User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Thanks

Thank for fixing my English in The Grand Design (book). I created DYK nomination for the article. If you believe you should be added as a creator, please do add yourself. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I added you as a creator here. Please feel free to change the hook.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding me - it's greatly appreciated - I'm new to some of this. Drbogdan (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Grand Design (book)

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:DrDennisBogdan.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:DrDennisBogdan.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Added The {{GFDL-self}} tag To The File:DrDennisBogdan.jpg As Suggested. Hope This Now Makes The File *Completely* Ok. Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course. Thanks. Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 05:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaced The {{GFDL-self}} Tag With The {{gfdl|migration=relicense}} Tag.Drbogdan (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Goldilocks Zone

It's just a redirect, and now we've got two links to the same article, one after the other.Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - I agree - edited to the following -> "... located in the middle of the "habitable"Goldilocks Zone of its parent star... - seems simpler and (hopefully?) better. Drbogdan(talk) 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits, but that's the opposite of how its used in the relevant literature. In other words, there is a "Goldilocks" zone within the habitable zone, not the other way around. More to the point, in this particular instance, we are talking about specific Goldilocks zone within the HZ in comparison to other planets, which is what makes this planet special. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Since both are used as synonyms for the same idea, I think we should use only one in the lead and mention both in the body. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments - I agree with you - maybe then the following (?): "... located in the middle of the "Goldilocks" region of the habitable zone of its parent star... " Drbogdan (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best if we stick to the original [1]. The media has a tendency to blow these things out of proportion. Notice, the word "Goldilocks" isn't used. I've made the changes to the lead and I think it reads better. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I completely agree with you - the sentence now reads better - Thank you for your comments and help with this - it's greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token c18fd1671bf1f8e17b13fd04f99088ce

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Drbogdan (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes to your user page

[2] If you don't like it, feel free to revert. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You *Very Much* For Your Kind Consideration (and effort) - It's Greatly Appreciated - Nonetheless, Reverted Back To My Original - For Now At Least - Started Out Capitalizing To Help Me Focus My Attention On Spelling, Punctuation, Grammar And Related Details - But Afterwards, The Process Became An Enjoyable Exercise Of Sorts - And - Seemed To Identify My Comments (esp on facebook, etc) As My Own (no one else seems to be doing it- at least at the moment) - Kind Of A Creative (and fun) Experiment For Me At The Moment. Thanks Again For Your Consideration. Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So, If I Start Doing It, You Will Stop? : ) Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Comment - Seems Fun At The Moment - Also, For Me At Least, I Seem To Be Making Less (aging-eyesight-related?) Typos And The Like - Nonetheless, I Have No Particular Investment In This (not-too-soft-not-too-loud?, goldilocks?, eecummings?)Orthographic Style - Just Having Fun - (besides, the present discussion seems to be a neat way of practicing what i recently learned about wiki-markup code) - Please Understand That My Occasional Use Of This Particular Style Does Not At All Extend To My Edits For Main Articles - My Edits For Main Articles Are *Entirely* Consistent With The Usual Wikipedia Conventions - In Any Case - Thanks Again - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciateyour contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Roger Penrose's recent preprint on circles in WMAP sky has not been published in a scientific journal or subject to peer review. As such, I removed your mention of it on all the top-level articles. It's still mentioned in his biography. Until it receives independent review and acceptance it does not belong in the empirical articles in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You *Very* Much For Your Comments - No Problem Whatsoever re The Roger Penrose Edits And Related Of Course - Thanks Again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rosemary Redfield

Hi Drbogdan. Just to say that I de-linked Rosemary Redfield in the Arsenic DNA article (or, rather, converted into a normal link, which red-links it because there is currently no article about her). Linking to a person's user account may confuse casual readers who might mistake a user page for an actual article (though there's probably little chance of this in the specific case of Redfield). If Redfield is notable (and it looks like she might well be), you might like to create an article about her. Also, the reference her name was linked to in the Arsenic DNA article looks like a blog - not exactly a reliable source (although I note that it's being redrafted for formal submission to Science). In passing, Redfield isn't related to Alfred C. Redfield is she? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Comments (& Related Editing) - I Entirely Agree With You - I Considered A Normal Link ToRosemary Redfield At The Time But Thought, Being New To Some Of This, I Would See If TheUser Account Link Might Be Ok - I Also Agree With You About The RelatedBlog Reference - Could Be A MoreReliable Source - Nonetheless, I Thought TheBlog Reference Noteworthy - And Better Than None - Especially Regarding Such A Topic At This Time - I'm Not Aware Of Any Connection Between Rosemary Redfield And Alfred C. Redfield - At Least At The Moment - Thanks Again For Your Comments And All - It's Greatly Appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Arsenic biochemistry

"half-time" changed to half-life. Whoa! I must have been watching football when I wrote that. Thanks for the correction, I had a good laugh.--BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Comment - No Problem Whatsoever - I've Had Similar Situations - And, For Myself, Truly Appreciate "Fresh Eyes" When Available - Thanks Again! - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind input in the Astrobiology article. It is always a pleasure to see your work. By the way, it looks like this is the third time Richard B. Hoover makes such a claim (1997, 2007 and 2011); I wonder why this time there is more noise? Because was picked up by Faux News? :P Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments - I, along w/ others I'm sure, would think much better about thenewsif the studies were being published in Science or Nature (rather than the "Journal of Cosmology") - Nonetheless, Hoover seems impressive based on hisnasa bio andspie bio - also, a number of his published books seem to be available from[3] - might be good to see his CV of course - in any case - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination ofFile:Benzo(e)pyrene-3D-balls-2.png

A tag has been placed on File:Benzo(e)pyrene-3D-balls-2.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --苹果派.Talk 03:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Styrene

Here is the MOS statement on safety commmentary: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Safety, some aspects of which might be relevant to your editing. Since you are interested in styrene, a related article that really needs help given the scale of production is on polystyrene (PS). Although is less newsy, PS is the main material out and about in the world, not styrene. As you have probably noticed, many of these articles attract editors who read New York Times and are alarmed by an MSDS (almost always scary), but such editors are usually unable to contribute effectively on technical themes, and their safety comments are weakened by their lack of chemical knowledge. So I hope that you become interested in PS. 15,000,000,000 kg are produced annually. Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You *Very, Very Much* For Your Comments - And Suggestions - They Are *All* Very Much Appreciated -Hopefully, My Recent Edits Re The Styrene Article Are Entirely Ok - If Not, Please Feel Free To Alter (or remove them altogether) Of Course - Yes, Polystyrene Seems A Worthy Subject - And May Be A Possibility - At The Moment, We Get A Bit Busy Around Here (locally) With One Thing Or Another - Thanks In Any Regards For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

More comprehensive coverage of nucleobase meteorite info

Hi Dr. Bogdan, I note with interest your recent edit on the Abiogenesis article where you include the August 9, 2011, NASA report about nucleobases found in meteorites. I believe that this report is extrordinary, but I also note that information on it is not easily found on WP. I made a minor edit to the nucleobases article, but I hesitate to include the news report in an article on a scientific topic. I believe that it would be worthwhile to analyze this subject a bit with an eye toward a more comprehensive edit, or perhaps the creation of a new article. Cheers! (BTW, nice hat.)Jarhed (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Note - And Kind Comments - I *Entirely* Agree With You - TheRecent NASA News That Building Blocks OfDNA May Be Found In Meteorites (And Possibly Formed In Outer Space?) Is Extraordinary - Hopefully, More Details And Information Will Appear Soon In The (Peer-Reviewed) Responsible Scientific Literature - In Any Case - Thanks Again For Your Note - And Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Doctor, I just saw your excellent edit on nucleobases. In the meantime, I have troubled to rewriteAlbrecht Kossel. Have a great day! Jarhed (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Comments - The Albrecht Kossel Article Is Excellent - Yes, Decided To Include Edits Of The Recent NASA/Nucleobase Findings In Several Relevant WP Articles - Thanks For The Inspiration - Incidently, Had A WP Discussion Re The Overall Role Of Nucleic Acids And Life Forms Not Too Long Ago - One Of My Posted Comments May Be Of Interest And Is Copied Below:

Copied FromTalk:Life#Definition_of_Life

FWIW - My Thinking At The Moment - "Life" (and/or "Life-Forms"), At The Most Basic Level, Simply Seems To Be *A Chemical That Can Reproduce Itself* - Interestingly, All Known Life-Forms Are Composed Of The Very Same Chemical (basically, a very particular form of phospho-sugar-nucleic acid) - Capable Of Astronomical Variation - With Only Variants Suitable To The Environment Surviving From One Generation To The Next - Apparently, All Life On Earth Can Be Traced To ASingle Event Occurring About 3.5 Billion Years Ago - If Interested, Some Of These (& related) Comments WerePosted On My LiveJournal Some Time Ago - In Any Case - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the definition of life discussion that you link to, and I must admit that I find it troubling. I am not qualified to judge the merits of the argument, but I do know a little bit aboutWikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Gerard Jagers is pushing what appears to be a novel view if not a controversial one, and he is using his own self-published and non-peer-reviewed book to do it. The primary goal of WP is verifiability. For a controversial topic like that one, all fringe or novel views should be firmly trounced, and reliable secondary sources should be the only sources used. Where these disagree, balance should be provided based on the weight of the coverage. After my recent review of the popular literature on nucleobases, I see a lot of merit in your own definition of life. However, I would point out that for WP purposes, reliable sources are the only standard.

I hesitate to air views such as this to credentialed people such as yourself and Jagers because WP benefits from your expertise. However, WP rules work reasonably well and exist for a reason. I hope that you put Jagers in his place, and if that offends him that will be a shame.Jarhed (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You For *All* Your Comments - They Are All *Very Much* Appreciated - I *Entirely* Agree With You Of Course - Re The "Life" Definition: Seems I May Not Be Alone - One Astronomer Phrases It As"matter that can reproduce itself"; Another Scientist(?) As"a molecule that can reproduce itself" - Re The WP "Life" Discussion: At The Moment, I (And Several Others?) Decided To Give The Discussion A Rest - We may Return To It At Some Better (& Quieter?) Time - Interesting Subject - In Any Case - Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am delighted to speak with you Doctor. If you need my support just let me know.Jarhed(talk) 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You - And Thanks For Your Visit - I Thoroughly Enjoyed The Discussion! :) Drbogdan(talk) 11:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Directed Panspermia

Dear Dr. Bogdan: I wish to ask for your comments on a proposed Wikipedia article. Please read the reasons for this request at Talk:Panspermia, section “Separate Article on Directed Panspermia”, and please compare the existing short section under Panspermia with submitted article at User:AbrahamDavidson/Directed panspermia. I hope that you will agree that seeding new solar systems with life can have major consequences for the future, and that a full WP article can help informed public discourse. Your comments at Talk:Panspermia will be sincerely appreciated. AbrahamDavidson (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)AbrahamDavidson

Hello Abraham - Thank You *Very* Much For Your Comments - And Suggestions - Yes, This Is An Interesting Topic To Me At The Moment - And I Hope To Follow-up On Your Suggestions At The First Opportunity - Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@AbrahamDavidson - The Following Was Posted On ThePanspermia Talk Page

Copied FromTalk:Panspermia#Separate_Article_on_Directed_Panspermia

FWIW - At First Glance, And At The Moment, The Material In TheProposed Article On "Directed Panspermia" Seems To Be A *Really, Really* Excellent Academic Effort - A Worthy Contribution To Wikipedia - And - Sufficiently Substantial To Be A *Separate* Article From The Main Article On Panspermia - After All, The Present Panspermia Article Seems To Be More About "In-Coming" [to planet Earth] Whereas "Directed Panspermia" Seems To Be More About "Out-Going" [from planet Earth] Instead - A *Very* Important (seemingly neglected?) Consideration In My Opinion At The Moment - Also, The Minimal Mention Of "Panspermia#Directed_panspermia" In The Present Main Panspermia Article Does *Not* Seem Sufficient For This Very Important Topic In My Opinion - That Said - In Some Ways, The Material In The Newly Proposed "Directed Panspermia" Article Seems Similar In Basic Notions (in a much more extensive way of course) To The (less extensive?) Material In The Present Forward-contaminationArticle - Perhaps The Two Articles Could Be Combined In Some Way? - Perhaps The "Directed Panspermia" Article Could Be Edited Into The PresentForward-contamination Article - Or - The Material In The Forward-contamination Article Could Be Merged Into A Newly Created "Directed Panspermia" (or related title) Article - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hope It's Ok - Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE - New Followup (& related) Comments Have Been Posted At->Talk:Astrobiology("Forward-contamination" Section) + Talk:Forward-contamination ("Directed panspermia (draft)" Section) +User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_directed_panspermia + User_talk:Drbogdan#Directed_Panspermia +User_talk:BatteryIncluded#Separate_article_on_Directed_Panspermia - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 13:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ACTA, SOPA, and Media Conflict of Interest

I'm writing you, because if I read correctly the history of the ACTA article, you reverted an addition I had made claiming the media have a conflict of interest in this issue. A few minutes ago, I added a section toTalk:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement regarding Media Conflict of Interest. I'm quite confused by your reversion, because (a) the definition of a "conflict of interest" seems to me to make this point quite clear without a citation, (b) I provided a link to conflict of interest#Media where this issue is discussed in greater detail with substantive citations to appropriate academic quality literature, and (c) the points I made should hardly classify as original research. If you have a chance, please reply on Media Conflict of Interest. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(NOTE: My Comment - Copied From Media Conflict of Interest)

Thank you *very* much for your recent comment on my User Page -

"added text" in the lede and my "edit summary" for reverting are as follows:

Your "Added Text" in the lede ->
"The media conglomerates have a strong financial incentive to minimize and distort public discussion of ACTA, both because of their large copyright portfolios and the fact that they could lose revenue from providing information that could displease major advertisers."
---
My "Edit Summary" for reverting ->
"rv edit - afaik many may agree w/ pov - nonetheless, edit seems like WP:OR - some reliable cited ref source(s) may be helpful?"

I continue to think that your statement would be better served with some reliable cited reference(s) for support - afaik at the moment, the use of uncited, unsupported text material is discouraged in Wikipedia - esp in articles, such as ACTA and related, that may be of interest to so many at the moment - other Wikipedia editors may have a different view and/or position - I would welcome their opinions on this matter if possible -in any case - hope this helps - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(NOTE: My Response - Copied From Media Conflict of Interest)

Thanks for your reply including the text that you reverted. In fact, the Conflict of interest#Mediasection includes 7 footnotes, 6 to serious academic research monographs and one to Business Week. However, I see now that a typo on my part made that unclear: I failed to capitalize "media" in that link, which had the effect of sending the reader to only the "Conflict of interest" article and not directly to the "Media" section of that article. Is this an adequate response to your concern about "uncited, unsuppported text"?

I agree that text about anything that is not obvious to most people should include references to solid sources. However, I'm still confused about your suggestion that this would even need a citation, as I would think it would be obvious from the definition: "A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other." (copied from the opening line of the Conflict of interest article.) It should be obvious that all the large Media conglomerates have a large portfolios of copyrighted material, which would provide them with substantial financial interest in anything that might affect the revenue that could be extracted from a copyright. The fact that this is not obvious to you seems clear evidence of why a discussion of this is vital to any sensible understanding of this issue. Thanks again for your comments. DavidMCEddy(talk) 04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[copied DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)]

(NOTE: My Comment - Copied From Media Conflict of Interest)

@DavidMCEddy - Thanks for your comments - please understand that my concern is not the issue itself - but more the "way" the issue is being presented - yes, your improvement may make the edited text better imo - but presenting this (or similar) text material by quoting, if possible, a WP:RS source, actually cited in the text, might be even better still I would think - as for myself, I have no objection for you re-posting this material (I don't expect to revert again) - nonetheless, comments from other Editors on this matter, before or after re-posting, might be helpful - in any case - thanks again - and -Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

signatures of petitions

He Dr, as you are enthusiastically updating the whitehouse counts etc to ACTA, you probably also know what the "25 000 needed" signatures are for. Will there be a plenary session on the topic, or a discussion in a committee? Might be good to add 1-2 lines on the subject... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

@L.tak - Thank you for your comments re the ACTA article and the relatedWH Petitions - seemed that similar WH Petitions in the recent past (in response to SOPA and the Protect IP Act for example) were responded by the WH Staff rather quickly -after the 1 month (and over 25,000 signatures needed) were met -WH Reponse to the SOPA-related Petition Here - In fact, I Posted the relevant comments re the WH response to the SOPA and Protect IP Act articles - I was hoping to comment further in the ACTA article when a similar WH response on ACTA was released - I'm unclear at the moment for the delay by the WH Staff - it's entirely ok w/ me if you (or any other editor) would like to post some relevant comments of course- in any case - hope this helps - thanks again for your interest - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 17:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

@L.tak - Brief Followup - updated the relevant text in the ACTA article as follows:

Copied from the ACTA Article:

In the United States, several ACTA-related White House petitions have been created. One petition, "End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet," was created 21 January 2012 and has reached the threshold of 25,000 signatures within a month's time (actually,43,520 signatures were logged as of 21 February). With 44,600 signatures currently, this petition continues to be "active" as of 12 March. Since the signature count and time threshold for a response to this petition have been met, the White House Staff may be expected to release an official White House response soon. Another petition, "Please Submit ACTA to the Senate for Ratification as Required by the Constitution for Trade Agreements," was created 22 January 2012 and did not reach the threshold of 25,000 signatures within a month's time. With about 12,850 signatures logged at month's end, this petition was "expired" as of 21 February.

References

Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice - re: Lankenau Edits - presently resolved.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
(Note:Link1 +Link2 + Relevant Link3)

Deep-sea exploration

Since you seem to be a principle editor for this page, I'd like to refer you to my question on thetalk page. If the answer is "no", please leave a note on my talk page (I'll need to make some changes). Thanks, and regards, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@Eric F - Thanks for your recent comment - Please understand that I'm more a casual editor, than a principle one, for the Deep-sea exploration article - nonetheless, you've asked some very good questions - according to Wikipedia -> "The 'deep sea,' or deep layer, is the lowest layer in the ocean, existing below the thermocline and above the seabed, at a depth of 1000 fathoms (1800 m) or more." - also, according to Wikipedia -> "The wreck of Titanic remains on the seabed, gradually disintegrating at a depth of 12,415 feet (3,784 m)." - thus, the Titanic wreckwould be in the "deep-sea" I would think - finally - based on the above, the Titanic wreckwould qualify as a "Milestone" of Deep-sea exploration as far as I can see - but that's my opinion fwiw - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comment - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow-ups at User_talk:184.76.225.106#Titanic_.26_Deep_sea_exploration andTalk:Deep-sea_exploration#Titanic - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang

Dear User:Drbogdan, I hope this message finds you doing well! I would appreciate if you could self revert tothe version before the recent edit war started and add your proposed draft to the new RfC. Since there is dispute over what should be contained in the draft, an RfC will be the best way to determine what should be included in the section. With regards, Anupam^Talk23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam - Thank you for your recent note - afaik, there has been no WP:CONSENSUS among editors for the reverted sentences that TimothyRias added to the main Big Bang article - as before, I continue to support a Link to the disputed material in the "See Also" Section Only - however, due to a "Consensus" to maintain a brief paragraph(Consensus Opinion specifies "a section kept to a limited stature"), I posted several suggestions: "Draft 3," "Draft 3A," "Draft 3B" and "Draft 3C" - thanks again for your note - and for suggesting the RfC - hope the above helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Lichen

Hello Dr.Bogdan. I found this interesting report and I am not sure where to include it. (Lichen survives harsh Mars environment) Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank you *very much" for your comment - *very* interesting report- decided to add a new section ("Life on Earth under Martian conditions") to the Life on Mars article (as well as related text/refs) - at least for starters -please feel free to modify, expand and the like of course - other possible articles for this material may include Astrobiology, Extraterrestrial Life, Extremophiles, Forward-contamination, Lichen,Life, Panspermia, and 2012 in science [update: I've added some text/refs of this material to these articles] - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Here's another interesting mission concept related to the Viking:BOLD,[4]. Enough noise was made to consider this one. Not sure what to do with this one either...use it in the "Viking biological experiments" article?BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for your comments - and links - yes, I saw the BOLD proposal last week and also wondered whether to present the material to Wikipedia - afaik the proposal is not funded at the moment - and, like so many other seemingly worthy projects, may only be at the "talking" stage -maybe wait on this until the BOLD proposal becomes more substantial? - if funded (and/or otherwise more substantial), the BOLD proposal may be worthy material for several articles, includingLife_on_Mars#Future_missions, I would think - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Prokofiev opera template

Hi there - I see you have added a new template {{Prokofiev opera}} to the articles in this category. You may not have noted that there is already an established template {{Prokofiev operas}} on all the articles, which your template duplicates - I have mentioned this atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Prokofiev_operas. I didn't want to remove your template without notifying you - but if it is OK with you I will edit it out. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Smerus - Thank you *very much* for your comments about the newly madeProkofiev opera template - yes, I knew of the otherProkofiev opera/image template but thought the new one, more complete and more consistent w/ other Prokofiev templates, could coexist on the same article page -and provide another way, more familiar perhaps to some, of accessing related articles about Prokofiev -also, I was considering expanding the various templates for other Prokofiev articles, including theProkofiev Opera ones, in the same way as had been done w/ the Prokofiev Ballet articles - like, for example, the various related Ballet templates at the bottom of the Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev) and Trapeze (Prokofiev) articles - in any case - hope my reply helps in some way - thanks again for your comments - and -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

noted - fyi I have just posted the following on the WP Opera page:

I am easy about either template, but it is absurd to have two, and moreover the standard opera template formula is {{Foo operas}} -so if people want to go with the new one, the old one should be deleted and the new one renamed - opinions? --Smerus (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Smerus - Thank you for your fyi note and related comments - if not already known, I've posted copies of the initial parts of our discussion to User_talk:Smerus#Prokofiev_opera_template andWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Prokofiev_operas - Thanks again for your note - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your comments - and encouragement - if interested, my *very beginning* efforts re the "Sergei Prokofiev" mega-template may be viewed (& edited if you like) at the following ->

- comments, additions, modifications, etc, always welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems the "Sergei Prokofiev" mega-template may now be sufficiently ready for posting - and has been posted to several relevant Prokofiev articles (notably, Sergei Prokofiev & Romeo and Juliet) - at least for starters - editing and/or updating, as with any Wikipedia article/template, may be needed and is expected to be ongoing -but much of the basic Template effort may now be done - please feel free to edit, modify, change and related as needed of course - Thanks for the recent help and comments with this project - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from the MCB WikiProject!

Hello, Drbogdan, welcome to the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject! I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Here are some ideas onhow you can help:: Read our WP Manual of Style, MCB style guide, guide to citing sources and try this citation tool Join in editing our collaboration of the month Have a look at some related projects and resources Improve articles on our worklist If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, don't hesitate to post on the project talk page, or please drop me a note on my talk page. Again, welcome! Boghog (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Date format in refs

Could I ask why you are modifying these? I am curious because Mediawiki can allow users to change the format they wish to see from their user settings (if in ISO format). You can change how it appears via settings.--A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Comments - No Problem Whatsoever - Seemed Like An OK Effort - And Was Done Mostly To Present A Bit Of Consistency To The Article For Many Readers - The References In The Article Seemed To Look Much Better And Clearer After The Editing Effort - Nonetheless, Reverting's *Entirely* Ok w/ Me - esp If There's Good Reason- And No Objections From Others Of Course - In Any Case - Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Note - Copied Section (& above comments) To Talk:Mars_Science_Laboratory#Date_format_in_refs - For Possible Discussion By Any Others That May Be Interested - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah thank you for your reply. I am curious because MediaWiki can allow these to be user-defined as some users prefers different date formats. The defualt can be US dates and the preference setting could be whatever user picks under his or her preferences. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You *Very* Much For Your Comments - And For The Information - Might Have To Take A Closer Look At This At The Next Opportunity - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

wHY tHE cAPITALS?

Well, the title says it all :) Cheers, Joepnl (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Question - If Interested, Probably My Best Answer (so far) About My Occasional Writing Style May Be Found Here - Besides - It's Fun - At Least At Times - Thanks Again For Your Question - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok :) Joepnl (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

vector.js and vector.css

Is there any reason for User:Drbogdan/vector.css and User:Drbogdan/vector.js? I ask because it is showing up on a tracking category for persondata and I'm not sure what your css and js does?Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your post - good questions - I'm not clear what the pages (User:Drbogdan/vector.css andUser:Drbogdan/vector.js) actually do in fact - I seem to recall (vaguely) adding the pages in response to instructions about TUSC token (still unclear about this) and/or installing DB-X!Edits some time ago - the "persondata" edit was added relatively recently (seemed to be an ok addition) - I was entirely unaware of any involvement between the "persondata" edit and the css and js pages until your post - perhaps you have more understanding about all this than I and can advise me? - in any case - thank you for your post - and Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Brief followup - seems the css and js pages may have been added more recently than I was first thinking - and may have had something to do with the instructions re "persondata" after all (based on mycss page edit revision history) - perhaps this allowed viewing "persondata" on other article pages? - not clear about this -suggestions welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not for a TUSC token. If you want to view persondata, then you read the instructions wrong. In your vector.js file, add: {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/persondata.js}}. You can remove the other stuff in your vector.css and vector.js files.

A listing of scripts that can be added is at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts. I'm not aware of too many things available for your vector.css file, but a real good one that I use is atWikipedia:Customizing watchlists. Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you *very much* for your suggestions - they are *very much* appreciated - all seems ok -may look more into some of this at the next opportunity - Thanks again for your help - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. Yell at me anytime on my talk page if you have questions on anything.Bgwhite (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems I somehow lost the ability to view "persondata" on article pages - however, re-adding <=> table.persondata {display:table !important;} <=> to the User:Drbogdan/vector.css file seemed to restore this "persondata" viewing ability - all now seems ok - thanks again for the help - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drbogdan. You have new messages at Talk:Mars Science Laboratory.
Message added 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you have previously commented on proposed Move of this article, you might want to weigh in on a discussion I started on the Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Amino acids in asteroids

Are you into amino acids? I found this report today:[5]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes, Thank You *very much* for sharing this amino acid study -Great Find imo - May relate to the challenge of finding some biosignatures forETs but also, perhaps, in providing more evidence that the location of the "primordial soup" (so-to-speak), may have been somewhere among the stars - and not exclusively on planet Earth as some may think - Thanks Again - the study is greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job on the article split (of Mars Science Laboratory) and the creation of Curiosity rover article. As a result, they both look really good just nine hours after the successful Mars landing! N2e (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Here is an aknowledgement to your dedication and diligence while developing and successfuly managing the two most edited articles in Wikipedia for 2 days in a row: Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity rover. Thankyou!BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks For Awards!

Wow - Thanks for the recent awards - They are all *very much* appreciated - The recent editing efforts have been fun - Thanks again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity rover sockpuppet

The case is here, in the event you might have more to add.[6]. Thanks.OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Scope question

Hey Dr. B, there is a discussion going on atTalk:Mars Science Laboratory on the scope of the article. Would appreciate having your input before we close the discussion and attempt to determine if there is a consensus. Please take a look, and if you have the time and interest, weigh in on the question of "now that the article has been split, what is the scope of the MSL article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drbogdan. You have new messages at Talk:Curiosity rover.
Message added 02:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would appreciate you looking in on this topic, and consider commenting. Same editor removed the consensus-hatnotes from both the MSL and the CR articles. I was thinking of doingWP:BRD, reverting then discussing, but have decided I would leave that evaluation for other editors to consider. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - yes, *keeping* the hatnotes in this instance seems better imo also -Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Astroecology

Hello Dr Bogdan. I recently came across the Astroecology article, that seems to be in need of adjustments, not just in its Wiki-style, but in verifying, clarifying and correctingthe scientific statements presented. I am taking a few notes and will read the most relevant articles used as references before I begin to edit that article sometime next week. I'd be happy if you find the time in the future to work in that article as well. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Hello - thank you *very* much for your comment -and suggestion - yes, that's possible - I'll try and take a look at the Astroecologyarticle next opportunity - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Jake Matijevic (rock)

Nice work on Jake Matijevic (rock). Thanks for the additional photos and edits. --Jake (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jake - Thank you *very much* for your comment - working on the Jake Matijevic (rock) article was a lot of fun - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity rover

I like what you did with the images. I think having a balanced layout will really make the article visually appealing, as well as scientifically accurate. Thanks for all your hard work on this article. It is shaping up very nicely. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff)11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - your edits are appreciated as well - yes, I agree - the article is starting to look very nice. Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 12:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, to get the latest developments on the rover, this page is the best. Sometimes not even NASA's "Status Report" page is so current. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also for your own help with all this - for my part - it's been a lot of fun - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Abiogenesis and panspermia paper

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION IN SPACE J. Mayo Greenberg, Peter Weber and Willem Schutte Adv. Space Res. Vol.4, No.12, pp.41-49, 1984

Thanks for the reference - looks interesting - may try to have a look at this at the first opportunity - Thanks again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What I find surprising is that they were aware by the mid 1980s that complex organic molecules were created and transformed in interstelar space. The concluding remarks are quite interesting. It makes me want to investigate the progress done in this field since this paper was published. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WOW! Greenberg has been busy since then: [7]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - this looks interesting - thanks for the comments/refs - may look at this closer soon - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Amino acids in asteroids

Are you into amino acids? I found this report today:[8]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes, Thank You *very much* for sharing thisamino acid study - Great Find imo - May relate to the challenge of finding somebiosignatures for ETs but also, perhaps, in providing more evidence that the location of the "primordial soup" (so-to-speak), may have been somewhere among the stars - and not exclusively on planet Earth as some may think- Thanks Again - the study is greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 13:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token ac58b6ed602a1eae9c98da5541e2afe9

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Composer templates

I undid some of your edits to composer templates. First, "noinclude" seem improperly use so that the articles the templates where placed on where put in the Composer template category. Secondly, categories such as Category:Ballet composers where added to templates such as Template:Igor Stravinsky. Stravinsky may be a ballet composer (and the article "Igor Stravinsky" is placed in Category:Ballets Russes composers), but the template is not a ballet composer. Hyacinth (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your comments - and edits - no problem whatsoever - not very clear about the categories re composer templates in the first place - thought I'd see what others, more experienced, might think if I added several categories - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

New medical organization

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

hi

can you please check my new edits. I put a citation. If it's wrong, revert it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by166.87.131.18 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - it's appreciated - seems best, for now, to revert - added the following summary:

"rv possibly good faith ip edits - perhaps WP:RS & WP:REF may help? -maybe first discuss adj text onTalk Page? - per WP:BRD & related."

Hope this helps - in any case - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Peer review

Hi. I earlier came across an article you created and then subsequently gave a quality rating of "B". It was, on review and according to that project's quality scale, a Start class article, perhaps a very generous C. It is unusual to see articles rated by their creator or largest contributor, so I was intrigued by your user page list of "My created Articles". I was dismayed to see that you have rated all of your own articles as B class, without regard for the criteria. Would you agree that this is most unusual, and that you have circumvented the peer review process..? Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)