Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Bebacktalk03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Bogdan, Dr. Dennis (February 16, 2020). "The one particular chemical is Nucleic Acid - a basic chemical for all known life forms - in the form of DNA - and/or - RNA - that defines - by way of a particular genetic code sequence - all the astronomically diverse known life forms on Earth - all such known life forms are essentially a variation of this particular Nucleic Acid chemical that, at a very basic level, has been uniquely coded for a specific known life form". Dr. Dennis Bogdan.
Testing a new Wiki-App: my "Webm Music Video" (webm video) - "Just Out Walking" - may return at a better time - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: - Related conversions/downloads/uploads seem to test ok - including web browsers (desktops/laptop) tested (so far) - Drbogdan (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: - May not always be available these days due to other interests and concerns (including real-world ones) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thanks for all your recent comments - interesting - re your iPhone - we don't have an iPhone and i'm happy you tried this - seems Wikipedia requires WEBM for video files - but iPhone may not? - maybe missing a relevant video codec for WEBM on the iPhone? - maybe the iPhone works better for the same video on Youtube (possibly MP4? - but not WEBM) at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNIDB-94jxc - if interested, my other songs are at => https://www.youtube.com/user/Joannebogdan/videos - iac - Thanks for trying - it's appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that I like the music. Not only does it remind me of "Going Up the Country" by Canned Heat (read that article to see why), but it also has a very modern feel, in the sense that internet videos often use this type of music as theme music and perhaps even as incidental music when the host is engaging in action on screen, such as driving a car down a road, or walking somewhere, such as on a farm or in a park. I could see internet video celebrities using this music as part of their soundtrack. For an idea of how this kind of thing works, listen to how the music is used in videos about Japanese culture in Abroad in Japan, as one of many examples. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, well done. BTW, if you’re on Reddit, check out r/sanfrancisco. Yesterday, a Redditor posted a map of their 30+ mile hike around the perimeter of San Francisco, complete with Apple stats. It’s an amazing discussion for several reasons. Check it out. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of my comments on ANI is as folliows (see below): - Drbogdan (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Thank You *very much* for the discussion - yes - and Thanks for all the complements over the years (see => User:Drbogdan#My Awards) (since 2006 - or earlier?) - yes - my intention is to present all my edits in *good faith* - always - and abide by all WP rules as best as possible - at the moment, my total edits over all wikis (including Wikitionary and WikiSpecies) is 98,193 (see => Special:CentralAuth/Drbogdan) - in addition, I've created 306 articles (perhaps noteworthy is Earliest known life forms), 70 templates (perhaps noteworthy are my efforts at {{Human timeline}} and {{Life timeline}}), 34 userboxes and uploaded 2,488 images (see => User:Drbogdan#My Contributions) - to date - my professional background (and related) is presented to help others better evaluate my editing efforts - some of my edits, particularly at User:Drbogdan, the related Talk Page, including 13 Talk archives (see => User talk:Drbogdan), the sandbox (see => User:Drbogdan/sandbox and related subpages) have been experimental efforts, learning opportunities to improve my use of WP:WikiCode, and test areas to explore new ways of presenting Wiki-related projects and articles (and more) - regarding some of my WP:Redirects - please see => my explanation for their creation as follows: *Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) - yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I would try to limit your participation in the Mfd’s and the ANI. You’ve said everything that can be said. Adding any more at this point could work against you. Also, you may want to change your focus and pay more attention to starting a new article and following the article creation process for a single topic, nominating for DYK, GAN, and even FAC. This will force you to learn the most current methods and procedures and to update your skill set. I notice you are sometimes risk averse to new things, but it would help to let go of that mindset. I think you would really enjoy expanding your reach. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing your talk page archives to see how this whole thing started. It looks like Warren misinterpreted your preference for talk page formatting, which is your longtime personal style, as an affront to his person. We both know you didn’t mean or intend this, but I have noticed this pattern to your edits and comments, in that you tend to do things in a very unique and personal way that often leads to misunderstanding and resentment from others, particularly the kind of personalities who expect things to happen a certain way and don’t like surprises or deviations from the norm. I think you should account for these kinds of narrow personalities in future interactions. I’m not saying you did anything wrong, because you didn’t. I know your style and I’m perfectly happy with it, but I can see how people who don’t know you might get the wrong impression. Something to think about? Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thank You for *all* your comments and suggestions - *entirely* agree - had thought nearly the same as well - besides - I've gotten busy with one thing or another these days with other interests and concerns (as before, mostly in the real-world) - so no problem whatsoever - should note that I have no problem staying within the norm - tried a few ideas to help make talk pages clearer, more useful and organized - incidentally, seems my actual starting/registraton date may have been lost during the early days of Wikipedia? => Seems My "Registration Date" Could Be -> "Before December, 2005" - Or, At Least, "October 24, 2007," (Date Of My "First Edit") based on my following discussion at => Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 5#What Is My Registration Date? - in any case - thanks again for your comments and all - they're *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of something fun we could collaborate on together. Have you considered looking at your image collection, particularly the ones you have uploaded (or ones you have planned to upload), and thought about any new articles we can create? I know you've got a few from some live performances or lectures by some famous people (or even hiking trails, or better yet, chemistry-related topics). If you can think of any events or topics we can create based on those images, I would be more than happy to work on the article improvement process with you, even if you only have an hour or so a day to do it. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - and suggestions - seems interesting - very busy at the moment with other interests and concerns (mostly real-world) - but may consider this further at a better time - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekaboo Galaxy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I'm assuming this was a mistake or error of some kind.[1] I've removed it. If you have a link to a better source, I would be happy to consider adding it. Viriditas (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My best guess is that you intended to add a link to the article and somehow added the link to your comment instead. While I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in the article (last time I ate meat was in 1987), I don't think it fits the topic as an op/ed. Just FYI... the only reason I became aware of it was because of the discussion on Talk:Pleistocene human diet where someone pointed it out. Viriditas (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thank you for this - yes - such an edit/ref should *not* be there of course (for a variety of good WikiReasons) (hopefully there's no other such refs - please rv/rm/del/adj/ce edits/refs if any others may show up) - a better related reference may be here instead[1] - should be ok - let me know if otherwise of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed or fixed ten articles with similar problems. You can see it in my contribution list. I partially blame myself here, because I saw you putting together the NYT comment list on your talk page way back when, and I thought to myself, "what's the harm, the community will vote to delete it anyway", but I see it has slightly gone beyond that. Not sure what you were thinking here, but my man, I love you to bits, but please, put the brakes on this kind of thing immediately. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just saw you were one of the leading (active) contributors of the article. I was hoping to take it for a GA review. Care to join? If it passes, it can join Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 as a Good topic. Thanks and happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drbogdan, I work for Jeffrey Leiden, the executive chairman of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and I am trying to update his page. I noticed that you made edits to the Vertex page in the past, so I’m hoping you’ll be interested in taking a look at the edit request I’ve posted here. Another editor has already implemented the last bullet point in the request, would you be willing to implement the remaining three edits? Thank you, JohnDatVertex (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce the outcome of a community discussion at the administrators' incidents noticeboard, you have been blocked from editing. Please see this discussion for further information. This block is indefinite, meaning only that it will not automatically expire, it can only be removed if you successfully appeal. In order to do so you will need to convince the community that you understand the reason[s] why you were blocked, and explain how you will change your editing approach so that your future edits will not continue to be disruptive. Please see the blocking policy and the guide to appealing blocks. The message below is a standard template informing you of your block and with courtesy links for more information.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ivanvector, I just ran into this by chance (and Recent changes) and was surprised to see a talk page that looks like a user page that looks like someone's personal website--someone who is banned. There was this, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan, but that doesn't seem to have led anywhere for the talk page. User:Novem Linguae, how about just trimming all the NOTWEBHOST content and leaving the conversation about the block/unblock? And I know that the MfD was about the user page, but this edit suggests otherwise. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Thanks for the ping. The content located here on user talk doesn't seem to have the same problems as the promotional content that existed on the user page during the linked MFD (unless I'm mising something). I think I'd like to stay neutral on this one. I'm not really inclined to twist the knife here by trimming photos and biographical information from this editor's user talk page. But if someone else does I won't revert it. I hope you find this comment from me reasonable. Thank you and happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a blurry line between "promoting one's Wikipedia contributions", which we generally allow, and "promoting one's work outside Wikipedia", which we generally do not; you might agree that that line is even more indistinct for academics and others who write about things where they are actually subject matter experts. I think there's nothing here (as of this edit) which is really going against any rule or demonstrably causing harm to the project. But I do think the old mfd template is confusing here - I know that's where it's supposed to go, but user pages and user talk pages aren't quite "married" in the same way that articles and their talk pages are, and using the template looks to me at first glance that there was an MFD about the talk page specifically, which of course didn't actually happen. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this solves climate change and brings us some rain.
Hopefully you will not stop editing Wikipedia because it was your turn to be tossed into the volcano. Happens quite a bit, editors turn on someone once they are "taken" to ANI. Up to this point you've had no blocks, and the standard route for active editors is to give an initial 24-hour block, then 31, then a week or something, and then maybe they'll be tossed overboard. They took you from 0 to indef. My personal experience with your edits has been a case of looking forward to them, as I know you report new science and space related topics fairly soon after they happen. As for now, an indef is just that, indefinite. A few weeks or a couple months may be beneficial or may not be - you may totally realize that Wikipedia is yours as much as anyone's and come back strong, or you may break the addiction and get on with the next chapter. Have you got a book lurking within you that you haven't had time for? Again, thanks for your work here, and I hope there's more to come. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, Drbogdan, if you do decide to pursue the WP:Standard offer you will have learnt to make a major change to your approach to editing Wikipedia. That is expected before you can come back. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeCausa, the "offer" includes waiting six months, which is certainly not set in stone. Plenty of indef's have ended much earlier than that. What I was saying is that a 31 hour or three-day block is often enough to mark and provide a major change in editing habits, and going from no blocks in an editor's long-time Wikipedia career to indef does not seem at all like the norm, and comes across more like a pile-on. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but, in my opinion, you are misleading Drbogdan. Because of the issues raised and Drbogdan's non-responsiveness to those issues when put to him, it will take some persuading of the community to lift the CBAN. It all hangs on how Drbogdan responds (if indeed he wants to come back). If it's anything like how he responded at the ANI thread, he won't be back. I don't think it's helpful to him (if he wishes to come back) to underplay that. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not underplaying it, but, once again, to impose an indef as a first block is usually reserved for vandals, nogoodniks, and thirty edit know-it-alls. This is not the case here, and "the community' would be better served if it learned not to pile on in the future. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @DeCausa, this feels like potentially misleading Drbogdan. It’s an unusual situation to jump to an indef from nothing, but it’s one that was done with universal community consensus except the two people here downplaying it in response to a situation that itself was highly unusual. Typically someone with Drbogdan’s editing habits would have been blocked long ago and it’s pretty much impossible to argue that he wasn’t warned considering the long string of editors asking him to improve his editing and tone down the disruptiveness. As was pointed out in the ANI, no editors really believed that anything short of an indef was going to result in poor editing being stopped.
We understand your perspectives, but it’s a bit disingenuous to present the indef here as some sort of overreach when it was a community decision arrived at after a long line of bad behaviour going back at least a decade. It’s unreasonable to present this as a pile on rather than the good faith conclusion of the best course of action by a large number of unrelated editors, and if Drbogdan appeals his indef on the grounds of this being an unreasonable pile-on I think his appeal with be very quickly rejected. He, and to an extent both of you (@Viriditas), need to try to understand why the community spoke with one voice here. Your perspectives represent a slim minority of editors who engaged with that ANI, it’s not really reasonable to present your perspectives as some sort of co-valid minority report to a user who was indeffed on behavioural grounds.
he’s going to need to demonstrate an understanding of what lead to the indef that this sort of whitewashing is going to be mutually exclusive with. I think Drbogdan is capable of contributing positively if he’s willing to come back and learn how to improve his edits substantially, but you both need to shake the notion that this indef was overly harsh and out of line; it’s a perfectly reasonable and consistent response for what is effectively long term promotional vandalism and low quality editing on Wikipedia. Even if you personally don’t agree with that, it’s where the consensus lies and it’s what Drbogdan is going to need to directly address to return to an editing career.
I don’t think either of you are actually helping here, as much as I understand your desire to express sympathy. The results of the ANI were decided with consensus, this isn’t the place to continue arguing against that consensus. I also don’t want this to turn into a forumesque fight, so I’ll probably leave my response here as-is and not engage much further. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ06:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin characterised the ANI discussion as having taken a turn to personal attacks. Reopening the discussion here does seem undue. The initial comment here is good faith encouragement to return. And return is definitely possible, as the major reason the indef could not be argued against was the WP:HEAR issue. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t agree, unfortunately I think it looks like the initial comment is basically saying it was mob justice and not warranted:
it was your turn to be tossed into the volcano. Happens quite a bit
Drbogdan probably doesn’t get out of this without a sincere recognition of how his promotional and low quality editing was a problem, and editors reopening grievances with the consensus in ANI by both implying it was unreasonable and attempting to legalistically work around it are not doing him or Wikipedia any favours. It doesn’t particularly feel appropriate to bring up in this way here immediately following a pretty broad consensus of misbehaviour.
The two editors doing this were both in the ANI saying they didn’t really see the problem, which is itself somewhat problematic considering how cut and dry the issues were to most people. Even here they’re somewhat misrepresenting the ANI discussions and conclusion (for example, the promotional issue wasn’t the “100+ publications” thing, that was just a symptom of a larger problem of editing in his own news comments as sources themselves and his habit of linking everything he could back to his Wikipedia user page), and if Drbogdan accepts their version of events as fact he’s probably not getting editing privileges back.
But I’ll leave it at that. We shouldn’t be rehashing the ANI that was closed for concerns of it devolving into personal attacks here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, by personal attacks I was referring to a few late comments in the straw poll towards the bottom of the discussion which were leaning hard into casting aspersions on Drbogdan's character and assuming bad faith, not the general discussion of their actions which led to the sanction. I don't see anything wrong with discussing the issues here, except consider that Drbogdan is probably getting an email every time someone leaves a comment here but has not replied. A kinder approach may be to leave them alone until they indicate they're ready to talk about it. And just in case it's a point of confusion: blocked editors are allowed to edit their own talk pages to discuss their sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
persuading of the community to lift the CBAN. Is it a CBAN? I don't recall the word banned being mentioned in the discussion or the close.
If it is a community imposed indefinite block, can any admin just accept the unblock request once DrBogdan composes an unblock request showing a sufficient and convincing amount of behavioral reform? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The indef wasn't imposed by a "decision" of an admin - it was a community indef decision executed on the community's behalf by an admin. I assume that that makes it a CBAN whether or not the word "ban" was used - but I could be wrong on that. What's the answer? DeCausa (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only policy that gives the community authority to sanction an editor is the banning policy, thus by definition all community sanctions are bans. Blocks are a separate technical tool which administrators use to prevent disruption, and since edits in violation of a ban are presumed disruptive, site-banned editors are also normally blocked. By policy there is no difference at all between an editor "indefinitely blocked by the community" and "banned by the community", but there has been resistance to referring to editors in the first scenario as "banned" because of negative connotations associated with a ban, so many admins avoid saying that part out loud. As far as appeal process: sanctions imposed by the community need to be reviewed by the community; admins do not have authority to overrule consensus. There's not a set procedure for that, but typically a banned/blocked editor posts an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and asks for it to be copied to WP:AN, where the community discusses. There is no waiting period: if the banned editor believes they can make a convincing appeal five minutes after their ban is enacted they're free to do so. The standard offer (where six months comes from) is our statement of principle that no sanction is permanent and every editor has an opportunity to improve and appeal, though there are of course many seriously malicious actors who are functionally permanently banned. Drbogdan is a long way off from that, and I hope to see them back to editing soon. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drbogdan, the Wikipedia community is concerned about your editing habits. Some editors have expressed concerns with your "My 100+ Publications" list up above which implies they are peer-reviewed publications, when in fact they are comments you made in the NYT. Some editors have expressed their opinion that this is a form of self-promotion, and is misleading. I honestly don't care what people do with their user pages as long as it isn't explicitly attacking other people or intentionally denigrating people as a class, sex, race, etc., so it's never bothered me. I'm more of a live and let live kind of person in that regard, but the community doesn't accept what you're doing with the NYT comments and how you are using them here. I think a good first step in getting on the right track is to simply remove and delete all this material and all the links to it. Of course, that's only a first step, and really, just a baby step. A better approach is to completely revamp your pages and remove anything remotely perceived as promotional. I admit, this is not something I ever perceived before, nor is it something that concerns me, but you have to begin to address these concerns as they are important to others. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've started a discussion about the use of science-related press releases here. You may want to keep an eye on it as it directly pertains the type of edits you make. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
@Ivanvector: (and others) - Sorry - been *very busy* recently (as before, mostly real-world) - this may be ongoing in the foreseeable future atm - please understand that I may need a bit of time to make any suggested adjustments - nonetheless - Thank You for the recent ANI discussion - seems a major contention was some contents on my UserPage (original version) - the contents of this UserPage has since been entirely removed (latest version) by the community afaik - and should now be much less of an issue - are there any other specific issues to be considered? - my 306 created articles, 70 templates and other contributions can be considered on an individual case basis - and/or by WP:CONSENSUS - especially because many of these contributions, if not all, have since been edited by many other editors, and not only by me - hope this helps to fully restore my editing on Wikipedia - let me know if otherwise of course - and what specifically needs to be done further - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
As you were blocked via a community discussion, no admin can unilaterally lift the block, there must be another community discussion to remove it. I don't feel this statement is worth transferring to a noticeboard for discussion as you seem to not be understanding what the issues are here. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(Non-administrator comment) If what you took from the ANI discussion is that the primary issue was your user page, you really need to read through that whole thread again. Schazjmd(talk)17:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment - could you please be specific - seems there's a lot of vague comments presented after reviewing the ANI discussion - a specific concern(s) may be helpful - thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vague at all. What the closing admin said was quite clear and specific. I'll quote it in full for you:
Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the competence is required essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards for inclusion and not a collection of links. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert. Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely.
Thanks for your comments - and sorry for any past possible slights - they were completely unintentional - also - thanks for including the closing admin summary - yes - *entirely* agree - lesson(s) learned - and expect to present such material in a much better way if given the opportunity - my earlier editing thinking about all this could have been better - more specifically - I began considering, perhaps too late for some, of presenting sources from the responsible literature along with the related news items in the more popular literature if appropriate - I am not at all interested in making a mess - and didn't think I was - seems I could have thought better about this earlier - as before - lesson(s) learned - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no slights. We never interacted while editing articles so there could be no "slights". I'm not sure why you said that. As far as I know no one has ever complained about "slights". If you think that any of the editors who objected to your editing have an issue about "slights" then you continue to miss the point. DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - not re editing - but my own misunderstanding re your comments earlier in the ANI discussion - seems I could have worded my reply better at the time - sorry - Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: (and others) - re Twyla Tharp edit (20:46; 20240916) - and related note - complete news to me - coincidence - I'm not at all a sock (nor ever expect to be) - no interest in (or knowledge of) this whatsoever - besides - Tharp is very well known, and not at all obscure, to many afaik - in any case - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The admin decided not to check so I guess nothing will come of it, but yeah, she's an incredibly obscure figure. An IP editing that article within a six minutes of you posting here after it had been untouched for months raised some flags that you're editing still.
I'm not trying to fling around baseless accusations, and if it wasn't you then I'm sorry. But an IP editing one of your pet pages when you're actively online here not understanding why you were CBANned then that's where my suspicions came in, but it's not my intent to give you a hard time. If that actually wasn't you then that's an incredibly coincidence that defied credulity and I'm sorry for giving you difficulties for that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, "incredibly obscure figure" is quite an overstatement I think. I know who she is and I wouldn't say I was a ballet fan. I think she's reasonably well known - fairly prominent particularly in the 80s and 90s. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my specific concern was more "Obscure relative to the first edit in months being within six minutes of Drbogdan showing up here to request editing privileges back" but I'm not trying to keep pushing the point. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - the popular (at least to some) Twyla Tharp article has never been a "pet" page of mine (only a single edit of numerous ones since 2002?) - just another exaggerrated claim under cover of WP:Policies of one sort or another? - actually, my own favorite edited pages over the years are well described here - also - please understand that I'm not at all seriously interested atm (particularly after the recent ANI discussion and outcome/s) in further actively editing Wikipedia in any form whatsoever - I've had enough after 18+ years and 98k+ global edits - besides - I have a lot of other interests these days (as before, mostly real-world) - nonetheless - I'm very happy that a newer, fresher (maybe better) group of volunteer editors will (hopefully) further improve and manage the site - in any case - thanks for all the comments - some were greatly appreciated in fact - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said when I raised the concern, if I was wrong I’d owe you a sincere appology. I’m not trying to give you a hard time or cause any further issues for you, I just have a few pages on my watchlist which you were involved with and that one popped up very close to your replies here, and if you’ll let me be blunt considering you didn’t seem to understand the reason for your CBAN it didn’t feel unreasonable to me that you’d still be editing.
You’re absolutely right in pointing out this wasn’t one you were maintaining, I think I got this page and CDK Dance Company confused here but you have made questionable edits to Twyla Tharp before and the timing being within ten minutes plus the content of your unban request made me suspect it was you enough to raise at SPI.
Like I said, genuinely not trying to give you a hard time for things you didn’t do, and if that’s the case here I’m sincerely sorry. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clickable image of the Luncheon of the Boating Party (1881) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.). Place your mouse cursor over a person in the painting to see their name; click to link to an article about them.
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg)
Perseverance rover & Ingenuity helicopter => 1325 sols (1362 days) (3 years, 267 days) (landed February 18, 2021).
.jpg)
Interactive image map of the global topography of Mars, overlain with locations of Mars Memorial sites. Hover your mouse over the image to see the names of over 60 prominent geographic features, and click to link to them. Coloring of the base map indicates relative elevations, based on data from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor. Whites and browns indicate the highest elevations (+12 to +8 km); followed by pinks and reds (+8 to +3 km); yellow is 0 km; greens and blues are lower elevations (down to −8 km). Axes are latitude and longitude; Polar regions are noted. 
The redirect Valinor Hills Station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 4 § Valinor Hills Station until a consensus is reached. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
