User talk:Drbogdan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome To Dr. Dennis Bogdan's Talk Page


Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year Drbogdan![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Drbogdan:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Peace sign.svg

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
@BatteryIncluded: - Thank you for the Happy New Year Greeting - it's *very much* appreciated - wish you the *very best* in the New Year as well - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Affluence in the United States article[edit]

Hi Doc - in the A. in the U.S. article you have Michael Moore's quote about 400 americans having more wealth than half of all americans combined. It strikes me that the Huff Po's restatement of that to "the richest 400 Americans control as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of households" is meaningfully clearer. Perhaps swap over to the HuffPo quote instead? It is here: ...Up to you, cheers and Happy New Year! --LondonYoung (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@LondonYoung: - Thank you for your comments re the PolitiFact quotation in the Affluence in the United States#Extreme affluence article (ie, "According to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 Americans 'have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.'< ref name="PF-20110311">Kertscher, Tom; Borowski, Greg (March 10, 2011). "The Truth-O-Meter Says: True - Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined". PolitiFact. Retrieved August 11, 2013. </ref> & other refs ) - the original text and quotation from PolitiFact seems better than the restatement (and is more reliably sourced of course) - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - have a Happy New Year as well - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Moore's direct quote is surely better sourced, I am just suggesting to you that readers might take away a better understanding of the facts if you use the HuffPo restatement. It is up to you. However, I did notice that somebody - perhaps influenced by Moore's (confusing?) quote? - had edited the article to state that the 400 richest controlled half of America's net wealth - which is, of course, false. While I edited out the obviously false statement, I fear that Moore's quote will just go on to confuse more (Moore? haha) people. In any event, I love your work on wikipedia. --LondonYoung (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
@LondonYoung: - Thanks for your comments - and compliment - yes, I understand your point of view - and possible interpretation(s) of the original quotation - however, the more reliably sourced quotation seems best - readers can then sort out, based on the cited references, the better understanding for themselves - at least the original quotation remains true to the primary cited reference material(s) - and not to some modified statement which may (or may not) be true in fact - in any regards - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Rosetta image[edit]

That's correct, you cannot overwrite one image type with another. That's to do with a variety of reasons, including some licensing things, as well as the fact that the file extension is hardcoded into the title (and only authorised users can rename files). Huntster (t @ c) 23:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Huntster - Thank you for your explanation - and related comments at Talk:Rosetta (spacecraft)#Spelling - about the File:Rosetta 111106.jpg image file - they're *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

NASA gets sued[edit]

Want GOOD comedy? Read this: "Scientist sues NASA over mysterious Mars rock" His "article" in the Journal of Cosmology: Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the comments and link - interesting - seems Wikipedia has a related ref - in any case - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I moved the entry to the Journal of Cosmology article. I think that is the best place for those who feel it is noteworthy. Please review it if you have a chance. Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for your comments - yes, seems like a good idea - added a few adjs - hope they're ok - *entirely* ok to rv/mv/ce of course - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I don't want to repress this from Wikipedia, just handle it for what it is worth and in the right scientific context. If the mass media drags this on, (which I think is be the case), we could write one or two lines in Opportunity rover article, and link it to the J of C with something like "(See Xyz for further information.)" What say you? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Yes, sounds good - guess we'll just have to wait and see for now - thanks for all your efforts with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Some of the major news outlets already picked it up. As "damage control" to the Opportunity article, I started the linking to the J. of C. so enthusiastic editors will have the most appropriate article section to add to. Please feel free to rv/edit at your discretion. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - ok thanks for the update - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

MAYDAY! I ruined the Image format in Opportunity rover and I can't find what I am doing wrong. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - np - Opportunity rover images should now be ok - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - if possible, the source url for the File:Mars_Pinnacle_Rock.png may be helpful to note on the image description page - unable to find the image, so far, in the NASA image catalog - in any case - tia - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Got it from but it is obviously from NASA. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - should be *entirely* ok afaik - added the url source to the image description page - thank you for your reply - it's appreciated - Enjoy!:) Drbogdan (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
News break  :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - Yes, seems similar to the "classic" - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So NASA is desperately covering up the discovery of life on Mars, so as to avoid getting massive funding for Martian exploratory missions? Yep, makes sense to me. What is frustrating is that this incredibly cool accurate information is, apparently, not cool enough, so the J. of C. minions better make some sh!t up that's cooler. It is not amazing enough to have sent a spacecraft 54 million km away from the Earth, safely land a roving, automated lab there and sent back pictures and elemental data. No, no! There must be a cover-up involved! Because it only makes sense that NASA would want to cover-up information almost positively guaranteed to get them halfway decent funding, as well as the historic bragging rights to having found life elsewhere in our Solar System. Conspiracy theories work a lot like religion. Actually, here's my theory: it is not a mushroom, it is a foil wrapper from a Hershey's Kiss, carelessly discarded by one of the technicians working in the studio where the fake Mars exploration videos are recorded. Good night, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for your comments - well described of course - from our standpoint at Wikipedia, seems we've presented the situation as well as possible - Thanks again for your efforts with this - also, Thanks for your recent comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 State of the Union Address[edit]

Hi there. Do you think you could explain why you reverted my changes to the article 2014 State of the Union Address? Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Just saw the new edit. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Michaelzeng7 - thanks for your comments - just trying to restore the original text that seemed vandalized earlier by ip - sorry for any unintended inconvenience of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No no, my fault. I didn't realize the page had been vandalized. I'm sorry for any inconvenience. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Michaelzeng7 - Thank You - It's *Greatly* Appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Minus one twelfth[edit]

Hi Drbogdan,

You seemed very anxious to know whether it is "true" that \sum_{n=1}^\infty n=-\frac{1}{12}. The talk pages of those articles is not really the appropriate venue for discussing that, but it seems reasonable to drop you a note here.

The problem is that you're trying to ask whether it's "true" before it has been agreed what, if anything, it actually means. In the most usual approach to infinite series, the equation is certainly not true. One would say that \sum_{n=1}^\infty n diverges (see divergent series). Or, in the context of measure theory, one could say \sum_{n=1}^\infty n=\infty.

That said, there are certain interpretations under which the equation is true. I don't agree with the commenters who call it a "fallacy" or "nonsense". But you can't just assert it as "true" out of context, because under the most usual interpretations of the notation, it is definitely not true. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Trovatore - Thank you *very* much for your comments above (and at Talk:Infinity#Minus one twelfth) regarding my recent edit:

Copied from the Infinity lead (updated-20140206):

Interestingly, the summation of all natural numbers to infinity is "minus one-twelfth".< ref name="NYT-20140203">Overbye, Dennis (February 3, 2014). "In the End, It All Adds Up to –1/12". New York Times. Retrieved February 3, 2014. </ref>< ref>Sondow, Jonathan Analytic continuation of Riemann's zeta function and values at negative integers via Euler's transformation of series. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 120 (1994), no. 2, 421–424.</ref>

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n = - \frac {1}{12}
your comments are *greatly* appreciated - seems the equation may be "true" in some contexts - but not in others (esp. usual interpretations) - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
See the page 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ where the sumation is examined in detail.--Salix alba (talk): 16:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Salix alba - Thank you for your comment - and link - yes, the notion seems well described in the article - also, somewhat related, I made the following userbox (updated to your new link)

\int \!\,
This user knows that \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n = - \frac {1}{12}

thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Curiosity rover[edit]

Hello. Did you see these pictures of the damage on the rover wheel(s)? [1] The latest I read suggests that the rover won't be climbing the foot hills of Mount Sharp, but will remain on the sandy valleys below: "This change of plan would also entail canceling the trip to Mt Sharp, which was originally the rover's destination, in favor of another spot dubbed KMS-9 which, according to NASA, offers promising science potential, too. [2] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: I think there is a reason Wikipedia blocked The Examiner web site; NASA reports that KMS-9 is only an alternate route to Mount Sharp and is evaluating routes and driving methods that could avoid some wheel damage.[1]
Thanks for the comments - and links (esp the official NASA ref) - seems the rover has some wear-and-tear, but still seems functional - maybe a note at Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Current status may be in order soon? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Brief Followup - added the following update:

Copied from Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Current status:

On February 6, 2014, the Curiosity rover, in order to reduce wear on its wheels by avoiding rougher terrain,< ref name="NASA-20140129">Webster, Guy (January 29, 2014). "Mars Science Laboratory Mission Status Report". NASA. Retrieved February 8, 2014. </ref> successfully crossed (image) the "Dingo Gap" sand dune and is now expected to travel a smoother route to Mount Sharp.< ref name="NASA-20140206">Webster, Guy (February 6, 2014). "Through the Gap: Curiosity Mars Rover Crosses Dune". NASA. Retrieved February 8, 2014. </ref>

Also, added the following image to the Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Gallery => File:MarsCuriosityRover-TracksAfterCrossing-DingoGapSandDune-20140206.jpg

Seems ok atm but *entirely* ok to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks! I'd add a picture of the damaged aluminum wheel(s), as it is oviously of concern it has this much damage after one year, when it has the power (RTG) available to rove for some 30 years. In aerospace, there is an aluminum alloy called duraluminum which is most likely what they used, but I never saw damage like that on such alloy. I guarantee you the Mars 2020 rover will have a different alloy, if not steel. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, good idea - added "dented wheel" image (best available public domain NASA image afaik) - hopefully ok - thanks for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Recent image of rover wheel seems to show a lot more wear than earlier (NOV-30-2013) image => FEB-18-2014 IMAGE and FEB-18-2014 TEXT and FEB-18-2014 GALLERY - added latest wheel image link to similar earlier image in Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Current status - hope things go well of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
NOV-2013 - Curiosity's wheel - dents & holes - 3 miles on Mars (November 30, 2013).
FEB-2014 - Curiosity's wheel - dents & holes - 3 miles on Mars (February 18, 2014).
Looks good. Yes, the wheel damage will be always a driving concern, specially when its power generator has a life of at least 14 years and so much science and discoveries can be done in a decade, ask the MERs!  :-) One ton on 6 wheels is still one ton. I bet the 2020 Rover team will have that issue addressed before assembly.
It seems like the rover spore contamination is within the expected limits. New interesting data on extremophiles and therefore, has implications for planetary protection and panspermia.
Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Thank You *very much* for the Nature (journal) link => < ref name="NAT-20140519">Madhusoodanan, Jyoti (19 May 2014). "Microbial stowaways to Mars identified". Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15249. Retrieved 23 May 2014. </ref>
the reference seems *excellent* and worthy for the Tersicoccus phoenicis article (and related others of course) - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - @BatteryIncluded: Brief followup - added preliminary efforts to several relevant articles (including "Extremophile", "Panspermia", "Planetary protection", "Tersicoccus phoenicis", "Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory", "2014 in science") - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

H. antecessor[edit]

Hi. I think I've picked up all of these now, but, just as a fyi, the site of the H. antecessor footprint find is at Happisburgh on the east coast of Norfolk - which is very much eastern England and not at all in the north! I think the problem might be that the AP article mentions that its the first find like this in northern Europe? Anyway - think it's sorted now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing - Thank you for your comments - yes, entirely agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mega Templates[edit]

Hello Dr. Bogdan,

I recently stumbled across your edit (now several months outdated) on Mozart and Beethoven's templates for navigation, and would like to applaud you on level of detail, as well as effort put into it's creation.

Although, I don't agree entirely with having the template be so large (I actually prefer the version that it's currently in), I would just like to thank you for you work. I know first hand how tedious editing and adding Wikipedia articles can be; I also know that putting that much time, and effort into multiple works, without any acknowledgement can be quite, well, frustrating.

I really appreciate your efforts, and would like to kindly say thank you, again, for all of your work that you put into those articles (templates, rather). Know that someone out there appreciates it! :-)

Best regards. ZSNES (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@ZSNES - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and appreciations - regarding my efforts on the Mozart and Beethoven mega-templates (also at Mozart Talk and Beethoven Talk) - for me, the efforts were enjoyable learning experiences about Mozart and Beethoven (as well as Templates) - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

C/2013 A1[edit]

I changed your edit to C/2013 A1 because I think overemphasizing that it is hyperbolic in the lead may mislead people into thinking it came from outside the Solar System. -- Kheider (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kheider - Thank you for your comment - *entirely* agree with you - no problem whatsoever - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. Any comet with an orbital period greater than ~100,000 years will be very sensitive to any calculated change in eccentricity. So for orbital periods around 800,000 to 1.4 million years might as well read as ~1 million. Anything above ~5 million might as well read several million. -- Kheider (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information - yes, makes sense - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be spamming NASA[edit]

Alright already: the NASA's hype machine has some data on PAH's. That news flash does not seem to merit inclusion into every article on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. At least in my opinion. Per WP:NOTNEWS. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@Smokefoot - thank you for your comments - no, not intentionally - to me at the moment, the PAH findings and news of the newly available NASA database seem *really* worthwhile to selected articles (I may be a bit biased since I've published research and a NYT comment about PAHs and related some years ago) - otoh, perhaps mentioning it in some way on the {{PAHs}} template would have been sufficient - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the nice comments. It is reassuring that editors have experience with publications too. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Deep-sea trenches[edit]

I think you like this topic too: "The scientists said the ecology of this trench differed with other regions of the deep that had been studied." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes - very, very interesting - thank you for sharing the link - on a somewhat broadly related subject - and if interested - seems there's (at least?) three basic ways one could go from molecule-to-man (so-to-speak): starting materials were only on Earth and nowhere else in the universe (terrestrial evolution?); starting materials were somewhere else in the universe but then seeded Earth (panspermia?); and, finally, starting materials are everywhere in the universe (embedded in the basic fabric - and/or "matrix" - of the universe?) but only "sprout" when conditions are *entirely* ok - figuratively, like mushrooms? - the latter notion is based, in part, on recent findings of seemingly ubiquitous PAHs in the universe - QUESTION - what might this latter process be called - "cosmic evolution"? - "cosmic bioevolution" - or some other name? - other thoughts? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello my friend. My thoughts are in the lines of abiogenesis. I think that the elemental building blocks created by radiation in space (especially PAHs and some aminoacids) are ubiquitous throughout the universe and they continuously "rain down" on (seed) every object in space, e.g.: abiotic pseudo-panspermia, also called molecular panspermia. When he was sane, Chandra Wickramasinghe discovered the first organic clouds in space, and we also know there are meteorites containing aminoacids and other "complex carbons", so this is a proven fact. In our case, Earth is located in an optimal habitable zone; Earth's spin wobble (and therefore little weather extremes) is stabilized by its Moon and warmed by a stable star. Add water, and slow abiogenesis was possible after ~4 billion years. One must acknowledge that the laws of physics are universal -literally- so the abundant carbon in space and planetary water are bound to react in similar ways given the opportunity, environment and time. So I think that other stable, water-bearing rocky planets with some kind of radiation shielding must also have had ample opportunities to develop carbon-based abiogenesis with various degrees of success. We see that within our own planet's extreme habitats. The potential for simple extraterrestrial life developing into intelligent sentient beings (whether or not they develop advanced technology), are beyond me to assess, but my 'gut feeling' tells me that it is possible. Rare, but possible. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you *very much* for your comments - seems nearly the same as my own thinking at the moment - seems we're on the same page with this - may be interesting to see how this all plays out of course - thanks again for your comments - they're *all* greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought you would like to read what our friend User:BSmith821 wrote about us (Wikipedia) and our work on "his" Panspermia article:
He is the WP editor that was sanitizing the Chandra Wickramasinghe article in order to postulate him for the "highest British honor." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for sharing the link - interesting read of course - any headline items in the content that could be better? - any that might be ok? - at the moment, I'm trying to understand how to absolutely rule out a terrestrial origin for microbes (and/or viruses?) that might be detected in Earth's stratosphere - after all, seems microbes (presummably terrestrial) have been detected 40 miles high (much higher than the stratosphere?) - as an aside, but somewhat related - seems the characterization presented in the paper about Wikipedia editors could have been better - afaik, there seems to be nearly 1000 PhD-level Editors (many of them scientists?) and 100 MD-level Editors - more may be anonymous of course - in any case - Thanks again for the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: how to absolutely rule out a terrestrial origin for microbes and/or viruses.
That is a tough one. Microbiologists have characterized only 1% of microorganisms on Earth, so there are new Families, Genus, Sp, described almost daily. How to rule it out? You can't. Even if you find a spore in the troposphere with all sulphur switched for As in its DNA, you can only state that you found a different kind of life but cannot prove it came from outer space. It has been shown that microbe concentration in the atmosphere increases after a hurricane [2]. For finding ET life, my money is in collecting/analyzing specimens from other planets, moons, asteroids and comets. NASA did a few targeted collections in the troposphere of meteor and comet dust, but they did not report living cells: [3]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - yes, I *entirely* agree with *all* your thinking on this as well - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I know I meet a good scientist [like you] when she/he employs AND keeps critical thinking and seeks and adjusts to new knowledge. My estimation of the mode of abiogenesis and panspermia begins with the facts I mentioned above: ionizing radiation acting on cosmic gases and dust produce organic compounds (PAHs, aminoacids, and amines — the functional groups to any nucleic acid.) ... but it also breaks them down.
So I take this documented data and plug it into a hypothesis: meteoric impacts on icy worlds (such as Europa) project large chunks of water ice out of orbit, specially if the planetoid has no atmosphere to vaporize the ice on its way out. As these chunks of water ice travel through space by millenia, its gravity collects layers of cosmic dust, gases, and the PAHs formed on them by ionizing radiation → becoming comets (in addition of most comets, which originate from the Kuiper Belt.) The ever growing outer layers of accumulating dust, gas and water ice protect the inner layers now containing dust/gas/PAHs/water/etc. from galactic ionizing radiation. The comets may eventually fall and spread these chemical precursors of life to other planets, where a few of these may be habitable worlds and allow wet clays and other inorganic material to act as rigs for more complex wet chemical organic reactions not possible in the cold vacuum of outer space.
The difference between this hypothesis and Wickramasinghe's panspermia hypothesis is that Wickramasinghe does not allow for abiogenesis; He states that life has always existed in this eternal steady-state universe and it is distributed by aqueous comets and miscellaneous travelling objects. I think that the ice and new dust layers of the comet protect the organic molecules that we KNOW form in space, from being degraded (recycled over and over again) by cosmic ionizing radiation. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for your comments (and compliment) - excellent description of course - yes, seems to make a lot of sense to me as well - and seems to be consistent with the latest discoveries - thanks again for your message - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Brief followup - recent news *may* be relevant? - a way a planet may receive complex organic compounds (starting materials for life - or even primitive life-forms themselves?) => < ref name="LAT-20140308">Khan, Amina (March 7, 2014). "Did two planets around nearby star collide? Toxic gas holds hints". LA Times. Retrieved March 9, 2014. </ref> AND < ref name="SCI-20140306">Dent, W.R.F.; Wyatt, M.C.;Roberge, A.; Augereau,J.-C.; Casassus, S.;Corder, S.; Greaves, J.S.; de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I; Hales, A.; Jackson, A.P.; Hughes, A. Meredith; Lagrange, A.-M; Matthews, B.; Wilner, D. (March 6, 2014). "Molecular Gas Clumps from the Destruction of Icy Bodies in the β Pictoris Debris Disk". Science (journal). doi:10.1126/science.1248726. Retrieved March 9, 2014. </ref>- Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, more substance for "pseudo-panspermia" and abiogenesis. By the way, take a look at this paper: [4]. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the Mars-to-Earth Meteorites Study - interesting notion - but seems more supporting work may need to be done to confirm and all - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is a new paper on abiogenesis. The punchline is "metabolism was first": spontaneous assembly of RNA precursors, and some other products resemble two essential reaction cascades of metabolism: glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway:"Metabolism May Have Started in Early Oceans Before the Origin of Life". Wellcome Trust (Astrobiology Web). April 25, 2014. Retrieved 2014-04-26. . Original full article: Keller, Markus A.; Turchyn, Alexandra V.; Ralser, Markus (25 March 2014). "Non‐enzymatic glycolysis and pentose phosphate pathway‐like reactions in a plausible Archean ocean". Molecular Systems Biology 10 (725). doi:10.1002/msb.20145228. Retrieved 2014-04-26. . Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for the references - they seem interesting - will take a closer look at the first-opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki![edit]

Rollback and reviewer userrights granted[edit]

Protocells - review requested[edit]

Hello Dr. Bogdan. My draft is ready in my sandbox and am requesting your [merciless] review: I meant to write a small section for the abiogenesis article but it developed into a whole article. I would transfer only a portion of this to the abiogenesis page. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for the opportunity to review your article - *Excellent* presentation - well sourced, great images/captions, and more - as far as I can see, no problems whatsoever at the moment - I'm favorably impressed - may be ready to be added I would think - Thanks again for the opportunity to review - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

MAYDAY - SOS - MAYDAY. I think you will like this research case related to abiogenesis: This morning I was tinkering with stuff related to protocells when I came across the jeewanu protocells article. I started to cleanup and wishing to expand the article, I called up a bunch of papers by the inventor - Krishna Bahadur from India. The weird thing is that he reported an unbelievable complete menu of complex organic products (including nucleic acids) and enzyme-like catalysts enclosed in newly synthesized phospholipid bilayer globules after combining inorganic reagents and exposure to sunlight; yet his papers seem to have been ignored at large. After a couple of hours I have not yet found neither critiques nor debunking of his work, which I find strange. Would you have time to help me look up what happened to his claims? There has to be somebody who tried to duplicate his work. What exactly did he mix? Did he simulate the reducing (or CO2) atmosphere of the primitive Earth?

Some refs

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for your post - and links - interesting of course - Krishna Bahadur seems worthy of an article I would think - Jeewanu, Coacervate and Alexander Oparin seem worth spending some time with as well - I'll try to have a closer look at the first opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the interest. This ref. [5] gives a historical perspective and rections to his work and attempts to explain why it is being ignored. I am in the process of finding verification/duplicate work. Of interest is this entry at :
"This work on the synthesis of Jeewanu was confirmed by the English scientist Dr. M.H. Briggs who presented a paper in the fourth international conference on photobiology held at Oxford in 1964. He published another confirmation of the work in the journal ‘Spaceflight’ in 1965. According to Dr. Briggs himself this was a report on the extension and confirmation of Dr. Bahadur’s work. The scientists of USA DR. Mueller and Rudin D.O. further confirmed the work in 1970."
BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Yes, *very* interesting as well - seems the plot thickens (so-to-speak) - Thanks for the post - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
A 2013 histochemical review (haven't read it yet):
@BatteryIncluded - FWIW - notion seems worthy of discussion of course - my *very preliminary* thinking at the moment on all this seems consistent with the NASA/Caren Ref - ie (afaik), definitive studies presented in clearly defined (and controlled) ways may have yet to be done on the notion - test details and results of earlier studies may be interpretable, making it challenging to reproduce and understand the studies - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
An interesting editorial comment by a biology professor on ET life:
The difference between astronomers and biologists.
Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for your comment - and link - seemed an interesting read - somewhat related, perhaps, is the following link => VIDEO: Robert Hazen => Origin of Life - Lecture (NASA; 1 hour; April 29, 2014) => - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB - Thank You *very much* for the ITN notice - it's *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Congrats Doc! Huntster (t @ c) 01:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Huntster - Thanks for your comment - my work on the Enceladus article was fun - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Molecules in space[edit]

Without trying to be too snarky, but I guess we could start a category for molecules found in the oceans, in foods, in computer hardware, in polymers, in drinking water, in the plant kingdom, in refrigerators, in hardware stores, in the air, in the body, in insects, in fish, in polluted streams, etc. So then we need to extrapolate where this would go, maybe there is a mechanism for such. Lots of categories don't really bother/distract me, but not sure what others think. So what I am saying, please try to seek consensus on the interstellar thing. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Smokefoot - Thank You for your comments - yes, you may be right about this - wasn't thinking along the lines you presented at the time - please feel free to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

2020 Mars Rover[edit]

I think this is worth mentioning briefly. What do you think?: Without having read the proposal my feeling is that the life-support systems would be too heavy. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank You - added images and ref to "Mars 2020 rover mission" article =>
Entirely ok to adjust of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

COMET C/2012 S1 (ISON)[edit]

Check this out: "Disintegration of Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON) Shortly Before Perihelion: Evidence From Independent Data Sets" -

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the ref - seems like a *very* detailed and worthy study - may add the ref, if not already, to several articles => < ref name="ARXIV-20140508">Sekanina, Zdenek; Kracht, Rainer (8 May 2014). "Disintegration of Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON) Shortly Before Perihelion: Evidence From Independent Data Sets". arXiv. Retrieved 11 May 2014. </ref>
Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if this new understanding on comet behavior near the Sun will change the model of comet C/2013 A1 for its next swing around the Sun. If it fractures like ISON at perihelion, Mars may get a pummeling?? BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your comment - interesting notion - hadn't thought of that - guess we'll have to wait and see - hope all goes well of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I got too excited. It will pass very far from the Sun. It shows how much I know of astronomy  :-( BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: NP whatsoever - somewhat related - seems even seasoned astronomers were divided re Comet ISON (Knight & Welsh/2013 for surviving perihelion; Ferrin/2013 for disintegration) - thanks for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tersicoccus phoenicis[edit]

There was a great opportunity for getting a DYK when you made this article which can only be retrieved if we make it a GA. AshLin (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@AshLin: Thank You *very much* for your comment - Yes, this seems to be a good idea - *entirely* ok with me to work on the article of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Thanks for your edits to the extremophile Tersicoccus phoenicis. Here's something you can phile-extremo instead! :) AshLin (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@AshLin: Excellent - Thank You - it's *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Selfie picture[edit]

Dear Dr Bogdan, The picture I've inserted is much more representative of selfie culture. Please stop undoing. Thank you!

Nim205: there should not be two image in an article's lead when it is that short. There especially should not be images on opposite sides of the lead. The existing close-up image of the girl taking a selfie is much more representative than your image, thus it should stay in the lead and yours should stay in the subsection. Please do not edit war, and please sign your talk posts with four tildes (~~~~). Huntster (t @ c) 10:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Huntster: assuming a reader has no clue what a selfie is, which of the two images will better illustrate the concept? I think my picture is the obvious choice. The girl taking a selfie is understood only if you've already seen a person taking a selfie. If only one image should stay on top, I have no objection to moving the girl picture down.Nim205 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Nim205, needless to say, I disagree. The point of all this least three people have disagreed with your move. It is up to you to find consensus amongst editors by taking this to the article's talk page. Do not restore your changes without that consensus. Huntster (t @ c) 15:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014[edit]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

no no no![edit]

Please do not insert "The cause of an illness was diagnosed with a DNA test." everywhere!! This is wildly and dramatically NOT TRUE. I don't have time to write the proper blurb yet but please don't run with this. thanks. 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog - Thank you for your comment - and edits - no problem whatsoever - I've posted the news item at Talk:Genetic testing#DNA test diagnosis - to try and clarify the issue =>

On June 4, 2014, researchers announced that, for the first time, the cause of an illness was diagnosed with a DNA test.< ref name="NYT-20140604">Zimmer, Carl (June 4, 2014). "In a First, Test of DNA Finds Root of Illness". New York Times. Retrieved June 5, 2014. </ref>< ref name="NEJM-20140604">Wilson, Michael R. M.D. et al. (June 4, 2014). "Actionable Diagnosis of Neuroleptospirosis by Next-Generation Sequencing". New England Journal of Medicine. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1401268. Retrieved June 5, 2014. </ref>

In any case - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It is the first time (MAYBE) that something was diagnosed with nextgen whole genome sequencing. NOT THE FIRST TIME WITH A DNA TEST which have been in clinical use for many years. that is just wildly false. again please do not believe hype in newspapers - even the NY Times can be wrong on this kind of thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jytdog - Yes - I agree with you - some of this has now been posted on "Talk:Genetic testing#DNA test diagnosis" for further clarification - and *possible* mention (in some form) on relevant articles - Thanks for your comments and edits - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors[edit]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to see[edit]

...this Talk section, "Talk:Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon#Will be editing Origins of Life section", regarding an article that you have edited. If you, as a more interested editor, wish to move this in the direction of being more proportionate and better sourced per WP policy, all the better. My goal is the endpoint, and respect for fellow contributors. By the by, I worked on Miller-Urey experiments in the 1970s, and was a correspondent with the S. Miller at UCSD, so though pharma now, I am not out of my depths with having to edit this. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272 - Thank you for your comments - wow - great timing - I had just now finished reading your "Talk:Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon#Will be editing Origins of Life section" (via the Wiki-Watchlist) when I received this note - no problem whatsoever - I *entirely* agree with you - sorting out the "Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" article may be indicated at the moment - and seems like an *excellent* idea - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheers to you as well. Point is for any more interested than I to take first whack; anything I can do to be of help, ping me. (P.S. Realized edit to my initial Talk entry was something you did, and not something I did inadvertently, so returning it to be as you wished.) Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions on the Comic book archive article. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup[edit]

I'd like to meet you and your wife, if you go. I have an interest in MBTI and personality type, plus many of the things on your user pages. Lou Sander (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lou Sander - Thank you *very* much for your comments - and interest in my user pages - seems we may be busy with other activities and may not be going to the meetup after all - at least that seems to be the word atm - re MBTI - took this some years ago - twice (with a year or so in-between) - with the same result both times as I recall - not really an interest but led into the procedure by some CMU friends at the time - please enjoy the user pages of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Are you working on the page? Let me know if I can be of any assistance in helping you. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas - Thank you *very much* for your comments - the Leary article is not a major interest at the moment - but I did add several images (image1 & image2) I took during a Leary lecture/concert while a graduate student at SUNYAB in the late 1960s - hope they're ok of course - nonetheless, Leary seems a worthy and interesting subject I would think - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. At this point, I'm more interested in your historical photographs. Have you placed them in a category on commons? I just took a look and it seems that you haven't. Take a glance at this top level category to see all the different types of user categories you can create to point people to your photos. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - tried to create the commons:Category:Files by User:Drbogdan page (a first for me) - I may need to study the process better - "Categories" & related are somewhat new to me - nonetheless, I added the newly created "Category" to the two Leary images (image1 & image2) I uploaded earlier (my "Category" seems to show up ok on Commons - but not in the top level category for some reason? - even after a page "purge") - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - they're all *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Abiogenesis regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Abiogenesis. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(NOTE: DRN now "Closed" due to "WP:CANVASS" & related by filer/s) - Nonetheless - and - FWIW => As before, the current original first sentence in the Abiogenesis article seems excellent - this same subject has been extensively discussed earlier (with the very same users?), including in a recent (nearly identical?) DRN discussion => Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 91#Abiogenesis - and - on the article talk pages (discussion-1, discussion-2, discussion-3) - in any case - hope this all helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Dr. Bogdan -- I've read some of the discussions on the talk page of Abiogenesis. I can only follow it to a certain extent since I'm not a scientist, but I have been fascinated by the exchanges. I noticed that a consensus was reached regarding the use of the verb "arises" at the beginning of the article. I just thought I'd share with you my reaction to that word. It seems to me to be a rather boring, vague verb that doesn't really say much. Is it so on purpose because no one really knows exactly when or how life arose from non-living matter? (Please understand that I firmly believe in evolution and am not a creationist.) I would have chosen a more active, interesting verb such as "springs", "develops", "emerges", etc. (or the past tense form if that is appropriate). Just a thought. I'd love to learn more. CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - "arises" seems best to me atm - more neutral, objective and encyclopedic - however, you may wish to post your concerns to the "Talk:Abiogenesis#First sentence..." discussion - to see what other editors may think - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Denisovan: Hope this is the correct place to put this. The version you reverted to promotes two misconceptions about what the cited Nature paper says: 1. The Tibetans interbred with Denisovians. Untrue. The Tibetans and Chinese separated ~3,000 years ago. Denisovians were long gone before Tibetans existed. The Denisovian gene was a rare variant in the ancestral population of Asian peoples. 2. The gene variant was an adaptation to high altitude. Probably untrue. We do not know what purpose it served in the Denisovians, only that it is useful at high altitude in the Tibetan gene background. Why did you remove the details meant to allow better representation of the facts in the cited paper? Gaylinn (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - reason for rv - as noted on the edit summary => "Rv uncited edit - original text seems better - please discuss on the talk page - per WP:BRD & related" - seems your edit was reverted by another editor as well - for the same reason - seems a noted citation from a reliable source may help I would think - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).