User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Happy New Year Drbogdan!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Drbogdan: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

@BatteryIncluded: - Thank you for the Happy New Year Greeting - it's *very much* appreciated - wish you the *very best* in the New Year as well - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Affluence in the United States article

Hi Doc - in the A. in the U.S. article you have Michael Moore's quote about 400 americans having more wealth than half of all americans combined. It strikes me that the Huff Po's restatement of that to "the richest 400 Americans control as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of households" is meaningfully clearer. Perhaps swap over to the HuffPo quote instead? It is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/income-inequality-poll_n_1067605.html ...Up to you, cheers and Happy New Year! --LondonYoung (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@LondonYoung: - Thank you for your comments re the PolitiFact quotation in the Affluence in the United States#Extreme affluence article (ie, "According to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 Americans 'have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.'< ref name="PF-20110311">Kertscher, Tom; Borowski, Greg (March 10, 2011). "The Truth-O-Meter Says: True - Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined". PolitiFact. Retrieved August 11, 2013.</ref> & other refs ) - the original text and quotation from PolitiFact seems better than the restatement (and is more reliably sourced of course) - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - have a Happy New Year as well - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Moore's direct quote is surely better sourced, I am just suggesting to you that readers might take away a better understanding of the facts if you use the HuffPo restatement. It is up to you. However, I did notice that somebody - perhaps influenced by Moore's (confusing?) quote? - had edited the article to state that the 400 richest controlled half of America's net wealth - which is, of course, false. While I edited out the obviously false statement, I fear that Moore's quote will just go on to confuse more (Moore? haha) people. In any event, I love your work on wikipedia. --LondonYoung (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@LondonYoung: - Thanks for your comments - and compliment - yes, I understand your point of view - and possible interpretation(s) of the original quotation - however, the more reliably sourced quotation seems best - readers can then sort out, based on the cited references, the better understanding for themselves - at least the original quotation remains true to the primary cited reference material(s) - and not to some modified statement which may (or may not) be true in fact - in any regards - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Rosetta image

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

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

NASA gets sued

Want GOOD comedy? Read this: "Scientist sues NASA over mysterious Mars rock" http://www.chron.com/about/article/Scientist-sues-NASA-over-mysterious-Mars-rock-5184690.php His "article" in the Journal of Cosmology: http://cosmology.com/ Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the comments and link - interesting - seems Wikipedia has a related ref - in any case - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved the entry to the Journal of Cosmology article. I think that is the best place for those who feel it is noteworthy. Please review it if you have a chance. Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for your comments - yes, seems like a good idea - added a few adjs - hope they're ok - *entirely* ok to rv/mv/ce of course - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't want to repress this from Wikipedia, just handle it for what it is worth and in the right scientific context. If the mass media drags this on, (which I think is be the case), we could write one or two lines in Opportunity rover article, and link it to the J of C with something like "(See Xyz for further information.)" What say you? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes, sounds good - guess we'll just have to wait and see for now - thanks for all your efforts with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the major news outlets already picked it up. As "damage control" to the Opportunity article, I started the linking to the J. of C. so enthusiastic editors will have the most appropriate article section to add to. Please feel free to rv/edit at your discretion. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

MAYDAY! I ruined the Image format in Opportunity rover and I can't find what I am doing wrong. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - np - Opportunity rover images should now be ok - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - if possible, the source url for the File:Mars_Pinnacle_Rock.png may be helpful to note on the image description page - unable to find the image, so far, in the NASA image catalog - in any case - tia - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it from http://themeridianijournal.com/2014/01/mystery-rock-appeared-near-opportunity-rover-mars/ but it is obviously from NASA. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - should be *entirely* ok afaik - added the url source to the image description page - thank you for your reply - it's appreciated - Enjoy!:) Drbogdan (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

News break  :-) http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Toons/NASA_Life_01.png BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - Yes, seems similar to the "classic" - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

2014 State of the Union Address

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

Oh thanks. Just saw the new edit. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Michaelzeng7 - thanks for your comments - just trying to restore the original text that seemed vandalized earlier by ip 151.229.228.241 - sorry for any unintended inconvenience of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No no, my fault. I didn't realize the page had been vandalized. I'm sorry for any inconvenience. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Michaelzeng7 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

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

Minus one twelfth

Main article: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ § Popular media

See also: Talk:Infinity § Minus one twelfth, Talk:Natural number § Minus one twelfth, and Talk:Summation § Minus one twelfth

Hi Drbogdan,

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

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

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

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

Copied from the Infinity lead (updated-20140206):

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

$\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n=-{\frac {1}{12}}$

your comments are *greatly* appreciated - seems the equation may be "true" in some contexts - but not in others (esp. usual interpretations) - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See the page 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ where the sumation is examined in detail.--Salix alba (talk): 16:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

$\int \!\,$This user knows that $\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n=-{\frac {1}{12}}$
(NYT 2014 reference/archive)

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

Curiosity rover

Hello. Did you see these pictures of the damage on the rover wheel(s)? < ref>http://www.universetoday.com/107405/rough-red-planet-rocks-rip-rover-curiosity-wheels/</ref> The latest I read suggests that the rover won't be climbing the foot hills of Mount Sharp, but will remain on the sandy valleys below: "This change of plan would also entail canceling the trip to Mt Sharp, which was originally the rover's destination, in favor of another spot dubbed KMS-9 which, according to NASA, offers promising science potential, too. < ref>http://www.examiner(dot)com/article/mars-rocks-taking-toll-on-curiosity-mars-rover</ref> Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: I think there is a reason Wikipedia blocked The Examiner web site; NASA reports that KMS-9 is only an alternate route to Mount Sharp and is evaluating routes and driving methods that could avoid some wheel damage.[1]

Thanks for the comments - and links (esp the official NASA ref) - seems the rover has some wear-and-tear, but still seems functional - maybe a note at Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Current status may be in order soon? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Brief Followup - added the following update:

Copied from Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Current status:

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

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

Seems ok atm but *entirely* ok to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks! I'd add a picture of the damaged aluminum wheel(s), as it is oviously of concern it has this much damage after one year, when it has the power (RTG) available to rove for some 30 years. In aerospace, there is an aluminum alloy called duraluminum which is most likely what they used, but I never saw damage like that on such alloy. I guarantee you the Mars 2020 rover will have a different alloy, if not steel. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good idea - added "dented wheel" image (best available public domain NASA image afaik) - hopefully ok - thanks for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Recent image of rover wheel seems to show a lot more wear than earlier (NOV-30-2013) image => FEB-18-2014 IMAGE and FEB-18-2014 TEXT and FEB-18-2014 GALLERY - added latest wheel image link to similar earlier image in Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Current status - hope things go well of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

NOV-2013 - Curiosity's wheel - dents & holes - 3 miles on Mars (November 30, 2013).

FEB-2014 - Curiosity's wheel - dents & holes - 3 miles on Mars (February 18, 2014).

Looks good. Yes, the wheel damage will be always a driving concern, specially when its power generator has a life of at least 14 years and so much science and discoveries can be done in a decade, ask the MERs!  :-) One ton on 6 wheels is still one ton. I bet the 2020 Rover team will have that issue addressed before assembly.

It seems like the rover spore contamination is within the expected limits. New interesting data on extremophiles and therefore, has implications for planetary protection and panspermia. http://www.nature.com/news/microbial-stowaways-to-mars-identified-1.15249

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank You *very much* for the Nature (journal) link => < ref name="NAT-20140519">Madhusoodanan, Jyoti (19 May 2014). "Microbial stowaways to Mars identified". Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15249. Retrieved 23 May 2014.</ref>

the reference seems *excellent* and worthy for the Tersicoccus phoenicis article (and related others of course) - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - @BatteryIncluded: Brief followup - added preliminary efforts to several relevant articles (including "Extremophile", "Panspermia", "Planetary protection", "Tersicoccus phoenicis", "Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory", "2014 in science") - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Another nice find by the rover: [2]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the comment - yes, added the related image earlier - to at least the List of rocks on Mars#Curiosity article - so far - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

H. antecessor

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

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

Mega Templates

Hello Dr. Bogdan,

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

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

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

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

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

C/2013 A1

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

@Kheider - Thank you for your comment - *entirely* agree with you - no problem whatsoever - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Any comet with an orbital period greater than ~100,000 years will be very sensitive to any calculated change in eccentricity. So for orbital periods around 800,000 to 1.4 million years might as well read as ~1 million. Anything above ~5 million might as well read several million. -- Kheider (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - yes, makes sense - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be spamming NASA

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

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

Hey thanks for the nice comments. It is reassuring that editors have experience with publications too. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Deep-sea trenches

I think you like this topic too: "The scientists said the ecology of this trench differed with other regions of the deep that had been studied." http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26373896 Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes - very, very interesting - thank you for sharing the link - on a somewhat broadly related subject - and if interested - seems there's (at least?) three basic ways one could go from molecule-to-man (so-to-speak): starting materials were only on Earth and nowhere else in the universe (terrestrial evolution?); starting materials were somewhere else in the universe but then seeded Earth (panspermia?); and, finally, starting materials are everywhere in the universe (embedded in the basic fabric - and/or "matrix" - of the universe?) but only "sprout" when conditions are *entirely* ok - figuratively, like mushrooms? - the latter notion is based, in part, on recent findings of seemingly ubiquitous PAHs in the universe - QUESTION - what might this latter process be called - "cosmic evolution"? - "cosmic bioevolution" - or some other name? - other thoughts? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello my friend. My thoughts are in the lines of abiogenesis. I think that the elemental building blocks created by radiation in space (especially PAHs and some aminoacids) are ubiquitous throughout the universe and they continuously "rain down" on (seed) every object in space, e.g.: abiotic pseudo-panspermia, also called molecular panspermia. When he was sane, Chandra Wickramasinghe discovered the first organic clouds in space, and we also know there are meteorites containing aminoacids and other "complex carbons", so this is a proven fact. In our case, Earth is located in an optimal habitable zone; Earth's spin wobble (and therefore little weather extremes) is stabilized by its Moon and warmed by a stable star. Add water, and slow abiogenesis was possible after ~4 billion years. One must acknowledge that the laws of physics are universal -literally- so the abundant carbon in space and planetary water are bound to react in similar ways given the opportunity, environment and time. So I think that other stable, water-bearing rocky planets with some kind of radiation shielding must also have had ample opportunities to develop carbon-based abiogenesis with various degrees of success. We see that within our own planet's extreme habitats. The potential for simple extraterrestrial life developing into intelligent sentient beings (whether or not they develop advanced technology), are beyond me to assess, but my 'gut feeling' tells me that it is possible. Rare, but possible. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your comments - seems nearly the same as my own thinking at the moment - seems we're on the same page with this - may be interesting to see how this all plays out of course - thanks again for your comments - they're *all* greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought you would like to read what our friend User:BSmith821 wrote about us (Wikipedia) and our work on "his" Panspermia article: https://astrobiologyfuture.org/resources/76/download/Complete_8865-26.pdf

He is the WP editor that was sanitizing the Chandra Wickramasinghe article in order to postulate him for the "highest British honor." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Re: how to absolutely rule out a terrestrial origin for microbes and/or viruses.

That is a tough one. Microbiologists have characterized only 1% of microorganisms on Earth, so there are new Families, Genus, Sp, described almost daily. How to rule it out? You can't. Even if you find a spore in the troposphere with all sulphur switched for As in its DNA, you can only state that you found a different kind of life but cannot prove it came from outer space. It has been shown that microbe concentration in the atmosphere increases after a hurricane [3]. For finding ET life, my money is in collecting/analyzing specimens from other planets, moons, asteroids and comets. NASA did a few targeted collections in the troposphere of meteor and comet dust, but they did not report living cells: [4]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - yes, I *entirely* agree with *all* your thinking on this as well - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I know I meet a good scientist [like you] when she/he employs AND keeps critical thinking and seeks and adjusts to new knowledge. My estimation of the mode of abiogenesis and panspermia begins with the facts I mentioned above: ionizing radiation acting on cosmic gases and dust produce organic compounds (PAHs, aminoacids, and amines — the functional groups to any nucleic acid.) ... but it also breaks them down.

So I take this documented data and plug it into a hypothesis: meteoric impacts on icy worlds (such as Europa) project large chunks of water ice out of orbit, specially if the planetoid has no atmosphere to vaporize the ice on its way out. As these chunks of water ice travel through space by millenia, its gravity collects layers of cosmic dust, gases, and the PAHs formed on them by ionizing radiation → becoming comets (in addition of most comets, which originate from the Kuiper Belt.) The ever growing outer layers of accumulating dust, gas and water ice protect the inner layers now containing dust/gas/PAHs/water/etc. from galactic ionizing radiation. The comets may eventually fall and spread these chemical precursors of life to other planets, where a few of these may be habitable worlds and allow wet clays and other inorganic material to act as rigs for more complex wet chemical organic reactions not possible in the cold vacuum of outer space.

The difference between this hypothesis and Wickramasinghe's panspermia hypothesis is that Wickramasinghe does not allow for abiogenesis; He states that life has always existed in this eternal steady-state universe and it is distributed by aqueous comets and miscellaneous travelling objects. I think that the ice and new dust layers of the comet protect the organic molecules that we KNOW form in space, from being degraded (recycled over and over again) by cosmic ionizing radiation. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for your comments (and compliment) - excellent description of course - yes, seems to make a lot of sense to me as well - and seems to be consistent with the latest discoveries - thanks again for your message - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Brief followup - recent news *may* be relevant? - a way a planet may receive complex organic compounds (starting materials for life - or even primitive life-forms themselves?) => < ref name="LAT-20140308">Khan, Amina (March 7, 2014). "Did two planets around nearby star collide? Toxic gas holds hints". LA Times. Retrieved March 9, 2014.</ref> AND < ref name="SCI-20140306">"Molecular Gas Clumps from the Destruction of Icy Bodies in the β Pictoris Debris Disk". Science (journal). March 6, 2014. doi:10.1126/science.1248726. Retrieved March 9, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)</ref>- Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, more substance for "pseudo-panspermia" and abiogenesis. By the way, take a look at this paper: [5]. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the Mars-to-Earth Meteorites Study - interesting notion - but seems more supporting work may need to be done to confirm and all - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a new paper on abiogenesis. The punchline is "metabolism was first": spontaneous assembly of RNA precursors, and some other products resemble two essential reaction cascades of metabolism: glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway:"Metabolism May Have Started in Early Oceans Before the Origin of Life". Wellcome Trust. Astrobiology Web. April 25, 2014. Retrieved 2014-04-26.. Original full article: Keller, Markus A.; Turchyn, Alexandra V.; Ralser, Markus (25 March 2014). "Non‐enzymatic glycolysis and pentose phosphate pathway‐like reactions in a plausible Archean ocean". Molecular Systems Biology. 10 (725). doi:10.1002/msb.20145228. Retrieved 2014-04-26.. Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for the references - they seem interesting - will take a closer look at the first-opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I once read "A hallmark of an open mind is to be able to contemplate a new thought without accepting or rejecting it." So I keep reading Wickramasinghe's new papers. He is still hammering on cosmic ancestry: [6], [7]. I am not convinced he has useful data, his hypothesis is very weak, never mind proof. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for your comments - and links - may try to have a closer look at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Welcome to STiki! - Notice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer userrights granted

Rollback and reviewer userrights granted - Notice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Drbogdan. Your account has been granted the "rollback" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users. Rollback user right Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: Rollback should never be used to edit war. Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). Reviewer user right The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review: Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing. Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes. Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Protocells - review requested

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

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

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

Some refs

• http://issuu.com/knudsenconsultants/docs/bahadur_1973?e=3452312/4004271
• http://issuu.com/knudsenconsultants/docs/bahadur_1981?e=3452312/3986940
• http://issuu.com/knudsenconsultants/docs/bahadur1954?e=3452312/5433167
• http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/grote_3677.pdf
• http://issuu.com/knudsenconsultants/docs/bahadur1975?e=3452312/3997879
• http://issuu.com/knudsenconsultants/docs/bahadur_1980?e=3452312/5022749
• http://www.jeewanu.com/
• Caren LD and Ponnamperuma C 1967 A review of some experiments on the synthesis of ‘Jeewanu’, NASA Technical Memorandum X-1439 (Springfield, VA: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information) http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670026284.pdf

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

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for your post - and links - interesting of course - Krishna Bahadur seems worthy of an article I would think - Jeewanu, Coacervate and Alexander Oparin seem worth spending some time with as well - I'll try to have a closer look at the first opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. This ref. [8] gives a historical perspective and rections to his work and attempts to explain why it is being ignored. I am in the process of finding verification/duplicate work. Of interest is this entry at http://www.mathurholding.com/jeewanu/drkrishnabahadur.html :

"This work on the synthesis of Jeewanu was confirmed by the English scientist Dr. M.H. Briggs who presented a paper in the fourth international conference on photobiology held at Oxford in 1964. He published another confirmation of the work in the journal ‘Spaceflight’ in 1965. According to Dr. Briggs himself this was a report on the extension and confirmation of Dr. Bahadur’s work. The scientists of USA DR. Mueller and Rudin D.O. further confirmed the work in 1970."

BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes, *very* interesting as well - seems the plot thickens (so-to-speak) - Thanks for the post - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A 2013 histochemical review (haven't read it yet): http://www.ajes.in/PDFs/2013-2/6.pdf

@BatteryIncluded - FWIW - notion seems worthy of discussion of course - my *very preliminary* thinking at the moment on all this seems consistent with the NASA/Caren Ref - ie (afaik), definitive studies presented in clearly defined (and controlled) ways may have yet to be done on the notion - test details and results of earlier studies may be interpretable, making it challenging to reproduce and understand the studies - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

An interesting editorial comment by a biology professor on ET life:

The difference between astronomers and biologists.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for your comment - and link - seemed an interesting read - somewhat related, perhaps, is the following link => VIDEO: Robert Hazen => Origin of Life - Lecture (NASA; 1 hour; April 29, 2014) => https://webcast.stsci.edu/webcast/detail.xhtml?talkid=4006 - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit

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

@ThaddeusB - Thank You *very much* for the ITN notice - it's *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Congrats Doc! — Huntster (t @ c) 01:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Huntster - Thanks for your comment - my work on the Enceladus article was fun - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Molecules in space

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

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

2020 Mars Rover

I think this is worth mentioning briefly. What do you think?: http://www.space.com/25767-nasa-mars-greenhouse-rover-plant-experiment.html Without having read the proposal my feeling is that the life-support systems would be too heavy. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank You - added images and ref to "Mars 2020 rover mission" article =>

• Image:NASA-Mars2020Rover-MPX-Experiment-20140506.png
  
• Image:NASA-Mars2020Rover-MPX-Concept-20140506.png
  
• < ref name="Space-20140506">Wall, Mike (May 6, 2014). "NASA May Put Greenhouse on Mars in 2021". Space.com. Retrieved May 6, 2014.</ref>
  

Entirely ok to adjust of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

COMET C/2012 S1 (ISON)

Check this out: "Disintegration of Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON) Shortly Before Perihelion: Evidence From Independent Data Sets" - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5968v4.pdf

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the ref - seems like a *very* detailed and worthy study - may add the ref, if not already, to several articles => < ref name="ARXIV-20140508">Sekanina, Zdenek; Kracht, Rainer (8 May 2014). "Disintegration of Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON) Shortly Before Perihelion: Evidence From Independent Data Sets" (PDF). arXiv. Retrieved 11 May 2014.</ref>

Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this new understanding on comet behavior near the Sun will change the model of comet C/2013 A1 for its next swing around the Sun. If it fractures like ISON at perihelion, Mars may get a pummeling?? BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your comment - interesting notion - hadn't thought of that - guess we'll have to wait and see - hope all goes well of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I got too excited. It will pass very far from the Sun. It shows how much I know of astronomy  :-( BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: NP whatsoever - somewhat related - seems even seasoned astronomers were divided re Comet ISON (Knight & Welsh/2013 for surviving perihelion; Ferrin/2013 for disintegration) - thanks for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tersicoccus phoenicis

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

Selfie picture

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

Nim205: there should not be two image in an article's lead when it is that short. There especially should not be images on opposite sides of the lead. The existing close-up image of the girl taking a selfie is much more representative than your image, thus it should stay in the lead and yours should stay in the subsection. Please do not edit war, and please sign your talk posts with four tildes (~~~~). — Huntster (t @ c) 10:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Huntster: assuming a reader has no clue what a selfie is, which of the two images will better illustrate the concept? I think my picture is the obvious choice. The girl taking a selfie is understood only if you've already seen a person taking a selfie. If only one image should stay on top, I have no objection to moving the girl picture down.Nim205 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nim205, needless to say, I disagree. The point of all this is...at least three people have disagreed with your move. It is up to you to find consensus amongst editors by taking this to the article's talk page. Do not restore your changes without that consensus. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

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

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

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

DNA test diagnosis

no no no! - Please do not insert "The cause of an illness was diagnosed with a DNA test." everywhere!! This is wildly and dramatically NOT TRUE. I don't have time to write the proper blurb yet but please don't run with this. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

In any case - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the first time (MAYBE) that something was diagnosed with nextgen whole genome sequencing. NOT THE FIRST TIME WITH A DNA TEST which have been in clinical use for many years. that is just wildly false. again please do not believe hype in newspapers - even the NY Times can be wrong on this kind of thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog - Yes - I agree with you - some of this has now been posted on "Talk:Genetic testing#DNA test diagnosis" for further clarification - and *possible* mention (in some form) on relevant articles - Thanks for your comments and edits - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

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

You may wish to see

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

@Leprof 7272 - Thank you for your comments - wow - great timing - I had just now finished reading your "Talk:Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon#Will be editing Origins of Life section" (via the Wiki-Watchlist) when I received this note - no problem whatsoever - I *entirely* agree with you - sorting out the "Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" article may be indicated at the moment - and seems like an *excellent* idea - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers to you as well. Point is for any more interested than I to take first whack; anything I can do to be of help, ping me. (P.S. Realized edit to my initial Talk entry was something you did, and not something I did inadvertently, so returning it to be as you wished.) Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits

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

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

Wikipedia Meetup

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

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

Leary

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

@Viriditas - Thank you *very much* for your comments - the Leary article is not a major interest at the moment - but I did add several images (image1 & image2) I took during a Leary lecture/concert while a graduate student at SUNYAB in the late 1960s - hope they're ok of course - nonetheless, Leary seems a worthy and interesting subject I would think - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. At this point, I'm more interested in your historical photographs. Have you placed them in a category on commons? I just took a look and it seems that you haven't. Take a glance at this top level category to see all the different types of user categories you can create to point people to your photos. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - tried to create the commons:Category:Files by User:Drbogdan page (a first for me) - I may need to study the process better - "Categories" & related are somewhat new to me - nonetheless, I added the newly created "Category" to the two Leary images (image1 & image2) I uploaded earlier (my "Category" seems to show up ok on Commons - but not in the top level category for some reason? - even after a page "purge") - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - they're all *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Abiogenesis

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

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

Unrelated, but interesting: [9]

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - thanks for the reference - just now added related text/ref to the lede in the microorganism article - been trying to improve this lede (esp 3rd paragraph) over the past month - may wish to review this if interested - thanks again for the ref - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I will try, but it will be on my random mood....I am still in the middle of this family medical issue which has taxed me immensely. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - no problem whatsoever - best of luck on your family issue - just finished one of our own recently - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Denisovan

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

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

Psychological and sociological effects of space flight

Psychological and sociological effects of space flight is a real mess. Any help fixing it is appreciated. I don't know if the primary contributor is still around. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - yes, seems the article may need some work - may take a closer look at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter - July, 2014
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Medical Translation Newsletter Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce Medical Translation Newsletter Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James sign up for monthly delivery This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine Spotlight - Simplified article translation Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions. Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes: WHO's list of Essential Medicines[10] Neglected tropical diseases[11] Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc. We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles. What's happening? IEG grant CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter. I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page. Wikimania 2014 For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors. Integration progress There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content. Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May. Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie. Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm. Integration guides Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis. Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [12] News in short To come Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here. Proofreading drives Further reading Translators Without Borders Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions. Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs) For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Richest 400 Americans - Your alternet source

I apologize for stating it did not support the claim that the richest 400 have as much wealth as the lower 50%. It repeats the claim, is still not reliable, and might be used for the claim only if we did not have reliable secondary sources, which we do in all 9 8 instances. (The ninth was for another statement, which is basically opinion, and should be allowed as such.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin - Thank you for your comments - re < ref name="AN-20110214">Johnson, Dave (February 14, 2011). "9 Pictures That Expose This Country's Obscene Division of Wealth". Alternet. Retrieved August 11, 2013.</ref> - and efforts - they're all greatly appreciated - I understand - and - concur - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - to clarify - the Alternet source at issue was originally associated with the following articles => "Affluence in the United States", "Economy of the United States", "Income inequality in the United States", "Mark Pittman", "Michael Moore", "Oligarchy", "Wealth concentration", "Wealth in the United States", "We are the 99%" - AND - associated with text and references as follows:

Copied from "Wealth in the United States#Income distribution":
August 8, 2014

According to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."< ref name="PF-20110311">Kertscher, Tom; Borowski, Greg (March 10, 2011). "The Truth-O-Meter Says: True - Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined". PolitiFact. Retrieved August 11, 2013.</ref>< ref name="HP-20110306">Moore, Michael (March 6, 2011). "America Is Not Broke". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 11, 2013.</ref>< ref name="MM-20110307">Moore, Michael (March 7, 2011). "The Forbes 400 vs. Everybody Else". michaelmoore.com. Archived from the original on 2011-03-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)</ref>< ref name="CNN-20100922">Pepitone, Julianne (September 22, 2010). "Forbes 400: The super-rich get richer". CNN. Retrieved August 11, 2013.</ref>< ref name="AN-20110214">Johnson, Dave (February 14, 2011). "9 Pictures That Expose This Country's Obscene Division of Wealth". Alternet. Retrieved August 11, 2013.</ref>

In any case - Hope this all helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comet Siding Spring

Good news for the Mars orbiters: "[...] the comet did not begin to ejaculate dust at the critical distance of between 15 and 20 astronomical units from the sun, which would have had to have happened for the dust cloud to fully impact the orbiters’ operations.” He said “the comet’s bulk dust is being ejected at speeds below 1 meter per second,” well below the speeds where it would pose a threat to systems." Source: the future of Mars exploration, the past is prologue Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the post - yes, seems like good news to me also - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

One pic from Earth today: [13]. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thank you for your comments re C/2013 A1 - Pictures are great but may not be ok for Wikipedia due to possible copyright concerns - may have to wait and see at the moment - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Drbogdan

I noticed that you had both extensive experience with Wiki and a highly-credentialed background. I also noticed that you recently edited "Income Inequality in the United States". Would you be able to assist with an entry? I have an economics background (B.A. / M.A.), but am lacking in Wiki skills (apparently) and am slightly intimidated by the process. A week or so ago, (August 6) I posted some new information in the article "Income Inequality in the United States". I added a criticism section to the article, because the page seemed to be unilateral in perspective and needed some balance, particularly after I read several sources (Wall Street Journal, Congressional Budget Office, etc.) that differed with the wealth analysis of Thomas Piketty. Admittedly, my skills in writing Wiki text is not the greatest, however, the information that I presented was extensively footnoted and from reputable sources. The following morning after I posted the information, an editor named User:C.J. Griffin struck the entirety of it on the grounds that it excessively criticized Piketty, stating that 'there had been no previous criticism of his work in the article'. That was precisely why I added it. He made other comments about supposition, etc., and I asked if he would be willing to assist in helping in that area. Instead, he was insulting and obviously protecting the article 'from significant criticism of any kind'. There seemed to be an agenda at work here. Here is his bio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.J._Griffin . Although I attempted to discuss the issue with him, he became combative and slammed me several times. I left a message at Wikipedia, apparently he was immediately informed of this contact by them, because he ripped me about it. From what I have seen in the article history, he may be one of the original authors of the article (so perhaps he has motivations to protect its contents). My question to you is, could you review the posting that I made (August 6) and determine how to post the legitimate criticisms in such a way that it helps the discussion and accuracy of the article? In no way am I asserting that income inequity does not exist, but I am making the point that certain decisions were made not to include information, thus overstating the data and results. I appreciate your help.[Posted/unsigned => Latest revision as of 11:41, 15 August 2014 by Tolinjr (talk | contribs)]

@Tolinjr - Thank you for your recent post - seems the best advice may be for you to discuss your concerns on the Talk-Page of the "Income Inequality in the United States" article at => "Talk:Income inequality in the United States" or, perhaps, on the Talk-Page of "User:C.J. Griffin" at => "User talk:C.J. Griffin" - after posting, you may wish to "sign" your post by using four tildes (~~~~) (automatically inserts your username and the date) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sugars in outer space

I have a request for you. If you come across any research article stating the discovery of sugar molecules in outer space, (besides glycolaldehyde), please let me know. The orbital mission/experiment EXOSTACK demonstrated that 80% of the exposed Bacillus subtilis spores survived the nearly 6 years exposure to outer space when embedded in glucose. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes - no problem whatsoever - and also yes - *very* interesting re the EXOSTACK study - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible Black Holes Theory

Hello I have discovered an interesting theory about black holes, the only citations I have would be from two black hole theorys that other people have theroized. Even though its a theory based on other theorys it is worth looking in to I feel. I don't know who to tell what I have discovered, this seemed like the best place to put the information.

Here is the theory, Using the theory that black holes can merge and another theory that black holes have an everlasting life if they are gaining mass. I have concluded that since suns turn in to black holes that there will be a point in time where only black holes exist and sence black holes can merge, in theory after a very long period of time there would be one giant black hole with everything inside it. This is only time a black hole can gain no more mass. Which means it is the only posible time for a black hole to expire using the second theory. I don't know what happens when a black hole expires or how long it takes, but i theroize that the big bang is started again when the black hole expires. Creating a cycle just like everything else in life has. It gives a reason for the existance of black holes and make life make sence to me. - added by IP - 75.142.3.250, about 14:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your post - seems interesting, but needs references from WP:Reliable sources - the best place to post your comments is on the talk page of the main article at the following => Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe - more editors may see your comments there than here - hope this helps - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted change to Tardigrade page

I'm not sure why you reverted this change to the Tardigrade page.

The reference cited for the date says "They were first described by the German pastor J.A.E. Goeze in 1773 and given the name Tardigrada, meaning "slow stepper," three years later by the Italian biologist Lazzaro Spallanzani." I explained this in the description of my edit. I'll assume this was an oversight, and I'll make the change again unless you have some other reference to cite. - added by Mrengy, about 13:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes, "1776" seems correct after all (per cited ref) - and I had reverted my own earlier edit at the time - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Fix to BICEP and Keck Array

Thanks. I add it so I can preview my footnotes, and the forget to delete it before saving. I was about to fix it myself but noticed you got it. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Shellshock (software bug)

I feel as though you're my PhD advisor, fixing all of the horrible grammatics I'm attempting to sneak into my dissertation. lol. Thank you Dr Bogdan, it is appreciated. Ed Prevost profile|contributions 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Edprevost - Thank you *very much* for your comments - no problem whatsoever - it's been fun - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Edits to "House of Burgesses"

Hello. I just reverted several of your edits to the article on the House of Burgesses of Virginia, only because I felt they belonged somewhere else, such as "History of Virginia", or "Jamestown, Virginia". The Polish origin of certain early settlers in Virginia may be notable for Virginian history in general, and particularly for the history of the Jamestown settlement; but I don't think it has much, if anything, to do specifically with the House of Burgesses. I'd feel different if, for example, there were documents showing that the House of Burgesses had been created for the express purpose of attracting Polish craftsmen; or the creation of the House had made Virginia especially attractive to Poles, and had drawn a flood of Polish settlers to the colony. Nothing like that appears to have been the case, so I think your revisions and references belong in more general articles on the early settlement of Virginia. I hope this makes sense to you. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch - Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - the following updated edit, with supporting references, to the House of Burgesses article may be a better sourced, and more historically accurate, edit than the earlier version I would think:

Copied from House of Burgesses
October 7, 2014

The Virginia House of Burgesses /ˈbɜːrdʒəsɪz/ was the first legislative assembly of elected representatives in North America. The House was established by the Virginia Company, who created the body as part of an effort to encourage English craftsmen to settle in North America and to make conditions in the colony more agreeable for its current inhabitants. More particularly, on June 30, 1619, Jan Bogdan and other Slovak and Polish artisans conducted the first labor strike (first "in American history") for democratic rights ("No Vote, No Work") in Jamestown. The British Crown overturned the legislation in the Virginia House of Burgesses in its first meeting and granted the workers equal voting rights on July 21, 1619. Afterwards, the labor strike was ended and the artisans resumed their work.

The word "Burgess" means an elected or appointed official of a municipality, or the representative of a borough in the English House of Commons.

References

References

In any case, hope the above helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your cordial tone, but it's really rather aggressive of you to reinstate revisions I had reverted, without even discussing the matter or addressing my objections. The article with your revisions is unbalanced. The story of the Polish artisans dominates the lede, as if it were the main point of the whole article, instead of an interesting anecdote from the House of Burgesses' 150+ year history. I now see that the subject already has its own article. That being the case, it should have only an incidental mention and a wikilink in the House of Burgesses article.

I'm also not impressed with the quality of the sources you cite--however well-meaning, they are mostly amateur efforts from the web, not from peer-reviewed journals; and they are unverifiable, as they have no footnotes themselves. I'm sure you have access to JSTOR. If you want Wikipedia to tell the story of these pioneers of workers' rights, do some digging and find reliable sources. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch - Thank you for your comments - no, there was no intentional reinstated revisions - seems more a misunderstanding than not - I had posted several edits: the first, you had reverted but I was *entirely* unaware of your own reversion at the time (and related comments on my talk page) since I was, at that particular time, posting my own second edit (in the lede) - afterwards, I noticed your reversion (of my first edit - but not of my second edit) - I then replied to your comments on my talk page and thought you had no problem with my second edit (in the lede) - as a result, I made several adjustments to this second edit and assumed you had no objection, as well, to these newer additional edits - in any case - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edits of course - I have no particular investment in the edit(s) - my intention is to present, as well as I am able with my present interest and tools, worthy edits to improve the article (no, this area is not a particular interest of mine at the moment and no, I have no current access to JSTOR) [Update Note: seems I may have some (very limited/preview-only/non-subscription?) access to JSTOR after all - thanks for the suggestion] - any help you might have in improving the article with historically accurate information(s), would be appreciated of course - Hope this all helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I urge you to review James S. Pula, Fact vs. Fiction: What Do We Really Know About the Polish Presence In Early Jamestown?, The Polish Review, Vol. 53, No. 4 (2008), pp. 477-493, which is available to anybody with a free JSTOR account. This article casts serious doubt on much of the story, including the very existence of the purported memoir, "Pamiętnik handlowca". It does, however, summarize what we can know from proven and readily-available primary sources, confirming the broad outlines of the story as you have presented it in various Wikipedia articles. In light of this paper, however, it's clear that those Wikipedia articles are in need of significant revision, and, at least in the case of Pamiętnik handlowca, perhaps even deletion. I will give you a chance to make appropriate revisions before doing anything myself in this regard. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch - Thanks again for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - Yes, I was aware that the "Pamiętnik handlowca" ("A Mercantilist's memoir", or "Memoirs of a Merchant" - the purported diary written in 1625 by Zbigniew Stefanski, one of the Jamestown craftsmen) reference may not have been worthy early on (based on this ref => http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/AmPoles.html - esp in the "More About The Poles" section) and tried to ignore (as best I could) this particular source as a supporting reference (directly of indirectly) in any of my Wikipedia article edits - in any regards - it's *entirely* ok with me to do what you think best w/ the edits (ie, upd/rv/mv/del/ce/etc ) - *whenever* you like - I may help with this (at least to some extent) at my next opportunity - Thanks again for your comments - and the suggested Pula reference (Update Note: Excellent read - *entirely* agree w/ your related comments - thanks again) - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch - BRIEF Followup - If interested, a related discussion may be found at the following => Talk:History of Virginia#Should The 1619 Jamestown Polish Craftsmen Strike Be Mentioned - Or Not? - in any case - Thanks again for *all* your recent help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease refs

We have bumped into each other before on this. Please, please do not insert the latest hyped science into WP! Remember all the excitement about inducing stem cells with stress? Do you remember that no one could replicate it, and the paper was retracted? Please, please do not introduce scientific hype into Wikipedia. It is against the mission of Wikipedia. We are not a newspaper. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog - Thank you for your comments - and reminder - no problem whatsoever - please understand that this instance and a related instance were good faith efforts (ie, WP:AGF) on my part - seems some science articles welcome such refs, whereas others don't - maybe a tag to clearly help editors know which is which may be in order? - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

References

There is a big tension in WP between our mission to be an encyclopedia and provide the public with enduring, reliable information (with emphases there in the policy WP:NOTNEWS, the essay, WP:NODEADLINE, and the very strong emphasis on using secondary sources in our policies WP:OR and WP:NPOV and the guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS; secondary sources are of course never on the cutting edge). On the other hand... I forget which event it was (9/11 maybe?) but there was some event where WP editors built an article on the fly about some Important Thing that was happening, which soon became pretty much the best source of information anywhere (!) to really see what was going on. Ever since then, stuff like "in the news" and articles like 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak (which people are furiously updating on an almost hourly basis) happen. I am pretty disturbed by all that "news" stuff as in my view, it goes deeply against our mission to provide enduring, reliable information to the public. As Wikipedia is a volunteer and very democratic (almost anarchic) project, there is generally room for both visions to be realized in various articles, as local consensus can develop on a per-article basis. Confusing!! Big picture -- you will generally find that any biomedical/health-related article will have editors from Wikiproject Medicine watching it (although our coverage is far from complete or perfect), and that project is very committed to communicating the scientific/medical consensus as described in secondary sources (per WP:MEDRS) - we stay far away from the cutting edge. My sense is that articles in other fields are much more loosey-goosey.  :) btw, maybe you want to consider joining Project Medicine? If you throw Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine on your watch list, and check out the project page, you will quickly get a sense of what we are up to. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog - Thank you for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - I *entirely* agree with *everything* you've stated - (stated *very well* imo) - we're entirely* on the same page with all this - re Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (seems I'm already a member) & WP:MEDRS - may get more involved at the next opportunity - Thank you for the suggestion in any regards of course - and - Thanks again for *all* your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

:) thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween greetings!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Drbogdan:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun Halloween!
    – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

@SW3 5DL - Thank You *very much* for the Greeting - hope you have a fun Halloween as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Eye candy

• http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/10280900-change-5-t1-rounds-the-lunar.html

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for sharing the image link - Yes - Excellent picture - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The opposite here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29857182

BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the link - by coincidence, happen to be watching the tragic news at the moment - wished the outcome was better of course - Thanks again for the link. Drbogdan (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comet Sliding Spring and the rather unusual imaging science around it

Hi Dr. B. We've met on various articles before, like Curiosity. Just saw this today, written by planetary scientist/astronomer Emily Lakdawalla, and thought you'd be interested: Seven Mars spacecraft attempted observations of comet Siding Spring. How did they go?

For example, this view of the comet taken by Curiosity in October is stunning, as history if not as a good encyclopedia thumbnail image. Curiosity sol 783 sunset panorama containing Siding Spring

Curiosity sol 783 sunset panorama containing Siding Spring Curiosity took the photos for this panorama just after sunset on sol 783, at 6:11 local time. The twilight sky is still bright thanks to lots of dust in the atmosphere. Near the extreme upper left corner of this panorama is a single bright pixel representing comet Siding Spring, which had just passed close by Mars a couple of hours earlier. (The comet is difficult to spot unless you enlarge the photo to its full resolution.) This photo was taken at about 21:10 UT on October 19; closest approach occurred at 18:27.

Enjoy. N2e (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@N2e - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and sharing the *Excellent* links of the Comet Sliding Spring flyby of Mars - I may try to add some of the images to the C/2013 A1 image gallery at the next opportunity - for now, I've added your links to the EL section - Thanks again for your comments and links - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic biology

Please explain why you undid my posting of an existing Wikipedia photo on a 2nd Wikipedia web site (synthetic biology, which presently lacks any photo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.144 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - yes, the iGEM image edit was reverted - as noted in my edit summary => "Rv possibly good faith ip edit - per WP:PROMO, WP:BRD & related." - image may be ok in the relevant iGEM article - but - may seem like WP:PROMO (and/or WP:SPAM?) on the Synthetic biology article - such a use is discouraged on Wikipedia of course - you may wish to discuss this further on the related talk page at Talk:Synthetic biology - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nino Rota

Template:Nino Rota has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Comet67P-LanderBatteryVoltageFallingFast-20141114.jpg

Doc, I'm concerned about File:Comet67P-LanderBatteryVoltageFallingFast-20141114.jpg. I know you got it from a NASA source, but there's zero attribution on that page, and given Rosetta is a ESA mission and the image was absolutely taken in the Lander Control Center, I don't believe this is actually a NASA image. NASA's Rosetta site is, overall, absurdly bad about providing attribution. Also note it has been published on Twitter by the Philae account [14] and on Facebook by ESA [15]. In my opinion it should be removed. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Huntster: - Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - I *entirely* agree - I've removed the image from the Philae (spacecraft) article and added the following template => { {speedy deletion|reason=unclear image attribution|date=November 2014}} - hope this is *entirely* ok of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, it's been taken care of. Oh, and I'm an admin on Commons now, so if you come across copyright violations or similar questionable files, let me know! — Huntster (t @ c) 14:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Huntster: - Thanks for your comments - and - Congratulations on becoming an administrator - yes - will try to let you know about possible copyright violations and related files - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mars Orbital Velocity Incorrect?

Hi. Doing some research on Mars and noticed that the entry for Average Orbital Speed is incorrect. It's listed as 24.077m/s and should be 24077m/s. Maybe a European comma? In any case, it should be fixed and you seem to be a regular editor. Thanks! Robcee (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Robcee: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - the "Average Orbital speed" of the planet Mars is given as "24.077 km/s" - which seems correct - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I am an idiot. Three times I missed the k in km/s. Thanks. :) Robcee (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Robcee: - Thanks again for your comments - no problem whatsoever - please understand that reviewing text for errata is an *entirely* ok edit activity - after all, errata are well known to have occurred in well-regarded publications, including the NYT, even the Bible - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10