯’ 23:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For managing to review the same AfC at the same time. Lixxx235 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Do note, however, that there is a "palace article under review" button to try and prevent this from happening ;) I did use it and went into history and found yo reviewing it ;) --Lixxx235 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! signal

Hello BI, Have answered your questions on my Talk page. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance

I need your advice regarding editing synthetic biology. There is SO much information I just don't know where to start. It's an amazing development in genetic and bio-medical engineering that is still in it's infancy. Scientists are trying to provide standardized DNA nucleotide sequences to create or modify existing natural biological systems. Biobricks and M.I.T.'s Registry of Standardized Biological Parts are examples of DNA banks that provide genetic codes to build DNA from scratch. These synthetic genomes can begin design to DNA in a cost efficient and timely manner. But with all the good there is always the bad...blueprinting new medicines - good, bio-terrorism - bad. The new sequences have bistablity - meaning some work and some are defective...the uncooperative DNA sequence is bound to show up since these man-made systems are reprogramming cell function - they may not behave or work as intended. Can you please help me figure out a way to write about it...wikipedially? Any response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Lgkkitkat (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lgkkitkat. Yes, genetic engineering is blossoming and it will only get more complex. Regarding the synthetic biology article and gene design, it all depends of the references you dig out, so it would not be "original research". Research test models start with bacteria and/or yeast. If they seem to work fine and the protein product is expressed as expected, then they move on to rodents and eventually to larger mammals and primates. That is one indication of how advanced their research is. You will have to be astute to read the fine print when researchers write about problems on the phenotype (expression of the genes and protein interaction in vivo). Invariably they verbalize it as "an issue to research further".

I have 2 recommendations before you get started. Find recent references that have been peer-reviewed, and you stay away from commercial web sites (big pharma).

The other one is that you work on one section of the Wikipedia article at the time. Bringing it to shape will be a monumental effort. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. I have been working on articles all night so I can spend some time with family...I will try my best to follow the rules.Lgkkitkat (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

El Azul

El Azul is reported dead following a heart attack. Thought I'd let you know ... and El Tísico is out already. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@ComputerJA . Azul dead and cremated. I guess the cops can go home now. right? Right!?  ;-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to see

...this Talk section, here [5], regarding an article that you have edited. If you, as a more interested editor, wish to move this in the direction of being more proportionate and better sourced per WP policy, all the better. My goal is the endpoint, and respect for fellow contributors. By the by, I worked on Miller-Urey experiments in the 1970s, and was a correspondent with the S. Miller at UCSD, so though pharma now, I am not out of my depths with having to edit this. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See also note at Drbogdan talk page. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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 find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Abiogenesis. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ecosystem on a chip on a femtosatellite

I see you did a lot of good work on List of microorganisms tested in outer space. I'm proposing that a small ecosystem (probably with Tardigrades at the top of its food chain) be launched on a KickSat Sprite. Problem: I know next to nothing about the relevant biology. Any ecosystem would need to endure dramatic temperature swings on about a 90-minute cycle, with conditions hospitable for bioactivity perhaps only for a few minutes, twice per orbit. There is a small chance of launch by late October, good chances for launch within a year. You seem well-qualified to comment on the likelihood of success for this idea. Any thoughts or pointers? The project would be conducted within the auspices of Project Persephone [6], with some expressions of interest already from Cornell University (via their Space Systems Design Studio[7]) and Tokyo University (via ARTSAT participants[8]). Yakushima (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Nice work on that list of microorganisms tested in space. Yakushima (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society Access

Hey BatteryIncluded, please make sure to follow the instructions in the email I sent nearly 2 weeks ago to ensure that you can get WP:RSUK access, Sadads (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sadads. I am sorry, but am burned out from dealing with fanatical single-purpose users pushing speculations and fringe science (and some sexists too). I'm taking a break for a few months, with an occasional visit every now and then. If the access "licence" is still available for me this winter, I will use it as much as possible; if you need to reassign it soon, please do so, so it will not be lost. Thank you for your understanding. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV (07/31/2014-12pm/et/usa) - Mars 2020 Rover - Announcement.

NASA-TV - Thursday, July 31, 2014 (12 noon/pm/et/usa) - panel of leading experts to announce instruments for the upcoming Mars 2020 Rover => < ref name="NASA-20140730">Brown, Dwayne (July 30, 2014). "NASA to Announce Mars 2020 Rover Instruments". NASA. Retrieved July 30, 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - RELATED NASA REFERENCES - Space Experts Announce Mars 2020 Rover Payload => added related video => M2020 - Video (51:42) - New Science Instruments (July 2014) - AND - < ref name="NASA-20140731a">Brown, Dwayne (July 31, 2014). "RELEASE 14-208 NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload to Explore the Red Planet as Never Before". NASA. Retrieved July 31, 2014. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 15 (help)</ref> - AND - < ref name="NASA-20140731b">Brown, Dwayne (July 31, 2014). "NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload to Explore the Red Planet as Never Before". NASA. Retrieved July 31, 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is just past 4 PM and my kids will be back soon. I will take a look whenever I can. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>[http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/9366.html Finback Whale Fact Sheet - Endangered]</ref><ref>[[http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2478/0 The ICUN red list of threatened species] - Fin Whale.</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * A suborbital test rocket ([[Tronador (rocket)]] in development by Argentina

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tronador (rocket), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vex. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 August

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 Interplanetary contamination page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edition of the news about the evolution of Life_on_Mars discussions, August 8, 2014

Hello, BatteryIncluded - Just to ask you for toning down your edition (deletion of 3996 letters) dated 21:43, 9 August 2014‎. Your introduced text says, "the taxonomy proposed by Crocco by Crocco has not been accepted by the scientific community and is considered a single nomen nudum." In fact, such "active non-acceptance" view has been fueled from this influential section of Wikipedia, while no academic paper did indeed discuss it. Even knowing of your position, let me propose that you instead put the following edit: "While in later years the academic support for the biological interpretation of Viking signals increased, it found initially little echo in the scientific community and some even consider Crocco´s taxonomy a single nomen nudum. N. C. Contreras, another neurobiologist and former coauthor with Crocco, in 2008 countered this position by explaining that Crocco in fact proposed that holotypes and epitypes, namely the biological specimens that museums and repositories keep from natural decay and destruction, are affectable by a progressive epistemic mediation (PEM) such that, for the purposes of systematics or taxonomic nomenclature, the new species may be characterized by the permanent features of signals remotely radiated and progressively refined in series of destructive experiments - a concept that may prove valuable for the development of exobiology and the biology of terrestrial places recondite or difficult to access."

As about your view (not introduced in the article) that a poll isn´t an academic paper, let me comment that all of the mentloned people had been asked individually on June/July 2014 for his or her position. All of them replied in the form mentioned in the text you now deleted, and several were present at the exposition, as myself did. This issue is important because, until another metabolism probe is sent to the planet, your long active care of this Wikipedia point misrepresents the opinions as if the scientists that remain mentioned in the article were alone in an unfounded belief, which of course isn´t the case. It undermines their forces to continue working (several are in their eighties and physically ill) and makes an unjust assessment that they endure since several years ago. Further, progressive epistemic mediation is also misrepresented as if still nowadays were it mandatory to keep bugs germinating in an herbary in order to contribute a new taxonomical concept, i.e. a nomenclature entry. This is why I ask you for toning down as proposed your influential edition.190.136.122.207 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. In Wikipedia it is ll about the quality of published references, and supporing peer-reviewed research. Crocco has performed zero research on the Viking experiments, he only believes they are proof of extant life on the surface. I'd be more than eager to explain with neutrality tihis "controversy" in terms of Navarro's research, sugesting that the search for organics turned negative because they were not sensitive enough or because of oxidants in the soil. By the way, how does your camp cope with Curiosty's in-situ measurements of surface radiation?: The radiation environment on the surface, as recently determined by Curiosity rover "is so high that any biological organisms would not survive without protection."

I am short of time, so please don't read this as unfriendly but a fast reply. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have time now.

1) I diagree in that Wikipedia influences astrobiology research on Mars; here we report after the fact, or so should we. I considered your request re: Nomen nudum and you are right: there are no published reports expressing rejection, but the publishing journals, by refusing to publish his 2007 paper makes it a rejection. But I will implement your feedback to tone it down. Regarding the poll, please note that a) you include no reference; and b) if we were to transcribe here "news" stories about evolution of life on Mars, we'd have no space for the actual research and data, which has priority. I know Dr. MacKay suspects current life on Mars, and I like and respect his work. It is his conservative and incremental approach to astrobiology that has earned support within NASA. He is getting the job done without screaming Martians! :-)

2) Regarding Crocco's proposed Martian taxonomy, the flaw is that there is no specimen to clasify or charcterize; morover, it remains a hypothetical organism. (I think that if a specimen is indeed found on Mars -alive or a fossil- the proposed taxonomy will likely be applied as proposed.) As of today, the proposed taxonomy on the hypothetical organism is already documented in this WP article in its own sub-section. But any further expansion would definitely become WP:Undue weight of WP:fringe. Note that I am not against editing/correcting the section or adding more references. The main point is that the Viking results (actual data) can be explained as controversial, whereas the taxonomy is, sincerely, a nomen nudum. So expanding on it does not seem like an option in Wikipedia.

3) I am aware that the Viking bioexperiments were declared "inconclusive" and not "negative", so yes, there is some scientific controversy that can/must be explained but without going into the fringe. The paper by Navarro where he notes the unexpected low detection sensitivity of organics, was well researched, peer-reviewed and well received; I would even call it influential judging for the NASA articles I have read. Unlike the proposed taxonomy, Navarro's observation is sound and legitimate. I think we can improve the related sections by highlighting his conclusion and specific suggestion to use a specific soil analyser for the next astrobiology Mars mission. (Which by the way, I have to verify if the scientific community implemented on the Mars 2020 Rover or the ExoMars rover.)

4) Recent in-situ radiation measurements by Curiosity rover have constrained the amount of radiation at the surface of Mars, which has allowed for significant improvement in the accuracy of computer models with regards of organic compound preservation on the surface and shallow subsurface. (It seems any organic molecule would have to be burried at least 2m for protection against the surface environment.) I wonder if your camp has published anything on the survival or preservation of biomolecules under ionizing radiation?

I will type some changes and post them eithere here on in the article and we'll adjust it according to reliable sources and WP guidelines, OK? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Plankton Found on ISS?

Of possible interest => Astronauts report finding sea plankton on outer window surfaces of the International Space Station and have been unable to explain how it got there.< ref name="CNET-20140820">Starr, Michele (20 August 2014). "Sea plankton found on the outer surface of the ISS". CNET. Retrieved 20 August 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - recent related (and better WP:RS?) references include the following => < ref name="SP-20140820">Kramer, Miriam (20 August 2014). "Sea Plankton on Space Station? Russian Official Claims It's So". Space.com. Retrieved 21 August 2014.</ref> - AND SIMILAR - < ref name="DS-20140821">Kramer, Miriam (21 August 2014). "Sea Plankton on Space Station, Russian Official Claims". Discovery Communications. Retrieved 21 August 2014.</ref> - ALSO - < ref name="PHYS-20140821">Yirka, Bob (21 August 2014). "ITAR-TASS claims Russian cosmonauts have found sea plankton on outside of International Space Station". Phys.org. Retrieved 22 August 2014.</ref>< ref name="ITAR-20140819">Staff (19 August 2014). "Scientists find traces of sea plankton on ISS surface". Information Telegraph Agency of Russia. Retrieved 22 August 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC) [updated - Drbogdan (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)]

@Drbogdan: It goes to show how high particles aloft can reach, and/or the importance of improving planetary protection protocols and methods. By the way, it was during this space-walk that the Russians mounted the new EXPOSE-R2 astrobiology experiment on the exterior of their Russian module. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - YES - Agreed - Your comment seems related to one of my earlier discussions - at Talk:Kepler-86#habitability - where I referred to the following news quote => "Scientists have found these [microbe?] cells 40 miles high in the atmosphere and beneath the ocean floor some seven miles deep." - based on < ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980825080732.htm</ref>< ref>http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/492401</ref> (there may be better WP:RSs for this I would think) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If interested - other recent news re extremophiles => < ref name="NAT-20140820">Fox, Douglas (20 August 2014). "Lakes under the ice: Antarctica's secret garden". Nature (journal). 512: 244–246. doi:10.1038/512244a. Retrieved 21 August 2014.</ref>< ref name="FRB-20140820">Mack, Eric (20 August 2014). "Life Confirmed Under Antarctic Ice; Is Space Next?". Forbes. Retrieved 21 August 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Also worthy imo => "[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwvj9SUUVlo Ancient Earth, Alien Earths]" (59:38) re Talk:Exoplanet#NASA-TV (08/20/2014@5:30-6:30pm/et/usa) - Habitable Exoplanets. - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - NASA-WATCH REPORT (*Not* Official NASA) - Issue still up-in-the-air (so-to-speak) => < ref name="NASAW-20140821">Cowing, Keith (21 August 2014). "Russian Scientists Claim That Algae Lives On ISS Exterior (Update)". NASA Watch. Retrieved 22 August 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Offsite hostilities

I just thought you should know a user on the website Know Your Meme is spreading seditious rumors about you. He claims you are a murderer and are running a drug ring involving kittens and poisoned medicine. If this of any concern to you, here is the person in question. --132.177.237.67 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, the paranoid dude from Malaysia. Glad to know he found attention elsewhere. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Asteroid impact avoidance edit

Hello, I am the IP editor that edited the above article a few days ago, I appreciate your attempt but your edit has now introduced a serious reference error.

Notable the referenced page(77) that you put in support of the following section of the article is incorrect, that page discusses how nuclear deflection works, it does not discuss politics. Could you please correct this?

" This bill "to provide for a Near-Earth Object Survey program to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize certain near-Earth asteroids and comets" was introduced in March 2005 by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)."

92.251.211.17 (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The reference was not introduced by me. What I noticed was that the exact same reference was introduced 3 times in the article so I only changed the format used for multiple citations of the same reference. I admit I did not read the reference nor check that it was used in the correct context. Please feel free to fix the errors you detect and make a note in the edit summary just before you save the page. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (09/11/2014@1pm/et/usa) - Curiosity Rover - Future Studies.

NASA-TV/ustream (Thursday, 09/11/2014@1pm/et/usa) - Panel of experts to discuss the mission status and future science campaign of the Curiosity Rover => < ref name="NASA-20140909">Brown, Dwayne; Agle, DC (September 9, 2014). "MEDIA ADVISORY M14-154 NASA Holds Teleconference to Discuss Science Campaign of Curiosity Mars Rover". NASA. Retrieved September 10, 2014. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 23 (help)</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - Space Experts Discuss the Curiosity Rover and Future Plans (a/o September 11, 2014) - Archived Discussion => Audio (62:44) and Visuals - AND - related NYT ref => < ref name="NYT-20140911">Chang, Kenneth (September 11, 2014). "After a Two-Year Trek, NASA's Mars Rover Reaches Its Mountain Lab". New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2001 Mars Odyssey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Mars Student Imaging Project]] (MSIP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 October

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 Chandrayaan-2 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)