User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 11

NASA Briefings/livestream – Experts to discuss the latest Ceres, Mars, Pluto results (near Houston, TX; March 21 – 22, 2016)^[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we are definitely apes. There are two branches: the gibbons, or lesser apes (family Hylobatidae), and the great apes (family Hominidae), we belong to the Hominidae family. Richard Dawkins even produced a documentary series called "The Fifth Ape"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8kTMxfpLng), and just in case you still haven't figured it out yet, the "fifth ape", that would be us, homo sapiens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Homo sapiens is one of seven extant species of great apes. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the thanks and for filling in the ref. One of the least understood things about prions/Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) is how they are transmitted. I thought this would clear up confusion for readers. I try to keep up to date on TSE Reasearch.Spidersmilk (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Spidersmilk, You are doing a great job keeping up with the updates. Thank you! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canadian Space Agency 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:

• | PI: John Hutchings ([[Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the BEAM page updated. Craigboy (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Craigboy Thank you! Given the previous positive tests (Genesis I and Genesis II) I think inflatable habitats are the future for human space travel to the Moon and Mars. It is an important article and I am surprised not more people have realized its relevance to MOST future human flights. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2016 (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 Exoplanetology page, your edit caused a DOI 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) 00:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

		Fan!
		{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a fan! Fans are good for two reasons: They blow air and allow hot Wikipedians to cool off, and also cheer them on when they need it, Just like a fan of a football or basketball team. Cool off, and enjoy the cheering and the breeze. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread "WikiLove" and "WikiCheers" by giving someone else some a fan, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone who just needs a some fan to cheer them on and/or a good, refreshing breeze. To spread the goodness of fans, you can add {{subst:fan}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

~~~~

Spidersmilk (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a funny typo but I think you meant uncrewed. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL! BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Spontaneous generation into Life. 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) 02:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear BatteryIncluded,

Your recent reverts are not only non-constructive they seem to be the vestiges of WP:EW and at least not very civil. Especially your comment on my talk page accusing me of failing to make the distinction between 1, 2 and 3 below seems to be the latter. It is the articles Life, Earth system science and Gaia hypothesis that all fail to make sufficiently clear the distinction between 1. the initial purposeful idea and 2. later versions which had this removed and 3. the fallout this idea has caused in the wider geoscience community. This has to be corrected or the criticism by many scientists such as John Maynard Smith, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Paul Ehrlich, Massimo Pigliucci and Robert May will simply seem random. Currently the main article doesn't even mention purposefulness until the very end of the article, in the criticism section. This cannot stand.

I see that you have done great work elsewhere (it is always nice to meet a fellow Wikipedian on NPP), therefore I hope we can come to some sort of understanding regarding these pages. These articles (and others making mention of this idea) should at the very least be very specific about the distinction of 1, 2 and 3 and explain exactly what the criticism is about. The articles should all include mentions to both the benefits of 2 and 3 as well as the fact that 1 is pseudoscience. Reverting my edits before I can even get started on an article isn't going to make these problems go away and we all want an encyclopaedia that is as accurate as possible. Let's not let this devolve into petty squabbling over nothing. AlwaysUnite (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at this article? I'm no biologist, but the article seems kind of unbalanced to me. Your thoughts? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom, I'll take a look, but may be able to edit only later today. Thx. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the BEAM article. Sounds like the inflation is proceeding now, more slowly, but so far more successfully, as I write this.

Scott P. (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Scottperry yes, I'm watching it live. Looks like they are cautious but will be successful this time. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If interested, just created a new article => "Human Genome Project - Write" - about trying to artificially create the 3 billion DNA letters of the human genome^[1][2] - *entirely* ok to contribute of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

>Protecting the atmosphere: Found their paper. Please cite sources when adding content. Thx.

Please allow at least 15' (the academic quarter) for a user to amend her/his contribution after a notification. I was "conflicted" twice while correcting my section. Not all of us get it right first time.

Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk.Theodore (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_matter&curid=8651&diff=730515772&oldid=730413634

Dark energy is massless, so, dark matter actually accounts for MUCH more than 27% of the mass content of the observable universe. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

EeeveeeFrost, Thank you for the note. I'll revert my edit. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

IF Interested => "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (LUCA) of all "Life" on "Earth" Found?^[1] Drbogdan (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Drbogdan, very interesting report. I will read it fully tonight, and any related papers I can find. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Brief Followup - added to several possibly relevant articles (ie, Abiogenesis, Life, LUCA, etc) => In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of genes from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all organisms living on Earth.^[1] - ok with me to adj edits of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I am not sure this belongs in the abiogenesis article. Especially not in the introduction. LUCA is only about evolution, IMO. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded: Yes - agreed - moved edit from "Abiogenesis" lede to (perhaps) a better location => "Abiogenesis#The earliest biological evidence for life on Earth" - *entirely* ok w/ me to rm/rv/mv/ce edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (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 Exoplanetology page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the link to SLS-EM1. I am a bit timid about editing, so that means I'm not "BOLD". Again, much appreciation. Fomeister (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fomeister Thank you. It is all about team work; the cumulative effort over time is what makes this encyclopedia so good. Please feel free to ask me questions or help with anything. If I don't know the answer, I will find somebody that does. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pioneer program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solar magnetic storm. 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) 09:25, 18 August 2016 (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 Proxima Centauri b 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) 00:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Redox is a contraction of "reduction–oxidation reaction", thus oxidize rightly redirects there. Kindly self-revert. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rowan Forest. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ed Erhart (WMF):, Reply email sent. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"While traces of those collisions would have been erased by Earth's changing crust, Bennu provides a glimpse of what the deliveries might have looked like billions of years ago."

NYT News - Re "Life on Mars", "Extremophiles" and more - Of possible interest?^[1] => http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/science/south-african-mine-life-on-mars.html - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Nice article. Yes, the studies of extremophiles continue, now expanded to their symbiosis (ecological systems) and in analog (Terrestrial) environments. More than one biologist has suggested to keep our eyes open for microbial life in the undersurface of Mars. But that capability will have to wait several decades. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Earth article gives very little attention to life on Earth. Mostly what is discussed are the physical aspects of our planet. Do you have an opinion on this? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom -Hello. I have noticed that too. In my opinion, it can benefit on a subsection on life in general rather than a history of life (abiogenesis & evolution). The same was done some time back on the geological history of Earth. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Battery, I see you reverted my edits to the Earth surface section. I suppose you felt my reduction of the discussion of surface processes was too much. I can possibly agree with you, but I still feel there is a lot of redundancy in this section, as well as other problems, like somewhat passive constructions (subject not appearing early in the sentences), etc. While this article is "featured", it still needs work. Please jump in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom Sorry, I did not even realize I did a revert. It was unintended. My apologies. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. My perception, still, is that we need a couple of tight paragraphs summarizing the "biosphere", following the sections on atmosphere, hydrosphere, etc. This would be outside of my comfort zone, as I'm primarily a physical scientist. Interesting to you, perhaps? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can start a draft tomorrow. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to talk Plumbago into contributing on this as well. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper also ar a couple of other articles, eg Creationism. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey BI. When you're not busy, would you mind giving a glance at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1? I just created it, and would appreciate a sanity check on my writing. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 07:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:SpaceX#Category rethinking.... N2e (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rowan Forest. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

David J Johnson (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Raptor (rocket stage), an unfortunate rediret I created in the distant past when, for a short period of time, sources indicated Raptor was a rocket stage. Which was, it ended up, wrong. N2e (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(BTW, I also added a comment to one of our discussions on Interplanetary Transport System today. N2e (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Batt. A couple of your recent edits got me to thinking. Seeing you making a few edits, and using the word "settlement" is making me wonder about the common usage of the words "colony" and "colonization" with respect to the long-term objective of Musk's actions re the "Colonization" of Mars Both of the latter words imply a rather top-down approach, a bit of an us vs. them, an "in-charge" group and a "not-in-charge" group. From everything I see in Musk's 27 Sep IAC speech, and especially in the sn20161010 and ars20160928 sources I've used in a few places, Musk's vision for the growth of whatever comes on Mars is more bottom-up, encouraging others to consider how they might innovate and use the low-cost infrastructure SpaceX aims to build. In other words, more of a settlement, and less of a colony (in the long term. I say all this understanding that the initial smaller groups of humans would be much more guided/directed from the top, from whatever corporate or government entities that might have been involved in selecting and sending them.). But the long-term objective, as Musk is setting it up and pitching it, is much more of a grown order, a settlement, and less a colony. Or at least, that's what your recent edits got me to thinking.

What do you think about this? N2e (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

N2e English is my second language. I have been using "colony" and "settlement" interchangeably in Wikipedia; as synonyms. If there is a demarcation in between then by all means, you edit them as needed. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool, that makes sense if English is a second language for you. But still a useful distinction for you to grok, I think. If you think about the US experience as a "colony" of King George III of Britain, or of the many Indonesian "colonies" of the Dutch or the African "colonies" of French, Germans, British, etc., or the many Spanish or Portuguese "colonies" that were instantiated in South America and Asia, you will probably be able to see how the term "colony" always has a bit of a connotation of subservience, or even second-class citizens, on the part of the colonists. The term "colony" always implies someone else is in charge.

Per the many sources, its clear Musk is (aspirationally) aiming for a "self-sustaining human civilization" in the long term. So "settlement" is a much better word than "colony" for the very long term objective. Of course, in the short term, anything built on Mars will be totally dependent on Earth-side cargo deliveries and technology etc. So colony is not an inappropriate word, nor not a descriptive word, for the early mid term. It's just not the right word for the long term objective.

And I thank you for helping me come to realize that! Best, N2e (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the 'Batteries weren't Included'. (Tell me you haven't head that one before? )
'Seriously', I won::der what programmer put a comma, apostrophe or hyphen (Mariner 1) in the wrong place, or didn't put it there. Or is it another imperial pounds-force seconds vs metric Newton-seconds (Mars Climate Orbiter) - 220 of ^Borg 14:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

220 of Borg You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not an ESA programmer. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Woof! 220 of ^Borg 18:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry battery, I read that source wrong about the electra radio. I thought it was saying the lander contacted the orbiter using its electra radio, but it was saying that it contacted the orbiter's electra radio. Thanks for checking my work, and good luck editing. Fotaun (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is where I made my mistake fwiw

I also doubted myself the first time I read that reference. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

With a link to a DAB page like Buccopharyngeal, the major options are:

1. Pick the correct link.
2. Link to wikt:buccopharyngeal.
3. Point to the link through the (disambiguation) page with a <!--Note--> saying why it's correct to point to a DAB page.
4. Turn Buccopharyngeal into a WP:DABCONCEPT article.
5. Turn Buccopharyngeal into a WP:SIA article.

Some of those options might be good, some might be bad - but above all, a direct link to a DAB page is against WP:INTDAB and annoys User:DPL bot, which is how I found that link while working my way through the 28,000-odd links flagged as errors by DPL bot in English Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded brusque - but for the last 10 days, I've been having a "discussion" with another user who thinks that WP:CONSENSUS on DAB pages doesn't apply in their case at all. Nerves, frazzled. Narky Blert (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The policy is to only link to a page once per article. The subject matter of the section is not relevant. In fact, since the term was used and the abbreviation was noted, it isn't really necessary have anything more than RTG. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

DinoSlider, Thank you for the note. Per policy (WP:DUPLINK), a duplicate link is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. Deleting the RTG link in the RTG section is plain wrong. There is policy and then there is reason and common sense. The reason to link RTG in the Power section overwhelms your assessment. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that common sense should always prevail and I have no interest in an edit war. In fact, I do not even wish to change your mind. My comment was meant as an explanation since it was not clear from the sarcastic edit summary that you understood my rationale to the extent that I now see that you do. I initially removed the link with this edit while trying to help reduce the "sea of blue" that occasionally creeps into articles. As a result, I was trying to remain diligent to keep it from getting bad again, but I can completely understand your argument. I hope this helps. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I reverted this edit because it was only slightly supported by the source cited. While I certainly feel the connection to big tobacco is worth mentioning, it is very important on a biography of a living person to be completely accurate. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Magnolia677, you are attributing IP edits and comments to me and working up a paranoid sock-puppet case, which is be vey entertaining to watch. Please rest assured that when I want to tell a climate denier (such as yourself) to fuck off, I add my own signature at the bottom. The fact that you were shot down by more than 2 editors with consistent scientific arguments, it does not imply sock-puppetry, nor a global conspiracy. Happy dreams. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rowan Forest,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi battery, as usual thanks for checking my work. In this case I don't care for the summary much either way, but I wanted to clarify that as far as I have read, RTG's are considered nuclear power. While I agree they are not a nuclear reactor, I have never found them not referred to as nuclear power. Further reading is easy to come by and here is one example https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/rtg.cf Thanks again for your many articles, I felt like the space community really came together for the ExoMars landing, and with all the traffic I'm glad we had some people keeping an eye on it. Happy editing to you and all the best. Fotaun (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Taken on it's own, this was skirting a personal attack, so I chose to ignore it. However, combine it with this and this, you don't seem to be grasping the concept of how to get along and play well with others. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Darling, knowing how to tell science from bullshit is necessary. Love, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It is ABSOLUTE bullshit. I have no additional accounts, nor edited as IP. There are multiple users in Wikipedia that have described "global warming denial" as bulshit, and it is ridiculous that instead of looking at my server address (you have that info), you go instead by a single story by an editor that supports conspiracy theories. I like the Wikipedia concept, but when handled by assholes and science deniers, it is laughable. From the bottom of my heart: fuck you, the science deniers behind this, and your system that is incapable of looking at the address of the users in question. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't followed all of this in detail, but I do know that BatteryIncluded has done an awful lot of good editing on Wikipedia. Can a different administrator please check this socking allegation and confirm or not that the evidence is conclusive? Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Perhaps BatteryIncluded can request this him/herself? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There's already been at least two eyes on this, as I blocked after Ivanvector (an SPI clerk) recommended an indefinite block at the SPI case page. I thought indefinite was too harsh, but I do agree that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate sockpuppetry. Of course, BatteryIncluded is welcome to appeal their block as described above. I should also note that I would almost certainly look favorably on an unblock request myself after ~2 months without evidence of socking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13, Jauerback, Ivanvector, and Isambard Kingdom: FWIW - Yes - *entirely* agree with the comments of "User:Isambard Kingdom" above re "User:BatteryIncluded" - don't know all the details either, but "User:BatteryIncluded" has been an excellent Wikipedia editor in my experience with him over the years - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The details of the sockpuppet case are spelled out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BatteryIncluded. That's the extent of my involvement, and I don't believe I can add anything further here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the SPI investigation and wasn't even aware of it being filed, however the case looks strong. I did give BatteryIncluded their two most recent blocks for incivility and personal attacks (the most recent one was extended for socking). It's a shame that they are an excellent editor, because their collaboration skills are extremely subpar and (ignoring the socking) are going to continue to lead to longer and longer blocks if they don't improve. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• I and another CheckUser have run checks against BI. First, as he states, he is not using any IPs to edit Wikipedia. Second, and more specifically, the IP he was alleged to have used does not belong to him. Therefore, I have reduced the block back to the original one-week expiration for personal attacks. I rarely intervene in these matters, and I accept the fact that the clerk and blocking administrator acted in good faith based on the behavioral evidence. However, the block was not only unjust, it put the editor in an untenable situation because he was expected to acknowledge the sock puppetry to be unblocked earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: happy to have been corrected here. I didn't think of asking to check, but I guess nothing private has been revealed here. Thanks for checking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC|

BU Rob13, Ivanvector, so I asked if the evidence of sock puppetry was conclusive, I was assured that it was "sufficient", and now I see that it wan't. Wouldn't an apology be in order? And, also, some explanation? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Without seeing the technical evidence myself (which I cannot, as per the CheckUser policy), I'm unable to comment on it. I certainly apologize if I was incorrect. You're able to see and evaluate the evidence yourself at the SPI case, and I'm certainly willing to respond to any specific criticisms. The evidence presented was extremely convincing and enough to block on behavioral grounds. I can't comment much further without knowing what the technical evidence showed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So I think I understand, now. There is a sort of wall between the admin person evaluating the evidence (that all of us see) and another person who checks things like IP addresses (the CheckUser). I would think that CheckUser's evidence would be pretty much clear. What does Ivanvector say about this? I'm not interested in belaboring this, but BatteryIncluded did ask that the IP addresses be double checked. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I do see in BatteryIncluded's vulgar mini-rant above that they asked to check against their "server address", but they're incorrect that we "have that info"; we do not. Only a very limited set of users (CheckUsers) who are vetted by the Wikimedia Foundation have access to it; Rob and I are not among that group. Furthermore, CheckUsers are not allowed to comment in situations where doing so would reveal the private address of a registered account, and so clerks decline those requests as a matter of routine, in fact Bbb23 declined this request himself. Therefore I can only comment on the evidence available to me, which was that both BatteryIncluded and the IP user appeared to have a very extreme POV and an unusually combative style of discussion in common with each other, which is unusual for two genuinely unrelated editors and usually a very strong indicator of two accounts being operated by the same person. You request an apology from me but I've done nothing wrong here: I don't believe any dispassionate reviewer would draw a different conclusion with the evidence available at the time (I was one of 3 editors who reached this conclusion, including Rob and Magnolia677, 4 if you count Jauerback), and I am not permitted to request the technical information which showed this to be an erroneous finding. It is fortunate that Bbb23 elected to check anyway and was able to set the record straight here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Ivanvector, I understand, now, that you are not a checkuser. I thank you for explaining this and the process involved. It is not something I had understood. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, I hope you can come back and return to making constructive edits to Wikipedia. I also hope you cool it with the derogatory language and name-calling. It only undermines your reputation and stance on issues (including those on which you are objectively "right"), and it can even allow someone else to drag you deeper into the mud. One thing is for certain, you have been passionate about your work here. So, I would like to encourage you to turn the leaf over. Moving forward, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earth Proxima is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth Proxima until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi BatteryIncluded. I hope all is well. Feel free to drop me a message if you need anything. I learned a lot from you and would love to hear what you're up to and what projects you have in mind here at WP. Un abrazo, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting your edit in this article instead of simply editing, which would have been more appropriate. Thanks for spotting that mistake. Gap9551 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		For your quick involvement in the development of the article Gravitational-wave observation which is noted on Wikipedia's main page In the news section! --Pine✉ 20:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the article "Flagship program" needs to be modified or deleted. Unlike explorer, discovery or new frontier, the so-called "program" never exists in NASA annual budget estimates documents. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2016 (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 Allergy page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Talk:Planet Nine#Conclusion 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, nagualdesign 15:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

NASA Briefings/livestream – Experts to discuss the latest Ceres, Mars, Pluto results (near Houston, TX; March 21 – 22, 2016)^[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we are definitely apes. There are two branches: the gibbons, or lesser apes (family Hylobatidae), and the great apes (family Hominidae), we belong to the Hominidae family. Richard Dawkins even produced a documentary series called "The Fifth Ape"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8kTMxfpLng), and just in case you still haven't figured it out yet, the "fifth ape", that would be us, homo sapiens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Homo sapiens is one of seven extant species of great apes. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the thanks and for filling in the ref. One of the least understood things about prions/Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) is how they are transmitted. I thought this would clear up confusion for readers. I try to keep up to date on TSE Reasearch.Spidersmilk (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Spidersmilk, You are doing a great job keeping up with the updates. Thank you! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canadian Space Agency 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:

• | PI: John Hutchings ([[Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the BEAM page updated. Craigboy (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Craigboy Thank you! Given the previous positive tests (Genesis I and Genesis II) I think inflatable habitats are the future for human space travel to the Moon and Mars. It is an important article and I am surprised not more people have realized its relevance to MOST future human flights. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2016 (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 Exoplanetology page, your edit caused a DOI 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) 00:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

		Fan!
		{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a fan! Fans are good for two reasons: They blow air and allow hot Wikipedians to cool off, and also cheer them on when they need it, Just like a fan of a football or basketball team. Cool off, and enjoy the cheering and the breeze. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread "WikiLove" and "WikiCheers" by giving someone else some a fan, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone who just needs a some fan to cheer them on and/or a good, refreshing breeze. To spread the goodness of fans, you can add {{subst:fan}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

~~~~

Spidersmilk (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a funny typo but I think you meant uncrewed. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL! BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Spontaneous generation into Life. 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) 02:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear BatteryIncluded,

Your recent reverts are not only non-constructive they seem to be the vestiges of WP:EW and at least not very civil. Especially your comment on my talk page accusing me of failing to make the distinction between 1, 2 and 3 below seems to be the latter. It is the articles Life, Earth system science and Gaia hypothesis that all fail to make sufficiently clear the distinction between 1. the initial purposeful idea and 2. later versions which had this removed and 3. the fallout this idea has caused in the wider geoscience community. This has to be corrected or the criticism by many scientists such as John Maynard Smith, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Paul Ehrlich, Massimo Pigliucci and Robert May will simply seem random. Currently the main article doesn't even mention purposefulness until the very end of the article, in the criticism section. This cannot stand.

I see that you have done great work elsewhere (it is always nice to meet a fellow Wikipedian on NPP), therefore I hope we can come to some sort of understanding regarding these pages. These articles (and others making mention of this idea) should at the very least be very specific about the distinction of 1, 2 and 3 and explain exactly what the criticism is about. The articles should all include mentions to both the benefits of 2 and 3 as well as the fact that 1 is pseudoscience. Reverting my edits before I can even get started on an article isn't going to make these problems go away and we all want an encyclopaedia that is as accurate as possible. Let's not let this devolve into petty squabbling over nothing. AlwaysUnite (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at this article? I'm no biologist, but the article seems kind of unbalanced to me. Your thoughts? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom, I'll take a look, but may be able to edit only later today. Thx. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the BEAM article. Sounds like the inflation is proceeding now, more slowly, but so far more successfully, as I write this.

Scott P. (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Scottperry yes, I'm watching it live. Looks like they are cautious but will be successful this time. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If interested, just created a new article => "Human Genome Project - Write" - about trying to artificially create the 3 billion DNA letters of the human genome^[1][2] - *entirely* ok to contribute of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

>Protecting the atmosphere: Found their paper. Please cite sources when adding content. Thx.

Please allow at least 15' (the academic quarter) for a user to amend her/his contribution after a notification. I was "conflicted" twice while correcting my section. Not all of us get it right first time.

Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk.Theodore (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_matter&curid=8651&diff=730515772&oldid=730413634

Dark energy is massless, so, dark matter actually accounts for MUCH more than 27% of the mass content of the observable universe. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

EeeveeeFrost, Thank you for the note. I'll revert my edit. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

IF Interested => "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (LUCA) of all "Life" on "Earth" Found?^[1] Drbogdan (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Drbogdan, very interesting report. I will read it fully tonight, and any related papers I can find. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Brief Followup - added to several possibly relevant articles (ie, Abiogenesis, Life, LUCA, etc) => In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of genes from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all organisms living on Earth.^[1] - ok with me to adj edits of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I am not sure this belongs in the abiogenesis article. Especially not in the introduction. LUCA is only about evolution, IMO. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded: Yes - agreed - moved edit from "Abiogenesis" lede to (perhaps) a better location => "Abiogenesis#The earliest biological evidence for life on Earth" - *entirely* ok w/ me to rm/rv/mv/ce edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (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 Exoplanetology page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the link to SLS-EM1. I am a bit timid about editing, so that means I'm not "BOLD". Again, much appreciation. Fomeister (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fomeister Thank you. It is all about team work; the cumulative effort over time is what makes this encyclopedia so good. Please feel free to ask me questions or help with anything. If I don't know the answer, I will find somebody that does. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pioneer program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solar magnetic storm. 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) 09:25, 18 August 2016 (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 Proxima Centauri b 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) 00:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Redox is a contraction of "reduction–oxidation reaction", thus oxidize rightly redirects there. Kindly self-revert. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rowan Forest. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ed Erhart (WMF):, Reply email sent. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"While traces of those collisions would have been erased by Earth's changing crust, Bennu provides a glimpse of what the deliveries might have looked like billions of years ago."

NYT News - Re "Life on Mars", "Extremophiles" and more - Of possible interest?^[1] => http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/science/south-african-mine-life-on-mars.html - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Nice article. Yes, the studies of extremophiles continue, now expanded to their symbiosis (ecological systems) and in analog (Terrestrial) environments. More than one biologist has suggested to keep our eyes open for microbial life in the undersurface of Mars. But that capability will have to wait several decades. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Earth article gives very little attention to life on Earth. Mostly what is discussed are the physical aspects of our planet. Do you have an opinion on this? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom -Hello. I have noticed that too. In my opinion, it can benefit on a subsection on life in general rather than a history of life (abiogenesis & evolution). The same was done some time back on the geological history of Earth. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Battery, I see you reverted my edits to the Earth surface section. I suppose you felt my reduction of the discussion of surface processes was too much. I can possibly agree with you, but I still feel there is a lot of redundancy in this section, as well as other problems, like somewhat passive constructions (subject not appearing early in the sentences), etc. While this article is "featured", it still needs work. Please jump in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom Sorry, I did not even realize I did a revert. It was unintended. My apologies. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. My perception, still, is that we need a couple of tight paragraphs summarizing the "biosphere", following the sections on atmosphere, hydrosphere, etc. This would be outside of my comfort zone, as I'm primarily a physical scientist. Interesting to you, perhaps? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can start a draft tomorrow. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to talk Plumbago into contributing on this as well. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper also ar a couple of other articles, eg Creationism. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey BI. When you're not busy, would you mind giving a glance at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1? I just created it, and would appreciate a sanity check on my writing. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 07:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:SpaceX#Category rethinking.... N2e (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rowan Forest. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

David J Johnson (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Raptor (rocket stage), an unfortunate rediret I created in the distant past when, for a short period of time, sources indicated Raptor was a rocket stage. Which was, it ended up, wrong. N2e (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(BTW, I also added a comment to one of our discussions on Interplanetary Transport System today. N2e (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Batt. A couple of your recent edits got me to thinking. Seeing you making a few edits, and using the word "settlement" is making me wonder about the common usage of the words "colony" and "colonization" with respect to the long-term objective of Musk's actions re the "Colonization" of Mars Both of the latter words imply a rather top-down approach, a bit of an us vs. them, an "in-charge" group and a "not-in-charge" group. From everything I see in Musk's 27 Sep IAC speech, and especially in the sn20161010 and ars20160928 sources I've used in a few places, Musk's vision for the growth of whatever comes on Mars is more bottom-up, encouraging others to consider how they might innovate and use the low-cost infrastructure SpaceX aims to build. In other words, more of a settlement, and less of a colony (in the long term. I say all this understanding that the initial smaller groups of humans would be much more guided/directed from the top, from whatever corporate or government entities that might have been involved in selecting and sending them.). But the long-term objective, as Musk is setting it up and pitching it, is much more of a grown order, a settlement, and less a colony. Or at least, that's what your recent edits got me to thinking.

What do you think about this? N2e (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

N2e English is my second language. I have been using "colony" and "settlement" interchangeably in Wikipedia; as synonyms. If there is a demarcation in between then by all means, you edit them as needed. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool, that makes sense if English is a second language for you. But still a useful distinction for you to grok, I think. If you think about the US experience as a "colony" of King George III of Britain, or of the many Indonesian "colonies" of the Dutch or the African "colonies" of French, Germans, British, etc., or the many Spanish or Portuguese "colonies" that were instantiated in South America and Asia, you will probably be able to see how the term "colony" always has a bit of a connotation of subservience, or even second-class citizens, on the part of the colonists. The term "colony" always implies someone else is in charge.

Per the many sources, its clear Musk is (aspirationally) aiming for a "self-sustaining human civilization" in the long term. So "settlement" is a much better word than "colony" for the very long term objective. Of course, in the short term, anything built on Mars will be totally dependent on Earth-side cargo deliveries and technology etc. So colony is not an inappropriate word, nor not a descriptive word, for the early mid term. It's just not the right word for the long term objective.

And I thank you for helping me come to realize that! Best, N2e (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the 'Batteries weren't Included'. (Tell me you haven't head that one before? )
'Seriously', I won::der what programmer put a comma, apostrophe or hyphen (Mariner 1) in the wrong place, or didn't put it there. Or is it another imperial pounds-force seconds vs metric Newton-seconds (Mars Climate Orbiter) - 220 of ^Borg 14:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

220 of Borg You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not an ESA programmer. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Woof! 220 of ^Borg 18:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry battery, I read that source wrong about the electra radio. I thought it was saying the lander contacted the orbiter using its electra radio, but it was saying that it contacted the orbiter's electra radio. Thanks for checking my work, and good luck editing. Fotaun (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is where I made my mistake fwiw

I also doubted myself the first time I read that reference. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

With a link to a DAB page like Buccopharyngeal, the major options are:

1. Pick the correct link.
2. Link to wikt:buccopharyngeal.
3. Point to the link through the (disambiguation) page with a <!--Note--> saying why it's correct to point to a DAB page.
4. Turn Buccopharyngeal into a WP:DABCONCEPT article.
5. Turn Buccopharyngeal into a WP:SIA article.

Some of those options might be good, some might be bad - but above all, a direct link to a DAB page is against WP:INTDAB and annoys User:DPL bot, which is how I found that link while working my way through the 28,000-odd links flagged as errors by DPL bot in English Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded brusque - but for the last 10 days, I've been having a "discussion" with another user who thinks that WP:CONSENSUS on DAB pages doesn't apply in their case at all. Nerves, frazzled. Narky Blert (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The policy is to only link to a page once per article. The subject matter of the section is not relevant. In fact, since the term was used and the abbreviation was noted, it isn't really necessary have anything more than RTG. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

DinoSlider, Thank you for the note. Per policy (WP:DUPLINK), a duplicate link is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. Deleting the RTG link in the RTG section is plain wrong. There is policy and then there is reason and common sense. The reason to link RTG in the Power section overwhelms your assessment. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that common sense should always prevail and I have no interest in an edit war. In fact, I do not even wish to change your mind. My comment was meant as an explanation since it was not clear from the sarcastic edit summary that you understood my rationale to the extent that I now see that you do. I initially removed the link with this edit while trying to help reduce the "sea of blue" that occasionally creeps into articles. As a result, I was trying to remain diligent to keep it from getting bad again, but I can completely understand your argument. I hope this helps. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I reverted this edit because it was only slightly supported by the source cited. While I certainly feel the connection to big tobacco is worth mentioning, it is very important on a biography of a living person to be completely accurate. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Magnolia677, you are attributing IP edits and comments to me and working up a paranoid sock-puppet case, which is be vey entertaining to watch. Please rest assured that when I want to tell a climate denier (such as yourself) to fuck off, I add my own signature at the bottom. The fact that you were shot down by more than 2 editors with consistent scientific arguments, it does not imply sock-puppetry, nor a global conspiracy. Happy dreams. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rowan Forest,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi battery, as usual thanks for checking my work. In this case I don't care for the summary much either way, but I wanted to clarify that as far as I have read, RTG's are considered nuclear power. While I agree they are not a nuclear reactor, I have never found them not referred to as nuclear power. Further reading is easy to come by and here is one example https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/rtg.cf Thanks again for your many articles, I felt like the space community really came together for the ExoMars landing, and with all the traffic I'm glad we had some people keeping an eye on it. Happy editing to you and all the best. Fotaun (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Taken on it's own, this was skirting a personal attack, so I chose to ignore it. However, combine it with this and this, you don't seem to be grasping the concept of how to get along and play well with others. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Darling, knowing how to tell science from bullshit is necessary. Love, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It is ABSOLUTE bullshit. I have no additional accounts, nor edited as IP. There are multiple users in Wikipedia that have described "global warming denial" as bulshit, and it is ridiculous that instead of looking at my server address (you have that info), you go instead by a single story by an editor that supports conspiracy theories. I like the Wikipedia concept, but when handled by assholes and science deniers, it is laughable. From the bottom of my heart: fuck you, the science deniers behind this, and your system that is incapable of looking at the address of the users in question. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't followed all of this in detail, but I do know that BatteryIncluded has done an awful lot of good editing on Wikipedia. Can a different administrator please check this socking allegation and confirm or not that the evidence is conclusive? Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Perhaps BatteryIncluded can request this him/herself? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There's already been at least two eyes on this, as I blocked after Ivanvector (an SPI clerk) recommended an indefinite block at the SPI case page. I thought indefinite was too harsh, but I do agree that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate sockpuppetry. Of course, BatteryIncluded is welcome to appeal their block as described above. I should also note that I would almost certainly look favorably on an unblock request myself after ~2 months without evidence of socking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13, Jauerback, Ivanvector, and Isambard Kingdom: FWIW - Yes - *entirely* agree with the comments of "User:Isambard Kingdom" above re "User:BatteryIncluded" - don't know all the details either, but "User:BatteryIncluded" has been an excellent Wikipedia editor in my experience with him over the years - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The details of the sockpuppet case are spelled out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BatteryIncluded. That's the extent of my involvement, and I don't believe I can add anything further here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the SPI investigation and wasn't even aware of it being filed, however the case looks strong. I did give BatteryIncluded their two most recent blocks for incivility and personal attacks (the most recent one was extended for socking). It's a shame that they are an excellent editor, because their collaboration skills are extremely subpar and (ignoring the socking) are going to continue to lead to longer and longer blocks if they don't improve. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• I and another CheckUser have run checks against BI. First, as he states, he is not using any IPs to edit Wikipedia. Second, and more specifically, the IP he was alleged to have used does not belong to him. Therefore, I have reduced the block back to the original one-week expiration for personal attacks. I rarely intervene in these matters, and I accept the fact that the clerk and blocking administrator acted in good faith based on the behavioral evidence. However, the block was not only unjust, it put the editor in an untenable situation because he was expected to acknowledge the sock puppetry to be unblocked earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: happy to have been corrected here. I didn't think of asking to check, but I guess nothing private has been revealed here. Thanks for checking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC|

BU Rob13, Ivanvector, so I asked if the evidence of sock puppetry was conclusive, I was assured that it was "sufficient", and now I see that it wan't. Wouldn't an apology be in order? And, also, some explanation? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Without seeing the technical evidence myself (which I cannot, as per the CheckUser policy), I'm unable to comment on it. I certainly apologize if I was incorrect. You're able to see and evaluate the evidence yourself at the SPI case, and I'm certainly willing to respond to any specific criticisms. The evidence presented was extremely convincing and enough to block on behavioral grounds. I can't comment much further without knowing what the technical evidence showed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So I think I understand, now. There is a sort of wall between the admin person evaluating the evidence (that all of us see) and another person who checks things like IP addresses (the CheckUser). I would think that CheckUser's evidence would be pretty much clear. What does Ivanvector say about this? I'm not interested in belaboring this, but BatteryIncluded did ask that the IP addresses be double checked. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I do see in BatteryIncluded's vulgar mini-rant above that they asked to check against their "server address", but they're incorrect that we "have that info"; we do not. Only a very limited set of users (CheckUsers) who are vetted by the Wikimedia Foundation have access to it; Rob and I are not among that group. Furthermore, CheckUsers are not allowed to comment in situations where doing so would reveal the private address of a registered account, and so clerks decline those requests as a matter of routine, in fact Bbb23 declined this request himself. Therefore I can only comment on the evidence available to me, which was that both BatteryIncluded and the IP user appeared to have a very extreme POV and an unusually combative style of discussion in common with each other, which is unusual for two genuinely unrelated editors and usually a very strong indicator of two accounts being operated by the same person. You request an apology from me but I've done nothing wrong here: I don't believe any dispassionate reviewer would draw a different conclusion with the evidence available at the time (I was one of 3 editors who reached this conclusion, including Rob and Magnolia677, 4 if you count Jauerback), and I am not permitted to request the technical information which showed this to be an erroneous finding. It is fortunate that Bbb23 elected to check anyway and was able to set the record straight here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Ivanvector, I understand, now, that you are not a checkuser. I thank you for explaining this and the process involved. It is not something I had understood. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, I hope you can come back and return to making constructive edits to Wikipedia. I also hope you cool it with the derogatory language and name-calling. It only undermines your reputation and stance on issues (including those on which you are objectively "right"), and it can even allow someone else to drag you deeper into the mud. One thing is for certain, you have been passionate about your work here. So, I would like to encourage you to turn the leaf over. Moving forward, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earth Proxima is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth Proxima until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi BatteryIncluded. I hope all is well. Feel free to drop me a message if you need anything. I learned a lot from you and would love to hear what you're up to and what projects you have in mind here at WP. Un abrazo, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rowan Forest. 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.