This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user has a Global Account.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses HotCat to work with categories.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses STiki to fight vandalism.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user is an American.
This user is a "Senior Editor III" on Wikipedia.

User talk:Drbogdan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

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)

Contents

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Drbogdan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Jdcrutch: Thank you *very much* for the Seasonal Greets - it's *very much* appreciated - wish you and yours the *very best* during the holiday season as well - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation - Cosmology[edit]

Ilc 9yr moll4096.png You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: Face-smile.svg Thank you *very much* for the invitation - it's *greatly* appreciated - signed up as a Member of the Project and hope to help where possible - Thanks again for the invitation - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Great Martian War[edit]

Copied from "User talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Use of "griping" word not ok?":

Use of "griping" word not ok?

@DragonflySixtyseven: BRIEF Followup - not sure about this but, in the "The Great Martian War 1913 - 1917 (2013 film)#Reception" article section, adding "<sic>" to the word "griping"[1] *may* (or *may not*?) - be ok - based on the dictionary definition at the following => http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/griping — esp, "to hold firmly" (verb) and/or "a firm hold" (noun) — *entirely* ok with me with (or without) the addition of course - but maybe worth a consideration? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Woodham, Karen (3 August 2014). "Great Martian War 1913 – 1917 [Review]". BlazingMinds. Retrieved 5 December 2014. 

That's an alternate (not even secondary) meaning, based on an alternate spelling of "gripping". The primary meaning of "griping" is "complaining", which makes no sense in the context of that film review; indeed, I thought it was your typo (and I was about to correct it!) until I checked the source and saw that it was the reviewer's.

And even if the reviewer did deliberately and intentionally spell it that way, it's still nonstandard enough that a "sic" is helpful. DS (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Thank you *very much* for your comments re the film reviewer's use of the word "griping" in the "The Great Martian War 1913 - 1917 (2013 film)#Reception" article section - yes, I *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Milky Way and Oxfam[edit]

Your recent contributions on the Milky Way
In my humble opinion, I think it is a really bad idea to copy the same paragraph and paste it at the top of several different articles. You're not only making the top unnecessarily long by adding an information that doesn't have a high importance, but also you're making people who read many different articles read the same thing in many places, which is kind of annoying. I suggest you revert a few of your edits or put the paragraph in a more appropriate section. Also, it'd be better if you could change the wording so it won't be repetitive Tetra quark (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edits of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're welcome. I've already moved the paragraphs to more appropriate sections. They are minor stuff to be worth the top :) Let me know if you disagree with something Tetra quark (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tetra quark: AFAIK atm all your recent edits seem *entirely* ok - no problem whatsoever - thank you for your efforts - and comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again :) Well, I've edited exoplanet and moved stuff you put at the top on Jan 7 (1 day after my first message to you here). I know you're here on wikipedia longer than me, but really, the top of the article isn't a news feed, as I said in the edit summary. So.. that's it. As you'd say - Enjoy :) Tetra quark (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tetra quark: Thanks for your comments - and efforts - Yes - agreed - your recent edits seem better to me as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, you just added a paragraph about a day-old press release to the lead section of the Oxfam article. As the editor above said last week, lead sections aren't news feeds. They're "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", per MOS:LEAD: new content should generally be added to the article body, and additionally summarised in the lead section only if it's a significant aspect of the subject. --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a problem. Do you understand what I've just said and why this material shouldn't go in the lead section? --McGeddon (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thanks again for your comments - yes, I understand - the following was added to Talk:Oxfam#Should Oxfam Reports Be Added To The Article - Or Not? - hope that's *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Oxfam#Should Oxfam Reports Be Added To The Article - Or Not?:

Should Oxfam Reports Be Added To The Article - Or Not?

Should the following text/refs re Oxfam Reports be included in the article - or not? If so, which location in the article would be most appropriate?

A January 2014 report by Oxfam claimed that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world's population, or about 3.5 billion people.[1][2][3][4][5] More recently, in January 2015, Oxfam reported that the wealthiest 1 percent will own more than half of the global wealth by 2016.[6]

References

  1. ^ Rigged rules mean economic growth increasingly “winner takes all” for rich elites all over world. Oxfam. January 20, 2014.
  2. ^ Neuman, Scott (January 20, 2014). Oxfam: World's Richest 1 Percent Control Half Of Global Wealth. NPR. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
  3. ^ Stout, David (January 20, 2014). "One Stat to Destroy Your Faith in Humanity: The World’s 85 Richest People Own as Much as the 3.5 Billion Poorest". Time. Retrieved January 21, 2014. 
  4. ^ Wearden, Graeme (January 20, 2014). "Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world". The Guardian. Retrieved January 21, 2014. 
  5. ^ Kristof, Nicholas (July 22, 2014). "An Idiot’s Guide to Inequality". New York Times. Retrieved July 22, 2014. 
  6. ^ Cohen, Patricia (January 19, 2015). "Richest 1% Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016, Study Finds". New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2015. 

Comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So long as you understand that new information about a subject generally shouldn't be added to its lead section, that's fine. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be enjoying here. --McGeddon (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@McGeddon: Thanks again for your help with all this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology[edit]

I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: - Thank you for your message - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Methylamine Paywall?[edit]

I noticed that on methylamine, some sort of tag has been added that indicates that a source is behind a paywall. Almost all quality information for chemistry is by subscription. So if this is an issue that concerns you, the community of chemistry editors probably should discuss it. Just a thought.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Thank you for your comments - a WP:RS behind a WP:Paywall on Wikipedia is new to me - I would prefer otherwise of course since article information may be easier to verify - in the present instance re methylamine, I may defer to your own best judgement re the tagged information since you may have better access than I at the moment - hope this is ok with you - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Universe lede[edit]

Dear Drbogdan, would you consider commenting on/contributing to the lead of Universe? I've tried to spin up a first paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=643055753

but this seems to not sit well with another contributing editor. Basically, I'd like to see some inclusiveness of issues in the lead, including, yes, issues actually addressed in the body of the article (but not a cherry-picking of sentences from the body), as well as open up some other dimensions of this ultimately inclusive word. So, instead of a sharp focus on astronomy, possibly including such topics as life and philosophical issues (I hesitated with religion). Anyway, having a few more voices sometimes helps. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - as presented earlier, my own preferences atm may be summarized as follows:

Copied from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?":

FWIW - if not already considered, a relevant reference for the discussion *may* be the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors" at the following link => http://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html - especially? => "Astronomical Bodies: Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." (and more? - see link) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - Perhaps the lede of the Universe article should be much shorter and more concise than the one at present - and more like the one not too long ago (January 2015) - or even - more like a dictionary definition like those below:
"Universe - The sum of everything that exists in the cosmos, including time and space itself." - Wikipedia Wiktionary
"Universe - All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago." - Oxford Dictionary
"Universe - the whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth, and therefore the human race, is a part." - Encyclopedia Britannica
"Universe - all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
"Universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago." - Google Dictionary
In any case - Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I made a correction to your comment at Talk:Universe here; that version was from January 2014, not January 2015. I wouldn't normally edit someone else's comment, so thought I'd let you know. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ashill: - Thank you for your comments - and correction - they're *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Complex Organic Molecules[edit]

Hello. I would use this article (modeling) to improve WP, but I don't seem to have the drive these days. Maybe you have time? http://astrobiology.com/2015/01/modeling-complex-organic-molecules-in-dense-regions.html Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - Thanks for the link[1] - Yes - seems *very* interesting to me atm - may take a closer look at the first opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude, how about this: "For the first time, astronomers have detected the presence of complex organic molecules, the building blocks of life, in a protoplanetary disk surrounding a young star, indicating that the conditions that spawned our Earth and Sun are not unique in the universe." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link[2] to the Astrobiology article - *very* interesting of course - seems more evidence that the "primordial soup" (so-to-speak) may be in the universe at large in fact[3] - and not just in some local neighborhood pond - Thanks again for the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, here goes another interesting hypothesis for the old debate of DNA vs, RNA: "New Study Hints at Spontaneous Appearance of Primordial DNA". Imagine getting a $12 million grant!!! - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Thanks again - for the other *excellent* links[4][5] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ruaud, M.; Loison, J.C.; Hickson, K.M.; Gratier, P.; Hersant, F.; Wakelam, V. (December 22, 2014). "Modeling Complex Organic Molecules in dense regions: Eley-Rideal and complex induced reaction" (PDF). arXiv. arXiv:1412.6256v1. Retrieved January 26, 2015. 
  2. ^ Staff (April 8, 2015). "Complex Organic Molecules Discovered in Infant Star System". Astrobiology (journal). Retrieved April 8, 2015. 
  3. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (December 2, 2012). "Comment - Life Thrives Throughout Universe?". New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2014. 
  4. ^ Staff (April 7, 2015). "New Study Hints at Spontaneous Appearance of Primordial DNA". Astrobiology (journal). Retrieved April 8, 2015. 
  5. ^ Fraccia, Tommaso P.; Smith, Gregory P.; Zanchetta, Giuliano; Paraboschi, Elvezia; Yi, Yougwooo; Walba, David W.; Clark, Noel A.; Bellini, Tommaso (2015). "Abiotic ligation of DNA oligomers templated by their liquid crystal ordering.". Nature Communications 6: 6424. doi:10.1038/ncomms7424. Retrieved April 8, 2015. 

WP:PERM - Autopatrolled Right Request[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Drbogdan, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 03:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thank You *very much* for your comments - and help with the autopatrolled right - it's *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, I really didn't need to say much--you were a very easy request to process! Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 03:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! re: Wikipedia Stats[edit]

Hi Dr. B. I just wanted to let you know that I have appropriated and reused some of the wikicode from your user page for mine. The code on the stats of Wikipedia and its growth in the human corpus of knowledge does, I think, need to be celebrated more widely. Thanks for your work in assembling all this!

If you have a moment, I'd like to hear your thinking on (and translation of) of "Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus." I appreciated the quotation from the Wales interview, but my Latin is extremely elementary. Cheers. And keep up the good work. N2e (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello @N2e: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *all* greatly appreciated - no problem whatsoever re the "Wikipedia Stats" and related - it's *entirely* ok with me to share the wikicode of course - including the following:

WIKIPEDIA – The 5th Most Popular Site On The Internet, With Over 7 Billion Potential Viewers, Was Launched On January 15, 2001 And Has Been Freely Available Worldwide For 14 years, 6 months and 19 daysWikipedia Has 36,857,723 Total Articles (4,934,036 In English) (22,486 *BEST* Articles) (Top1000) And Has 25,851,619 Editors (118,788 Active; 1,347 Administrators) – as of August 3, 2015.

ALSO - the Latin phrase "Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus.", part of my related Userbox, "WikiLatin", as follows:
Wikipedia-logo.png Wikipedia: "Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus."
This Latin phrase is the result of my attempt to translate, based on Google translate, the English phrase "We help make the internet not suck." — a reasonable (imo) "paraphrase" of the exact original quote "We help the internet not suck.", which per se didn't seem to translate well into Latin afaik atm — made about Wikipedia by co-founder Jimmy Wales in a C-SPAN interview in 2005 - hope this all helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Made me smile! Yes, we are all volunteering our time to work on a project that is much bigger and much more emergent and encompassing than we might imagine, and by our efforts, we "help" (at the margins) to make the internet not suck. Lovely, N2e (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@N2e: Thanks - *entirely* agree of course - your own "help" comment reminded me of a famous smile-related (to me at least) quotation (re a similar, albeit fictional, project that is much bigger than we might imagine - ie, designing the planet Earth?) from HHGTTG as follows:
in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution[edit]

Hey! Give my changes a try. This is a good-faith edit. I did improve only structure and readability. You can see it through I did very light edits to content, nothing serious, rather due to understanding and grasping the contents by going through one topic at a time from top to bottom with repeats to better learn the stuff. This is an intro, right? Header is now better in concordance with main body. I differentiated between theory of evolution and proof of evolution in experiment (sligthly). Now, how to exactly propose structure changes in WP:BRD way? copy my article version to talk page? entirely? If unsure, please do not engae in a revert-war (possibly due to urges to protect a spec. version of article/or format). BTW this article had issues with accuracy. You may also decide to help me get )part) of my good changes through. Please see through my version it is really good. Thanks-a-lot, yours --78.51.211.140 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - please first discuss your (rather substantial imo) changes with other editors on the talk page of the Introduction to evolution article for WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD and related - perhaps in smaller portions? - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Active SETI proposal[edit]

Got popcorn?: "Leading astronomers, anthropologists and social scientists are gathering at his institute [ie, Seth Shostak; SETI Institute ] after the AAAS meeting for a symposium to flesh out plans for a proposal for active Seti to put to the public and politicians" http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31442952" - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your noted BBC News link[1] regarding Active SETI - interesting - my thinking at the moment => the cosmos may be filled with primitive microscopic life forms - however, besides ourselves, there may be other technically clever life forms in the cosmos as well - at the moment - or in times past - but since space is so widespread and time is so wideranging, contact with such life forms may be a quixotic quest of sorts[2] - if otherwise, of course, the caveat by Stephen Hawking may be relevant => "If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans. …"[3] - incidently (and perhaps coincidently?), I've been Facebook friends with Seth Shostak and David Brin, both subjects of your noted link,[1] for some years (and have shared several comments with them at times, although not recently) - and as well - with Timothy Ferris, who along with Carl Sagan, provided yet another way of communicating with ET (although with a *very* low possibility of a reply of course - at least in the foreseeable future): ie, the "Golden Records" on the Voyager spacecraft presently traveling out of the Solar System - in any case - Thanks again for your noted link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: BRIEF Followup - if interested - some updated details about the recent Active SETI discussion (which included Geoffrey Marcy, Seth Shostak, Frank Drake, Elon Musk and David Brin) are presented in several related (albeit similar) news stories.[4][5] - one result of the discussion was a statement, signed by many, that a "worldwide scientific, political and humanitarian discussion must occur before any message is sent".[6] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting plumes on Mars: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31491805 - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link(s)[7][8] re the mysterious Mars plume (or something else?) - yes - very, very interesting imo - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Ghosh, Pallab (February 12, 2015). "Scientist: 'Try to contact aliens'". BBC News. Retrieved February 12, 2015. 
  2. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (December 2, 2012). "Comment - Life Thrives Throughout Universe?". New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2015. 
  3. ^ Staff (April 25, 2010). "Stephen Hawking warns over making contact with aliens". BBC News. Retrieved February 12, 2015. 
  4. ^ Borenstein, Seth (February 13, 2015). "Should we call the cosmos seeking ET? Or is that risky?". AP News. Retrieved February 14, 2015. 
  5. ^ Borenstein, Seth (of AP News) (February 13, 2015). "Should We Call the Cosmos Seeking ET? Or Is That Risky?". New York Times. Retrieved February 14, 2015. 
  6. ^ Various (February 13, 2015). "Statement - Regarding Messaging To Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI) / Active Searches For Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Active SETI)". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved February 14, 2015. 
  7. ^ Morelle, Rebecca (February 16, 2015). "Mystery Mars haze baffles scientists". BBC News. Retrieved February 16, 2015. 
  8. ^ Sánchez-Lavega, A. et al. (February 16, 2015). "An extremely high-altitude plume seen at Mars’ morning terminator" (PDF). Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/nature14162. Retrieved February 16, 2015. 

This report shows the current research venues of NASA's Astrobiology Institute: [1]. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the Astrobiology link - seems an Excellent summary of some interesting studies for the next five or so years - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the mysterious plume is dust!: [2] BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link re the dust cloud in the Martian atmosphere - it's *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Brief Followup - if interested, related NASA report now available[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brown, Dwayne; Neal-Jones, Nancy; Steigerwald, Bill; Scoitt, Jim (March 18, 2015). "RELEASE 15-045 NASA Spacecraft Detects Aurora and Mysterious Dust Cloud around Mars". Retrieved March 18, 2015. 

Mars One candidates[edit]

Hi, recently I read that Mars One will make a cut of candidates next Monday 16 February 2015. The article says that the cut will be 200 but other sources don't agree, so thanks for correcting my mistake. Today I read in two different articles that Mars One anounced last Friday that the number will be 100, but there is nothing about this on the official site. How I can find out if this is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.114.44 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [NOTE: edited for clarity - db]

Thank you for your comments - you're *very* welcome of course - I'm happy to have helped you with your edit - re your question - I don't know the answer - but posting your question on the Mars One talk page may be the best way of getting an answer - there may be editors there who may know more about your question than I do at the moment - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem at Dawn[edit]

I have recently been having some problems with an anonymous editor over the Dawn page. I rewrote the sections they added to avoid close paraphrasing (I've had experience with this – see my work on fluorine), then they reverted. I rolled back the new edits, they reverted again. I went to their talk page to try and explain, they tried to defend their actions not realising that simply citing references is not enough for an article that's going to receive the bulk of space-related attention in the coming month. What should I do? Parcly Taxel 02:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Parcly Taxel and Huntster: Thank you for your comments re the Dawn (spacecraft) article - I'm somewhat limited in helping you with this atm - but I understand your concerns - one possibility may be to post your concerns to the Talk:Dawn (spacecraft) page (and/or your User talk:Parcly Taxel page?) along with, if need be, the { {Help Me}} template - other possibilities may be to visit the WP:Help page and/or WP:AN page - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rubin's talk page[edit]

NOTE: For context - response by Srich32977 is to my earlier comment as follows:

Copied from "User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2015#Ideology":

@Srich32977: Perhaps relevant - afaik atm re US economic outcomes (based on "policies and ideas"?) => at the end of Clinton‍‍ '​‍s term in 2001: a substantial surplus - and no recession; at the end of Bush2‍‍ '​‍s term in 2009: a substantial deficit - and a great recession - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Say Doc, rather than clutter Arthur's talk page I'll ask a followup question here. In answering my question about failed policies & ideologies you referred to a relatively short time frame: Clinton & Bush2. But with your medical knowledge, what would you say has been the biggest factor in doubling of average life expectancy in the last 100 years? And when you identify that factor (or factors) how did it come about? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Thank you for your comments - great question - based on the lede graph in your noted life expectancy article => seems the average life expectancy for the world has improved from about 48yo/est in 1950 to about 68yo/est in 2015 - that's good imo - also, according to your noted life expectancy article, seems there may be many factors at play - interestingly (to me at least atm), the US seems to be 26th in the world?[1] - seems we could do better I would think - in any regards - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comment and question - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
But don't free market policies have a play in this improvement? Free markets that allow companies to bring energy, machinery, food, medication, vaccines, employment, etc. to communities? Slovenia has a higher life expectancy, but their GNI per capita and median household income is half that of the US. South Korea has a free market and the difference between the south and north (with its state controlled market) is astounding even though the north has more natural resources. The Koreans in the south are now 3 inches taller on average than their cousins in the north. I'm sticking with the free market, the freer the better. Patrick Henry had a farm that failed, a house burned down (before home owners insurance was available), failed at business. But he treasured liberty. Thanks (for letting me spout off). – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Srich32977: Thank you for your comments - I would think free market policies may have a role in this - to what extent, I'm not sure - please don't misread me - I'm for whatever will make things better in a good way - if that's free market policies, then that's *entirely* ok with me - if not, then we'll have to see what may work better - seems I may be somewhat of a pragmatist about such things these days - somewhat related, and if interested, some of my present thinking about some of this may be described in one of my published comments[2] in the NYT - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Saw your NYT comment. LOL! I wonder what that one person will do with all that money. I bet s/he will be looking over their shoulder a lot. But how will economists present stats as to what the median income/wealth figure is? Also, Jesus' comment that "You will always have the poor among you" (Mark 14:7, John 12:8, Matthew 26:11) will be truer than ever. Thanks again. I've enjoyed the chat. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Thank you for your comments - Yes - *entirely* agree - these days, seems the rich may be on a lot of radar screens (so-to-speak) in the world - and may be less able to freely move around I would think - re the poor - seems Oxfam reported recently that the annual income in 2012 of the top 100 of the world's richest people could end world poverty four times over[3] - seems the world's richest could be more helpful with this I would think atm - in any case - Thanks again for *all* of your comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kliff, Sarah (November 21, 2013). "The U.S. ranks 26th for life expectancy, right behind Slovenia". Washington Post. Retrieved February 19, 2015. 
  2. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (April 26, 2013). "Comment - More Valuable Than Money?". New York Times. Retrieved February 19, 2015. 
  3. ^ Slater, John (January 19, 2013). "Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over". Oxfam. Retrieved February 20, 2015. 

Rachmaninoff (composer) template[edit]

Hi, I'd want to bring you to attention to some suggested change which is detailed in Template talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff, thanks! AbelCheung (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - replied at Template talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

See Talk:Camgirl#Revert. 2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - afaik, the edit seems to be WP:SPAM (and/or WP:ADMASQ & related) imo - and, as such, not appropriate for Wikipedia - the views of other editors are welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Replied again at the talk page. 2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) ~16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Pittsburgh meetup[edit]

  Bfpage |leave a message  06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: Thank you for your post re Wikimedia:Meetup Pittsburgh - it's *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Net neutrality in the US edits[edit]

would you please hold your edits for a while? - I should be done soon. The sign I put up on top which you couldnt have overlooked, is for real. even for Dr's (I am one too) so please hold the edits - PS have you ever heard of lede follows body? - see talkpage --Wuerzele (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thank you for your comments - yes - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Drbogdan, Would it be possible for you to edit in the body of the article rather than cramming your latest read into the lede? I have observed this pattern, and it is part of the reason I had to do a lot of cleaning on February 26. Its called WP:recentism. You should also read about the WP:lede. lede must reflect body ie. you should add to the body FIRST. Also please do not WP: repeatlink the Newspapers in the refs all the time. the sea of blue is unnecessary and confusing.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wuerzele: Thank you for your comments - yes, I understand - seems other editors may differ - and have "thanked" me for my edits instead - nonetheless, I agree with you - and have tried to place my edits in the most relevant article location(s) I know at the time - however, the better locations for some relevant edits may not always be clear - to me - or - in some instances - with many other different editors - please understand, it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce my edits of course - especially to incorporate them to better locations within articles - in any case - hope this all helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
ok then.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity rover[edit]

Looks like the short is in the percussion side of the drill: http://www.space.com/28758-mars-rover-curiosity-short-circuit-drill.html Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you *very much* for the link[1] re the short-circut problem on the Curiosity rover - yes - seems related to the percussion process in some way - Thanks again for this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wall, Mike (March 6, 2015). "NASA Finds Likely Source of Mars Rover Curiosity's Short Circuit". Space.com. Retrieved March 8, 2015. 
Odometer and new rocks: http://www.space.com/28771-mars-rover-opportunity-marathon-rocks.html - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Variable width columns[edit]

Hey Doc, you've been changing See Also sections to use 20em variable width columns. *Please* stop doing this...20em is extremely narrow. I don't know what resolution you're using, but on my screen that causes *five* columns. When needed, just use a flat two-column solution in the future. Thanks! Huntster (t @ c) 04:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, when you're dealing with so few citations, such as here, just leave it as single column. For users of higher resolution screens, it looks absolutely bizarre having five citations split into three columns. Huntster (t @ c) 04:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Huntster: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and efforts - they're all *greatly* appreciated - Yes - this was a concern - seems another editor, apparently for reasons that would better include "Mobile" users?, suggested the { {div col||20em}} coding for "see also" and { {reflist|30em}} for "references" - earlier, I was using the 2-column code(s) for "see also" as follows => { {cmn|2| ... }} - Question - is my earlier use of code(s) now better after all? - [Update Note: ok - based on your recent edits - seems { {div col|2}} for "see also" and { {reflist|2}} for "references" may now be preferred?] - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that pure two column is now preferred, but the individual articles and their layout circumstances need to be taken into account. My honest preference is to never use columns for citations, but that's simply not the modern Wikipedia. I now accept that columns are a thing, but they need to be implemented logically. An article with only five citations simply doesn't need columns, there's no logical sense in that; whereas an article with three dozen citations can use the 30em variable column solution quite well. In my opinion, that "other editor" who suggested the 20em columns simply was not considering appearances on a wide variety of platforms. At the same time, if a See Also section has so many entries that more than two columns are needed to keep it short, it should be severely trimmed as you're probably getting too unfocused. I honestly see no reason for more than half a dozen entries in a See Also section, except in extremely limited circumstances. (sorry for the rambling, I'm a little feverish right now.) Huntster (t @ c) 03:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Huntster: - Thank you for *all* your comments - and for sharing your thinking on the matter - no problem whatsoever - yes - I *entirely* agree with you - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Philae lander[edit]

There is a conference going on right now on the preliminary mission results. I heard they they are talking today (presenting) about "chains of organic molecules" detected on the surface. Old data reinterpreted. That will be something interesting to read when it gets published! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your comments - unable to find the conference on the web (so far) - but found the following news re attempts to "wake-up" Philae if interested => http://customstoday.com.pk/esa-put-effort-to-re-establish-contact-with-its-robotic-probe-philae-lander/ - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is what is going around now: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27173-rosettawatch-new-clues-about-the-origin-of-comet-67p.html
Cheers, added => BatteryIncluded 20:16 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the *excellent* link - interesting - hope esa can "wake-up" Philae soon - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured list of nearest exoplanets[edit]

I see you edited List of potentially habitable exoplanets quite a lot so if you have some spare time, please leave some thoughts at the FLC of the similar topic of List of nearest exoplanets. Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Thank you for your comment - and suggestion - yes - hope to post some thoughts at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

George Washington[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drbogdan. You have new messages at Talk:George Washington.
Message added 02:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message - it's greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

NASA Animation[edit]

Hello. I think that this NASA animation of the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) testing the “gravity tractor” planetary defense technique can be very helpful for the ARM article as well as Asteroid impact avoidance and Gravity tractor articles. Do you know how to upload it to Commons Wikipedia for use without problems? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes check.svg Done - at least the following => NASA Animation - also - NASA Video Link - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That is the one! Do you upload it just as if it was a static jpg image? The fact that it is an animation threw me off. Thank you!! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
May-Day.... I placed it at Asteroid Redirect Mission#Additional objectives but it is not showing. I cannot figure what I am doing wrong with the format, although I tried different things. Any help will be appreciated. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Not sure at the moment - working on it - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: For some reason, the GIF image seems ok in the "Asteroid Redirect Mission#Additional objectives" section with the "wide image" @ 800px format - sometimes ok @ 600px - but NOT ok with the "usual image thumb" format - or with the "multiple image" format - or with the "image wikitable" format - may need more study? - at least the image seems to be working at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It is kind of large but you are right, it only shows at 800px. It is Ok though. Thank you so much!! BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the known difficulties with large GIF images, I've converted the file to an OGV video: File:NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission gravity tractor animation.ogv. It will work a lot better in articles. Huntster (t @ c) 15:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster and BatteryIncluded: Thank you for converting the GIF image to the OGV video - excellent idea - updated (and reduced) display at Asteroid Redirect Mission#Additional objectives - seems better - Thanks again for the help with the image - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical types of biochemistry[edit]

I came across this beautiful paper[1] by McKay on hypothetical types of biochemistry in terrestrial worlds with liquid water. I thought you may like it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - Thank you for the link to the excellent study - if interested, another member of the SETI Institute group, Seth Shostak, wrote a worthy (imo) essay that was published recently in the New York Times[2] - (also, see my related FaceBook posts[3]) - in any case - Thanks again for sharing the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Definitions of life - Discussion[edit]

A. Tsokolov, Serhiy A. (May 2009). "Why Is the Definition of Life So Elusive? Epistemological Considerations" (PDF). Astrobiology Journal 9 (4). doi:10.1089/ast.2007.0201. Retrieved 2015-04-11.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the reference - besides your "Why Is the Definition of Life So Elusive? Epistemological Considerations (2009)" reference, several other related references also seem interesting => "Defending Definitions of Life (2015)" AND "A New Criterion for Demarcating Life from Non-Life (2013)" AND "Origin of Evolution versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm (2011)" - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
"Clearly an inventory of molecules must exist that is capable of gaining chemical, structural, and functional complexity and eventually assembling into living systems."
— The NASA Astrobiology Roadmap, [3]
Nice. Also, look at this one re. abiogenesis. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the link re the NASA Astrobiology Roadmap - my present thinking is that the very beginnings of life started out much, much more simple than many scientists studying this seem to think - understandable of course, since the only life-form known to them, even the very simplest life-form, is already very, very complex - seems like some researchers are trying to examine the middle of a stream - an experience which is available - rather than trying to examine the headwaters instead - also understandable, since this may be an experience which may not be available to any one - still think it all began with a single chemical, produced by chance, that happened to reproduce itself - and survive - then took a really, really long time to become just a bit more complex - and eventually to become the much, much more complex life-form that may represent the very simplest life-form in our experience - in any case - Thanks again for the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet Ceres image request[edit]

Hi Bogdan, This is my first upload. Just came across this new image released by NASA which is the closest ever image of the dwarf planet Ceres recorded so far at around 21000 miles. Jackjerryforu (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (note: unsigned post - signature added by User:Drbogdan)

@Jackjerryforu: Thank you *very* much for your comments - Yes, I understand - however, the original image of Ceres seems better imo than the image you're presenting (your suggested image is also similar to "File:Ceres polar animation.gif" - already posted in the Ceres article ) - Nonetheless, you may present your request/comments to "Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)" for possible opinions from other editors re the issue if you like - this is the usual procedure for such concerns - please understand that this would be *entirely* ok with me - (incidently, please "sign" your posts with four tildes - per "WP:Sign" - to automatically note your id/date/time) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

NExSS Collaboration requested[edit]

New stub: Nexus for Exoplanet System Science. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you *very much* for your post - and request - yes, seems interesting - hope to help with the "Nexus for Exoplanet System Science" article at the next opportunity - Thanks again for the post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It blows my mind that it has taken until 2015 for this to start. I remember talking to Dr. Marcy and others about this in the early 1990s. I realize science is a slow process, but this is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment - Yes, I *entirely* agree - Nevertheless, seems to be a good, if overdue, start afaics atm - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
25 years from inception to implementation? Didn't we go to the Moon in less than half that time? Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment - seems other such projects have been proposed over the years - some in great detail - and shelved - possibly due to political circumstances, priorities and the like, at least afaik atm - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like your help expanding the "Members" section (we can rename it of course) to discuss each different project. We can structure it around the four divisions of the Science Mission Directorate: Earth science, planetary science, heliophysics and astrophysics. My understanding is that each member team should fit in one of those four categories. What do you think? Can you help me sort the teams under these headings? Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion - seems worthy of course - however, somewhat busy atm with other interests, but will try to help with this at the next opportunity - Thanks again for your suggestion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - presented some updated text to the article - at least for starters - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Drbogdan. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to structure the article. I'm not sure if the current structure is the best, so things may change. Right now, I would like to focus on expanding the teams, describing what they're doing and how it will contribute to our knowledge on the subject. I would like to do this in a way that focuses on the NExSS roadmap and milestones they need to meet along the way. I would also like to work on integrating links so that we don't need a see also section in the end. Finally, would you be able to give some thought as to the best potential DYK hook we could offer? Something short and sweet would be nice. I'm not sure the current image would be best for the main page, so we may want to use something else for the DYK. I'm going to try adding new sources in the next several hours (if I get the chance). My personal preference is to eliminate the external links and use those as sources if possible. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - seems like some *Excellent* ideas for the "NExSS" article - I'll see what I can do at the next opportunity - Thanks for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Followup - one possible WP:DYK Hook is suggested below:

Copied from "Talk:Nexus for Exoplanet System Science#DID YOU KNOW - possible Hook?":

DID YOU KNOW - possible Hook?

A Suggestion: possible Hook for DID YOU KNOW?

"... that NASA is gathering together a coalition of experts known as "NExSS" to search for signs of life beyond the Solar System?"

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Good job! Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I think my structure misses the point of how the pieces are supposed to fit together. Each group has a question to solve which in turn provides answers that fit into a larger question about exoplanets. I want to structure the research so that this becomes obvious to the reader. I wonder if the original NASA press release did this. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great edits. I could really use your help expanding the research section. I'm not sure what kind of layout to use. Ideally, I would like to section it by specific, "unanswered questions" that each team is attempting to address. At first, I thought the best way to do this would be section it off by discipline, but I can see now that this completely missed the point. I bet there's a roadmap and list of milestones each team is addressing, but unless I have access to it, I will have to reverse engineer it from the sources at our disposal. I would like to structure the research section based on this roadmap. The reason I think this is ideal is because it has the added benefit of longevity. Each research project will therefore "fit" along a path based on milestones, and each entry can remain indefinitely (although I expect pruning). By documenting the history of research in this way, we can provide a truly unique resource for future readers. Do you see what I'm getting at? If you've ever seen the NASA roadmaps they've used in the past, then you probably get what I'm talking about. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I found a general exoplanet roadmap on the NASA website from July 2014. I doubt that the research priorities have changed since then, and if I'm not mistaken, the NExSS research proposals were already in place at that time anyway, so this information should be relevant. It will take me a day or so to figure out if this will work or help, but if it does, we will have the best structure for the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Thank you for your recent comments - Yes, I think I understand your thinking about a roadmap re the NExSS material - seems similar to the NASA Astrobiology Roadmap (2008)(Jan 2014); (Jul 2014); (2015+) – I'll post if I locate a similar one for NExSS of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, I added a condensed version of the DYK. You are welcome to add an alternate if you like. Either way, you will receive credit for both. I'm still interested in expanding the research section, which I think I'll start later today or tomorrow when and if I get the free time. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - all looks *Excellent* imo re your suggested DYK - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I want to also followup on the exoplanet roadmap. NExSS is part of a long-term effort (according to the NASA astrophysics roadmap) to take a 1) statistical census of exoplanets (Kepler has done this to some extent but I think the point is to focus on Earth-size exoplanets as the observational capabilities improve, see 3); 2) characterize and study exoplanet atmospheres; and 3) measure the frequency of potentially habitable exoplanets (which involves the search for habitable environments, the detection of biosignature gases, and finally obtaining the first resolved images of Earth-like planets and the development of maps and spectra). Unfortunately, because the potential of the greatest scientific discovery in human history is barely funded by the global community, this process could take up to three decades. As I said to you previously, we were talking about this almost 25 years ago when the first exoplanet was discovered in 1992 (although I distinctly remember talk of one even earlier in the late 1980s, but it may have been theoretical). During that time, the world has wasted billions of dollars fighting wars when the same military contractors could have used similar technology to develop the launch vehicles and telescopes needed to solve this question once and for all. The squandering of time and money over such meaningless squabbles shows that the world has a lot of growing up to do. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - Yes, *entirely* agree with you - seems much may be explained by following the money and related I would think atm (somewhat related?) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
As I've maintained for many decades now, I still think it can be a win-win situation, with the military industrial complex merely setting their sights on space exploration and development rather than war at home. It's almost the same technology, except instead of using it to destroy people and infrastructure, you're using it to create living habitats and new infrastructure for research and exploration. Same people, same players, but different goals. There's potential for unlimited growth abroad as well as the new technology that will trickle down Earth's gravity well to improve life for people at home. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again - seems we're on the same page with much of this - and seems, in some ways, we may be doing our part atm - at least to some extent I would think - iac - Thanks again for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Genetic engineering - CRISPR stuff[edit]

Are you OK with what i've done? just want to be sure. thx. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you *very much* for your post - and recent edits - Yes, no problem whatsoever atm - seems *Excellent* imo - Thanks again for your post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
yay! thx Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Abiogenesis and Seabed vents[edit]

Check this out: "[...] as it provides a method for creating carbon-based chemicals out of CO2, without the need for extreme heat or pressure.[1] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the link - interesting (and worthy) study imo - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Of possible interest - in seabed vents => proto-eukaryote cell (no mitochondria or nucleus) (from archea) combining with mitochondria and nucleus (from bacteria) to form a complete eukaryote cell?[2] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Another ref of possible interest => starting chemicals to intermediate (base/sugar) plus phosphate to RNA nucleotide (start of RNA world?)[3] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting! "[...] a scenario for generating potentially all of the building blocks of life in one geological setting." This article (and his research papers) should be used to update RNA World. Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Yes, agreed - for starters, I've added the ref to the RNA world article and Abiogenesis#RNA world section - ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce if there's better places of course - ref for Nature Chemistry[4] added as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Another report:[5] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the report ref[5] - interesting study - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Staff (April 27, 2015). "Chemistry of seabed’s hot vents could explain emergence of life". Astrobiology Magazine. Retrieved May 6, 2015. 
  2. ^ Zimmer, Carl (May 6, 2015). "Under the Sea, a Missing Link in the Evolution of Complex Cells". New York Times. Retrieved May 6, 2015. 
  3. ^ Wade, Nicholas (May 4, 2015). "Making Sense of the Chemistry That Led to Life on Earth". New York Times. Retrieved May 10, 2015. 
  4. ^ Pater, Bhavesh H.; Percivalle, Claudia; Ritson, Dougal J.; Duffy, Colm D.; Sutherland, John D. (March 16, 2015). "Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism". Nature Chemistry 7: 301–307. doi:10.1038/nchem.2202. Retrieved May 10, 2015. 
  5. ^ a b Staff (June 8, 2015). "Making Organic Molecules in Hydrothermal Vents in the Absence of Life". Astrobiology Web. Retrieved June 9, 2015. 

Astrobiology - VPL[edit]

How about creating an article on the Virtual Planetary Laboratory? The Kelley UW source was already in the article, so I cited the ref name at the end of the sentence. While there may be a good reason to cite within the sentence, I find it tends to break the flow and impact readability. Instead of citing the website, why not create the new article? It's a red link twice in the body. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - and - suggestion - yes, I was considering creating the Virtual Planetary Laboratory article earlier - seems I was sidetracked for one reason or another - might be a possibility later - we'll see - also - no problem whatsoever re the VPL-related refs in the NExSS article - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce my edits if you like - Thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I get this show on the road! Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Thanks for your comment - no problem whatsoever - I'll try to help when possible - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Astrobiology - EXPOSE-R[edit]

Hello. I updated the EXPOSE article regarding the failure of most of the EXPOSE-R experiments due to the growth of a brown substance on the windows. I wonder if you know a way to load to Commons Wikimedia the picture of the astronaut holding the EXPOSE-R panel ([4]) I think the rights may belong to both ESA and Russia Space Agency. What do you think? I think that image is very useful as it gives not just an idea of the size compared to a human, but it also shows the brown film developed on the windows. Your advice is greatelly appreciated Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded and Huntster: Yes check.svg Done - image from PDF document was obtained via WindowsXP-PrintScreen/MS Paint/JASC PaintShop Pro v6.02 and then uploaded. The image is now available at => "File:ISS-ExposeR-Study-DmitriyKondratyev-2014-Roscosmos.jpg" - seems { {PD-RU-exempt}} *may* apply to the image, but User:Huntster may know for sure I would think - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Doc, perhaps you should explain how this image is PD-RU-exempt. I don't see how it falls into any of those categories. If it is a Roscosmos image, it is copyrighted by default. Huntster (t @ c) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Huntster: Thanks for your comment - my thinking was based on the information associated with the following Roscosmos image => "File:Roscosmos logo ru.svg" - and thought this might apply as well to the newly uploaded Roscosmos image => "File:ISS-ExposeR-Study-DmitriyKondratyev-2014-Roscosmos.jpg" - if this is not ok after all, it's *entirely* ok with me to speedy delete the image of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that the logo falls under the "state symbols and signs" clause. I won't immediately delete the image in case there are additional arguments. Huntster (t @ c) 01:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Huntster: Thanks again for your comments - and related efforts with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Drbogdan and Huntster:I wonder if there is some kind of leeway for education purposes, since it was published in a scientific journal and used for non-profit here. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I would think there might be some fair use/educational basis but not at all sure atm - User:Huntster may know more about this I would think - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
For fair use, I think it would be okay, but never for licensing. Not really such a thing as "leeway" in copyright issues. Huntster (t @ c) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for NExSS (Nexus for Exoplanet System Science) - Award[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for the DYK recognition - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ceres - "Hidden" gallery images[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you uploaded some new stuff to a "Dawn (spacecraft)" gallery, but not by seeing any changes in or at the images, only by reading the history.
When I looked very carefully at the type-sat page, I could see that there now are a few link-coloured digits, 2, 3,... under one of the (older) images. Is there a particular reason for this way of doing things? Does similar things exist in other articles with many illustrations? If so, I've obviously missed something. JoergenB (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoergenB: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - seemed to be the best way imo to display the similar (but somewhat different) images of Ceres (dwarf planet) atm - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the images (and/or image links) - to make things better if you like - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Abiogenesis - Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Drbogdan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [[:Abiogenesis]]. Template:NPOVN-notice Thank you. --Epetre (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - the following reply was presented on the noticeboard discussion page:

Copied from "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Abiogenesis - lack of neutral point of view":
(Related Links => "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive884#SPA pushing creationist POV 2" AND "SPA History")

{ {reply|Apokryltaros|BatteryIncluded|Mann jess|Sarr Cat|Sunrise}} AFAIK - all concerns presented have been appropriately considered on the "Talk:Abiogenesis" page - more than once it would seem: ie, considering the Abiogenesis "FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS" page, related "Talk:Abiogenesis" discussions, as well as relevant archival discussions and the main "Abiogenesis" article itself - also - all concerns have been considered consistent with Wikipedia policy (including that "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively", according to "WP:OWN") - a careful reading of the relevant Talk-Sections may present this as well (please see "Talk-1" and "Talk-2") - seems the "WP:SPA" may be using Wikipedia as a "WP:FORUM" and/or "WP:SOAPBOX" - perhaps, "WP:1AM" and "WP:WALLOFTEXT" may also apply - in any case - hope the above helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mars - Gillespie Lake Member[edit]

Check out this hypothesis" Ancient Sedimentary Structures in the <3.7 Ga Gillespie Lake Member, Mars, That Resemble Macroscopic Morphology, Spatial Associations, and Temporal Succession in Terrestrial Microbialites.[1]Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the link[1] - yes, seems *very* interesting to me as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Yes check.svg Done - Brief Followup => mentioned this on the "Yellowknife Bay, Mars#Yellowknife Bay Geology" section of the "Yellowknife Bay, Mars" article (as well as => "Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Evidence for ancient habitability" section and "Microbially induced sedimentary structure" article) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Mars - Greenhouse payload?[edit]

Hello. Do you remember anything about an experiment-payload regarding a greenhouse of sorts proposed to be included in a future Mars lander or rover? I think I read or wrote something about that some time go and I can't remember that WP article. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Only thing that comes to mind atm is some planned studies (ie, "Mars Plant Experiment" (MPX)?) with the "Mars 2020" rover (note: deleted from article on 7 March 2015) - archived and somewhat described at the following => "Mars 2020 - old version (21 January 2015)" - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: That explains why I went to that article first and when I did not see it I thought I had Alzheimers. So it was deleted because it was proposed but not selected? I ask because there is another very interesting experiment proposed and I did not know where to document it. It is proposed for a rover (if all goes well, for the 2020 rover): terraforming in Mars to produce oxygen inside a little capsule. This proposal just got $100,000 to document many more simulations in "Mars environment chambers" on Earth using extremophiles mixed in Martian analog regolith. The aim is to eventually build several larger biodomes for habitat but mostly to produce biogenic oxygen and bottle it for life-support. Look at the references I collected here: [5].
Maybe its own article? Maybe into Terraforming of Mars? And if it gets selected, we can move it later to the 2020 rover article. What do you think?
This would make 2 experiments focused on O2 production in situ (Ecopoiesis and MOXIE), as O2 tanks transport would be extremely expensive. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Yes - seems a worthy effort - not sure where best to add the material (flexible w/ this atm) - the "Terraforming of Mars" article would be a consideration of course - the "MOXIE" article itself may also be a consideration I would think - iac - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
After some more thought, Terraforming of Mars may not be the actual subject, as the proposed experiment and resulting biodome structures would be sealed to the environment and only meant as an in situ factory of bottled O2 using Martian regolith. I will continue to build it, short and sweet, and see what comes up. Maybe Human mission to Mars? or In situ resource utilization? So far, there is not much preliminary data released so there is not much to talk about, besides the concept and grants to mature it. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - yes, seems things may become clearer when more material becomes available - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Galaxy EGS-zs8-1: Nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK for EGS-zs8-1: Award[edit]

Harrias talk 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of natural history - OR?[edit]

Could you please post in the talk page concerning where you think the OR is? Serendipodous 11:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Added the following to "Talk:Timeline of natural history#Uncited entries may be WP:Original Research?" =>

{ {reply|Serendipodous}} FWIW - seems uncited entries in the article may not be easily verified - adding references from WP:Reliable Sources to the added entries may help determine if the entries are ok - or - if the entries are WP:Original Research instead - I would think atm - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation for CMU Study[edit]

@JMyraYeung: Thank You *very much* for your invitation - I'm not interested at the moment - also - I'm *very busy* with one thing or another these days - however, if things become otherwise, I'll let you know - in any case - Thanks again for your invitation - Good Luck on your study - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Thank You for such a quick response. Do let me know when you're interested! Your contribution is ever so useful! JMyraYeung (talk) JMyraYeung (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Evolution - edit summaries[edit]

There is a style of vandalism where people change only numbers, sometimes by a lot and often by just a little. I've fixed two of these today. (The Pakistanis hate the Indians and the Indians hate the Pakistanis... (sigh)) Now I went and checked the ref'd abstract and was happy to see that number you changed to. But I might not have been so suspicious if the summary said more than "(adj)". Perhaps expanding a bit on that, like "use percent from ref'd abstract" would more be reassuring? Shenme (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thank you *very much* for your comments - Yes, I *entirely* agree with you - I usually leave more complete edit summaries, esp for significant edits, but expect to add more complete summaries for less significant ones as well - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Population III stars "detection"[edit]

I saw you added commentary about Sobral et al. (2015)[1][2][3][4][5][6] [note: refs added to clarify - by Drbogdan (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)] to a few articles. 1. thanks for doing so: I'd missed that paper. 2. we should use more tentative wording: they claim to have found evidence for Pop III stars, not that they "were detected." This isn't a smoking gun: to fit their measurements they used models of Pop III stars, but we don't actually have any validation of whether those models are correct or not. I'll try to reword your change at "Redshift", and you can port it over to other articles you've added to (and/or modify it as you see fit). - Parejkoj (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've redone "Redshift": take a look. The second sentence is a little clunky, but is more correct. Please tweak it and port similar changes to the other articles. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Parejkoj: Thank You *very much* for your comments - and edits to the "Redshift" article - (my own edits were based on my recently created "Cosmos Redshift 7" article) - Yes, I *entirely* agree with the changes you made and expect to update related articles at my first opportunity - Thanks again for your comments and help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - @Parejkoj: Brief Followup - relevant articles (including "Cosmos Redshift 7", "Galaxy", "List of galaxies", "Metallicity", "Redshift", "Reionization", "Sextans", "Star", "Star formation", "Stellar evolution", "2015 in science") have now been updated with the new text (and/or related) - Thanks again for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sobral, David; Matthee, Jorryt; Darvish, Behnam; Schaerer, Daniel; Mobasher, Bahram; Röttgering, Huub J. A.; Santos, Sérgio; Hemmati, Shoubaneh (4 June 2015). "Evidence For POPIII-Like Stellar Populations In The Most Luminous LYMAN-α Emitters At The Epoch Of Re-Ionisation: Spectroscopic Confirmation" (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal. Retrieved 17 June 2015. 
  2. ^ Overbye, Dennis (17 June 2015). "Astronomers Report Finding Earliest Stars That Enriched Cosmos". New York Times. Retrieved 17 June 2015. 
  3. ^ Staff (17 June 2015). "ESO1524 — Science Release - Best Observational Evidence of First Generation Stars in the Universe". European Southern Observatory. Retrieved 17 June 2015. 
  4. ^ Staff (17 June 2015). "Brightest galaxy and first-generation stars". Earth & Sky. Retrieved 17 June 2015. 
  5. ^ Pittalwala, Iqbal (17 June 2015). "Astronomers Find Best Observational Evidence of First Generation Stars in the Universe". University of California, Riverside. Retrieved 17 June 2015. 
  6. ^ Matthee, Jorryt; Sobral, David et al. (21 July 2015). "Identification of the brightest Lyalpha emitters at z=6.6: implications for the evolution of the luminosity function in the re-ionisation era". MNRAS 451: 4919-4936. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv947. 


Rediscovered films vs film footage[edit]

Your entry has been moved to the new List of rediscovered film footage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: Thank you *very much* for your comment - and help with this - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Evolutionary biology[edit]

Greetings!

A photograph of Charles Darwin

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: Thank you for the invitation - yes - joined as a member - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI re Pluto[edit]

FYI, Dr Bogdan, since you have been helping so much on the Pluto articles.

N2e (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@N2e: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and information - yes - the information is *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto[edit]

Hi. I'm having connection issues and am unable to upload this image od Sputnik Plain on Pluto. Maybe you can? http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=49523 Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for your comments - seems the image was already uploaded and is at the following => File:Troughs in Sputnik Planum by LORRI.jpg - hope this helps - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

WikiProject Barnstar Hires.png The WikiProject Barnstar
For your ongoinging and excellent contributions to the Wikipedia project! Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For persevering in adding and improving content on the Wikipedia!. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For improving the formatting, links, and other features of Wikipedia articles. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
BoNM USA Hires.png The U.S. Barnstar of National Merit
In honor of contributions made to Wikipedia about articles related to the United States of America. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For innovative design and formatting of links and other content on Wikipedia pages. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Current Events Barnstar Hires.png The Current Events Barnstar
For working on articles related to new events, especially related to spaceflight. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Space-Barnstar-1j.png The Space Barnstar
For exemplary contributions to articles related to space and space exploration. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For overall contributions to editing the Wikipedia, including space, images, and content. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar of National Merit.svg The Barnstar of National Merit
The Barnstar of National Merit, for contributions to the Wikipedia project, editing, and for contributions to sharing the knowledge of space exploration. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Drbogdan by Fotaun (talk) on 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I second the motion. The Doc is relentless. :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Fotaun and BatteryIncluded: Wow - Thank you *very much* for *all* the recognitions - they're all *very much* appreciated - the efforts were fun - and great learning experiences - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Pluto has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

@Antony-22: Thank you *very much* for nominating the "Geography of Pluto" article for DYK consideration - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


July 30th 2015 - Super-Earth[edit]

Thanks for the help elaborating and sourcing Super-Earth#2015. My editing is a bit rusty after coming out of retirement. Best, Geeky Randy (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Geeky Randy: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Geography of Pluto[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank You for the "WP:DYK" note re the "Geography of Pluto" article - it's appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Geography of Pluto[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Thank You *very much* for the "WP:DYK" recognition re the "Geography of Pluto" article - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceres. Map of quadrangles[edit]

Yes, the IAU aproves crater names. But the quad names are given after a prominent crater within it. Currently most of the quad names shown on the preliminary map do not exist, they did not obtain IAU approval. Just two of the 15 names saved, Asari and Rongo. The rest 13 names shown on the preliminary map of quads do not exist now, they were just preliminary and now dissapeared. That is why this preliminary map should be deleted. In other case it makes confusion providing a wrong information. 108.167.40.165 (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)