This user is an American.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses HotCat to work with categories.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses STiki to fight vandalism.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user has a Global Account.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least ten years.
This user is a "Master Editor II" on Wikipedia.

User talk:Drbogdan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome To Dr. Dennis Bogdan's ("Master Editor II") 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)

Adrien Maggiolo (Italian journalist) Affenpinscher dog Aline Charigot (seamstress and Renoir's future wife) Alphonse Fournaise, Jr. (owner's son) Angèle Legault (actress) Charles Ephrussi (art historian) Ellen Andrée (actress) Eugène Pierre Lestringez (bureaucrat) Gustave Caillebotte (artist) Jeanne Samary (actress) Jules Laforgue (poet and critic) Landscape Landscape Louise-Alphonsine Fournaise (owner's daughter) Paul Lhote (artist) Baron Raoul Barbier (former mayor of colonial Saigon) Sailboats Still life unknown personRenoir - Boating Party
Interactive imagemap of the Luncheon of the Boating Party (1881) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Hover your mouse over a person in the painting to see their name, and click to link to an article about them.
The Signpost
27 February 2017
Page views for User:Drbogdan

A Latin motto that you appear to have contributed[edit]

News media - template

"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)

@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 wikilink at => - 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)

TfD re Template:News media[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate: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)

@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":

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)

Nineteen Eighty-Four[edit]

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)

@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]


  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)

Good move![edit]

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)

@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)

Re: "Life timeline"[edit]

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)

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

Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

Information icon 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)

@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)
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)

Colors of Biotechnology[edit]

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)

@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)

Prehistoric Autopsy[edit]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the web page, 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)

@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 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 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 - 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)
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)

 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)

SD re Dark Odyssey[edit]

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)

@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)


  1. ^ Thompson, Howard (June 26, 1961). "Screen: 'Dark Odyssey':Low-Cost Drama Has Premiere at Cameo". New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2017. 
  2. ^ Staff. "A Talk With Radley Metzger". Retrieved April 10, 2017. 
Thanks again for your comments and notification - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion tag removed. Regards, BencherliteTalk 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Settlement of the Americas[edit]

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)

@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)


  1. ^ Zimmer, Carl (26 April 2017). "Humans Lived in North America 130,000 Years Ago, Study Claims". New York Times. Retrieved 26 April 2017. 
  2. ^ Holen, Steven R.; et al. (26 April 2017). "A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA". Nature (journal). 544: 470–483. doi:10.1038/nature22065. Retrieved 26 April 2017.