User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 6

"Click HERE for my other related image efforts"

A Latin motto that you appear to have contributed

"Art of the Nature Timelines on Wikipedia"

Life timeline
This box: view talk edit
−4500 — – — – −4000 — – — – −3500 — – — – −3000 — – — – −2500 — – — – −2000 — – — – −1500 — – — – −1000 — – — – −500 — – — – 0 —	Water   Single-celled life   Photosynthesis   Eukaryotes   Multicellular life   P l a n t s   Arthropods Molluscs Flowers Dinosaurs   Mammals Birds Primates H a d e a n A r c h e a n P r o t e r o z o i c P h a n e r o z o i c	← Earth formed ← Earliest water ← LUCA ← Earliest fossils ← LHB meteorites ← Earliest oxygen ← Pongola glaciation* ← Atmospheric oxygen ← Huronian glaciation* ← Sexual reproduction ← Earliest multicellular life ← Earliest fungi ← Earliest plants ← Earliest animals ← Cryogenian ice age* ← Ediacaran biota ← Cambrian explosion ← Hirnantian glaciation* ← Earliest tetrapods ← Karoo ice age* ← Earliest apes / humans ← Quaternary ice age*
(million years ago) *Ice Ages

Nature timeline
This box: view talk edit
−13 — – −12 — – −11 — – −10 — – −9 — – −8 — – −7 — – −6 — – −5 — – −4 — – −3 — – −2 — – −1 — – 0 —	Dark Ages Reionization Matter-dominated era Accelerated expansion Water on Earth Single-celled life Photosynthesis Multicellular life Vertebrates	← Earliest Universe ← Earliest stars ← Earliest galaxy ← Earliest quasar / black hole ← Omega Centauri ← Andromeda Galaxy ← Milky Way spirals ← NGC 188 star cluster ← Alpha Centauri ← Earth / Solar System ← Earliest known life ← Earliest oxygen ← Atmospheric oxygen ← Sexual reproduction ← Earliest fungi ← Earliest animals / plants ← Cambrian explosion ← Earliest mammals ← Earliest apes / humans L i f e
(billion years ago)

latin => "Nos Auxilium Facere Interrete Non Lactaverunt."

english => "We help make the internet not suck."

(UserBox and related talk-page)

"Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus" means something close to "We the help to make internal for those who do not suckle." (Auxilium is a noun, facere is infinitive, suckling is the reverse of sucking, and there is a far more correct Latin word for Internet.) "Iuvamus ne interrete sugat" would still be silly, but at least it would be Latin. And how can anyone enjoy, knowing that somewhere on the Internet someone's Latin is wrong? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestion re the Latin phrase ("Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus.") - I wikilinked the phrase in the userbox (User:UBX/WikiLatin) to the "Google Latin Translator" - see related wikilink - which Google translates as follows => "We help make the Internet not suck." [Note: edit-add => the related phrase, "Nos Auxilium Facere Interrete Non Nutrientibus.", based on one of your suggestions, is also translated by Google the same way - as => "We help make the Internet not suck."] - your own suggested phrasing - which may be better - and more correct - is translated (on Google Translate) as follows => "Iuvamus ne interrete sugat." => "Helps prevent internet suck." - interestingly (to me) - capitalizing seems to give a different phrase (on Google Translate) as follows => "Iuvamus Ne Interrete Sugat." => "Internet helps prevent sugar. - nonetheless - I may consider changing the phrase to your suggestion - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRIEF Followup: Updated Latin motto to the following => "Nos Auxilium Facere Interrete Non Lactaverunt" - based on Google Translate - also, see related => List of Latin phrases (N)#N - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your change to the Wikipedia page "List of Latin phrases (N)". If you wish to insist, I believe the "main talk page" for "List of Latin phrases" might be appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - @Peter Gulutzan: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - added a note on "Talk:List of Latin phrases#Popular Wikipedia quote - in Latin - include - or not?" - hope it's *entirely* ok - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""News media" (test template)"

Template:News media has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: - Thank you for your comments - and notifying me of the TfD re the Template:News media - please see my added comment at the TfD discussion page - and/or - the copy posted below:

Copied from "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 14#Template:News media":

• Strong keep - { {reply|Champion|Dimadick|Marxistfounder|Rjensen|Srich32977|The Four Deuces}} - Please note that the "Template:News media" template, currently transcluded 22 times at the following links, concerns news source audiences, *not* the news sources themselves - that is, the "Template:News media" template presents the rankings of "responding audience" results – not the rankings of "news sources" results – across the political spectrum - ALSO - Please see "recent related discussion" re Template:News media at the following => "Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Template_.22.7B.7BNews_media.7D.7D.22_OK_for_.22article.22_-_or_Not.3F" - as well as => "Template talk:News media" and "Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2#Useful charts but not deliberate hoax fraud" - In support of keeping the "Template:News media" template, the following related very recent (2016) references may be helpful:

• Pew Research Center (2016)
• Journalism (2014)
• VOtero Chart (2016)
• VOtero Chart/original (2016)
• VOtero Chart (2016) - Rationale

hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments and notification - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I saw your most recent addition to Nineteen Eighty-Four, and your edit summary suggesting discussion on the talk page. There's already a discussion there, with only two commenters so far; could you add your thoughts there? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments - and for letting me know of the discussion at Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four#"Alternative facts" - added comment copied below:

FWIW - Seems the following edit is relevant, worthy and very well sourced - and should be mentioned in the article - including the lede:

Copied from "Nineteen Eighty-Four article (version 21:39, 26 January 2017)":

More recently, in January 2017, the novel has again become a best seller book, seemingly in response to apparent attempts by members of the White House staff to present possible misinformation, according to news articles.^[1][2][3][4]

References

1. ^ Kakutani, Michiko (26 January 2017). "Why '1984' Is a 2017 Must-Read". New York Times. Retrieved 26 January 2017.
2. ^ Freytas-Tamura, Kimiko de (25 January 2017). "George Orwell's '1984' Is Suddenly a Best-Seller". New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2017.
3. ^ Rossman, Sean (25 January 2017). "George Orwell's '1984' leaps to top of Amazon bestseller list". USA Today. Retrieved 25 January 2017.
4. ^ "Kellyanne Conway's "Alternative Facts" Claim Sends '1984' Book Sales Soaring". Hollywood Reporter. Associated Press. 24 January 2017. Retrieved 25 January 2017.

Hope this helps in some way - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy thar Dr!

Per edit, yes, the self revert was indeed a good move as the second bullet point near the top says Wait at least 3 months before listing someone who has simply ceased editing, unless you have some other reason for being certain that they have left. And, as I believe you may have figured out, 19th November 2016 + 3 Months is actually 19th February 2017.

Thanks for trying though, faces doing a bit around 'Missing Wikipedians' is always nice. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 16:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Matticusmadness: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - reverting my own edit seemed indicated - esp after noticing the Wait note at the page top - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have added the Template:Life timeline to articles such as Pterosaur, Brontosaurus, and Archosaur. While, granted, the template is quite nice, I don't really see the relevance of this template to those articles, since the template doesn't even mention them. Cheers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lythronaxargestes and FunkMonk: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - the reason the Template:Life timeline was added to the noted dinosaur articles (since reverted: Pterosaur; Brontosaurus; Archosaur) was that the Template:Life timeline provides an overall perspective of the evolution of dinosaurs - and - as a result - seemed a worthy addition to the dinosaur articles - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would be relevant to every single article about a living organism, which may be a bit much! What makes it more relevant to an article about a specific dinosaur genus than to a specific genus of living mammal, for example? Just for future reference. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Thanks for your reply - yes - *entirely* agree - although the Template:Life timeline may be relevant to all organism articles, could be a bit much adding the template to them all of course - perhaps adding the template to selected articles may be sufficient - and better - I would think - in any regards - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think maybe placing it on very broad articles such as animal, plant, palaeontology, so on, would be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Thanks again - yes - agree - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Global biodiversity 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions re attribution - yes - some relevant text/refs has been copied between Wikipedia articles - in some cases, I've been the original author of some or all of the copied material - one example - hope this helps in some way - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much, but even though you are author of the copied material it would be very helpful and speed up the processing of the bot reports if you would mention in your edit summary at the destination article what the source article was. Not technically required, but useful nevertheless. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We are students writing an article on Colors of Biotechnology as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have interest in these kinds of topics, we would like to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at this article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time.--Brenmoba (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brenmoba: Thank you for your comments - and invitation - at the moment, I'm *very* busy with one thing or another - but - Thank you, in any regards, for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the web page http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Prehistoric_Autopsy, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - agreed - *entirely* no problem whatsoever removing the content of course - I'm *very* happy, in fact, to learn about this since I was unclear whether the content was somehow related to Wikipedia - or not - after all - the word "DocuWiki" - and the logo "MediaWiki" (in the lower right of the http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Prehistoric_Autopsy page) seemed to suggest to me that the content may be somehow related to Wikipedia - also - I was unable to locate a copyright notice on the http://docuwiki.net/ website - to check copyright policy - nonetheless - based on the assumption that the DocuWiki content was Wikipedia-related content, I had included the following message in the edit summary => "added relevant text/ref - per WP:ATT & WP:CWW - from http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Prehistoric_Autopsy - a/o 23 March 2017" at the time of the edit (ie, "10:13, 23 March 2017") - my Prehistoric Autopsy article was very newly created - and the episode detail section was intended to be temporary - until I found time to rewrite it in a better, and perhaps, more detailed way - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thank you *very much* for clarifying the situation - it's *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaWiki software is freely available, and there's lots of wikis out there, most of which are not related to our Wikimedia Foundation. Many of them are not compatibly licensed. Those that are will have a CC-by-SA statement at the bottom of every page. Compare for example this one and this one. Cheers. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - @Diannaa: BRIEF Followup - Thanks again for your recent help - and clarifications - the Prehistoric Autopsy article has been expanded to some extent and now seems better - let me know if otherwise - Thanks again for your help - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SD re Dark Odyssey
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Dark Odyssey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kleuske (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] @Kleuske: - Thank you for your comments - and notifying me of your concerns re the newly created "Dark Odyssey" film page - *strong keep* of this newly created page - please see a copy of my comments posted below: Copied from "Talk:Dark Odyssey#tag": -- Contested deletion -- @Kleuske: This "Dark Odyssey" film page is not unambiguously promotional, because I have just now (one-minute *before* the addition of the deletion tag? - please see the page history) began creating this "Dark Odyssey" film page and am currently in the process of expanding the page - I had initially noted that the page was "{{under construction}}" for expansion and related - and the article has since been substantially expanded - with further text and references - especially referring to a New York Times film review and related references[1][2] - and also - the addition of a relevant image/caption (at => File:DarkOdyssey-1961FilmByRadleyMetzger.jpg) - the "Dark Odyssey" film page should now be even more acceptable - at least for starters for even further expansion effort(s) - Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC) References ^ Thompson, Howard (June 26, 1961). "Screen: 'Dark Odyssey':Low-Cost Drama Has Premiere at Cameo". New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2017. ^ Staff. "A Talk With Radley Metzger". Mondo-Digital.com. Retrieved April 10, 2017. Thanks again for your comments and notification - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Speedy deletion tag removed. Regards, BencherliteTalk 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early for inclusion, but in any case "fiercely disputed " kept out st me in the source, maybe it should have been mentioned . Doug Weller talk 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - perhaps a bit too early to include - although perhaps sufficiently worthy to provide some awareness to others who might have an interest^[1][2] - [Note: "Cerutti Mastodon site", a relevant article has been recently created] - nonetheless, the edits were made in good faith as possible improvements to the articles - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drbogdan, just a quick note: The IP edit was very useful, Muon g-2 was a redlink while Muon_g−2 has an actual article (that didn't exist when I added the entry). After the IP edit I added a redirect from Muon g-2 to Muon g−2 (note the different minus signs). --mfb (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and clarifying the IP edit - didn't notice the different minus signs at the time - but notice them now - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc, would you mind if I renamed those KIC 8462852 flux images to be a bit less codey, and to replace File:KIC8462582-NormalizedFlux-20170502-20170617-BruceGary.jpg with the daily normalised flux instead of the V-band, just so they're all of the same type? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I've thought about it a little more, I'd like to replace the dailies with the V-band graphs. The dailies only give error bars, whereas the V-band graphs give individual data points, which I think may be more useful overall. What are your thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and concerns - yes - *entirely* agree with your suggested changes to the images - seems better imo - no problem whatsoever - may want to be sure image filename is exactly ok (ie, the "KIC 8462852" part) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco, thanks for the quick response. Have a good weekend! — Huntster (t @ c) 00:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Thank you for your recent notifications re Astrobiology Magazine cover images - *entirely* ok with me to now delete these cover images - since they're no longer useful for the article - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Astrobiology Magazine covers
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-EukaryoticCell.jpg Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-EukaryoticCell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] ==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-LifeOnEarth.jpg Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-LifeOnEarth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] ==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-MilkyWayGalaxy.jpg Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-Cover-MilkyWayGalaxy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] ==Orphaned non-free image File:AstrobiologyMagazine-NASA-MarsCuriosityRover.jpg Thanks for uploading File:AstrobiologyMagazine-NASA-MarsCuriosityRover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Bogdan,

I hope are doing well.

My name is Kyurim Kang. On the behalf of the Academy of Neurologic Music Therapy, I am posting this message. First, we appreciate your contribution to the NMT Wikipedia page. We are now trying to develop and revise the NMT Wikipedia page under the NMT Advisory Council to ensure that we provide accurate information about NMT to the public. We recognized that there is some ambiguous information on the page, so we are considering editing the entire page. However, we would like to kindly ask your permission before we delete your information. We are also happy to have your suggestions for editing the NMT page. If you have any questions, please email to kyurim.kang@mail.utoronto.ca. Again, we really appreciate your contribution.

Best Regards, Kyurim Kang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyurim1 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyurim1: Thank you for your comments - and noting your plans to update/revise the Neurologic Music Therapy article - seems being mindful of a possible conflict-of-interest (see WP:COI, and related posting on your talk-page) re the article may be relevant - for my part, no problem whatsoever - especially if all's *entirely* ok otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert, restoring the material I added! I was reading the Talk page over and over trying to find any discussion on this topic without success. As I was doing this, your revert happened! I wonder if that editor honestly misconstrued something, or was just making it up - and gave that reason to allow them to delete information (without push-back) that they personally did not like! RobP (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: Thank you for your comments re recent WP:SPA ip edits (ie, edit-Panspermia, edit-Direct panspermia) on the Panspermia and Directed panspermia articles - *entirely* agree - no discussions, esp ones leading to WP:CONSENSUS, re the noted text, seemed to have occurred on the related talk-pages (ie, Talk:Panspermia, Talk:Directed panspermia) - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006 and Drbogdan: what Talk page you have looked at? 90% of discussion on the Talk page of the Panspermia article is exactly about reaching the consensus formulation on that point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panspermia#ET_signal_in_the_genetic_code AndyShepp (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyShepp and Rp2006: Thank you for your comments - seems that the discussion in "Talk:Panspermia#ET signal in the genetic code" did not reach a true "WP:CONSENSUS" view (afaik - a "formulation" is not a true consensus view - please see => "WP:CONSENSUS") - the closest view of the discussion seems to be (as noted in the edit summary) the following => "... deleted section should be left in until everyone reaches consensus on a new neutral version ..." - see => "Talk:Panspermia#ET signal in the genetic code" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Welcome Mandot (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandot: Thank you *very much* for the Barnstar Award - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations - GW170817 and GRB 170817A
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AfD - GW170817 [edit] A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GW170817 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/GW170817 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. TR 11:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] The discussion result was MERGE to NGC 4993. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC) My Comment − copied from the AfD relevant discussion as follows (Drbogdan (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)): Flexible: Thank you for the notice re the possible deletion of the "GW170817" article and related - as OA of the article, please understand that I have no objection whatsoever to the final decision (ie, "WP:CONSENSUS"?) - to maintain - or remove the article - for my part, the article seemed sufficiently worthy (based on cited references[1][2][3][4][5]) to include and update with the latest relevant news from "WP:RSs" - in any regards - Thanks again for the notice - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC) References ^ Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017. ^ McKinnon, Mika (23 August 2017). "Exclusive: We may have detected a new kind of gravitational wave". New Scientist. Retrieved 31 August 2017. ^ Staff (25 August 2017). "A very exciting LIGO-Virgo Observing run is drawing to a close August 25 [2017]". LIGO. Retrieved 31 August 2017. ^ Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic (magazine). Retrieved 31 August 2017. ^ Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 31 August 2017. AfD - GRB 170817A [edit] A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GRB 170817A 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/GRB 170817A 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. TR 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] The discussion result was MERGE to NGC 4993. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC) My Comment − Copied from the AfD relevant discussion as follows (Drbogdan (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2017‎ (UTC)): Keep: Thank you for the notice re the possible deletion of the "GRB 170817A" article and related - "GRB 170817A" is a confirmed event[1] - and seems to have been emitted from the "NGC 4993" galaxy - "GRB 170817A" may be related to a "gravitational wave" event, according to "WP:RSs"[2][3][4] - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC) References ^ Kienlin, Andreas von (17 August 2017). "GCN Circular; Number: 21520; GRB 170817A: Fermi GBM detection; 2017/08/17 20:00:07 GMT". Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. Retrieved 31 August 2017. ^ Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017. ^ Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic (magazine). Retrieved 31 August 2017. ^ Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 31 August 2017.

Dear Dennis, I thank you here for your additions re ringed planet occlusion^[1][2] to the article on Tabby's Star, and this because I had promised on its talk page that I was going to "shut up", at least for the time being. And of course what I would have liked to have said otherwise is that such rings would of course create a major spectral signature; but the still larger point is that the spectral data is being held "close to the chest" by the various astronomers in charge of the various mega-telescopes^[3] -- and there will come a point at which the sequestration of this data will become itself an historically note-worthy item. And I'm really starting to be upset with these astronomers, and the Wikipedia editors who are always ready to defer to them! (Not you!) It's now been four months since the start of the latest round of dimmings! Synchronist (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dennis: First, thanks for your yeoman's service in keeping us up-to-date on the dimmings. And second, and in respect to the new Meng study,^[1][2] thanks for pointing us at that Jason Wright article which notes that a dust cloud explanation ought to show some spectral differences! And in my own, and admittedly untutored, review of the Meng article, the one and only salient point -- and why can't these scientists learn to speak English, or some other human language?!? -- seems to be that the dimmings are not so deep in the infrared as they are in the visible and ultraviolet, which to the authors points inevitably at a dust cloud explanation. And of course this explanation has a number of problems, and, in particular (pun intended!) explaining the structure and persistence of such a cloud "constellation"; i.e., it is clearly not a simple ring. And not to mention this possibility: if our aliens were to build an ultralight, wire meshwork megastructure -- i.e., a cosmic spider web! -- what would its IR vs. visible signature look like?!> Synchronist (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- KIC 8462852 dimmings (continued)--- Thanks yet again for continuing to post the latest dimming curves, and now this question strikes me: aren't they rather spiky to have been caused by dust "clouds"? I.e., when we see our own sun blotted out by a passing atmospheric cloud, the curve would seem to be more like a rounded mesa. Synchronist (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, very interested in your rationale for deleting the KIC 8462852 fly-through. As someone who has spent many an enjoyable late summer night observing Cygnus seemingly flying in parallel with the plane of our galaxy, I find the disintegration of this asterism under the influence of simulated space journey to be quite fascinating. What harm is there in it? Synchronist (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Synchronist: Thank you for your comments - and question - less a problem from me at the moment than from "at least one other editor who has reverted the edit earlier" - "my own rv" was intended to obtain more agreement from editors on the "KIC 8462852 talk-page" before adding to the "KIC 8462852 main article" - and avoid yet another edit rv by concerned editors if possible - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dennis, I must confess that I am a bit lost as to where we stand after the new findings, and have posted a "sanity check" question on that article's talk page -- can you address? Synchronist (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Synchronist: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - seems the related references^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} on the "main article page" may require a bit of study - further discussions on the "talk-page" with others may help as well I would think - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He used more than three years of data retrieved from the rover to paint a picture of ancient conditions at Gale Crater: [1]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: - Thank you *very much* for the comment - and link - seems the link, however, is not working for some reason - nonetheless - found a similar link at the following => < ref name="ABM-20170918">Doyle, Amanda (18 September 2017). "Ancient Lake On Mars Was Hospitable Enough To Support Life". Astrobiology Magazine. Retrieved 22 September 2017.</ref>^[1] - very interesting in any regards of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can get access from the Home page at: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ - Cheers, User:BatteryIncluded (talk)‎ 17:47, 22 September 2017‎ (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - Thanks again - seems that url is also down for me at the moment for some reason - other http://www.nasa.gov WebSites seem entirely ok - maybe a ccleaner scan & reboot may help - or - that particular nasa site may actually be down - maybe tomorrow will be better - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting paper: [2],^[1] [3].^[2] It adds to the surface water inventory of the past, and "represent a new category of astrobiological target on Mars," the report states. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the links - saw the first ref^[1] earlier today - both refs^[1][2] seem esp interesting of course - may study them more closely at the first opportunity - Thanks again - and Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without having read the papers, I reckon that the main value will be in gaining knowledge on the prebiotic chemistry. Unfortunately, they would need to dig in for any organics....ExoMars style. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2017‎

You keep reverting facts from a sourced article that seem imperative to the subject. Explain why, I am going to have to add it again unless you explain it. Are you knowledgeable on the subject or just on an editing rampage?--Mapsfly (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapsfly: Thank you for your comments - as noted on the "edit summary" to the "Directed panspermia" article, your edit, based on a "reference"^[1] from "someone" (see => "Chandra Wickramasinghe#Polonnaruwa") associated with the "Journal of Cosmology", a questionable source well-known for "promoting fringe and speculative viewponts", seems "WP:FRINGE" and not supported by the responsible scientific literature - best suggestion, "as mentioned", is to seek agreement (esp in the form of "WP:CONSENSUS") from other editors on the "talk-page to the article" - please support your suggested edit with "WP:Reliable Sources" from the responsible scientific literature - other editors may agree with you - in which case there may be no further reason to revert your edit - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy that "GW170817" turned out to be the real thing, and that it is getting the media attention that it deserves. Thanks for your contributions to what is turning out to be a very good article. :) CThomas³ (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cthomas3: Thank you *very much* for your comments re the "In The News" item - they're *greatly* appreciated - yes - agreed - "GW170817" & "GRB 170817A" turned out to be the real things - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)

How about quoting

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter.

How about

It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. 770 Gr of CO2 are Natural, 26.4 are anthropogenic. This is equivalent to 3.3% anthropogenic and 96.7% natural.

They had a link in the article to the IPCC 2007 assessment but the link was broken. I tried to find the data myself but the IPCC report is quite hard to read and understand. It's such a simple question and it's so hard to find an answer. Do you know the actual ratio? Is New Scientist and the IPCC quotable?

Let me know. Thanks. [comment added by 24.138.60.176 (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2017‎ (UTC)][reply]

Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes - the New Scientist reference seems ok but somewhat outdated - a better, and more recent, reference^[1] may include < ref name="IPCC-2014">Staff (2014). "Climate Change 2014 - Synthesis Report - Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 21 October 2017.</ref> => should note that to obtain comments from other editors, best to post to the main article's Talk-Page at => "Talk:Greenhouse gas" - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the 2014 doesn't separate between emissions and deforestation equivalent. It claims in 2004 28 GtCO2. There was no exact number but I took total including deforestation land use and decomposition plant waste (which is natural). I did math (56.6*36.7) /76.7) to use emission only not the deforestation and land use equivalent. There is no mention of natural GtCO2 in the 2014 report. I searched for GtCO2 and natural and examined.

Perhaps something like :

Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”. 770 GtCO2 are natural^[2] and 28 GtCO2 are anthropogenic ^[1] This is equivalent to 3.5% anthropogenic and 96.5% natural. This ratio is higher 4.5% to 95.5% if deforestation equivalent and rotting biomass is included (8.7 GtCO2 equivalent.)

The point I want to make is human activity CO2 emissions are small compared to nature, but they push the emissions past the natural equilibrium. [comment added by 24.138.60.176 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2017‎‎ (UTC)]

Thanks again for your comments - and for posting your concerns to the "Talk-Page" of the "Main article" - at => "Talk:Greenhouse gas#Natural and anthropogenic sources of GHG" - you're likely to receive comments from more editors at that location - should note that your calculation, perhaps correct, may be considered "Original Research" - and may not be acceptable in Wikipedia articles - best to refer to a "Reliable Reference Source" for the calculated values instead - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another lovely phenomenon: IPTF14hls. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the news about IPTF14hls - and for creating the new article - seems worthy - may have seen something about this earlier - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time could you read over MOS:IMAGELOCATION.--Moxy (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Thank you for your comment - and suggestion - seems some newly placed images could have been better placed in articles, including in the "Homo sapiens" article - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to know the no. of isotopes for a given element ? Dr. Sroy (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Sroy: Thank you for your comment - and question about the number of isotopes for a given chemical element - might want to view the "Table of nuclides" - seems like a good place to start - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check out my question on the Help Desk Wikipedia:Help desk#Bug on a template used in Dinosaurs page? It relates to a template you last modified earlier November. Not saying that your edit did anything, but I haven't been able to find the issue. --WhereAmI (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WhereAmI:  Done - Page needed a WP:PURGE - template problem (see odd-images at => https://imgur.com/a/pYfrF ) should now be "fixed" - if interested in details, please see => "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HELP: Templates broken - need urgent attention?" and "Template talk:Human timeline#Edit request re odd images" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your edit on the Quasar article and for whatever reason, I ended up on your userpage. After browsing it, I just wanted to say I appreciate the breadth of your edits and your education. It's always nice to see people with similar interests and of the requisite education to edit the more complex articles. It seems you have done a lot on Wikipedia, so I just wanted to acknowledge that. Thanks for your time and efforts and I hope you have a good night.jlcoving (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlcoving: Thank you for the appreciation - the Quasar article, and many related articles, as well as my newly created article about ULAS J1342+0928, which was recently reported to be the most distant quasar and supermassive black hole known, presented me with some fun moments - and some challenging ones as well - esp trying to find the name of the relevant constellation containing the quasar using ra/dec - finally found a suitable reference^[1] - at least afaik atm - Thanks again for your appreciation - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming press conference on new exoplanet(s): [4].^[1] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the Kepler announcement^[1][2] => Thursday (December 14, 2017) at 1 pm (et/usa) - hope to be watching - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: Possible "Hints" of upcoming NASA Announcement? => "Hint-1" - and - "Hint-2" - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: Seems NASA news^[3][4] could have been better in some ways (no et?), but made a related article in any regards => Kepler-90i - hope it's ok - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: I had a crazy day and I'm just logging in. Thanks for the update. I will try to catchup tonight or on the weekend. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's good of you to comment on the lead discussion, but an edit comment will be lost to the discussion; a brief comment in the discussion text to the same effect would be helpful. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - added the following to the talk-page at Talk:Evolution#A better version of the lead => "FWIW - this new lead version seems excellent imo - and better than the current one - which seems too long and less clear." Drbogdan (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my Princeton refs, mobile editing is impossible. I only created the article because of the NYT lead, would be astonished if they published something like this if their sources were of dubious veracity. No Swan So Fine (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: Thanks - Yes - entirely agree - added/adjusted several relevant references - hope they're ok - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my sanity was going for a moment. While I was editing some refs, I saw some confusing text about the age but when I came back to fix it everything looked OK. I only just spotted that we were interleaving edits. My sanity is intact and the article is improving. Just to throw a spanner in the works, way back in the day (1990 - 2000) it was considered likely that RZ Psc actually was a post-main-sequence subgiant as its spectrum implies. Don't know if that needs to clutter up the article or not, its status seems fairly well-settled now. Lithopsian (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: Thanks - first of all, you're fine - was just corresponding w/ one of the lead astronomers re the 2017 RZ Piscium AJ studies - who pointed out some corrections/adjs to the article - I think things w/ the article are now basically ok - ok w/ me to add more relevant text/refs if you like of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]