User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 10

ME: Fremont Peak (Wind River Range; Rocky Mountains; Wyoming, United States)

During a backpacking trip

Near the top of the Peak at about 14,000 feet

Dr. Dennis Bogdan

LIFE, EARTH and the UNIVERSE

ART: Renoir's "Luncheon of the Boating Party” (1881) – Since 1923, At The *Phillips Gallery* In Washington, DC – Near My Apartment During My *GW University* Days – NEWS (11/24/2020).

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.

(view • discuss)

Life on Earth – Earliest known appearances (Mya = Millions of years ago)

0.2 Mya
Humans

180 Mya
Flowers

200 Mya
Mammals

240 Mya
Dinosaurs

3500 Mya
Oxygen

4280 Mya
Microorganisms

4410 Mya
Water

4540 Mya
Earth

Location of the Earth in the Universe

Earth

Solar System

Gould Belt

Orion Arm

Milky Way

Local Group

Virgo SCl

Laniakea SCl

Our Universe

"Art of my Nature Timelines on Wikipedia"

"Click HERE for my other related image efforts"

Mars landing locations

Interactive image map of the global topography of Mars, overlaid with the position of Martian rovers and landers. Coloring of the base map indicates relative elevations of Martian surface.

---

Clickable image: Clicking on the labels will open a new article.

Legend:   Active (white lined, ※) •   Inactive •   Planned (dash lined, ⁂)

(view • discuss)

Beagle 2

Curiosity ※

Deep Space 2

Rosalind Franklin ⁂

InSight

Mars 2

Mars 3

Mars 6

Mars Polar Lander ↓

Opportunity

Perseverance ※

Phoenix

Schiaparelli EDM

Sojourner

Spirit

Zhurong

Viking 1

Viking 2

(view • discuss)

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.

(See also: Mars map; Mars Rovers map; Mars Memorials list)

(   Named •   Debris •   Lost )

← Beagle 2

Bradbury Landing →

Deep Space 2 ? →

InSight Landing →

Mars 2 ? →

← Mars 3 Landing

Mars 6 ? →

Polar Lander ? ↓

↑ Challenger Memorial Station

↓Octavia E. Butler Landing

↓Valinor Hills Station

↓Wright Brothers Field

Three Forks Sample Depot→

← Green Valley

Schiaparelli EDM →

↓Carl Sagan Memorial Station

Columbia Memorial Station ↑

Thomas Mutch Memorial Station →

Gerald Soffen Memorial Station →

Mars Landing Sites (16 December 2020]

"Coronavirus disease 2019" notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Space Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to updating astronomy and science articles! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Wow! - Thank you *very much* for *The Space Barnstar* - It's *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"2020 American self-coup attempt" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2020 American self-coup attempt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#2020 American self-coup attempt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Tabby's Star plot"

Dennis, I'd like your thoughts on an updated WTF plot ( File:KIC 8462852 dip minima 2965x1900 72dpi.jpg ) which I have just uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and perhaps to replace our current "linear" plot ??? And I'm not taking all the credit for myself -- both you and User:Renerpho have made significant contributions !!! But I think the bottom line is that this plot will "add more fuel to the fire" as reflecting an apparent periodicity !!! So feel free to post if you think OK -- you can do in 15 minutes what would take me 6 hours !!! Synchronist (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

and not to mention

And not to mention that this plot will put the focus where it needs to be: on October 2021 !!! Synchronist (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Synchronist: and others - Thank you for your comments - and recent efforts with your noted graph - interesting - seems *entirely* ok with me at the moment - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dennis, I've realized that I forgot to cite Gary Sacco (Sacco 2017) in respect to a possible October 2021 event, so will be updating the .jpg today. Synchronist (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've added a corrected .png version of the file to Wikimedia Commons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KIC_8462852_dip_minima_2965x1900_72dpi.png ), but haven't yet deleted the .jpg version. Also, I've invited Renerpho to have a look, at to post to the Tabby's Star article if he thinks OK. And thanks for your own favorable review!!! Synchronist (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Rainbow on Mars" – "Lens Flare"

"Lens Flare" on Mars

This just in from the Venusian homeworld

Thank you for uploading the rainbow on Mars image. Am looking at it as similar to Earthrise and The Blue Marble in terms of humans connecting with another world through the unexpected familiar. With just a little more information (water vapour?) and a couple of sources this photo should have its own page (would suggest the title "Rainbow on Mars" unless NASA names it). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Hello Randy - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - *entirely* agree - a "Rainbow on Mars" article seems indicated - however - I'm a bit busy with a number of other projects at the moment - but - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I put up a redirect to the rover but will work up a stub if a couple sources appear (haven't looked as yet). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like NASA now saying it's a lens flare and not a rainbow (haven't read the twitter message NASA supposedly put up). Is there no gold at the end of this rainbow? Good while it lasted though, I guess it was very widely discussed and reported as a rainbow. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Thank you *very much* for your recent comments - yes - seems official - the "Rainbow on Mars" is just a "lens flare" apparently - guess we'll have to wait for a real one (NASA claims it may not be possible on Mars; although seemingly possible on Titan, a moon of Saturn) - clean-up of the "Rainbow on Mars" edits seems indicated of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - yes - good while it lasted - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Will release the new song "Somewhere, over the lens flair". Fun while it lasted though. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up the lens flare link, went there and added the image. An actual notable lens flair, so maybe a well-sourced article (Rainbow on Mars, now in quotes) could survive in main space. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

References

"Film: Infinity Chamber"

The original Chamber article was a festering blob of copyvio; once that was removed, it was a single sentence.

If you can write something legitimate, go ahead. DS (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Thank you - created the Infinity Chamber article - at least for starters - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The 'Somnio' article pertained to an American company which did not meet notability requirements; there's no problem with using it as a redirect. DS (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Abiogenesis"

You have removed a paragraph on scientific criticism of the current hypotheses on abiogenesis. The reason you gave was that the paragraph was not sufficiently supported by sources. Since half of the paragraph is a verbatim quote, I would ask you to read the source cited before deleting it and to seek dialogue first. Thanks and best regards Joe Sloppy (talk) (contribs) 11:11, 4 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Thank you for your comments re the Abiogenesis article - added => "Rv undiscussed edits - as before - please discuss this first on the talk-page for WP:CONSENSUS - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE, WP:NOR & related - thanks." - seems agreement first by other editors for this significant edit addition would be helpful at the moment - please understand that this is a standard procedure for some significant edits similar to your own - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the practice that is applied here. I have asked several times for you to specify your problems with the section. What exactly is it? Is the citation insufficient? If so, I would ask you to explain this in more detail, since, as I said, it is mainly a verbatim quotation from a book publication from the Springer Verlag (https://www.springer.com/gp). The talk page says: "It is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis." Does this also apply to scientific critical receptions of hypotheses of abiogenesis? Best regards, Joe Joe Sloppy (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 5 May 2021‎ (UTC)

@Joe Sloppy: - Thank you for your comments - Please see my reply comments on the "Abiogenesis" talk-page at the following link => "Talk:Abiogenesis#Criticism on abiogenesis" - Thanks - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Escape mutation" redirects

We have an article on Antigenic escape, which is the correct target for those redirects. Maybe you could add a short section on SARS-CoV-2? Fences&Windows 23:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Fences and windows: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - added (for now at least) => { {also|Variants of SARS-CoV-2}} to the "Antigenic escape" page and { {also|Antigenic escape|Escape mutation}} to the "Variants of SARS-CoV-2" page - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"ScienceFacts"

In User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts, it says, Insight, Curiosity, and Perseverance are currently operating on Mars. But what about the Ingenuity helicopter? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done @StarshipSLS: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggesting including the "Ingenuity helicopter" on Mars to the "User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts" template - no problem whatsoever - updated the template, and all now should be ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - Thanks again for your help with this - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: You welcome. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 20:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Mars image of 'moon in June (or at least May)'"

The Earth and Moon viewed from Mars

Hi, and thanks again for all of the good work at the Mars 2020 pages. Came across an upload of yours and, being personally noncomputertechsavvy enough to do it myself, am wondering if it's possible to uppercase 'Moon' on this NASA graphic (where NASA gets it wrong again). Just to keep Wikipedia consistency on uppercasing proper astronomical names. Thanks, and happy flights. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Randy Kryn: Hello Randy - Thank You for your comments - and suggestion - yes - seems NASA could have presented this image better with "Moon" (instead of "moon") - after all => "Capitalize “Moon” when referring to Earth’s Moon" (from the NASA Style Guide) - to be clear, this was originally from NASA at => https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figures/PIA17936_fig2.jpg - nonetheless - I tried to adjust the image with "M" - may not be a perfect effort (somewhat new to this), but maybe an improvement - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, nice work. I can't begin to imagine how to do coding things like that. The Moon shines anew in the Martian sky. I don't know why sources like Scientific American still lowercase names like 'moon' and 'sun' (not very scientific, and maybe not even American!). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Thanks for your comments - used an oldie (but goodie) program ("PaintShop Pro v6.02") - ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaintShop_Pro ) => brushed-out the old "m" on the image after detecting background color with the "dropper" tool - then used "text" tool (set for "M" using "white" color and "Arial" font) - on the resulting image - then oriented the new "M" font on the image - saved new image file - and then uploaded the new image file to Commons as usual - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

All Greek to me (a term of cultural appropriation, fine me ten Wikipedia dollars). I've never even uploaded an image here. Thanks again, the finished image looks good. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Origin of COVID-19"

NOTE: Current related discussion at "WP:RSN" => "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Lab Leak Again"
Related recent references re the possible "origin of the Covid-19 virus", including my own related published NYT comments (6 July 2020) - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

"Ingenuity - date of 6th flight"

Hello Drbogdan, can you support me getting the correct UTC date of the sixth ingenuity flight? I'm a little concerned that nobody is supporting me. Are my arguments not comprehensible? --Schrauber5 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Schrauber5: - Thank you for your comments - and question - seems a "WP:Reliable source" supporting the correct UTC dating may be best afaik at the moment - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a reliable source would be the cleanest way to resolved it. But even if there is a NASA publication of the correct date (which is already there, see date given at https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/HNM_0091_0675019235_723ECM_N0060001HELI04636_0000A0J ) there are 20 reliable newspapers still having May 22. My question was, if you find my arguments comprehesible? I'm wondering if the missing support is based on nobody is interessed in having the correct UTC date or nobody agrees with the correct date being May 23 UTC or even that shifting to UTC date and time is original research. --14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Schrauber5: - My thinking continues to be the same as above - cite the best available WP:RS at the moment - or - nothing at all until there is one - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Human timeline"

Hi, you introduced a div-span-flip error with your changes to Template:Human timeline today. All the pages it links to are now appearing in the WP:LINT filter Miscellaneous issues And I'm not seeing what needs to be adjusted to correct this issue. I thought you'd appreciate this message more than me attempting to tinker with it. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zinnober9, Hike395, and Jonesey95: (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your post re the "WP:Lint" issue - at the moment, I have no idea whatsoever how to solve this problem (I'm a "newbie" with much of the template coding) - any help solving this template problem would be *greatly* appreciated - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: Copied from Wikipedia talk:Linter#"Template:Human timeline"

 Fixed. I had to swap two nested templates. In short, {{font}} uses span tags, and {{Vertical text}} uses div tags. Div tags don't like to be inside of span tags. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Jonesey95: Thank you *very, very* much for your help with this linter error - lesson learned - Thanks again - your help is *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Perseverance Mission Timer"

Hi, there is a discrepancy of 9 minutes between the sol switch of the template created by you Perseverance_Mission_Timer and my templates e.g. Sol: 1138.34 Mars time: 8:09:49

Is the claim of your template to have the sol switch with minute accuracy? Schrauber5 (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Schrauber5: - Thank you for your comments - I'm somewhat new to this - you may have a good solution - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

At Sol 0 0:00 in the docu of the template, there is UT 2021-02-18 13:50 given, in the code 4:53, and I think that 4:44 is correct (based on published Earth and Mars time of ingenuity flight 5). Schrauber5 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"USA News: Political Cult - My Comments"

FWIW - seems relevant here as well - should be *entirely* ok of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Copied from the "Viriditus – Political Cult" Talk-Page (May 23, 2021)

• FWIW - seems relevant - Yes - the Republican Party may now be a cult - but to what end? - following the money (cui bono?) - may be behind much of this imo - although the ball may be hidden - via theatrics, ploys and whatnot - after all - just 400 people have more wealth than half of all Americans combined - an historic 2017 tax cut "heist" largely benefits this ultra-rich group of people afaik - and represents a "non-negotiable red line" to Republicans re negotiations - as well as, similarly, with Democrats - all in all - a way of maintaining an "american aristocracy" of ultra-rich people? - at the expense of tax payers? - a return to a "plantation economy"? - updated to modern times - and modern dress - develop a following - promote a cult - denounce democracy - as well - seems the current Republican Party wants to rule, not govern, and, by way of another American Civil War involving race or the like, wants to return to a time of The American Revolution, and embrace a monarch like King George - simply backwards - going backwards in time - backwards in USA History - or so it currently seems - my 2013 NYT comments may be especially relevant - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Now, that's just what the doctor ordered! Viriditas

"USA News: Attempted Coup - My Comments"

FWIW - seems relevant here - and, as well, related to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Copied from the "2020 United States presidential election - Coup Attempt" Talk-Page (November 25, 2020)

• Comment - WOW - most "opposes" above seem to be wishful thinking (and/or unrealistic thinking) re the current very non-traditional WH administration - and seem to be presenting an attempted coup (or attempted "legislative coup" or "self-coup" or "power grab" or "refusal to give up power" or "democratic backsliding") as a moot (or irrevelant) point (since the GSA is now permitting the newly elected administration to proceed) - seems an attempted coup ("testing-the-waters", so-to-speak), based on numerous WP:RS references (see listing above for some), that's seemingly failed (so far), is still an attempted coup (or the like) that may still be ongoing (and/or underway) in the WH - and, at least, may need special noting in Wikipedia - via of its own article - after all - there has been - to date => no actual concession from top WH leaders; an unexplained shuffling of top leadership at agencies, including the Pentagon; no official acknowledgement of the newly elected administration from top leaders of the opposing party; numerous WH tweets broadcasting an alternative narrative to millions - and there's a lot of days to go before January 20th, 2021 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ADD => FWIW - This apparent attempt (so far) all seems remarkedly consistent (imo) with my own published (somewhat prescient?) NYTimes Comments some years ago, in 2013. - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

FOLLOWUP NEWS (September 20, 2021): Seems new detailed information about the actual coup attempt by the Trump WH administration has now been more fully described in "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", "CNN News" and "The Boston Globe" news reports - these reports are largely based on material from the 2021 book "Peril" by American journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa - also - see the related Eastman Memorandum article detailing the 6-point plan to overturn the 2020 election in which Joe Biden was the clear winner - this plan has been described as an instruction manual for a coup - later, on October 31, 2021, a detailed timeline of events was reported - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Stay safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You're a prophet and in good company: Then-CIA director Gina Haspel said the US was 'on the way to a right-wing coup' after Trump lost the election. On January 31, 2021, a detailed overview of the attempt to subvert the election of the president of the United States was published in The New York Times. The danger will not be over until Trump and his followers are completely divorced from US politics. Stay alert. -- Valjean (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

"USA News: Big Lie Makes Big Money? - My Comments"

FWIW - seems relevant here as well - should be *entirely* ok of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Big lie#The Big Lie Makes Big Money?": (July 31, 2021)

Also, Copied to "Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#The Big Lie Makes Big Money?":
(as a further way of attempting to overturn the 2020 USA presidential election - and, possibly, future USA presidential elections as well)

Also, Copied to "Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#The Big Lie Makes Big Money?":
(as another instance of being less-than-truthful - and to make a lot of money)

Should this very recent New York Times news report be added, in some way, to the "The Big Lie" article - as perhaps another reason, besides pursuing political power, in the near term and/or later, to continue promoting "The Big Lie"? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: The NYT source is not directly related to the topic of the article. And WP:OR says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." --Renat 14:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: (and others) - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - more direct WP:RS may be helpful re the issue - several such direct references may include The New York Times, NBC News and Yahoo News - there may be more direct references (perhaps many more) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Besides making Big Money from The Big Lie during the current go-round in 2020-2021 - others are funding the Big Lie with their own Big Money - all in all - Money seems to be a very Big Part of the Big Lie - in one form or another - and, perhaps, should be part of The Big Lie article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Drbogdan, this all seems to be very directly related to the subject. -- Valjean (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this Trump/GOP angle on the subject deserves its own article? I suspect that some objections to the section in this article are related to WP:COATRACK, and by folding this section and some content from two other articles (Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud) into a meta-article entitled Big Lie (Trump/GOP), we'd have a legitimate and good-sized article. There are likely other possible ways to merge this content, but I feel it needs to be done. The final title can be discussed.

This matter is taking on greater importance as the lie that may succeed in destroying American democracy and American's confidence in their own elections (Putin giggles with glee...). Rs coverage is growing, so it's certainly DUE. What do you think of that idea? Then this article and the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article would just mention and link to that article. We simply can't do the subject justice here. -- Valjean (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestion - yes - *completely* agree with considering a newly created article re this and related material - perhaps overdue since this may have been going on for some time I would think - flexible with article title, layout and content - your suggested title "Big Lie (Trump/GOP)" may be a good start - could always be changed later - you're more than welcome to use my own related content/references here (and perhaps elsewhere) for the article if you like - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a big "comfort" to be derived from Trump's efforts: they deplete and waste the wealth of Republicans. Much worse, and sadder, they actually kill them and reduce the number of GOP voters. His fundraising scams and his anti-vaccine, COVID-19 skepticism has serious consequences. The GOP has become a suicide cult. -- Valjean (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

"Generic object of dark energy (test)"

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Generic object of dark energy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic object of dark energy 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.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"L 98-59"

• Nearby Planetary System Could Hold a Habitable Super-Earth, Astronomers Say. (ScienceAlert)
• New ESO observations show rocky exoplanet has just half the mass of Venus (ESO)
• Warm terrestrial planet with half the mass of Venus transiting a nearby star (A&A)

See also: list of exoplanets discovered in 2019. LL&P. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you *very much* for sharing the links re "L 98-59" - very interesting of course - although less surprising, perhaps, when one considers that such "Earth-like planets" may be more numerous in the "observable universe" than all the "grains of sand on all our beaches", according to at least one news report => "There may be more Earth-like planets than grains of sand on all our beaches - New research contends that the Milky Way alone is flush with billions of potentially habitable planets -- and that's just one sliver of the universe." (CNET) - in any case - Thanks for the links and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"It's the least massive exoplanet ever measured by examining its gravitational effect on the position of the star." Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Hycean planet"

In August 2021, a new class of habitable planets, named "hycean planets", which involves "hot, ocean-covered planets with hydrogen-rich atmospheres", has been reported.

Would it be helpful to add that this hypothesis will be tested after the JWST launches? BBC News reported it earlier. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done - @Viriditas: Thank you for your recent suggestion re "hycean planets" - yes - *entirely* agree - added the following "edit" to the "Planetary habitability" article:

Hycean planets may soon be studied for biosignatures by terrestrial telescopes as well as space telescopes, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) scheduled to be launched later in 2021.

ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the "edit" of course - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Brief followup - just now created the "Hycean planet" article - at least for starters - hope it's ok - any adds/adjs welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Hycean planet"

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hycean planet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hycean planet 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.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that the usual deletionists showed up to delete the article you created. This was not how WP:NEO was ever intended to be used. NEO was created because people used Wikipedia like Urban Dictonary; they would create articles about things that had a very limited reach, and were mostly confined to small subcultures or, as it quite often turned out, concepts that were created by the editors themselves, which they would then cite in a loop. This was never the case for articles like hycean planets, which are established concepts in the scientific community that are actively being tested and discussed and have a secondary source trail beyond their initial publication. The continued misuse of NEO in deletion discussions goes to show how the game of telephone plays out in communities where informal rules are created to guide processes, but over time the reason and intent of those rules are lost. We see this happen again and again in the history of religion and politics, so it’s no surprise to see the same psychological defects play out in online communities over time. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments re the currently deleted (from mainspace; now a sandbox copy) "Hycean planet" article (as well as your excellent comments in the related "deletion discussion") - they're all *greatly* appreciated - added the following to the "Hypothetical astronomical object#Hypothetical planet types" listing:

* Hycean planet: A hot, water-covered planet with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere that is possibly capable of harboring life.

Should be ok for the moment - guess we'll have to wait-and-see if the new "Just Wonderful Space Telescope" (hopefully all goes well with the upcoming launch of course) detects any "Hycean planets" - then we may re-add the article I would think - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see why it can’t also be mentioned in Nikku Madhusudhan. Again, this is the deletion community misusing WP:NEO. That argument was intended to apply to non-notable articles created by editors trying to game the system, not to scientists doing active research in a notable field. The entire deletion community is wrong. The utterly baseless idea that Wikipedia cannot discuss the latest scientific research in the encyclopedia but can create a new article on the newest thing in popular culture such as an album or a movie goes to show how NEO is consistently misapplied. There is no meaningful distinction in notability between a new area of research that is published and a new work of art released into the public domain. If an idea is notable enough to be published by a notable publication involving a notable researcher, then its inclusion in the encyclopedia follows. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

"COVID-19 pandemic"

Hi! I appreciate your effort alphabetizing names! Anyway I need to add that Chinese names traditionally put the surname first, so those names should be indexed by the first element (for example Li Wenliang should be sorted under "Li"). Korean names and Vietnamese names are also surname first. (Japanese names are usually expressed surname last in English but are actually surname first in Japanese, although lately the Japanese government is promoting referring to Japanese people as surname first in English) Also remember some cultures do not have family names. Ethiopian names do not have family names, so Tedros Adhanom should be called "Tedros", his given name. Icelandic names and Malay names also usually lack family names and so should be listed by their given names. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and correcting the edit - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your help with this - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've been masking and have been vaccinated, and I hope you stay healthy too! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Ayurveda", "homeopathy", etc

Why hasn't the medical community come out stronger against things like Ayurveda and homeopathy? I recently saw a complimentary medicine page at Johns Hopkins that basically argued that Ayurveda was an acceptable therapy as long as it was combined with western medicine. That sounds odd to me. Why not just come out and say it's nonsense? I know people who practice Ayurveda, and they are completely out there in fantasyland. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank you for your comments and *excellent* questions re "Ayurveda" (new to me), "homeopathy" and all - *entirely* agree with you - the medical community (esp those associated with "John Hopkins University" I would think) should be more forceful against these, and related, notions - in fact, should the title of the related Wikipedia "Alternative medicine" article, with the "alternative" and "medicine" terms themselves suggesting a type of acceptability, be updated to a more appropriate title? - perhaps a money-thing - after all, ads for "Prevagen" (a so-called memory-enhancer that's not at all proven effective by the responsible medical commnity) seem to be ubiquitous these days - along with related types of "snake-oil" cures - basically, promoting "quackery" - thought such advertizing was not allowed these days - guess they're now ok? - they seem to fall outside responsible regulation of the "FDA" and the like - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - they're all *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

References

"My 1973 PhD Degree"

I just noticed you got your PhD in 1973
You must have some fascinating stories to tell about what it was like in 1973. What was the zeitgeist of the time? Were people hopeful for the future or pessimistic? Would appreciate hearing some of your off the cuff thoughts and memories from that time. Did you have a beard or mustache? Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank you for your comments - and questions - "zeitgeist"?: pretty much busy with "my research" at the time to notice - but more "hopeful for the future" than otherwise as I recall in 20/20 hindsight - seems the Wikipedia "Hippie" article captures the spirit of the times very well imo - around that time, attended a "Timothy Leary" lecture ( one of my pictures => "File:TimothyLeary-LectureTour-OnStage-SUNYAB-1969.jpg" ) and an "antiwar demonstration" ( another of my pictures => "File:VietnamWar2ndMoratorium-WashDC-19691115b-DrDennisBogdan.jpg" ) - ( some of my other related pictures are at => "commons:Category:Files by User:Drbogdan" ) - "memories"?: mostly positive and fun in one form or another - seemed like a time of adventure and creativity in some ways - "beard or mustache"?: mostly neither, although both for a brief time - interestingly, seems the film "American Graffiti" captures the spirit of my high school days (early 1960s) very well; the film "Animal House" captures, at least partially, the spirit (but not details of course) of my beginning student days (early 1960s) at "GWU" in "DC", but not my more studious days afterwards there, or later, in graduate school, at "SUNYAB" - "my FaceBook page" has a lot more related information if interested - were you pursuing studies and all during these days as well? - iac - hope my reply helps in some ways - Thanks again for your own comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm from Gen X, but I've recently come to the realization that my core beliefs neatly align with Gen Y (millennials). Thanks for taking a walk with me down memory lane. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: I'm going to rewatch American Graffiti so I can ask you some more questions. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yes - "American Graffiti" is one of the great films imo - esp in capturing the spirit of the times (1962/high school) - for me and a lot of others - may also wish to watch one of "The Lathe of Heaven" films ("1980" and/or "2002" versions) I recently "referenced" re your interest in dreams and time travel - another great film(s) imo - at least in thoughtful sf ideas - although not at all the TV episode re the French Revolution you're trying to locate - iac - Enjoy !! - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I own the book, and I've seen all the film adaptations of Lathe of Heaven. But, thank you for thinking of me and keeping me appraised. Do you have plans to watch the upcoming adaptation of Foundation? It starts in about a week. That's from your generation, so you must be a bit excited. I know I am. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments re "The Lathe of Heaven" (not read book) and the "Foundation series" (read most books) - TV series ("80 eps/80hrs?) scheduled to begin Friday, September 24, 2021 (note: "interesting comment" imo => "It’s a 1,000-year chess game between Hari Seldon and the Empire, and all the characters in between are the pawns, but some of the pawns over the course of this saga end up becoming kings and queens." - by coincidence - "wife" and I watched the "trailer" (2:49) several days ago - not yet sure if we'll be tuning in - we're very busy with one thing or another these days (some real-world) - although we may end up viewing the TV series at some later time - if interested, see my related FaceBook post - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That trailer for Foundation is frustrating beyond measure. Apple is worth more than two trillion and they made a trailer that looks like it was made in five minutes using the iMovie storyboard template. I am not hopeful for this franchise if they continue to cut corners like this. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Foundation"

Episode 1. Two words: Alexander Siddig! Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - didn't yet watch - perhaps at some better opportunity - Thanks again - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not bad. They are trying to deal with an enormous amount of material. I just hope they can find their groove. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - FWIW - seems some recent reviews may suggest "Foundation" is truly unfilmable - or, at least, could be much better? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw those. The thing to keep in mind, is that on average, the worst reviewed episodes of any season are usually in the beginning of a first season show. This has been true for something like a half-century. So I really wouldn’t put much faith or credence into those reviews. I’m up to date with the sixth episode, and there are things I really like, and things I don’t. My biggest criticism is that they are generally playing it too safe so as not to alienate viewers, and I think that’s a huge mistake, as the hardcore fans of this show expect the unexpected. The most recent episode was way too reminiscent of the rebooted Battlestar Galactica, while the episode before that reminded me of Star Wars and Star Trek. So I think the problem for me at least, is that they aren’t taking enough risks and are falling back on to old tropes and ideas to attract viewers. I don’t like that, as I’m the kind of person who watches a show for something new it can bring to the table of ideas, not to rehash the past and give me more of the same. As it turns out, I’m in the minority, as most viewers want something familiar, not something altogether novel and unique. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank you for your comments - they're excellent - and greatly appreciated - for us, at the moment - we're watching oldie but goodie episodes of "Science Fiction Theatre" (mid-1950s TV) found on Youtube and elsewhere - not anywhere near the sci-fi quality of some, like the cerebral "2001" (1968,US), "Solaris" (1972,RU), "World on a Wire" (1973,GE) or "Blade Runner" (1982,US) efforts, but ok for us these days - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like fun. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve developed an interest in quirky, small budget, off-beat, B-movie science fiction, because they do take major risks with very little payoff, and they rely solely on writing and acting to get their points across instead of big budget effects. There’s four I can recommend that I really enjoy. I’ll list them from best to worst: The Man From Earth (2007). Likely the best B-movie science fiction film ever made. Total budget: $200k! 90% of the film takes place in a single room, and both the writer and actors are Star Trek alumni. If this is what film heaven looks like, I’m in line to get my wings; Safety Not Guaranteed (2012). This delightful film was made for $750k! So far, it has made more than $4 million! Truly, a success story; The Vast of Night (2019). This 1950s, first contact period piece was made for $700k! It’s a silly story, but the writing and acting are great, and it will have you convinced you’re back in the fifties again; Quanta (2019). I’m not going to sugarcoat it. This film is bad. Real bad. But it’s so bad, it’s good. One reviewer described it as Flowers for Algernon meets Contact, which just about sums it up. Enjoy! Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Yes - Thanks for the comments - and suggested films - we've seen the first three films (ie, "The Man from Earth" (2007,US), "Safety Not Guaranteed" (2012,US), "The Vastness of Night" (2019,US)) you've noted some years ago - and *entirely* agree with you - those three films are worthy of course - but "Quanta" (2019,US) is a new one for us - other related low-budget (afaik) films of possible interest that are less new to us may include "A Boy and His Dog" (1975,US; $400k), "Primer" (2004,US; $7k), "Monsters" (2010,US; $500k), "Another Earth" (2011,US; $100k), "Love" (2011,US; $500k) and "Coherence" (2013,US; $50k) - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That’s a good list. I really enjoyed Coherence. Did you ever get a chance to see Aniara (2018)? It’s really a fascinating film, but super depressing. I highly recommend it. On the flip side, I finally saw The Tomorrow War (2021), which I’ve purposely held off from watching until now because of all the bad things I heard about it. But I have to say, although it wasn’t original (it’s a pastiche of many different time travel, alien, and science fiction films), it was very entertaining, but I always feel cheated after watching a Chris Pratt film, because he forces the audience to like him. I don’t know if you saw the film yet, but there’s a small sequence involving the "volcano kid" and another regarding the ineptitude of government bureaucracy that made me chuckle, and sort of pays homage to Independence Day (1996). The music is by Lorne Balfe, who worked closely with Hans Zimmer in the past, and his work evokes much of of Zimmer’s style and keeps the scenes flowing. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks again for your comments - Yes - agree with you about "Aniara" - could have been a bit more up-beat of course - apparently, this film was based on a "poem" that may be a mandatory read for students in some "Scandinavian countries" - and perhaps serves as a metaphor, in some ways, for our own "Spaceship Planet Earth" and humanity, including over the really long haul - reminds me of my own 2008 NYT comment, "maybe humans (and even other life-forms perhaps) aren't quite as special in the eyes of the universe as some may think?" - as well as the classic "sound and fury" quote by "Shakespeare" - the film seemed related to "Ikarie XB 1" (1963,CZ), "Cargo" (2009,CH) - and (in some eco-ways) to - "Until the End of the World" (1991,GE) - "The Tomorrow War" seemed better to us than we thought it might be beforehand - seems "Hans Zimmer" music was featured in "Blade Runner 2049" (2017,US), although the classic "Vangelis" music for "Blade Runner" (1982,US) seems better (and more memorable) to us - SF films by directors "Ridley Scott" and "Andrei Tarkovsky" are favorites - somewhat recently, we also enjoyed "Infinity Chamber" (2016,US), "Orbiter 9" (2017,SP) - and - "A.I. Rising" (2018,RS) (hints of "Metropolis" (1927,GE)?) - none of these last films are very highly rated by "IMDb", but perhaps worth a view nonetheless - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You have good taste, my friend! Please clone yourself as soon as possible! In other developments, I’ve been taking a long break from watching the current season of The Handmaid's Tale, and I’ve only recently been getting back into season four. While I love the show, it was becoming kind of soap opera-ish for me, but the worst part was the anxiety it would generate. It made me nervous and uncomfortable, and was almost bordering on the horror genre instead of science fiction, which is one of my major criticisms of the show. But the acting is great, and the cinematography is the real reason I couldn’t stop watching. Now that I’m getting back into season four, it’s so beautiful to watch, and highly immersive. Are you a fan of the show? Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your recent comments - and question re "The Handmaid's Tale" (novel,1985) - no, not seen any of the eps of the "TV-series", but did see the "film version" which was an impressive "cautionary tale" of sorts imo - not at all surprised the series turned somewhat soap opera-ish and all - the characteristics of the series that you noted reminds me of the "Dark Shadows" (1966,US) TV series in some ways, although I've not watched any of those eps either ("wife" is a fan and had made a related "Wiki UserBox") - most recently, thoroughly enjoyed "Raised By Wolves" (2020,US) - a SF TV series with "Ridley Scott" as director (1st eps)/producer - a very creative SF notion with a lot of food-for-thought (seemingly characteristic of Scott's SF efforts) - less interesting recent TV series (at least to me atm) include "The Mandalorian" (2019,US), "Brave New World" (2020,US) and, after finally watching a few eps recently, "Foundation" (2021,US) - a very recent find of possible interest is "Robot & Frank" (2012,US), a light-and-easy quixotic-like award-winner - also - the latest film version of "Dune" (2021,US) seemed worthy (and much better than earlier efforts), although some concerns have been noted by some - iac - Thanks again for your comments - they're all greatly appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

"L 98-59" update

Pidhorodetska et al., "L 98-59: A Benchmark System of Small Planets for Future Atmospheric Characterization," Astronomical Journal Vol. 162, No. 4 (29 September 2021), 169. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Viriditas: Thanks for the update re L 98-59 - added relevant text and the noted AJ reference to the article as follows: "In September 2021, suggested tests of the abilities of the Hubble Space Telescope and the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope to detect and describe the atmospheric features of the three inner planets were reported." - ok with me to further adj the edit of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References

"Edit summaries"

Thank you for your detailed edit summaries, I commonly do that myself. Please would you consider omitting the citation details, to make the edit summaries more readable? Cheers. soibangla (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - trimming and otherwise improving edit summaries seems better after all - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, did you forget? I want to read them, but can't with all the refs. Force of habit, I guess. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Thanks for your reminder - yes - you're right imo re trimming the edit summary, although some editors (including me at times) prefer longer ones - working on a middle-of-the-road edit summary - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"A Jovian analogue orbiting a white dwarf star"

This has been all over the news today.

• Blackman, J.W., Beaulieu, J.P., Bennett, D.P. et al. A Jovian analogue orbiting a white dwarf star. Nature 598, 272–275 (2021).
• A Crystal Ball Into Our Solar System’s Future (W. M. Keck Observatory).
• Astronomers Found a Planet That Survived Its Star’s Death (NYT).

“The fate of our solar system is likely to be similar to MOA-2010-BLG-477Lb…The sun will become a white dwarf, the inner planets will be engulfed, and the wider-orbit planets like Jupiter and Saturn will survive.”

Propose content additions to various articles, perhaps Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Future or Timeline of the far future. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for the comments - and references - looks interesting - busy at the moment, but may get back with this later - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Viriditas: Added the following to the "Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Future" and "Timeline of the far future#Earth, the Solar System and the universe" articles =>

"Eventually, the Sun will likely expand sufficiently to overwhelm the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, possibly Earth), but not the outer planets, including Jupiter and Saturn. Afterwards, the Sun would be reduced to the size of a white dwarf, and the outer planets and their moons would continue orbiting this diminutive solar remnant. This future development may be similar to the observed detection of MOA-2010-BLG-477L b, a Jupiter-sized exoplanet orbiting its host white dwarf star MOA-2010-BLG-477L."

The above edit is for starters at least - seems ok but ok with me to rv/rm/del/ce the edit of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

References

"Confidence of life detection scale" (CoLD)

Figure 1 from Green, J., Hoehler, T., Neveu, M. et al. Call for a framework for reporting evidence for life beyond Earth. Nature 598, 575–579 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03804-9

• NASA proposes playbook for communicating the discovery of alien life (Cosmos)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for your recent comments - and ref links re the "Confidence of life detection scale" - for starters, added several "WP:Redirects" including "Confidence of life detection scale", "Confidence of Life Detection", "Confidence of life detection" and "CoLD" - all directed to => "Extraterrestrial life" - and added the following edit => A "Confidence of Life Detection" scale (CoLD) for reporting evidence of life beyond Earth has been proposed. - seems ok for now - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

"Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial issues"

I've moved your contribution on the Pfizer-BioNTech phase III trial data integrity issues to the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine article, where I think it is more relevant. While concerning, I don't think this belongs in an article that discusses COVID-19 vaccination in general; to the best of my knowledge, there are no allegations of this invalidating the results of the trial, which seem still to be robust. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: Thank you for your comments re the recent The BMJ report - Yes - *entirely* agree with you - at least as far as I know at this time as well - guess we might have to wait-and-see how this all finally plays out - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and recent editing efforts with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

References

"Age in sols"

Hi, Drbogdan! I have bad news: your template started to return 1 sol mismatch for the Mars 2020 mission. Please look at my proposal )). Cherurbino (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cherurbino: - Thank you for your comments - and proposed solution to the template mismatch problem - my "reply" is on the "Template talk:Age in sols" page - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"Planet Mars"

I have nominated Mars 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. (t · c) buidhe 13:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thank you for your comments regarding a "Featured Article Review" of the "Mars" article - your comments are *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)