User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 5

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

DrBogdan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

@BatteryIncluded: Thank You *very much* for the Greeting - it's *greatly* appreciated - Happy New Year to you as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Good Article nominations

News media - template

Drbogdan, I noticed that you attempted to add Good Article nominations for two articles to the WP:GAN page. Unfortunately, this is a page generated by a bot, so both of your additions were overwritten because they weren't properly submitted.

Before I even get to the mechanics of submitting an article, I'd like to urge you to read the Good Article criteria, which explains what an article is judged on. You might also want to look at other Good Articles on films, to see what sorts of information are typically included. "Making North America (film)" is a very short article, and doesn't have some usual sections for films, such as Production information; these will be needed if the article is to be reviewed successfully. Any information in the article's lead section is expected to also be in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD, one of the GA criteria, for further details), and the section on reviews needs to be more in your own words rather than almost entirely quotes from reviewers (and preferably more than two to get a broader range of opinion).

The instructions for submitting nominations are at WP:GANI, along with some excellent information about the entire process. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestions - first time I've considered nominating an article for WP:GA - may have to study the process a bit more - Thanks again for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetic engineering

I did research. It is not gmo. "YouTube video" (11:25) [unsigned by: Kowwe (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)]

@Kowwe: Thank you for your comments - please discuss your edits on the "talk page" of the "Genetic engineering" article - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Abiogenesis and methanol

Interesting hypothesis: Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for sharing the ref link - yes - agreed - interesting hypothesis - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

More on abiogenesis: I have not read it yet. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the latest reference - seems worthy of course - seems hydrogen, carbon dioxide with iron-nickel-sulfur minerals (pentlandite?) may be primary ingredients in the primordial soup (so-to-speak) - part of the "Iron–sulfur world hypothesis"? - Thanks again for the reference - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Monday: [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the ref re possible origin of eukaryotes - *excellent* review imo - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Another new paper, this one on a simulation of sugar synthesis in space: "Ribose and related sugars from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogs." [2]. Not sure if to use this. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the ref - seems ribose may have been created from water, methanol and ammonia - under simulated interstellar conditions in the laboratory - agreed - not sure if the study is sufficiently worthy to present atm either, although there seems to be some interest about the study in the news after a casual google search - in any regards - Thanks for sharing the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Life timeline

Hi! I see you've been adding {{Life timeline}} to a whole lot of articles. Several of them are good or featured articles. May I suggest that you slow down your enthusiasm and ask for input on articles' talk pages before adding the template? I'm sure it will be welcomed by many; but some articles already have their own version of timelines, or other templates in place, and editors may have objections or ideas about placement. — Gorthian (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - tried to add the {{Life timeline}} template to relevant articles - as a possible improvement - however - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the {{Life timeline}} templates (and/or related edits) of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Space barnstar - Gravitational wave

		The Space Barnstar
		For your quick involvement in the development of the article Gravitational wave observation which is noted on Wikipedia's main page In the news section! --Pine✉ 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pine: Wow! - Thank you *very much* - *entirely* unexpected - and *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Evolution

I removed the "hatted template" you added to the recently started discussion on the evolution talk page, as it constitutes vandalism, please do not add it back, if you wish to contribute to the discussion feel free to do so without being disruptive, thanks. Willietell (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The "hatted template" was added to the thread because you are trying to promote blatant anti-science propaganda and hypocritical lies, and not actually discuss anything at all. Ergo the template is not vandalism, and it stays as you blatantly demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of science.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to apologize to USER:Drbogdan as I thought it was you who added the "hatted template" and I was wrong. I am sorry for not looking closely enough and for jumping to conclusions and coming here and accusing you of such a thing. I hope you can accept my apologies. Willietell (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Willietell: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cult film

Hi there. I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit to cult film. The topic of this article is cult films, not transgressive pornographic films. That means that the sources must describe the phenomenon of cult films explicitly, not indirectly discuss related concepts. This is kind of important, as the article is a GA, and it could be delisted if people add their own original research. Certainly, sexploitation, erotic, and pornographic films are a part of the cult film umbrella, but to discuss them in more detail, we'd need sources to explicitly describe them in the context of how they relate to cult films as a whole. The other problem is the article is already a bit too long, and adding even more detail about specific films is kind of overdoing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you *very much* for your comments re the reverted edit on the "Cult film" article - your comments are *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ExoMars

Hello! I just noticed that the ExoMars articles do not show a map of the 2 selected landing sites. The lander will go down in Meridiani Planum, but I do not find any annotated map that can be useful. Any advice and help will be appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for your comments - *so far*, unable to find such a PD annotated map either - although found a possibly relevant reference, with an unavailable (ie, non-PD ESA) map image - the reference itself may (or may not) be helpful - Thanks again for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That is VERY good. It even indicates other important landers. I will load it next. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Link to ExoMars launch (Livestream begins on March 14, 2016 at 08:30 GMT [03:30 AM EDT]): Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it that the Europeans have very well defined long-term goals: [3]. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for posting - yes - I agree about the well-defined goals as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

NASA Briefings/livestream (3/22/16) – Ceres, Mars, Pluto.

NASA Briefings/livestream – Experts to discuss the latest Ceres, Mars, Pluto results (near Houston, TX; March 21 – 22, 2016) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Followup - studies re Pluto - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Popular press and primary sources

We do not typically use popular press for medical content. We also tend to stay away from primary sources. This is a primary source.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thanks for your comments (re "Health" & related articles) - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anjan Contractor

Hi Dr Bogdan, I saw you tend to go to conferences and understand science. Can you review Anjan Contractor, up for deletion? I work in a 'maker lab' in his home town of Houston, so I know him. But I also know that his 3D food printer for nasa is up for inclusion in the Smithsonian. He's also gotten a ton of press from 2013 to literally yesterday. Perhaps it's too advertorial and can be cut back?3Dnasa (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@3Dnasa: Thank you for your comments - and request - busy at the moment but perhaps I'll take a look at the article at my next opportunity - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Environmental impact

Hi Dennis, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gnom: Thank you for your comments - yes - seems worthy of consideration (at least) of course - may take a closer look at the next opportunity - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Proteins in outer space

Paper "This finding may appear to undermine currently held hopes that life will be found on nearby planets, but it is important to be aware that the presence of ice and water are by themselves not sufficient; there has to be an atmosphere which includes water vapour at a sufficiently high partial pressure for proteins to be active." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link - seems relevant to life as we know it of course - reminds me of one of my published NYT comments (or actual NYT link) re life-forms thriving without much water at all - nonetheless - study seems very interesting - Thanks again for the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I knew exposed proteins cannot maintain their tertiary form without water, but I was surprised that it is also true with low atmospheric pressure. Of course, this does not apply to spores. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Oxford Journal articles

Slow Sunday? Take a pick: [5]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the link re "Cambridge Journal" articles - and some *very* interesting titles of course - may have a closer look at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: BRIEF Followup - if interested, one of my doings today resulted in another published Comment in the "New York Times" - and is related to a worthy (imo) article about humans and other apes by Frans de Waal - my latest comment is based, in part, on my earlier published Comment (in 2008) that seemed relevant to the new 2016 article as well - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Very good article. I shared it in my Facebook wall. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks again for your comments - Yes - I thought the NYT article to be very good as well - and shared the article on my Facebook page also (if interested, at this FB link) - in any regards - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

A cup of tea for you!

While researching about Breakthrough Starshot I created a standalone article. I noticed your edits on Breakthrough Initiatives and I think you might be interested in contributing to the article also. nafSadh did say 00:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nafsadh: Thank You for your post - it's *greatly* appreciated - yes - contributing to your newly created "Breakthrough Starshot" article may be a possibility of course - in any regards - Thanks again for your post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tetra quark: Déjà vu?

FYI: [6]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: Thank you for your comments - yes - seems so - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mars methane

No methane release during the second year. The first detection was "episodic"; it is not "seasonal": Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your comments - yes - interesting re Martian methane levels - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Mars 2020

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unnamed 2020 Mars rover mission. Since you had some involvement with the Unnamed 2020 Mars rover mission redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Exoplanet

I have nominated Exoplanet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

An Administrator's Barnstar for you!

	The Administrator's Barnstar
	Thank you for your edit on "Black Hole Information Paradox" Editor1729 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Editor1729: Thank you *very much* for the Barnstar - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Abiogenesis Equation

Hello. Do you think we should mention this?: Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for your post - and refs - flexible atm - a very brief mention *may* be relevant (perhaps more detail if the ref is published in a better (ie, peer-reviewed) journal than PNAS - and/or - is referenced in better journals) - of course - wait-and-see would be *entirely* ok with me as well - hope this helps in some way - iac - Thanks again for the post/refs - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Template:INDEX?

I notice you put both of these on {{Human timeline}}. These only have any effect on user and user talk pages. It has no effect in the template namespace (because it's already indexed) or article space (because such user control is disabled there). What's its purpose? Also having both is redundant because {{INDEX}} just adds __INDEX__ anyway. Additionally, the way you added it introduced extra vertical space - in fact, a whole extra paragraph - which is something you should always be careful to avoid in templates. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude: Thank you *very much* for your clarifications - and suggestions - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - noted pages have now been amended and updated - hope this is now *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nature timeline

If you check my recent contribs, you'll see I've removed the nature timeline in some articles. Please be careful when adding them where they may not be relevant enough or be totally off-topic. Same thing in the gravity article now, the nature timeline doesn't seem to be related in any way to the section, so I intend to revert it. Cheers, FabulousFerd (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@FabulousFerd: Thank you for your comments - {{Nature timeline}} was added to the "Gravity" article since the template seems relevant (for context) and is specifically linked to the "Gravity" article - the template has been restored to the article - please discuss on "Talk:Gravity" - for "WP:CONSENSUS" - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the {{Nature timeline}} template from 3 articles that were not mentioned in the template. Please update the template to include the relevant article before you add the template to the article. Thank you for your great contributions. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brian Everlasting: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - although rv good faith edit in "Cosmic microwave background" article since "CMB" is linked (as "Earliest light") in the "Nature timeline" after all - nonetheless - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrator

Would you like to be nominated for adminship? I would nominate you if you would like to be an administrator. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brian Everlasting: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and - for suggesting "nominating" me to be an "Administrator" - it's *greatly* appreciated - however - at the moment, I'm not interested in being an "Administrator" - I thoroughly enjoy editing in my usual (non-Administrator) way these days - nonetheless - Thank you *very much* for suggesting "nominating" me - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

KIC 8462852 re: Gaia data

i dont know wiki tags very well, your edit is much cleaner. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.20.206 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - they're greatly appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:KIC 8462852 - editing comments

Hello. You may want to check you're au fait with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments after some of your edits on Talk:KIC 8462852 lately. It's misleading for you to edit your own comment to remove all capslock and acknowledge that the source you're presenting is unreliable after someone has replied to your original comment saying that the source seems unreliable and making a reference to the capslock. It makes it look as if the second editor has missed your point about reliable sourcing and is repeating you, and is shouting in capslock because they themselves are angry about it. This is very confusing to someone who reads the thread at face value. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thank you for your comments re my "edit" on "Talk:KIC 8462852#gaia data wholly misrepresented by previous edit" - and your "later corrections" - at the time, I intended my edit to be a good faith improvement to my post - to better read the post - yes - agreed - my edit could be interpretable on a closer review - in any regards - Thank you *very much* for your comments (and corrections) of course - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Europa

Hubble space telescope spots some newsworthy images of Europa: [7]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for posting the ref re news about Europa and related water vapor plumes - interesting - seems there's a NASA news conference with more details at 2 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT) on Monday (September 26, 2016) - Thanks again for the ref - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Life timeline - You're welcome

Thanks for the thank-you re Template:Life timeline: I was hesitant to tamper with the complex structure that i could not have created, for lack of both template saavy and subject-matter knowledge. It's good to have the feedback that "putting my oar in" was at worst harmless.
--Jerzy•t 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jerzy: Thank you for your comments - and suggested adj to the {{Life timeline}} template - yes - agreed - the adj is more precise of course - I paused a bit re the adj at first since I've been trying to present the timeline milestones (wikilinked to articles with more details - and precision) to be as "reader-friendly" as possible - to be as accessible to readers as possible - (please see related timeline comments at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#Best wording" - OR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Nature_timeline#Best_wording_for_.22.7B.7BNature_timeline.7D.7D.22_events.3F ) - nonetheless, your recent suggested adj may be ok at the moment - and is appreciated - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and timeline adj - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Space: ITS launch vehicle

Good day, Dr. Bogdan. I wondered if you were aware that some of us have been working to explicate the new super-large spacecraft and launch vehicle for transporting goods and people at interplanetary distances. I know you work at lot on planetary spaceflight articles, so thought you might want to take a look: ITS launch vehicle.

There is also an article on the overall meta-project Musk envisions, but as a practical matter for getting probes, rovers, and other science gear to far-off planets, this new LV offers several outstanding advantages. You may want to use a link in other articles, as sources and discussions with space scientists and various space agencies may warrant such. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@N2e: Thank you *very much* for the comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - yes, I'm aware of some of this - esp from recent news reports - seems interesting of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Asgardia - proposed nation in space

Check this out: Asgardia (nation). I "think" it is meant as a catalyst for political discussion. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the comments re Asgardia - seems there's a lot of recent refs, based on a casual Google search - the name seems related to Norse mythology, comic book heroes and/or "someone previously thought to be innovative is now robotic and never strays from the ordinary"? - nonetheless - seems interesting in any regards - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with 'YYYY in science' pages

Hi Dennis. I recently discovered that the 'YYYY in science' series, and from the history I see you've been active contributing to the 20YY pages. These pages will be very useful to me personally, and I'd like to pay it forward by helping contribute to them. I have a few structural changes I'd like to suggest ... but want to reach consensus first. Where is the best place to have that discussion? (I'm a novice at editing wiki pages, but willing to learn and contribute) I was thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject Years in science but that appears defunct (do you know why so? could we revive it?).

A few things I'd like to do:

• The format of pages before 2007 is organized by topic, those after 2007 are organized by month, and 2007 itself is an intermediary form. Since the by-month format appears to be what is advocated by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Years I was planning on converting all of the pages before 2008 to that form (I have code that automates the process if you and others agree that is the right path forward). An example of what I'm proposing (for 2006), can be found in my sandbox.
• Get some buy-in around adding an optional "branch of science" annotation to each entry (for years after 2007). My automation code for converting years before 2007 knows which "branch of science" section each entry came from, and adds a parenthetical link to each entry so that people know which branch of science the entry refers to (see my sandbox). I'd like to start adding similar annotations for 2007 onward.
• Some cleanup of the pages after 2007 around consistency of format (do we use "January 1" or "1 January", etc.

Totally open to hearing feedback, reasons why any of the above isn't a good idea (or why it is a good idea), other areas where I can contribute to these pages, etc.

Metawade (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Metawade, Wjfox2005, Mfb, and Brandmeister: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - improvements to the "YYYY in science" articles seems worthy of course - perhaps Wikipedia locations to consider posting your suggested improvements may include the following: "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science" OR "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science" OR "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years" OR "Talk:List of years in science" OR "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists" OR "Talk:2016 in science" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Metawade – I agree, pages organised by month is best, and would keep things consistent. Also, for some of the more notable entries, it would be nice to have photos/images added too. :) Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an organization by month is the best choice. For 2016 it is great because it allows to follow the progress easily. But for past years? Using 2006 as example, do we really care if the human genome project got completed a month before or after the discovery of more moons around Saturn got announced? If you are interested in a specific topic (e. g. medicine), sorting the article by topic makes it way easier. If it is feasible, I would suggest to go the opposite direction: Convert "by date" lists to "by topic" after a few years. --mfb (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(Metawade) Thanks for the responses, all! There are indeed pros and cons to both approach (which is why I'd like to get a conversation started around this). Rather than cluttering Drbogdan's talk page, let's move these discussions to:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years_in_science#Proposal:_Revive_The_.22Years_in_science.22_Project: For discussion around making the "Years in science" project active again
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years_in_science#Proposal:_Convert_all_.22YYYY_in_science.22_pages_to_a_consistent_format: For discussion around what format the various pages should have.

Metawade (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair use - File:PBS-TheMysteryOfMatter-DvdCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PBS-TheMysteryOfMatter-DvdCover.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thank you for your notice/comments - added the following to the noted image file description => { {di-replaceable fair use disputed|Unable to find a free replacement at this time Drbogdan (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)}} - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should elaborate what the problem with the image is. The problem is that we are claiming fair use on two different copyrights in one image: one for the DVD cover itself, and the other for the photo of the cover. The latter results from the fact that the photo involves creative choice of angle, lighting, arrangement etc. This would not be the case if the cover was only scanned ("slavish" reproductions do not merit a separate copyright in US copyright law). WP:FREER says that when possible, we should claim fair use on one copyright rather than many, and it is obviously possible to make a two-dimensional scan of a DVD cover of The Mystery of Matter. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:  Done - Thanks again for your comments - and clarification - re "File:PBS-TheMysteryOfMatter-DvdCover.jpg" - reason to keep image is as follows: "a new replacement 2d dvd cover scan was uploaded - a more likely "slavish" reproduction - to better satisfy image requirements - from => http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4977374/mediaviewer/rm1810959360" - hope this helps - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Mars surface template (related talk)

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Features_and_artificial_objects_on_Mars&diff=746448856&oldid=746414812, what browser are you using? I'm on Firefox v.46 and when I made that edit all alignments were precisely (I literally measured pixel by pixel) on the borders of the images. I wonder if our templates render differently in different browsers? That would be bad... — Huntster (t @ c) 14:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thanks for your comments - yes - Browser type may be a concern - I usually use the latest version of Chrome on my dell wintel-xp & hp laptop wintel-xp (presently, Chrome-v49.0.2623.112 m; Firefox-v50.0b9; MSIE-v8.0.6001,18702 are installed on both) & dell wintel-10 pcs - the dell wintel-xp (& hp laptop wintel-xp) Chrome browser & MSIE browser seem *completely ok* with all alignments at the moment with the present configurations - however - on my dell wintel-xp Firefox browser, *only* the label on "Curiosity" seems misaligned: ie, overlaps the icon ~1-2px; all other labels seem *completely ok* on the Firefox browser - on my Toshiba tablet (android/v4.0.4-latest), three labels ("Viking-1" & "Schiaparelli" & "Curiosity") are misaligned: ie, all leave small 1-2px spaces left of the icons - hope this helps in some way - may try some of my other browsers/pcs later - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: UPDATE - similar results as above with the present configurations with all Browsers using my very latest pc (Dell xps 8900 desktop Intel core i7 - model x89002506blk; Windows 10 64-bit) with Chrome v53.0.2785.101 m (64-bit) & MSEdge v25.10586.0.0/MSEdgeHTML v13.10586 & Firefox v49.0.2 browsers installed - all labels are *completely ok* with the Chrome & MS browsers but there is one misaligned label with the Firefox browser ("Curiosity" label overlaps icon by 1-2px) - all other labels seem "completely ok" (ie, no other overlaps/no significant spaces) with the Firefox browser - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster:  Done - Possible Compromise Solution => "Curiosity" label - adj "left" to 407px (from 410px) - all alignments on the "Mars surface template" now seem sufficiently ok w/ Chrome v53, MSEdge v25/v13 and Firefox v49 browsers - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Welp, it's still all weird on my screen, but you know I appreciate your efforts to fix things. These display errors are very odd. Ah well. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars - suggested comments

I don't know whether I'm doing the right thing or not but you are suggested to review some content posted in this discussion. You are also encouraged to ask for outside input and participation.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@NadirAli: Thank you for your comments - and request - yes - there may be a time when I may review some of this - but I'm currently involved with other interests and projects - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for your response. I too am busy at the moment outside of Wikipedia and am less of a regular contributor, so I too will not participate in that discussion for the time being but have insisted the proposed content stay on the talk page if not incorporated into the articles. You can read all my arguments there. And again you are also encouraged to invite outside input to help diversify opinions. Best of regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

BI situation

Dr., I added a small note on the BI talk page. Just FYI. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: Thank you for your comment - yes - saw your note just before you posted above - seems worthy - hope it helps of course - guess we'll have to wait and see at the moment - Thanks again for your note - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Interactive Periodic Table

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, we are discussing on whether the interactive table should be added to articles, and in which way. Please join. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thank you for inviting me to the discussion re my newly created "{{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}" template - I posted a response at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#"Interactive Periodic Table" added" as follows:

Copied from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#"Interactive Periodic Table" added":

{ {reply|DePiep|R8R Gtrs|Sandbh|Alchemist-hp|Kbrose|Graeme Bartlett}} FWIW - Thank you for inviting me to discuss my newly created interactive "{{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}" - yes - added the template to the "chemical elements" for the reasons posted below - however, the additions were reverted, without any apparent discussion that I'm aware, by "User:Kbrose" - for my part - the template was added in good faith as a possible improvement to the articles - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there's "WP:CONSENSUS" of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for inviting me to this discussion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Thorium#3 periodic tables":

--3 periodic tables--

We don't need three period tables in this article. At the bottom there already was Template:Periodic_table_(32_columns,_compact) but template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap was just added by User:Drbogdan. So one of these two should be cut. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your comments - yes - the newly created "{{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}", an "interactive image map" updated to include the latest officially named elements, was added to the chemical element articles - this version seems to be in the more familiar "Periodic Table" form and, as such, may be more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - (also - somewhat related discussions at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording" and "Template talk:Life timeline#Class Aves as a subset of Dinosaur?") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks again for the invitation - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump talkpage

In correcting an accidental delete of another post, I may have deleted your post. Not sure how to restore one, while keep the other. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thank you for letting me know about the unintentional rm - "now fully restored" - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)