User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 14

NASA Live Discussion - Europa status

Hello Rowan Forest/BatteryIncluded:
Of possible interest => NASA Live Discussion about Europa status - 1 pm/et/usa, Monday, May 14, 2018 - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: That is going to be an epic mission. Another one I would love to see selected is Dragonfly (spacecraft) to Titan. Also a decision will be coming soon on the Mars Helicopter Scout - it won't do science but it could be a precursor for so many flying rovers for Mars, Titan or Venus. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, well. What do you know?: NASA decided today that the helicopter will fly with the rover! Rowan Forest (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Locating Fossils on Mars?

IF Interested => several recent references re best places on Mars to find fossils - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"...namely inside rocks near long-dead lakes". I thought they would conclude inside rocks near extinct hydrothermals. Thanks! Rowan Forest (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

NASA TV News re Mars Curiosity Rover at 2pm/et/usa 06/07/2018?

FWIW - Seems there may be another NASA Special Announcement re the Mars Curiosity Rover => at 2pm/et/usa on Thursday, June 7, 2018 on NASA TV. - which may (or may not) be related to resuming drilling after possibly recovering from some downtime since December 2016 due to drill mechanical problems. - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The resumption of drilling has already been in the news, so I hope is a new discovery. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the following is the major headline? => On June 7, 2018, NASA announced a cyclical seasonal variation in atmospheric methane.

Curiosity detected a cyclical seasonal variation in atmospheric methane.

@Drbogdan: I missed the conference! Wow! The updates are quite good: organic material inside rocks billions of years old (when Mars was wet, so they are not just meteoric in origin), and confirmation of the cyclical aspect of atmospheric methane. I hope the NASA 2020 rover can make isotopic analysis on the methane to help determine its origin, as the ExoMars rover will NOT analyse atmospheric samples. But I am sure the ExoMars TGO will provide a definitive landmark on the seasonal -and location(s)- of the methane plumes. Since the deep interior is shielded from the surface "weather" and seasons (solar irradiation), my money is in a geological surface phenomenon, such as seasonal surface clathrate release brought upon thaw/freeze cycles; that is: abiotic origin. I hope I am wrong. Thanks so much for the update! I'll try to catch up with the news and papers tonight. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan:"...they demonstrate that organics can be preserved for billions of years in the harsh martian surface environment." This is really good news to constrain models on destruction by perchlorates. ExoMars: Drill, baby. Drill! Rowan Forest (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

NASA Talk on Mars Dust Storm - at 01:30pm/et/usa on 06/13/2018

If interested - NASA teleconference at 01:30pm/et/usa on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 re Mars Dust Storm that may affect the Opportunity (rover) (and possibly Curiosity (rover)?) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: On Sunday I read this article at The Verge and I was surprised they did not even mention the risk of dust accumulation on the solar panels. It was all about the opacity of the atmosphere affecting the rover. Curiosity would not have that problem, and I am glad InSight -which has solar panels- is still in transit and likely land after the storm season. Thanks again. Cheers - Rowan Forest (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible Opportunity communication problem(s) due to dust storm? - Enjoy! :) 17:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Looks like without the capability to keep warm during hibernation, its circuits might freeze and crack. It would be a dignified death from a formidable foe after an admirable journey. Better than getting stuck in a sand trap like its brother. Lets see what develops. These little robots have a way of surprising us, and there is always the possibility of a dust devil cleaning its solar panels after the storm, it happened before. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Teleconference at => https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive - visuals at => https://www.nasa.gov/marsduststormtelecon - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching. It has a little radioisotope heater so it should be OK. I had to be a reporter who brought up the solar panel blockage. Answer: nothing to do, can't plan for a plan B so they are not even addressing it. They are hoping it will be a thin dust layer. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Audio replay of the teleconference is now available - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your ANI report

Probably prevented more upset. I'm surprised that nobody even mentioned this. Thanks again. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I Think that user NeilN read most of his latest edits, including that one, given NeilN's reason for blockage. Sometimes MAGA's zealots spill into Wikipedia and want to bully their way. I commend you on your calmness. I don't have such high threshold for BS. All the best, Cheers,

You are overly kind! My supposed calmness, I suspect, is only a result of a lot of Huggle RCP in between. I don't think I could take it very long as a continuous deluge. Jim1138 (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mars Society convention

I'm going to the Mars Society conference at JPL this August. Will you be there? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. No, I am retired now. I only review published literature for Wikipedia. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I live fairly close and will probably volunteer at the convention. Last year I volunteered. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I used to hang out at APL located at Laurel, MD. and I had a collaboration related with astrobiology with NASA researchers in Houston. Now I live in a forest up north near Canada. I'd love to catch up with the projects that people are allowed to talk about, but I have slowed down a lot and can't travel so much now. I hope you enjoy the convention. We are witnessing an amazing transition in space exploration thanks to the privatization of space travel and space stations. My only concern is that profit will be the motive, not curiosity. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: NASA ET Search?

What biosignatures does life produce?

Of possible interest - recent news from NASA re the search for ET - with help from NExSS => https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7171 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is brilliantly written by scientists-educators. I like how they explain the key points in simple language. For example: "Since we won't be able to visit distant planets and collect samples anytime soon, the light that a telescope observes will be all we have in the search for life outside our solar system." Another jewel is: "Oxygen teaches us that seeing, or not seeing, a single biosignature is insufficient evidence for or against life -- overall context matters." Indeed, not a single biosignature will do, but cumulative evidence from different lines of inquiry, including a bunch of data on environmental/chemical parameters (habitable conditions). Great article. We should quote this reference often to illustrate the context of biosignature search and usefulness, as well as the near-future efforts in astrobiology for exoplanets. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Related Recent News - What BioSignatures Does Life Produce? => https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/uoc--uta062518.php - Enjoy! :)

UPDATE: Astronomers reported the detection of complex macromolecular organics on Enceladus, moon of the planet Saturn.

Fantastic. It would be nice if they find a pattern such as an unexplained disequilibrium of some compounds over others (biological selection and metabolism). Prime example of science done after the physical flybys. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Researchers report detecting a lot of possible starting chemicals for life in interstellar space?

@Drbogdan: Thanks! The original article is interesting. There is much noise on PAHs, but this paper is on aliphatic compounds (non-aromatic chains). I'll take a closer look later tonight or tomorrow. By the way, I suspect what the Gizmodo article refers to as "greasy carbon" might be tholin. Thank you so much for the heads up! Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

WikiLove

	The Original Barnstar
	Your edits are AMAZING! And your contributions to Wikipedia even more. This is a heartfelt appreciation for opening the fields of science to so many people with your personal count of 188 articles. - NowIsntItTime (talk) 3:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

E.T. calling, will you accept the charge?

In ref this edit: the issue isn't curiosity, it's the anthropomorphic (or terrestrial) bias of the nature of the search. Only looking in places with conditions resembling our own obviously excludes finding life that in no way resembles anything terrestrial, & that's actually much more likely to exist than we are. I do appreciate your adding the cite, & removing the editorial comment, even so. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: It is about chemistry, and the principles of chemistry are universal. Life is organic, you choose the shape they might have. But organic chemistry requires environmental factors necessary for chemical reactions to occur, compartmentalization for a basic physical organization and metabolism. We know in labs how chemical reactions function and their physical requirements. Hot or frozen rocky/ice/gas places will never provide the environment and energy required for pre-biotic chemistry to occur. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

♠That presupposes life can only use carbon & water, which is a terrestrial bias. Just because we're unaware of it being possible doesn't mean other processes can't work. (I'll agree, carbon is the most likely option.) There have been learned speculations on a variety of other possibilities, including silicon & fluorine (& others I can't recall... :( ). Which is quite aside the issue of changes in chemistry due to pressure, & I'm in no way qualified to comment on those.

♠I do appreciate why the search bias occurs; it just seems to me we should make the reader aware there is a bias. I'll admit, sourcing the existence of bias is next to impossible, since most sources don't even admit it exists. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your position. It is known as Carbon chauvinism. However, it is not a bias to remark that carbon has the most flexibility (reactivity) of all elements, and therefore it is the most probable type- as it manifested already on Earth. An even if silicon was the alternative viable biochemistry in existence elsewhere, just like carbon, it also needs a source of energy, water and a set of other physical parameters almost identical to those for organic chemistry. Rest assured that habitable conditions for carbon-based life are almost the same as those for silicon, so searching habitable zones is not "bias", but a reasoned conclusion based on chemistry and thermodynamics. (Plus it exists on the one example we have: Earth, so we know what works and why.) Rowan Forest (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

When astrobiologists search life on other worlds, they are aware that there may be a challenge to recognize biospheres that might be different from that on Earth, so they look at imbalances (biological changes) in the atmospheres that are not explainable by geophysics alone. Although speculation is entertained to give context, they rely the universal laws of chemistry and similar scientific theories to find out. If it was silicon-based (unlikely), it would also alter its environment and give itself away (biosignatures). In the long term, humanity is bound to our solar system, so exploration of exoplanets will be limited to the power of the upcoming space telescopes, which will be able to study the composition of exoplanetss atmospheres and their surface by spectrometry. The laws of chemistry are universal, so any imbalance not explained by geophysics, would suggest biology - regardless of its nature. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Report: NASA and planetary protection

FWIW - Seems a new report finds that NASA could be doing a better job protecting other planets from contamination? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Yes, I think that humanity can always do better when it comes to planetary protection. And commercial enterprises will cut corners to keep costs down - no doubt about it. By the way, that last report is out of wack: the cost of Europa Clipper is not $8 Billion but $2 Billion. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Precious

space exploration program

Thank you for quality articles around space exploration such as International Lunar Observatory, Viking lander biological experiments and Ocean Worlds Exploration Program, for the history of hang gliding, for sticking your head out for others, saying "I commend you on your calmness. I don't have such high threshold for BS." - Rowan, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Danke schön! Rowan Forest (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Username redirect?

Greetings Rowan! I just noticed that you were formerly known as BatteryIncluded, and I recognize a well-respected contributor to spaceflight topics. Why don't you redirect your former user name to this one? You don't seem to be trying to hide the connection, so that a redirect would make sense for your fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 15:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Hello. The short answer is that I can't rename or link the accounts; I locked myself out from the other account when I was the target of an attempted hijack so I changed my password, which I forgot certain new special characters. Maybe some redirects can help now, but I would not know where to start. The [embarrassing] story is here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You can just do the redirect on the old page from your new account. Would you like me to take care of it? — JFG ^talk 16:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes, Please. Thank you! Rowan Forest (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we all were victims of hacking attempts in early May. Thankfully this wave has subsumed. — JFG ^talk 16:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, proceeding. Would you like your talk archives moved to the new user name as well (searchable and all), or keep them at BatteryIncluded? (also searchable) — JFG ^talk 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that too would be fantastic. Thanks. But why so much kindness when we have crashed in the past? Rowan Forest (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Have we crashed? Even if we had, I'd still shower you with wikilove. — JFG ^talk 17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha! Rowan Forest (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 All done. Your old signature now links to your new user name, same for talk page. Your talk page history is fully preserved,[1] your archives are searchable from here, and your new talk page is unchanged. Have fun! — JFG ^talk 17:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Wow! I'm feeling more like myself now. I am very grateful for your time and work. Your kindness will not go unrewarded. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Buy me a drink on Mars some day! — JFG ^talk 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Reading the above, it's quite heartwarming. Just the sort of thing I needed to read right now. Can I also ask both of you to try and extend the same courtesy and respect to Dennis? I know he's been a pain in the arse but I'd be very grateful if we can all put that behind us and look forward with fresh eyes. Maybe just have a think about that for now...

The reason I came here is to ask how you're feeling, Rowan. The last few days has been like watching a wildfire taking hold, and you've been burned because of me. I'm not asking you to absolve me - I take full responsibility for my actions and I wouldn't want it any other way, nor would I have done anything different in hindsight. That's how I roll when push comes to shove. I'd just like to know, how do you feel about everything that's happened? nagualdesign 03:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I feel surprisingly fine, although I have never seen a Wiki-sh!tstorm like this one. But again, I have never seen abuse like this either. I was very surprised of the vicious attacks to your diagram, but since I know little of design and copyright law, I kept my distance and shook my head in disbelief. Seeing a dedicated editor and designer being banned and his ethics being insulted was not pleasant, and a saying by Edmund Burke came to mind: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I figured that Yann was going to simply ignore my request, but I was sure to say please & thank you anyway. Then it all went down the rabbit hole, at ferocious speed.

You know, after 12 years editing here, I try my best to stay away from dramas and politics, but I have been dragged a couple of times to ANI and I have also dragged a couple there in the past, and it has always felt real because I care for the quality this project, so it was stressful but important to rely on the system. This time was very different: The system was hijacked and abused. I felt more surprised than offended, as if I just witnessed a crime. I felt compelled to raise the alarm of the rogue Administrator, his abusing you, banning both of us and the covering of his own tracks. I thought this was going to take a couple of stressful days just to explain the dimensions of this (especially without diffs) but Carole Henson and Guanaco saw the obvious and sprung into action. Seeing your ban was also lifted and that your file was actually being assessed elsewhere, I initially accepted Yann's generic and impersonal apology and I planned to leave the discussion early and let justice run its course. But then I read a statement about my request that Yann wrote after his generic apology: "this is the bad way to request an explanation." He is so clueless and unrepentant I just had to speak my mind before I left.

I do not regret writing the request for review because it was the moral thing to do, and I feel inspired by JFG supporting you, and I feel inspired by your spirit to face the broken part of the system — against all odds. I do believe that the whole Project (Wiki & Commons) will be better at the other side of the tunnel. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That was wonderful to read. I enjoyed it so much I read it twice. The quote by Edmund Burke has always been a favourite of mine, along with the poem First they came ... When I first declared that it was "ass-kicking time" there was a ripple of trepidation among those that obviously care about me, and several pleas for me to stop before I started. I think people assumed that I'd misplaced my moral compass. In reality, that's what was guiding me.

I wasn't really expecting any collateral damage though. I thought that if I was impeccable the only casualties would be people that had it coming. When I found out that you'd been blocked I was gutted, though I think you'd already been unblocked by that point. Still, I didn't like the fact that your character was being questioned. Having said that, I think it's great when people start showing their true colours. Assholes who normally fly under the radar often come crawling out of the woodwork in situations like that. Perhaps they think they'll get away with it because they think the world's full of people like them. Safety in numbers and all that. I like to believe that the world's full of good people and that assholes are a minority, and when they start sticking their heads up like that it makes it much easier for everyone to recognize them for what they are. It's amazing how many people are showing their true character on the Commons right now, both good and bad, which is a great.

When all this is over, everyone will have a much better understanding of each other's true character. Perhaps it wasn't really my place to do that, but I didn't force anyone to act like a dick. As they old saying goes, give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Much love, nagualdesign 08:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I see the diagram is back in the article. Is it temporary or the issue been resolved? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a bot replaced it (the same bot that had removed it) when the image was undeleted. In answer to your question, umm... I'm going to say neither. It hasn't been resolved yet, but I'm still hopeful. The vote is more or less a 50/50 split at the moment, although a couple of voters have given pretty lame reasons or none at all. Not sure if that'll be taken into account. nagualdesign 20:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: With regards to your request for a kind approach to Mr. Bratland, I have tried my best to assume good faith and remain courteous in the face of open hostility, and I would approach him with open arms again… but with fresh unprompted attacks like this, it's hard to maintain a constructive dialogue. — JFG ^talk 00:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

JFG Looking at his editing history in various articles over the past several months, I am skeptical too that he understands how to do collaborative work in Wikipedia. Maybe because he has a problem with the concept of consensus and displays a sincere reluctance to compromise on his vision of the subject, focus and perspective of the article (never mind the title for now). Anyway, before I read this, I sent him a proposal to make a draft of what he thinks the article should be. I hope he will surprise us instead of snipping at us. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said it would be easy, JFG. If at first you don't succeed... Let's try to lead by example. I will have a word with Dennis at some point. Cheers. nagualdesign 10:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I can count 3 people he told them to "f#ck off" only last month. His problem is not with the Roadster article, but within himself. Respect and consideration has to flow both ways. I'm still waiting to hear from his draft, but I suspect he will just bark at me. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can count 2 people that I've told to f-off and a third that I said f-you to this month. Deservedly so, in my opinion. He does seem to garner some appreciation for his help on certain articles, so he can't be all bad. Without wishing to get into politics, perhaps he gets frustrated with libtards like me (us?) because of his frustrations with the wider world (which, it that were the case, is unacceptable of course). Or maybe he's just under the weather. To pick an example, I think the best response to his earlier post would have been something along the lines of "WP:FORUM doesn't apply since we're discussing article content" and just ignoring the rest of his diatribe. Inquiring about his draft article was a good call. The ball's in his court there. nagualdesign 15:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Prion

Hi, I saw you sent me a thank for my edit on prion and are currently working on making the article more neutral like I am. While I am a skeptic of the Prion theory, I also recognise that the article needs to be neutral, as do other articles on subjects I am skeptical of. I was wondering what your take on prions is, note that I am not a scientist but I do read a lot of scientific articles on biology, physics and chemistry. My take is that prions aka infectious amyloids are infectious agents and do cause some diseases such as AA amyloidosis but not Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, some other agent causes it. From what I have gathered, prions (note that not all prions are PrP protein, any misfolded protein can be a prion) cause and transmit disease, but only to induviduals who are compromised by other illness, that is, AA amyloidosis is transmitted to someone with Tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS and AL amyloidosis to induviduals with blood tumors.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@SpidersMilk: Hello and thank you for the message. At the moment I have to take care of family matters, and then I'd like to watch the World Cup semi-finals. I want to give it some thought before I reply, so I will respond tomorrow or later this week. Feel free to continue your work on the neutral language. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would also like you to check into physics theories such as Superfluid vacuum theory (SVT), which I believe to be true. In short SVT states that the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Ether (or aether) was flawed because it tried to find ether drag by trying to measure the viscocity of ether. However, if ether is a superfluid, no such drag would be tetected because superfluids don't have viscocity and thus no drag.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Really?! I didn't know that prions were even disputed, and the Michelson-Morley experiment tried to detect the direction of motion, not the viscosity, although I don't know what effect superfluid dynamics might have on measuring flow. You've piqued my interest. nagualdesign 19:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The prions are proteinaceous and infectious. No debate there. What is unknown is the mechanism that causes disease. There is new evidence of co-factors involved, but elucidation of the physiology is yet to come. Regarding the aether, we now know the dual wave/particle properties of photons. I am not aware of any hypothesis still suggesting the aether exists. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, Special Relativity removes both the need for and the possibility of the luminiferous aether, IIRC. nagualdesign 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually Prions are debated, not so much weather they cause disease, but weather they cause the Mad cow type diseases aka Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). The main reason for the controversy is that infection of brain cells with Lyme disease bacteria can trigger formation of plaques and tangles of Alzheimer type and that Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis causes Alzheimer-like tangles appear in the brain. The FDA even lists the cause of the TSEs as unknown.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There are studies that are used as proof that prions cause the TSEs, those studies claim to have created synthetic misfolded PrP prions. The first one was done in 2004 where scientists used genetically modified E. coli bacteria to produce normal PrP protein and then cause it to misfold into an abnormal shape. Mice injected with it became sick with a TSE, thus seeming to prove that prions are responsible for scrapie. However, appon further inspection, it became apparent that the disease had all of the clinical and histological features of the RML Scrapie strain, the same strain used in the labratory where the experement was done and several other scientists have been unable to replicate the results of the experement.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pfft.. You'll be telling us that the Alaskan wooly-back log spider doesn't really exist next. nagualdesign 20:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh no! Back then I based my PhD thesis defense on that fact. It explains a lot. :-) Rowan Forest (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rule number 1 of post-grad studies; Never base your theses on something you've read Answers.com! nagualdesign 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Never? No wiggle room?! But I read it in the Interwebs! Rowan Forest (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

FDA researchers:

• Prion diseases are transmissible neurodegenerative diseases affecting humans and animals.[2]
• Prion conformation change is thought to be essential for the proliferation of prion neurodegenerative diseases.[3]

What is debated is the pathogenesis, its mechanisms, as there are several neurodegenerative diseases that may or may not have an association with prions. As expected for such mystery, contradictions in the literature abound on whether CERTAIN diseases are associated or not with prions. World Cup in extra time, and probably penalty kick series to come. Catch you later. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone in the Interwebs said that prions cause homosexualism. There is a lot of contradiction out there, but prions exist as stated in the article. Of course the newest and numerous hypotheses are impossible to list, so we have to keep it to the facts that have already been established. For starters, I would refrain from mentioning specific diseases, and replacing them by "neurodegenerative diseases." Sorry, the game commands my attention now. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's coming home, it's comin.. Oh. nagualdesign 20:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is a specific USDA article about Scrapie, it says that the cause is unknown.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC) User:Rowan Forest Also I DO agree that prions do cause disease, just like you, but not all diseases caused by misfolded proteins aka "prions" are neurodegenerative disases, AA amyloidosis caused by misfolded proteins but is a kidney disease.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That is very interesting and worth looking into. It goes to show that science in progress is self-corrective, but there is still a lot we don't know about prions and their functions. Thanks Rowan Forest (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Nagualdesign As for the Superfluid ether thing, Special relativity only ruled out the possibility of the ether as originally proposed. That is, it proved that the original ether hypothesis was incorrect. You said that the Michelson Moreley experement tested dirrection of motion, not viscocity, however, according to articles I have read, if ether has little or no viscocity, you would not be able to detect the dirrection of motion of the earth. There are also articles about how a superfluid ether is completly comatable with both General and Special relitivity. I would be happy to show you some of them if you want.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Any links would be more than welcome, yes. nagualdesign 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is one such link on the Superfluid vacuum.

Haha, the Alaskan wooly-back log spider does not exist as far as I can tell, Google search yealded nothing! NO ARTICLES, NOTHING! That must be a deliberate hoax!SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you might need to re-read what I posted on your talk page.

I've bookmarked that article on superfluidity and I'll read it tomorrow, cheers. I'm off to bed now. nagualdesign 22:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

So the Alaskan wooly-back log spider really does not exist, the whole page on Answeres.com you created was one big hoax! SPIDERS DO NOT HAVE BIRTH CANALSSpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And that is the true story of how I failed to defend my PhD dissertation. Dammed you Nagual! Rowan Forest (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

References

User:Rowan Forest So just let me know your opinion when you decide weather you think TSEs are caused by prions or not and what your opinion of superfluid vaccuum is.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the name of the "Debate" section in Prion to "Role in Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies", because, as you said, no one is debating weather prions are incfectious. I also made a section "role in other disease" to reflect that TSEs are not the only diseases associated with prions. It is true, the existance of prions is not debated, I never thought about it that way before. No one is debating weather prions cause disease either, as AA amyloidosis (Inflammatory amyloidosis), a kidney disease, is proven to be caused by a misfolded protein aka prion as synthetic AA amyloid free of contamination is reproducibly transmitted to mice, unlike TSEs. What is debated is weather they cause specific diseases, including TSEs.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Spidersmilk: I think you are doing a very good job editing that article, both in format and content. As I mentioned before, there are a lot of research articles being published and many are contradictory, so following the pulse of the subject is time-consuming and complex. I hope you keep it up and please let me know if I can help with specific issues you may have. Remember this is an example of a normal scientific process, where constructive debate should not be confused with controversy. There are a lot of self-corrective actions during the scientific method, and the trick for us in Wikipedia is to filter what seems to be the consensus and the leading hypotheses. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You have an interesting theory, that TSEs may be caused by more than one agent. It very well may be that TSEs are caused by prions acting with some unknown virus or bacterium. I have actually thought about that. What you are refering to has a name, it is called polymicrobial disease, where a diseae is caused by many microbse instead of one, such as a disease caused by a combonation of infection with a virus, a fungus, and a bacterium: or a virus, a prion and a bacterium. Noma is an example of such a disease. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rowan I can give you some articles about other theories of TSE causation if you are interested.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. But for Wikipedia purposes, remember we can't name all of them and we should filter the leading hypothesis (or some of them). Rowan Forest (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about adding hypothesis to the article, I am talking about sharing links with you personaly.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is why I don't think prions cause TSEs: this includes links

• The kidney disease AA amyloidosis has been proven to be be caused and transmitted by misfolded AA protein. The proof was done by creating synthetic AA amyloidosis "prions" (it was not refered to as a prion, likely because the diseases is not a brain disease) from AA protein and other proteins such as silkworm silk. It was repeated several times with slightly different methods (using yeast or E coli proteins) and it reliably caused disease in injected mice. Weather mice developed disease depended on the breed or observation time. Because no cofactors like lipid or RNA were used, it is very unlikely that contamination explains infectivity, as all preperations were reliably transmissible as stated above.

• Synthetic protein-only PrP prions however are unreliably associated with TSE infectivity. In 2004, scientists created synthetic PrP prions without co-factors, and were able to cause a TSE disease by injecting them into mice. However, most other scientists were unable to duplicate the results, and the TSE strain in the injected mice had identical histological and clinical features as the labs own mouce addapted scrapie strain, RML, suggesting somehow contamination occured. The few other scientists who did manage to supposidly produce infectivity usually also have the disease produced having features identical or almost identical to one of their scrapie strains.

• Synthetic multi-component PrP prions made by combining PrP with normal mouce lipids and normal mouce RNA, are similarly unreliably associated with TSE infectivity, in that while such prions are infectious as they cause misfolding of normal PrP proteins, preperations of them are often unable to transmit TSEs, and contamination can not be ruled out, mostly because one study found that up to one in 6 people carry a latent TSE agent that can induce disease when injected into to mice, and it has been hypothesized that one or more of the mice sacraficed for normal mouse RNA or normal mouce lipid may have a subclinical TSE infection with an as yet unidentified, possibly naturally occuring, mouse TSE. That suggests that a virus or other pathogen might be involved. I will try to find you the study on latent human TSE.

• High levels of TSE infeictivity is sometimes found in the absence of detectable detectable PrP prions.
• PrP prions can not be detected in about 10 percent of CJD cases.

• It is possible to destroy almost all infectivity without having any noticalbe effect on total PrP or PrP prion concentration.

• It is possible to destroy all detectable PrP prions with antibodies in a sample without having any effect on TSE infectivity. I will also try to find you a link for this one.

• Protein misfolding is known to be triggered by bacterial and viral infections like HIV/AIDS, Herpes simplex, and Lyme disease.

• Some viral or bacterial infection-associated protein misfolding is known to be anti-microbial. MAVS misfolds in benificial response to many viral infections, And Alzheimer's amyloid and Tangles have anti-viral and anti-bacterial properties. It is thought by some scientists that at least some of the prions in TSEs may be misfolding in a benificial response against an as-yet unknown pathogen.

• I have read studies in which neurodegeneration in TSEs happens in the absence of detectible prions, suggesting they are not the only toxic factor involved.

Here are some links on the viral hypothesis for further reading.

1: Viral hypothesis. 2: Spiroplasma hypothesis

Rowan Forest did you read any of the links yet, I think you will find them facinating.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Prions article is in the back burner in my list. I'll get to it some day. At the moment I am writing articles on payloads bound for Mars. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Rowan Forest this prion stuff is not for the article by any means, it is written in unencyclopedic fashion, I posted this here to share it with you because I find it facinating and you seem to have an open mind on many subjects.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hubble constant in the news

I don't know if you've got Expansion of the universe on your watchlist, where I posted this earlier, but an interesting article dropped into my inbox earlier: http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2018-34 nagualdesign 15:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I follow and edit few articles related to pure physics. My electives were in planetary science and, volcanology. That took me to astrobiology. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Astrobiology? nagualdesign 21:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: Yes, I worked on cell & molecular biology research in both health care and astrobiology. I had a collaboration with a NASA team based in Houston, but I frequently visited the APL in Maryland to see the resulting hardware. I think the astrobiology space missions are my dearest "babies" in Wikipedia. :-) Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah... I thought you meant that the hubblesite.org link took you to astrobiology. I had to go back and scan it again to see if I'd missed anything. D'oh! nagualdesign 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Vulcan (rocket)

You have failed to apply the policy you quoted to the article. Why are you just mashing revert? 178.16.7.156 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Two editors already reverted your edit while quoting and "applied the policy" per WP:COMMONTERM. Perhaps you can take a break and read it. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Direct Fusion Drive

@JFG: :@Nagualdesign: Hello, I am writing this article on the new Direct Fusion Drive and I am confused on the fuel it will use. There are 3 main references:

• This ref from 2014 states deuterium and helium-3.
• 2014 ref also states deuterium–helium-3.
• But their latest article published in 2017 states a mix of helium (He) and xenon (Xe) as fuel. It also mentions something about deuterium-Oxygen.

If you have time to review it, because I don't know if they changed the fuel or I simply don't understand. I want to confirm with you guys that the deuterium-Oxygen fuel is only an auxiliary power unit to startup heat production, and that the main fuel is He-Xe. Or maybe the He-Xe is just the propellant to be ionized at the nozzle but the generator itself uses 3H?? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To me it reads as though the Auxilary Power Unit (APU) uses D₂-O₂, and the "working fluid" (to which the APU transfers its heat) is He-Xe. It's worth noting that the NASA paper being much more recent than the other references, when this is an ongoing area of research, probably supersedes the other refs. Just my take on things. I haven't read every reference from cover to cover or even understood everything that I've read. I hope that helps. nagualdesign 00:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I can understand it works like this; The APU uses combustion of D₂-O₂ to generate heat, steam is used to transfer the heat to the He-Xe working fluid, this working fluid is the fuel for the fusion reactor, and He-Xe cold plasma is introduced through radial injectors in order to absorb the heat of fusion and provide variable thrust. nagualdesign 00:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no time to look at the fuel and heat exchanger details but Nagual's interpretation sounds at least plausible. On the merits of this technology, if the system needs to dissipate "25% lost to heat" while consuming a megawatt for every 5 N of acceleration, the spacecraft would need extremely large radiators. Is this potentially blocking issue addressed in any of the sources? According to this paper, a 740-kg, 3.1×13.6-meter ISS radiator can dissipate 14 kW of heat, so that for a megawatt drive, we would need 18 of them, adding 13 tonnes of mass to the spacecraft. Looks a bit counter-productive for a mere 5 N of thrust! — JFG ^talk 05:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Also: maybe move this thread to Talk:Direct Fusion Drive? — JFG ^talk 05:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For introducing the new science instrument article Mars Multispectral Imager for Subsurface Studies. Nice Job!! Fotaun (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Rockets are very cool but there is a lot more to space exploration than "Ooooh...ahhh". I like to expand spacecraft articles that overlook the "how"; their science payload. How will they obtain the data? The purpose, center, star and essence of every exploring probe is their science payload. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

CNES's MicroMega family of instruments

I noticed you were just building an MicroMega article, so here's some input. Along with the ExoMars rover, CNES also built a MicroMega for Fobos-Grunt and the Hayabusa2 MASCOT mobile lander (not sure what's the difference between the Martian versions and this one) currently at Ryugu. Here's CNES's MicroMega page for MASCOT. There's also an MacroMega, another Near-IR Spectrometer being developed for the MMX Phobos sample return mission by France.[4] Hope these information may help. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: Hello. Yes, that is important background information that I will incorporate. Thanks! Rowan Forest (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Nice job and congratulations on writing MicrOmega-IR!! Fotaun (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For significantly expanding ExoMars suite of articles, including starting Raman Laser Spectrometer, and many others. On behalf of the space writing community, thank you. Fotaun (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Really nice job battery, its great to see the ExoMars expanded and I agree the science instrument articles are an important, a bridge between the science results and the ooh aah liftoff. Thanks, nice job (again)!! Fotaun (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		Nice job on several more instrument articles for ExoMars and other editing!! Fotaun (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Foot notes on a Table - Help

Hello. I am in the process of creating an article in my sandbox about a science instrument on the ExoMars rover. I made a table about the basic the specifications but there are 2 terms that need to be defined and I don't know how to include a foot note on this floating table. Thank you Rowan Forest (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Table and foot note are:

ADRON-RM	Performance/units
Mass	1.7 kg
Power consumption	5 W
Dimensions	≈ 4 × 20 × 21 cm
Energy range for CETN*	0.4 eV - 1 keV
Energy range for CTN*	≤ 1 keV
Detectors	Two 3He proportional counters
Accumulation period	20 sec (changeable)

Hey I have added some notes, is that's the one you looking for? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@1997kB: Hello and thanks for your attention. That is not quite what I had in mind. In this context and page format: [5] it shows at the top of the section instead of the bottom of the table. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

How's now? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that will do. Thank you!!! Rowan Forest (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Pancam & PanCam

Hello. I just finished a draft in my sandbox of an article on ExoMars' camera PanCam. Then, I realized the MER rovers Spirit and Opportunity carry a camera setup similarly called Pancam (upper case C). Being that the cameras are actually different and from different manufacturers, they deserve separate articles, but I am not able to create "PanCam" as it automatically redirects to Pancam. Any help with naming or redirects will be appreciated. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! Having a redirect isn't a problem: you can navigate to the redirect by clicking on the link at the top where it says "Redirected from [Title]", then simply edit the redirect to replace it with your article. However, in this case the similar capitalisations would cause a considerable amount of confusion. This is what we have disambiguations on Wikipedia for; those are when a name or title is succeeded by a parenthetical providing some description of the subject, such as Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (element). In this case, it would probably be most appropriate to move Pancam to a title such as Pancam (Mars Exploration Rovers) and your draft to PanCam (ExoMars rover). Then we would convert "Pancam" into a disambiguation page, with links and brief descriptions for both that would help a clueless searcher like me figure out which one we were looking for. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that I look more closely at your contributions, I see you're rather experienced and I probably explained considerably more thoroughly than necessary. I apologize if I seemed patronizing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Hello. While I may be experienced at some aspects of editing, redirects are my #1 nemesis, therefore my humble request for help. I agree that both articles' titles will benefit from a disambiguating title as you proposed. I'll proceed with that method. Thank you for your time and thought. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I handled this for you already, following your question on my talk page. Sorry I possibly did not ping you. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:TWODABS it is not necessary to rename the articles with disambiguators. Hatnotes are enough. — JFG ^talk 14:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

AngelicvM's rover

I always can't be helped but get amazed at the speed you create high quality articles. However I believe you may have confused Dandelion and Uni; namely which came first and which followed it. Back in the early days of GLXP, AngelicvM originally had the two-wheeled Dandelion rover concept. But by the time they announced their contract with Astrobotic they displayed images of a futuristic looking six-wheeled rover called Uni.

Wether AngelicvM truly intended to develop a six-wheeled rover or wether it was more of a PR stunt is uncertain, but I strongly suspect that their current rover design to be a four-wheeled one. When Astrobotic unveiled the Peregrine lander, it had three rovers attached to it. Here's the image I'm talking about. On the left side there's Hakuto's rover, and on the right rear of the lander there's Astrobotic's large rover (The blue can-shaped object on the right edge is a sports drink ad from a company called Pocari Sweat). On the center-right of the image, you will notice a flat, black four-wheeled rover dangling from the lander platform. That is presumably AngelicvM's Uni (If they're still using that name). I'm afraid I can't provide any concrete refs, other than random images in their website, such as in the 'Project' section. Hope information here may help. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and I am always grateful for your feedback and extra information. Reviewing the chronology, the spherical one (2 legged-wheels) named Dandelion was reported earlier in 2012, and a wheeled rover (Uni) was reported in 2015. The official Team AngelicvM channel posted a video in YouTube 2 years ago, showing a four wheeled rover named "Unity" [6]. I think I missed the dates (chronology) because in 2013 they gave an interview in Spanish saying that they wanted to do a different traction concept based on insects to be different from the standard wheeled rover. I assumed that doctrine would continue. Anyway, their latest YouTube video certainly shows a 4-wheeled rover, named Unity. I will correct the article later tonight as I am travelling. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I wasn't aware AngelicvM had a name for their four-wheeled rover. Thanks for the info. Hms1103 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC). P.S. by chance I noticed you've misspelled Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor's acronym in your user page link.

AFD

suggest you create the AFD page not just post the template NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a long unfamiliar process, which I am typing as we speak. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

sounds good, no rush. just thought it was an oversightNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:Twinkle to run through the process automatically. — JFG ^talk 16:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I`ll take a second look at it. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no quibbles with your de facto close but see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete bullet 3; maybe you didn't mark the thread closed but by deciding the consensus and executing what you think it is, some might say you're breaking protocol. There's no rush. Better to let some outside person tell us what we know and then do it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, a more specific reference is WP:CLOSEAFD. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 01:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

yes that's better, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Denny (hybrid hominin) - worthy new article?

FWIW - just now created "Denny (hybrid hominin", with numerous added WP:RS cited, which may be of interest - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That find is fascinating and it is certainly notable. I`d love to work on that article too if you don`t mind. But it will take me a week to go through all those references. :-) Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion to work on the article - yes - it's *entirely* ok with me - no problem whatsoever - a link for an (updated) listing of relevant references is currently in the "External links" section and also HERE - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Modern human is the product of interspecies spanky-panky. This is evidenced in comparative anatomy, and now by molecular biology. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes - very interesting finding imo - may change the view of things a bit I would think - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that it was suspected decades ago, but it became most evident this decade. Having the smoking (molecular) gun is always good. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thank you *very much* for an *Excellent* job on the "Denny (hybrid hominin)" article (and related talk-page) - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 00:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I am going to step back now from this article to give opportunity to other editors to contribute. I don't want to hog all the fun. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: No problem whatsoever - Thanks again for *all* your help with the article - a truly *Excellent* effort - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Biology barnstar for you!

		The Biology-star
		To User:Rowan Forest, for your excellent and quality contributions to the "Denny (hybrid hominin)" article. Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the "WP-Honorary Biology degree", BTW. I read a lot about biology and medicine but have no related advanced degrees. But it's encouraging if I give the impression that I do. —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Batt --> Rowan

Hey Batt, I mean Rowan.

Just now putting two and two together to see you've made a name change. Congrats on that. I've enjoyed editing with you to improve articles on spaceflight, Mars, and a few other technical subjects for several years, and will be happy to continue knowing you Rowan, are also my former colleague, BatteryIncluded.

I'm interested in your rationale, if you might be willing to share, or even just email to me offline. I've often thought I might do the same, and change my Wikipedia username to my given Firstname Surname sometime in the future. If not, that's okay.

As to the history records, I'm a bit confused. I thought that when someone changed their username, their historical records from the beginning in the article Histories would reflect the current username. But I think I just saw some of your old edits on the Raptor history listed as BattIncluded, so I'm now not certain how that works. Happy to have any insight you've learned in your process. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) After a username change, your old comments are untouched. Your old user page and talk archives can redirect to the new profile (I've helped Rowan sort out his archives). So the link between names is still preserved; if you don't want that, you can request a WP:VANISH procedure, whereby your former name is obfuscated in edit histories, although it is still visible on talk page signatures. — JFG ^talk 11:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am grateful that an admin helped me recover my privileges, and that JFG helped me with a bunch redirects that I had no idea they could be done. One disadvantage is that the veteran editors from the various spaceflight projects do not recognize me, but the bottom line is that my edits remain as good as my references. Greetings from my northern forest, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember when GWSimulations, who was very active on spaceflight articles for years changed his username to User:WDGraham. I think his old Talk page signatures were mostly just "GW". But I believe he might have mentioned his name change on Wikiproject Spaceflight; so that would (in my view) be a good idea for you as well.

Either way, as I understand what JFG said above, the edit summaries (on both article pages and talk pages) will change to the new name, following a name change. (or, at least, that is what happens under some parameters of how one makes one's request for the name change) But some stuff, like Talk page signatures, will remain forever as they were at the time the Talk page was updated. Do I have this right? N2e (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That's the process if you go through WP:RENAME. In the case of Battery / Rowan, it looks like he created a new account, and then asked to link it to the previous one. That's a fine approach as well, but not necessarily what you want. This explains why you still see Battery's edits listed under the old name in article history. — JFG ^talk 21:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I had no plan or strategy when I did the change: I locked myself out of my Wikipedia account a couple of days after I changed some special characters in my password. I don't know which email address I used back in 2006 when I first registered in Wikipedia, and none of my e-mail accounts received the requested bot-help to recover my account and reset the password. I may have used a work email that does not exist now. That is why I created an alternate account (Rowan Forest), and JFG helped me manage the best choices left under the circumstances. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that was the story… Passwords suck. — JFG ^talk 00:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Got it, What you added JFG was super helpful:

That's the process if you go through WP:RENAME. In the case of Battery / Rowan, it looks like he created a new account, and then asked to link it to the previous one. That's a fine approach as well, but not necessarily what you want. This explains why you still see Battery's edits listed under the old name in article history. — JFG

Learning: if one wants an intentional name change, do this process via WP:RENAME!

Sorry to hear about the hassles Rowan when you lost your password; but super pleased you are back contributing to the encyclopedia of human knowledge! N2e (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

NASA-TV chat - re Dawn/asteroids - 2pm/et/usa, 09/07/2018.

Of possible interest - NASA-TV event (chat) at 2pm/et/usa on Friday, 7 September 2018 - re Dawn and asteroids, including 4 Vesta and Ceres. - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

References