User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 3

GFAJ-1 at ITN
--Kslotte (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI re: Mexican Drug War
Hey BI. Was this edit related to the SPI at Mexican Drug War? The Interior (Talk) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

BioAs
Hi, I am the one leaving nasty notes on bioAs article. It is an interesting area that I know a little about, but am not a super-duper expert. The As vs P aspect is disporportionate, but many articles grow from strange roots. If you think that I become unhelpful, let me know. I was going to recruit another curmudgeon who is a pro at medicine, User:Sbharris. It will take a while to get materials. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Viking program
Thank you for providing that rewrite. I was honestly a little shocked to see that text had been there for quite some time. Happy editing! --Xession (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Life form
The lists in life form are an index, used to describe an interdisciplinary term with many differences in opinion as to what exists and what does not, consistent with Neutral point of view. The deleted sentence "An entity or being may be biological, artificial, scientific, religious, fictional, mythological, legendary, or subject to scientific speculation or skepticism" is a reflection of the section headings. The term "life form" is a real term well known to appear in fiction. In the phrase "Humans are... able to interact with non-living things and other life forms... in the spiritual realm", the phrase "in the spiritual realm" was deleted, but a whole section in the index is devoted to such interactions. The entry Arsenic biochemistry was deleted and it is an article and it is scientific. Rather than restoring the deleted items, I deleted the entire "essay" to avoid edit warring. :(   Obankston (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After reviewing your evaluation, I see that the evaluation was from the viewpoint of the physical/scientific, whereas the article is attemping the interdisciplinary viewpoint of physical/scientific/alleged/religious/fictional. Your evaluation from that viewpoint is useful, particularly the list of articles in the sections Scientific and Scientific Hypothetical Life. The original lede has been placed in talk:life form for further evaluation. Obankston (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords
Great you had some updated info that I didn't have!

As for the bolfacing, I was looking for a way to make the capture/at-large info easy to compare visually when looking at the list, and not get that info "lost" in the article. To address that I had come up with the idea of the gallery, but not all of the 37 have pics so that was not a perfect solution either. Maybe a "Status" table should be added to the article. What do you think? Or maybe you have some other idea yet.

I chose Eliminated (vs. Killed) because killed is not specific to a State action, but can also be the result of a rival cartel before the State captures the fugitive. Any thoughts?

Also, upon the capture of El Amarillo, authorities are claiming they have so far captured/eliminated 20 of the 37, but I only count 14 (of the claimed 20) in the List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords so far. Do you know who the missing 6 are?

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome! I'll try add a table. I know just the basics of wiki table building. Maybe you can tweak it where I go wrong (as you did with the lining up in the Mexico coat of arms etc in the infobox - I WAS hoping some good Samaritan would come along!). And yes I can read Spanish. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They all 3 are all listed as El Gori in the Govt news releases. Mercy11 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: The Fernando Sánchez Arellano's photo in the article List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords, I uploaded that photo myself (2 days ago - i.e., on 20 January 2011) to both, the "List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords" article and to the "Luis Fernando Sánchez Arellano" article as well. I derived the photo from a crop of another image ("the original") that I found in Commons, as noted next to "Author" and detailed elsewhere in that description. "The original" source I used (namely, an image in Commons named "Arellano-Felix_Cartel_2009.jpg") is also described in that page and, as that page indicates, the original is found. Upon reviewing the original now, I notice you were the editor who uploaded "the original" image back on 2 August 2009.

OK, a few more facts: yesterday, on 21 January 2011, the picture in question is alluded to by the commentarist from El Universal that you pointed out. Also a few other sites made commnets regarding the picture (by this I mean the photo, in general, not the photo that is in Wikipedia). I happen to know that these starving commentators spend their nights surfing the Internet looking for stimulating and controversial subjects. Only that way can the commentator's ratings rise and that, of course, is good business for the commentator. It so happens that this last Tuesday, January 18, 2011, an anonymous user posted uploaded recent photos of Luis Fernando to YouTube.

In short, no, I would not remove the photo (I take it that by "remove" you meant proposing it for DELETION from Wikipedia and not just REMOVING it from the article, and I further assume you meant not just the cropped pic of Luis Fernando Sánchez Arellano but the original scanned poster image you had uploaded as well, so as to stop the photo from potentially propagating into other articles and thus perpetuatis the alleged problem.)

I also point out that this article HERE states that the PGR has updated Luis Fernando's photo. But updating doesn't necessarily mean that the previous one was a pic of the wrong person (as the source you presented HERE is trying to make us believe). It could simply mean that the PGR is providing photos that are more recent. This is standard procedure in law enforcement, as fugitives tend to shave their heads, grow a beard, even get face changes (plastic surgery) to keep the authorities at bay. Fugitives, of course, also grow older, and law enforcement will release an age-progession image of the fugitive.

I have not yet found one reliable site which states outright that the PGR posted the wrong photo, but have found several dubious sites that do say just that, such as this one HERE. In fact if the photo was not the right one, would another competent government agency, like the DEA also publish the same poster (see HERE with the wrong photo w/o independently verifying it was, in fact, a photo of the actual fugitive and not someone else's? Also, why are the posters all in English (see, for example, HERE) if they were put out by Spanish Mexico Procuraduria? It would make no sense that the Mexican Govt passes out to its citizens, into its webpage, and to the news media WANTED posters in a language other than Spanish. See this HERE.

Sarcastic political commentarists are notorious for seeking to poke fun at their own government. I am not convinced that we should remove the images based on those commentaries. In fact, the two guys look like the same person to me, just one a bit younger than the other. This HERE seems to confirm that when it says "the police turned the cartels’ strategy against them, by using YouTube to update a much older wanted poster on file of Sánchez Arellano."

Again, I think some starving commentarist is twisting the truth of what is happening and claiming that the previous photo was the wrong person when that is not at all what reliable sites like the Christian Science Monitor and Yahoo are reporting, and which to me appear to have the more plausible version.

In short, I think we should keep the old pic of Fernando in both articles, until we can find a free version based on the updated pics being circulated now. BTW, following are the YouTube pics BEFORE they were authenticated by PGR, and the pics AFTER authentication.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From the research I did before (which should had been obvious it was extensive given the length of my previous message) and from the link you just provided (HERE), then the only action we then need to take as Wikipedians is NO ACTION at all: the picture that we have in both articles is the correct one!!


 * What is happening is that the guy in the photo (Raúl Inda González) with his lawyer (Ricardo Sanchez) is trying to sue PGR because they (PGR) certified photos (of this poor Raul Inda guy in his honeymoon or what have you) as being photos of the fugitive. Apparently someone played a joke on this poor Raul Inda guy and posted his pics as pics of the fugitive -- something easy to get by because of his similarity to the real fugitive.


 * One last thing: I wonder if Ricardo Sanchez's (the lawyer's) full name is "Ricardo Sanchez Arellano." That would tie this lawyer not only to the YouTube video (see "Sanchez Arellano Abogados" HERE) but, possibly, to the Arellano-Felix drug cartel as well! Maybe we have not seen the end of this saga yet. Mercy11 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Los Zetas
In reference to your edit [HERE] thanks for noticing that.

I had avoided introducing Los Zetas in there for 2 reasons (1) it would had introduced an inconsistency with the wiki article List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords (which does not mention Los Zetas at all), and (2) because it would had meant I needed to find out the exact date of the Gulf/Los Zetas split (which I didn't at the moment have) in order to throw in a sentence into the Lazcano article mentioning that Lazcano was in the Gulf Cartel but created his own cartel which he know heads. However, in my interest to keep the inter-article consistency I introducced an inconsistency myself -- and intra-article inconsistency -- since the body of the Lazcano article already stated he was in Los Zetas. Though I had not noticed the statement in the article's body, "I am (still) guilty as charged" and acknowlege the correctness of your edit as a case of "the lesser of two evils".

With that said, maybe you know of a RS reference that gives the date (Feb 2010?) of their split as well as which of the Gulf Cartel members listed in List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords left the Gulf with Lazcano to found Los Zetas. I don't have that information and it should be included in the various Mexican narco articles for clarity, don't you think?

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
It is actually usually perfectly fine for users to remove warning from their talk page. It is taken as evidence that the warning has been received, and any admin investigating the advisability of a block will see the informative edit summaries accompanying the original warnings. Just a quick quibble I found while looking into the preceding section (EdJohnston has the right of it, to my mind), and not generally a big deal. Happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What removal? Thanks anyway. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

GFAJ-1
Hi, I have not deleted the category extremophiles, but simply subdivided it. Extremophiles simply was too broad a category and creating sub-categories that are more precise in describing why an organism is an extremophile, can only lead to a clearer picture. cheers Androstachys (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Thank you.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation–evolution controversy
The Creation–evolution controversy includes more than ID, and substantially predates the discovery institute (it goes all the way back to Darwin, includes the Scopes trial of the 1920s, the Epperson decision in 1982, etc). As such, I've reverted your recent edits as inaccurate. Raul654 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)