User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Drbogdan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Jdcrutch: Thank you *very much* for the Seasonal Greets - it's *very much* appreciated - wish you and yours the *very best* during the holiday season as well - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation - Cosmology

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: Thank you *very much* for the invitation - it's *greatly* appreciated - signed up as a Member of the Project and hope to help where possible - Thanks again for the invitation - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Great Martian War

Copied from "User talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Use of "griping" word not ok?":

Use of "griping" word not ok?

@DragonflySixtyseven: BRIEF Followup - not sure about this but, in the "The Great Martian War 1913 - 1917 (2013 film)#Reception" article section, adding "<sic>" to the word "griping" *may* (or *may not*?) - be ok - based on the dictionary definition at the following => http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/griping — esp, "to hold firmly" (verb) and/or "a firm hold" (noun) — *entirely* ok with me with (or without) the addition of course - but maybe worth a consideration? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

References

That's an alternate (not even secondary) meaning, based on an alternate spelling of "gripping". The primary meaning of "griping" is "complaining", which makes no sense in the context of that film review; indeed, I thought it was your typo (and I was about to correct it!) until I checked the source and saw that it was the reviewer's.

And even if the reviewer did deliberately and intentionally spell it that way, it's still nonstandard enough that a "sic" is helpful. DS (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Thank you *very much* for your comments re the film reviewer's use of the word "griping" in the "The Great Martian War 1913 - 1917 (2013 film)#Reception" article section - yes, I *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Milky Way and Oxfam

Your recent contributions on the Milky Way
In my humble opinion, I think it is a really bad idea to copy the same paragraph and paste it at the top of several different articles. You're not only making the top unnecessarily long by adding an information that doesn't have a high importance, but also you're making people who read many different articles read the same thing in many places, which is kind of annoying. I suggest you revert a few of your edits or put the paragraph in a more appropriate section. Also, it'd be better if you could change the wording so it won't be repetitive Tetra quark (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edits of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're welcome. I've already moved the paragraphs to more appropriate sections. They are minor stuff to be worth the top :) Let me know if you disagree with something Tetra quark (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: AFAIK atm all your recent edits seem *entirely* ok - no problem whatsoever - thank you for your efforts - and comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again :) Well, I've edited exoplanet and moved stuff you put at the top on Jan 7 (1 day after my first message to you here). I know you're here on wikipedia longer than me, but really, the top of the article isn't a news feed, as I said in the edit summary. So.. that's it. As you'd say - Enjoy :) Tetra quark (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: Thanks for your comments - and efforts - Yes - agreed - your recent edits seem better to me as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, you just added a paragraph about a day-old press release to the lead section of the Oxfam article. As the editor above said last week, lead sections aren't news feeds. They're "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", per MOS:LEAD: new content should generally be added to the article body, and additionally summarised in the lead section only if it's a significant aspect of the subject. --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a problem. Do you understand what I've just said and why this material shouldn't go in the lead section? --McGeddon (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thanks again for your comments - yes, I understand - the following was added to Talk:Oxfam#Should Oxfam Reports Be Added To The Article - Or Not? - hope that's *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Oxfam#Should Oxfam Reports Be Added To The Article - Or Not?:

Should Oxfam Reports Be Added To The Article - Or Not?

Should the following text/refs re Oxfam Reports be included in the article - or not? If so, which location in the article would be most appropriate?

A January 2014 report by Oxfam claimed that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world's population, or about 3.5 billion people. More recently, in January 2015, Oxfam reported that the wealthiest 1 percent will own more than half of the global wealth by 2016.

References

Comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So long as you understand that new information about a subject generally shouldn't be added to its lead section, that's fine. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be enjoying here. --McGeddon (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thanks again for your help with all this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology

I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: - Thank you for your message - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Methylamine Paywall?

I noticed that on methylamine, some sort of tag has been added that indicates that a source is behind a paywall. Almost all quality information for chemistry is by subscription. So if this is an issue that concerns you, the community of chemistry editors probably should discuss it. Just a thought.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Thank you for your comments - a WP:RS behind a WP:Paywall on Wikipedia is new to me - I would prefer otherwise of course since article information may be easier to verify - in the present instance re methylamine, I may defer to your own best judgement re the tagged information since you may have better access than I at the moment - hope this is ok with you - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Universe lede

Dear Drbogdan, would you consider commenting on/contributing to the lead of Universe? I've tried to spin up a first paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=643055753

but this seems to not sit well with another contributing editor. Basically, I'd like to see some inclusiveness of issues in the lead, including, yes, issues actually addressed in the body of the article (but not a cherry-picking of sentences from the body), as well as open up some other dimensions of this ultimately inclusive word. So, instead of a sharp focus on astronomy, possibly including such topics as life and philosophical issues (I hesitated with religion). Anyway, having a few more voices sometimes helps. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - as presented earlier, my own preferences atm may be summarized as follows:

Copied from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?":

FWIW - if not already considered, a relevant reference for the discussion *may* be the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors" at the following link => http://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html - especially? => "Astronomical Bodies: Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." (and more? - see link) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Perhaps the lede of the Universe article should be much shorter and more concise than the one at present - and more like the one not too long ago (January 2015) - or even - more like a dictionary definition like those below:

"Universe - The sum of everything that exists in the cosmos, including time and space itself." - Wikipedia Wiktionary

"Universe - All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago." - Oxford Dictionary

"Universe - the whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth, and therefore the human race, is a part." - Encyclopedia Britannica

"Universe - all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago." - Google Dictionary

In any case - Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I made a correction to your comment at Talk:Universe here; that version was from January 2014, not January 2015. I wouldn't normally edit someone else's comment, so thought I'd let you know. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ashill: - Thank you for your comments - and correction - they're *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Complex Organic Molecules

Hello. I would use this article (modeling) to improve WP, but I don't seem to have the drive these days. Maybe you have time? http://astrobiology.com/2015/01/modeling-complex-organic-molecules-in-dense-regions.html Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - Thanks for the link - Yes - seems *very* interesting to me atm - may take a closer look at the first opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude, how about this: "For the first time, astronomers have detected the presence of complex organic molecules, the building blocks of life, in a protoplanetary disk surrounding a young star, indicating that the conditions that spawned our Earth and Sun are not unique in the universe." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link to the Astrobiology article - *very* interesting of course - seems more evidence that the "primordial soup" (so-to-speak) may be in the universe at large in fact - and not just in some local neighborhood pond - Thanks again for the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, here goes another interesting hypothesis for the old debate of DNA vs, RNA: "New Study Hints at Spontaneous Appearance of Primordial DNA". Imagine getting a $12 million grant!!! - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks again - for the other *excellent* links - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this dude flying while under the influence of alcohol: [1].  :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the link re Comet Lovejoy and complex organic molecules - seems like even more support that the starting chemicals of life may be ubiquitous in the universe - or, at least, more prevalent than thought earlier - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

WP:PERM - Autopatrolled Right Request

Hi Drbogdan, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thank You *very much* for your comments - and help with the autopatrolled right - it's *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, I really didn't need to say much--you were a very easy request to process! Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! re: Wikipedia Stats

Hi Dr. B. I just wanted to let you know that I have appropriated and reused some of the wikicode from your user page for mine. The code on the stats of Wikipedia and its growth in the human corpus of knowledge does, I think, need to be celebrated more widely. Thanks for your work in assembling all this!

If you have a moment, I'd like to hear your thinking on (and translation of) of "Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus." I appreciated the quotation from the Wales interview, but my Latin is extremely elementary. Cheers. And keep up the good work. N2e (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello @N2e: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *all* greatly appreciated - no problem whatsoever re the "Wikipedia Stats" and related - it's *entirely* ok with me to share the wikicode of course - including the following:

WIKIPEDIA – The 5th Most Popular Site On The Internet, With Over 7 Billion Potential Viewers, Was Launched On January 15, 2001 And Has Been Freely Available Worldwide For 23 years, 9 months and 20 days – Wikipedia Has 61,774,639 Total Articles (6,905,790 In English) (40,507 *BEST* Articles) (Top1000) And Has 48,210,261 Editors (120,034 Active; 839 Administrators) – as of November 4, 2024.

• Wikipedia => Is "Over 100-times" the Size of "Encyclopedia Britannica".
  
• Wikipedia => Is The Name Of An Asteroid – as of January 27, 2013.
• Wikipedia => "Is One Of The Jewels In The Internet’s Crown."
• Wikipedia => "Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus."
• Wikipedia => "Imagine A World In Which Every Single Human Being Can Freely Share In The Sum Of All Knowledge. That's Our Commitment."

ALSO - the Latin phrase "Nos Auxilium Facere Penitus Non Nutrientibus.", part of my related Userbox, "WikiLatin", as follows:

Wikipedia: "Nos Auxilium Facere
Interrete Non Lactaverunt."

This Latin phrase is the result of my attempt to translate, based on Google translate, the English phrase "We help make the internet not suck." — a reasonable (imo) "paraphrase" of the exact original quote "We help the internet not suck.", which per se didn't seem to translate well into Latin afaik atm — made about Wikipedia by co-founder Jimmy Wales in a C-SPAN interview in 2005 - hope this all helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Made me smile! Yes, we are all volunteering our time to work on a project that is much bigger and much more emergent and encompassing than we might imagine, and by our efforts, we "help" (at the margins) to make the internet not suck. Lovely, N2e (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@N2e: Thanks - *entirely* agree of course - your own "help" comment reminded me of a famous smile-related (to me at least) quotation (re a similar, albeit fictional, project that is much bigger than we might imagine - ie, designing the planet Earth?) from HHGTTG as follows:

in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Hey! Give my changes a try. This is a good-faith edit. I did improve only structure and readability. You can see it through I did very light edits to content, nothing serious, rather due to understanding and grasping the contents by going through one topic at a time from top to bottom with repeats to better learn the stuff. This is an intro, right? Header is now better in concordance with main body. I differentiated between theory of evolution and proof of evolution in experiment (sligthly). Now, how to exactly propose structure changes in WP:BRD way? copy my article version to talk page? entirely? If unsure, please do not engae in a revert-war (possibly due to urges to protect a spec. version of article/or format). BTW this article had issues with accuracy. You may also decide to help me get )part) of my good changes through. Please see through my version it is really good. Thanks-a-lot, yours --78.51.211.140 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - please first discuss your (rather substantial imo) changes with other editors on the talk page of the Introduction to evolution article for WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD and related - perhaps in smaller portions? - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Active SETI proposal

Got popcorn?: "Leading astronomers, anthropologists and social scientists are gathering at his institute [ie, Seth Shostak; SETI Institute ] after the AAAS meeting for a symposium to flesh out plans for a proposal for active Seti to put to the public and politicians" http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31442952" - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your noted BBC News link regarding Active SETI - interesting - my thinking at the moment => the cosmos may be filled with primitive microscopic life forms - however, besides ourselves, there may be other technically clever life forms in the cosmos as well - at the moment - or in times past - but since space is so widespread and time is so wideranging, contact with such life forms may be a quixotic quest of sorts - if otherwise, of course, the caveat by Stephen Hawking may be relevant => "If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans. …" - incidently (and perhaps coincidently?), I've been Facebook friends with Seth Shostak and David Brin, both subjects of your noted link, for some years (and have shared several comments with them at times, although not recently) - and as well - with Timothy Ferris, who along with Carl Sagan, provided yet another way of communicating with ET (although with a *very* low possibility of a reply of course - at least in the foreseeable future): ie, the "Golden Records" on the Voyager spacecraft presently traveling out of the Solar System - in any case - Thanks again for your noted link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: BRIEF Followup - if interested - some updated details about the recent Active SETI discussion (which included Geoffrey Marcy, Seth Shostak, Frank Drake, Elon Musk and David Brin) are presented in several related (albeit similar) news stories. - one result of the discussion was a statement, signed by many, that a "worldwide scientific, political and humanitarian discussion must occur before any message is sent". - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting plumes on Mars: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31491805 - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link(s) re the mysterious Mars plume (or something else?) - yes - very, very interesting imo - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

References

This report shows the current research venues of NASA's Astrobiology Institute: [2]. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the Astrobiology link - seems an Excellent summary of some interesting studies for the next five or so years - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the mysterious plume is dust!: [3] BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link re the dust cloud in the Martian atmosphere - it's *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Brief Followup - if interested, related NASA report now available - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Mars One candidates

Hi, recently I read that Mars One will make a cut of candidates next Monday 16 February 2015. The article says that the cut will be 200 but other sources don't agree, so thanks for correcting my mistake. Today I read in two different articles that Mars One anounced last Friday that the number will be 100, but there is nothing about this on the official site. How I can find out if this is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.114.44 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [NOTE: edited for clarity - db]

Thank you for your comments - you're *very* welcome of course - I'm happy to have helped you with your edit - re your question - I don't know the answer - but posting your question on the Mars One talk page may be the best way of getting an answer - there may be editors there who may know more about your question than I do at the moment - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem at Dawn

I have recently been having some problems with an anonymous editor over the Dawn page. I rewrote the sections they added to avoid close paraphrasing (I've had experience with this – see my work on fluorine), then they reverted. I rolled back the new edits, they reverted again. I went to their talk page to try and explain, they tried to defend their actions not realising that simply citing references is not enough for an article that's going to receive the bulk of space-related attention in the coming month. What should I do? Parcly Taxel 02:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Parcly Taxel and Huntster: Thank you for your comments re the Dawn (spacecraft) article - I'm somewhat limited in helping you with this atm - but I understand your concerns - one possibility may be to post your concerns to the Talk:Dawn (spacecraft) page (and/or your User talk:Parcly Taxel page?) along with, if need be, the { {Help Me}} template - other possibilities may be to visit the WP:Help page and/or WP:AN page - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rubin's talk page

NOTE: For context - response by Srich32977 is to my earlier comment as follows:

Copied from "User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2015#Ideology":

@Srich32977: Perhaps relevant - afaik atm re US economic outcomes (based on "policies and ideas"?) => at the end of Clinton's term in 2001: a substantial surplus - and no recession; at the end of Bush2's term in 2009: a substantial deficit - and a great recession - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Say Doc, rather than clutter Arthur's talk page I'll ask a followup question here. In answering my question about failed policies & ideologies you referred to a relatively short time frame: Clinton & Bush2. But with your medical knowledge, what would you say has been the biggest factor in doubling of average life expectancy in the last 100 years? And when you identify that factor (or factors) how did it come about? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Thank you for your comments - great question - based on the lede graph in your noted life expectancy article => seems the average life expectancy for the world has improved from about 48yo/est in 1950 to about 68yo/est in 2015 - that's good imo - also, according to your noted life expectancy article, seems there may be many factors at play - interestingly (to me at least atm), the US seems to be 26th in the world? - seems we could do better I would think - in any regards - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comment and question - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

But don't free market policies have a play in this improvement? Free markets that allow companies to bring energy, machinery, food, medication, vaccines, employment, etc. to communities? Slovenia has a higher life expectancy, but their GNI per capita and median household income is half that of the US. South Korea has a free market and the difference between the south and north (with its state controlled market) is astounding even though the north has more natural resources. The Koreans in the south are now 3 inches taller on average than their cousins in the north. I'm sticking with the free market, the freer the better. Patrick Henry had a farm that failed, a house burned down (before home owners insurance was available), failed at business. But he treasured liberty. Thanks (for letting me spout off). – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Thank you for your comments - I would think free market policies may have a role in this - to what extent, I'm not sure - please don't misread me - I'm for whatever will make things better in a good way - if that's free market policies, then that's *entirely* ok with me - if not, then we'll have to see what may work better - seems I may be somewhat of a pragmatist about such things these days - somewhat related, and if interested, some of my present thinking about some of this may be described in one of my published comments in the NYT - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Saw your NYT comment. LOL! I wonder what that one person will do with all that money. I bet s/he will be looking over their shoulder a lot. But how will economists present stats as to what the median income/wealth figure is? Also, Jesus' comment that "You will always have the poor among you" (Mark 14:7, John 12:8, Matthew 26:11) will be truer than ever. Thanks again. I've enjoyed the chat. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Thank you for your comments - Yes - *entirely* agree - these days, seems the rich may be on a lot of radar screens (so-to-speak) in the world - and may be less able to freely move around I would think - re the poor - seems Oxfam reported recently that the annual income in 2012 of the top 100 of the world's richest people could end world poverty four times over - seems the world's richest could be more helpful with this I would think atm - in any case - Thanks again for *all* of your comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Rachmaninoff (composer) template

Hi, I'd want to bring you to attention to some suggested change which is detailed in Template talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff, thanks! AbelCheung (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - replied at Template talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert

See Talk:Camgirl#Revert. 2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - afaik, the edit seems to be WP:SPAM (and/or WP:ADMASQ & related) imo - and, as such, not appropriate for Wikipedia - the views of other editors are welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied again at the talk page. 2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) ~16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Pittsburgh meetup

• Wikimedia:Meetup Pittsburgh

  Bfpage |leave a message  06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: Thank you for your post re Wikimedia:Meetup Pittsburgh - it's *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Net neutrality in the US edits

would you please hold your edits for a while? - I should be done soon. The sign I put up on top which you couldnt have overlooked, is for real. even for Dr's (I am one too) so please hold the edits - PS have you ever heard of lede follows body? - see talkpage --Wuerzele (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thank you for your comments - yes - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Drbogdan, Would it be possible for you to edit in the body of the article rather than cramming your latest read into the lede? I have observed this pattern, and it is part of the reason I had to do a lot of cleaning on February 26. Its called WP:recentism. You should also read about the WP:lede. lede must reflect body ie. you should add to the body FIRST. Also please do not WP: repeatlink the Newspapers in the refs all the time. the sea of blue is unnecessary and confusing.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thank you for your comments - yes, I understand - seems other editors may differ - and have "thanked" me for my edits instead - nonetheless, I agree with you - and have tried to place my edits in the most relevant article location(s) I know at the time - however, the better locations for some relevant edits may not always be clear - to me - or - in some instances - with many other different editors - please understand, it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce my edits of course - especially to incorporate them to better locations within articles - in any case - hope this all helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ok then.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity rover

Looks like the short is in the percussion side of the drill: http://www.space.com/28758-mars-rover-curiosity-short-circuit-drill.html Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you *very much* for the link re the short-circut problem on the Curiosity rover - yes - seems related to the percussion process in some way - Thanks again for this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Odometer and new rocks: http://www.space.com/28771-mars-rover-opportunity-marathon-rocks.html - Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Variable width columns

Hey Doc, you've been changing See Also sections to use 20em variable width columns. *Please* stop doing this...20em is extremely narrow. I don't know what resolution you're using, but on my screen that causes *five* columns. When needed, just use a flat two-column solution in the future. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 04:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, when you're dealing with so few citations, such as here, just leave it as single column. For users of higher resolution screens, it looks absolutely bizarre having five citations split into three columns. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and efforts - they're all *greatly* appreciated - Yes - this was a concern - seems another editor, apparently for reasons that would better include "Mobile" users?, suggested the { {div col||20em}} coding for "see also" and { {reflist|30em}} for "references" - earlier, I was using the 2-column code(s) for "see also" as follows => { {cmn|2| ... }} - Question - is my earlier use of code(s) now better after all? - [Update Note: ok - based on your recent edits - seems { {div col|2}} for "see also" and { {reflist|2}} for "references" may now be preferred?] - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that pure two column is now preferred, but the individual articles and their layout circumstances need to be taken into account. My honest preference is to never use columns for citations, but that's simply not the modern Wikipedia. I now accept that columns are a thing, but they need to be implemented logically. An article with only five citations simply doesn't need columns, there's no logical sense in that; whereas an article with three dozen citations can use the 30em variable column solution quite well. In my opinion, that "other editor" who suggested the 20em columns simply was not considering appearances on a wide variety of platforms. At the same time, if a See Also section has so many entries that more than two columns are needed to keep it short, it should be severely trimmed as you're probably getting too unfocused. I honestly see no reason for more than half a dozen entries in a See Also section, except in extremely limited circumstances. (sorry for the rambling, I'm a little feverish right now.) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: - Thank you for *all* your comments - and for sharing your thinking on the matter - no problem whatsoever - yes - I *entirely* agree with you - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Philae lander

There is a conference going on right now on the preliminary mission results. I heard they they are talking today (presenting) about "chains of organic molecules" detected on the surface. Old data reinterpreted. That will be something interesting to read when it gets published! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your comments - unable to find the conference on the web (so far) - but found the following news re attempts to "wake-up" Philae if interested => http://customstoday.com.pk/esa-put-effort-to-re-establish-contact-with-its-robotic-probe-philae-lander/ - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what is going around now: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27173-rosettawatch-new-clues-about-the-origin-of-comet-67p.html

Cheers, added => BatteryIncluded 20:16 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the *excellent* link - interesting - hope esa can "wake-up" Philae soon - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured list of nearest exoplanets

I see you edited List of potentially habitable exoplanets quite a lot so if you have some spare time, please leave some thoughts at the FLC of the similar topic of List of nearest exoplanets. Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Thank you for your comment - and suggestion - yes - hope to post some thoughts at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

George Washington

Hello, Drbogdan. You have new messages at Talk:George Washington.
Message added 02:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message - it's greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

NASA Animation

Hello. I think that this NASA animation of the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) testing the “gravity tractor” planetary defense technique can be very helpful for the ARM article as well as Asteroid impact avoidance and Gravity tractor articles. Do you know how to upload it to Commons Wikipedia for use without problems? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded:  Done - at least the following => NASA Animation - also - NASA Video Link - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the one! Do you upload it just as if it was a static jpg image? The fact that it is an animation threw me off. Thank you!! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

May-Day.... I placed it at Asteroid Redirect Mission#Additional objectives but it is not showing. I cannot figure what I am doing wrong with the format, although I tried different things. Any help will be appreciated. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Not sure at the moment - working on it - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: For some reason, the GIF image seems ok in the "Asteroid Redirect Mission#Additional objectives" section with the "wide image" @ 800px format - sometimes ok @ 600px - but NOT ok with the "usual image thumb" format - or with the "multiple image" format - or with the "image wikitable" format - may need more study? - at least the image seems to be working at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is kind of large but you are right, it only shows at 800px. It is Ok though. Thank you so much!! BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the known difficulties with large GIF images, I've converted the file to an OGV video: File:NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission gravity tractor animation.ogv. It will work a lot better in articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster and BatteryIncluded: Thank you for converting the GIF image to the OGV video - excellent idea - updated (and reduced) display at Asteroid Redirect Mission#Additional objectives - seems better - Thanks again for the help with the image - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical types of biochemistry

I came across this beautiful paper by McKay on hypothetical types of biochemistry in terrestrial worlds with liquid water. I thought you may like it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: - Thank you for the link to the excellent study - if interested, another member of the SETI Institute group, Seth Shostak, wrote a worthy (imo) essay that was published recently in the New York Times - (also, see my related FaceBook posts) - in any case - Thanks again for sharing the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Definitions of life - Discussion

A. Tsokolov, Serhiy A. (May 2009). "Why Is the Definition of Life So Elusive? Epistemological Considerations" (PDF). Astrobiology Journal. 9 (4). doi:10.1089/ast.2007.0201. Retrieved 2015-04-11.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link) Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the reference - besides your "Why Is the Definition of Life So Elusive? Epistemological Considerations (2009)" reference, several other related references also seem interesting => "Defending Definitions of Life (2015)" AND "A New Criterion for Demarcating Life from Non-Life (2013)" AND "Origin of Evolution versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm (2011)" - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Clearly an inventory of molecules must exist that is capable of gaining chemical, structural, and functional complexity and eventually assembling into living systems."

— The NASA Astrobiology Roadmap, [4]

Nice. Also, look at this one re. abiogenesis. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the link re the NASA Astrobiology Roadmap - my present thinking is that the very beginnings of life started out much, much more simple than many scientists studying this seem to think - understandable of course, since the only life-form known to them, even the very simplest life-form, is already very, very complex - seems like some researchers are trying to examine the middle of a stream - an experience which is available - rather than trying to examine the headwaters instead - also understandable, since this may be an experience which may not be available to any one - still think it all began with a single chemical, produced by chance, that happened to reproduce itself - and survive - then took a really, really long time to become just a bit more complex - and eventually to become the much, much more complex life-form that may represent the very simplest life-form in our experience - in any case - Thanks again for the link - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet Ceres image request

Hi Bogdan, This is my first upload. Just came across this new image released by NASA which is the closest ever image of the dwarf planet Ceres recorded so far at around 21000 miles. Jackjerryforu (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (note: unsigned post - signature added by User:Drbogdan)

@Jackjerryforu: Thank you *very* much for your comments - Yes, I understand - however, the original image of Ceres seems better imo than the image you're presenting (your suggested image is also similar to "File:Ceres polar animation.gif" - already posted in the Ceres article ) - Nonetheless, you may present your request/comments to "Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)" for possible opinions from other editors re the issue if you like - this is the usual procedure for such concerns - please understand that this would be *entirely* ok with me - (incidently, please "sign" your posts with four tildes - per "WP:Sign" - to automatically note your id/date/time) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

NExSS Collaboration requested

New stub: Nexus for Exoplanet System Science. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you *very much* for your post - and request - yes, seems interesting - hope to help with the "Nexus for Exoplanet System Science" article at the next opportunity - Thanks again for the post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It blows my mind that it has taken until 2015 for this to start. I remember talking to Dr. Marcy and others about this in the early 1990s. I realize science is a slow process, but this is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment - Yes, I *entirely* agree - Nevertheless, seems to be a good, if overdue, start afaics atm - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

25 years from inception to implementation? Didn't we go to the Moon in less than half that time? Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - seems other such projects have been proposed over the years - some in great detail - and shelved - possibly due to political circumstances, priorities and the like, at least afaik atm - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like your help expanding the "Members" section (we can rename it of course) to discuss each different project. We can structure it around the four divisions of the Science Mission Directorate: Earth science, planetary science, heliophysics and astrophysics. My understanding is that each member team should fit in one of those four categories. What do you think? Can you help me sort the teams under these headings? Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion - seems worthy of course - however, somewhat busy atm with other interests, but will try to help with this at the next opportunity - Thanks again for your suggestion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - presented some updated text to the article - at least for starters - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Drbogdan. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to structure the article. I'm not sure if the current structure is the best, so things may change. Right now, I would like to focus on expanding the teams, describing what they're doing and how it will contribute to our knowledge on the subject. I would like to do this in a way that focuses on the NExSS roadmap and milestones they need to meet along the way. I would also like to work on integrating links so that we don't need a see also section in the end. Finally, would you be able to give some thought as to the best potential DYK hook we could offer? Something short and sweet would be nice. I'm not sure the current image would be best for the main page, so we may want to use something else for the DYK. I'm going to try adding new sources in the next several hours (if I get the chance). My personal preference is to eliminate the external links and use those as sources if possible. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - seems like some *Excellent* ideas for the "NExSS" article - I'll see what I can do at the next opportunity - Thanks for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Followup - one possible WP:DYK Hook is suggested below:

Copied from "Talk:Nexus for Exoplanet System Science#DID YOU KNOW - possible Hook?":

DID YOU KNOW - possible Hook?

A Suggestion: possible Hook for DID YOU KNOW?

"... that NASA is gathering together a coalition of experts known as "NExSS" to search for signs of life beyond the Solar System?"

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good job! Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I think my structure misses the point of how the pieces are supposed to fit together. Each group has a question to solve which in turn provides answers that fit into a larger question about exoplanets. I want to structure the research so that this becomes obvious to the reader. I wonder if the original NASA press release did this. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great edits. I could really use your help expanding the research section. I'm not sure what kind of layout to use. Ideally, I would like to section it by specific, "unanswered questions" that each team is attempting to address. At first, I thought the best way to do this would be section it off by discipline, but I can see now that this completely missed the point. I bet there's a roadmap and list of milestones each team is addressing, but unless I have access to it, I will have to reverse engineer it from the sources at our disposal. I would like to structure the research section based on this roadmap. The reason I think this is ideal is because it has the added benefit of longevity. Each research project will therefore "fit" along a path based on milestones, and each entry can remain indefinitely (although I expect pruning). By documenting the history of research in this way, we can provide a truly unique resource for future readers. Do you see what I'm getting at? If you've ever seen the NASA roadmaps they've used in the past, then you probably get what I'm talking about. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I found a general exoplanet roadmap on the NASA website from July 2014. I doubt that the research priorities have changed since then, and if I'm not mistaken, the NExSS research proposals were already in place at that time anyway, so this information should be relevant. It will take me a day or so to figure out if this will work or help, but if it does, we will have the best structure for the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for your recent comments - Yes, I think I understand your thinking about a roadmap re the NExSS material - seems similar to the NASA Astrobiology Roadmap (2008) – (Jan 2014); (Jul 2014); (2015+) – I'll post if I locate a similar one for NExSS of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Note, I added a condensed version of the DYK. You are welcome to add an alternate if you like. Either way, you will receive credit for both. I'm still interested in expanding the research section, which I think I'll start later today or tomorrow when and if I get the free time. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - all looks *Excellent* imo re your suggested DYK - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to also followup on the exoplanet roadmap. NExSS is part of a long-term effort (according to the NASA astrophysics roadmap) to take a 1) statistical census of exoplanets (Kepler has done this to some extent but I think the point is to focus on Earth-size exoplanets as the observational capabilities improve, see 3); 2) characterize and study exoplanet atmospheres; and 3) measure the frequency of potentially habitable exoplanets (which involves the search for habitable environments, the detection of biosignature gases, and finally obtaining the first resolved images of Earth-like planets and the development of maps and spectra). Unfortunately, because the potential of the greatest scientific discovery in human history is barely funded by the global community, this process could take up to three decades. As I said to you previously, we were talking about this almost 25 years ago when the first exoplanet was discovered in 1992 (although I distinctly remember talk of one even earlier in the late 1980s, but it may have been theoretical). During that time, the world has wasted billions of dollars fighting wars when the same military contractors could have used similar technology to develop the launch vehicles and telescopes needed to solve this question once and for all. The squandering of time and money over such meaningless squabbles shows that the world has a lot of growing up to do. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - Yes, *entirely* agree with you - seems much may be explained by following the money and related I would think atm (somewhat related?) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've maintained for many decades now, I still think it can be a win-win situation, with the military industrial complex merely setting their sights on space exploration and development rather than war at home. It's almost the same technology, except instead of using it to destroy people and infrastructure, you're using it to create living habitats and new infrastructure for research and exploration. Same people, same players, but different goals. There's potential for unlimited growth abroad as well as the new technology that will trickle down Earth's gravity well to improve life for people at home. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again - seems we're on the same page with much of this - and seems, in some ways, we may be doing our part atm - at least to some extent I would think - iac - Thanks again for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Genetic engineering - CRISPR stuff

Are you OK with what i've done? just want to be sure. thx. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you *very much* for your post - and recent edits - Yes, no problem whatsoever atm - seems *Excellent* imo - Thanks again for your post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

yay! thx Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Abiogenesis and Seabed vents

Check this out: "[...] as it provides a method for creating carbon-based chemicals out of CO₂, without the need for extreme heat or pressure. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the link - interesting (and worthy) study imo - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Of possible interest - in seabed vents => proto-eukaryote cell (no mitochondria or nucleus) (from archea) combining with mitochondria and nucleus (from bacteria) to form a complete eukaryote cell? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Another ref of possible interest => starting chemicals to intermediate (base/sugar) plus phosphate to RNA nucleotide (start of RNA world?) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting! "[...] a scenario for generating potentially all of the building blocks of life in one geological setting." This article (and his research papers) should be used to update RNA World. Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes, agreed - for starters, I've added the ref to the RNA world article and Abiogenesis#RNA world section - ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce if there's better places of course - ref for Nature Chemistry added as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Another report: Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the report ref - interesting study - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting research: http://astrobiology.com/2015/08/meteorite-impacts-can-create-dna-building-blocks.html Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes - Thank You for the ref - it's appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. A workshop with interesting remarks: [5] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link re "abiogenesis" (OoL) & related - seems *very* interesting - Thanks again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Astrobiology - VPL

How about creating an article on the Virtual Planetary Laboratory? The Kelley UW source was already in the article, so I cited the ref name at the end of the sentence. While there may be a good reason to cite within the sentence, I find it tends to break the flow and impact readability. Instead of citing the website, why not create the new article? It's a red link twice in the body. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - and - suggestion - yes, I was considering creating the Virtual Planetary Laboratory article earlier - seems I was sidetracked for one reason or another - might be a possibility later - we'll see - also - no problem whatsoever re the VPL-related refs in the NExSS article - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce my edits if you like - Thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I get this show on the road! Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comment - no problem whatsoever - I'll try to help when possible - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Astrobiology - EXPOSE-R

Hello. I updated the EXPOSE article regarding the failure of most of the EXPOSE-R experiments due to the growth of a brown substance on the windows. I wonder if you know a way to load to Commons Wikimedia the picture of the astronaut holding the EXPOSE-R panel ([6]) I think the rights may belong to both ESA and Russia Space Agency. What do you think? I think that image is very useful as it gives not just an idea of the size compared to a human, but it also shows the brown film developed on the windows. Your advice is greatelly appreciated Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded and Huntster:  Done - image from PDF document was obtained via WindowsXP-PrintScreen/MS Paint/JASC PaintShop Pro v6.02 and then uploaded. The image is now available at => "File:ISS-ExposeR-Study-DmitriyKondratyev-2014-Roscosmos.jpg" - seems { {PD-RU-exempt}} *may* apply to the image, but User:Huntster may know for sure I would think - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Doc, perhaps you should explain how this image is PD-RU-exempt. I don't see how it falls into any of those categories. If it is a Roscosmos image, it is copyrighted by default. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thanks for your comment - my thinking was based on the information associated with the following Roscosmos image => "File:Roscosmos logo ru.svg" - and thought this might apply as well to the newly uploaded Roscosmos image => "File:ISS-ExposeR-Study-DmitriyKondratyev-2014-Roscosmos.jpg" - if this is not ok after all, it's *entirely* ok with me to speedy delete the image of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that the logo falls under the "state symbols and signs" clause. I won't immediately delete the image in case there are additional arguments. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thanks again for your comments - and related efforts with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan and Huntster:I wonder if there is some kind of leeway for education purposes, since it was published in a scientific journal and used for non-profit here. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would think there might be some fair use/educational basis but not at all sure atm - User:Huntster may know more about this I would think - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

For fair use, I think it would be okay, but never for licensing. Not really such a thing as "leeway" in copyright issues. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Interesting paper here: [7] (PDF). -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes - Thank you for the link to the reference - seems like a *very* interesting read - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The guy now published a book on "Astro-theology", allegedly linking science to creation. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes - Thanks for the link - interesting of course - seems there's a book overview by the publisher - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

References

DYK for NExSS (Nexus for Exoplanet System Science) - Award

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for the DYK recognition - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ceres - "Hidden" gallery images

Hi! I noticed that you uploaded some new stuff to a "Dawn (spacecraft)" gallery, but not by seeing any changes in or at the images, only by reading the history.
When I looked very carefully at the type-sat page, I could see that there now are a few link-coloured digits, 2, 3,... under one of the (older) images. Is there a particular reason for this way of doing things? Does similar things exist in other articles with many illustrations? If so, I've obviously missed something. JoergenB (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoergenB: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - seemed to be the best way imo to display the similar (but somewhat different) images of Ceres (dwarf planet) atm - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the images (and/or image links) - to make things better if you like - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Abiogenesis - Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Drbogdan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [[:Abiogenesis]]. Template:NPOVN-notice Thank you. --Epetre (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - the following reply was presented on the noticeboard discussion page:

Copied from "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Abiogenesis - lack of neutral point of view":
(Related Links => "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive884#SPA pushing creationist POV 2" AND "SPA History")

{ {reply|Apokryltaros|BatteryIncluded|Mann jess|Sarr Cat|Sunrise}} AFAIK - all concerns presented have been appropriately considered on the "Talk:Abiogenesis" page - more than once it would seem: ie, considering the Abiogenesis "FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS" page, related "Talk:Abiogenesis" discussions, as well as relevant archival discussions and the main "Abiogenesis" article itself - also - all concerns have been considered consistent with Wikipedia policy (including that "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively", according to "WP:OWN") - a careful reading of the relevant Talk-Sections may present this as well (please see "Talk-1" and "Talk-2") - seems the "WP:SPA" may be using Wikipedia as a "WP:FORUM" and/or "WP:SOAPBOX" - perhaps, "WP:1AM" and "WP:WALLOFTEXT" may also apply - in any case - hope the above helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mars - Gillespie Lake Member

Check out this hypothesis" Ancient Sedimentary Structures in the <3.7 Ga Gillespie Lake Member, Mars, That Resemble Macroscopic Morphology, Spatial Associations, and Temporal Succession in Terrestrial Microbialites.Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the link - yes, seems *very* interesting to me as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded:  Done - Brief Followup => mentioned this on the "Yellowknife Bay, Mars#Yellowknife Bay Geology" section of the "Yellowknife Bay, Mars" article (as well as => "Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Evidence for ancient habitability" section and "Microbially induced sedimentary structure" article) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Mars - Greenhouse payload?

Hello. Do you remember anything about an experiment-payload regarding a greenhouse of sorts proposed to be included in a future Mars lander or rover? I think I read or wrote something about that some time go and I can't remember that WP article. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Only thing that comes to mind atm is some planned studies (ie, "Mars Plant Experiment" (MPX)?) with the "Mars 2020" rover (note: deleted from article on 7 March 2015) - archived and somewhat described at the following => "Mars 2020 - old version (21 January 2015)" - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: That explains why I went to that article first and when I did not see it I thought I had Alzheimers. So it was deleted because it was proposed but not selected? I ask because there is another very interesting experiment proposed and I did not know where to document it. It is proposed for a rover (if all goes well, for the 2020 rover): terraforming in Mars to produce oxygen inside a little capsule. This proposal just got $100,000 to document many more simulations in "Mars environment chambers" on Earth using extremophiles mixed in Martian analog regolith. The aim is to eventually build several larger biodomes for habitat but mostly to produce biogenic oxygen and bottle it for life-support. Look at the references I collected here: [8].

Maybe its own article? Maybe into Terraforming of Mars? And if it gets selected, we can move it later to the 2020 rover article. What do you think?

This would make 2 experiments focused on O₂ production in situ (Ecopoiesis and MOXIE), as O₂ tanks transport would be extremely expensive. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Yes - seems a worthy effort - not sure where best to add the material (flexible w/ this atm) - the "Terraforming of Mars" article would be a consideration of course - the "MOXIE" article itself may also be a consideration I would think - iac - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

After some more thought, Terraforming of Mars may not be the actual subject, as the proposed experiment and resulting biodome structures would be sealed to the environment and only meant as an in situ factory of bottled O₂ using Martian regolith. I will continue to build it, short and sweet, and see what comes up. Maybe Human mission to Mars? or In situ resource utilization? So far, there is not much preliminary data released so there is not much to talk about, besides the concept and grants to mature it. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - yes, seems things may become clearer when more material becomes available - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for EGS-zs8-1: Award

Harrias ^talk 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of natural history - OR?

Could you please post in the talk page concerning where you think the OR is? Serendi^podous 11:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Added the following to "Talk:Timeline of natural history#Uncited entries may be WP:Original Research?" =>

{ {reply|Serendipodous}} FWIW - seems uncited entries in the article may not be easily verified - adding references from WP:Reliable Sources to the added entries may help determine if the entries are ok - or - if the entries are WP:Original Research instead - I would think atm - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation for CMU Study

@JMyraYeung: Thank You *very much* for your invitation - I'm not interested at the moment - also - I'm *very busy* with one thing or another these days - however, if things become otherwise, I'll let you know - in any case - Thanks again for your invitation - Good Luck on your study - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Thank You for such a quick response. Do let me know when you're interested! Your contribution is ever so useful! JMyraYeung (talk) JMyraYeung (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Evolution - edit summaries

There is a style of vandalism where people change only numbers, sometimes by a lot and often by just a little. I've fixed two of these today. (The Pakistanis hate the Indians and the Indians hate the Pakistanis... (sigh)) Now I went and checked the ref'd abstract and was happy to see that number you changed to. But I might not have been so suspicious if the summary said more than "(adj)". Perhaps expanding a bit on that, like "use percent from ref'd abstract" would more be reassuring? Shenme (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thank you *very much* for your comments - Yes, I *entirely* agree with you - I usually leave more complete edit summaries, esp for significant edits, but expect to add more complete summaries for less significant ones as well - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Population III stars "detection"

I saw you added commentary about Sobral et al. (2015) [note: refs added to clarify - by Drbogdan (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)] to a few articles. 1. thanks for doing so: I'd missed that paper. 2. we should use more tentative wording: they claim to have found evidence for Pop III stars, not that they "were detected." This isn't a smoking gun: to fit their measurements they used models of Pop III stars, but we don't actually have any validation of whether those models are correct or not. I'll try to reword your change at "Redshift", and you can port it over to other articles you've added to (and/or modify it as you see fit). - Parejkoj (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've redone "Redshift": take a look. The second sentence is a little clunky, but is more correct. Please tweak it and port similar changes to the other articles. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Parejkoj: Thank You *very much* for your comments - and edits to the "Redshift" article - (my own edits were based on my recently created "Cosmos Redshift 7" article) - Yes, I *entirely* agree with the changes you made and expect to update related articles at my first opportunity - Thanks again for your comments and help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - @Parejkoj: Brief Followup - relevant articles (including "Cosmos Redshift 7", "Galaxy", "List of galaxies", "Metallicity", "Redshift", "Reionization", "Sextans", "Star", "Star formation", "Stellar evolution", "2015 in science") have now been updated with the new text (and/or related) - Thanks again for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Rediscovered films vs film footage

Your entry has been moved to the new List of rediscovered film footage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: Thank you *very much* for your comment - and help with this - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Evolutionary biology

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: Thank you for the invitation - yes - joined as a member - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI re Pluto

FYI, Dr Bogdan, since you have been helping so much on the Pluto articles.

• Tombaugh Regio
• Pluto system

— N2e (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@N2e: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and information - yes - the information is *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto

Hi. I'm having connection issues and am unable to upload this image od Sputnik Plain on Pluto. Maybe you can? http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=49523 Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for your comments - seems the image was already uploaded and is at the following => File:Troughs in Sputnik Planum by LORRI.jpg - hope this helps - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your ongoinging and excellent contributions to the Wikipedia project! Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For persevering in adding and improving content on the Wikipedia!. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For improving the formatting, links, and other features of Wikipedia articles. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		The U.S. Barnstar of National Merit
		In honor of contributions made to Wikipedia about articles related to the United States of America. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For innovative design and formatting of links and other content on Wikipedia pages. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For working on articles related to new events, especially related to spaceflight. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		For exemplary contributions to articles related to space and space exploration. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For overall contributions to editing the Wikipedia, including space, images, and content. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		The Barnstar of National Merit, for contributions to the Wikipedia project, editing, and for contributions to sharing the knowledge of space exploration. Fotaun (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Drbogdan by Fotaun (talk) on 01:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I second the motion. The Doc is relentless. :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fotaun and BatteryIncluded: Wow - Thank you *very much* for *all* the recognitions - they're all *very much* appreciated - the efforts were fun - and great learning experiences - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Geography of Pluto has been nominated for Did You Know

@Antony-22: Thank you *very much* for nominating the "Geography of Pluto" article for DYK consideration - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Geography of Pluto

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank You for the "WP:DYK" note re the "Geography of Pluto" article - it's appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Geography of Pluto

Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Thank You *very much* for the "WP:DYK" recognition re the "Geography of Pluto" article - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

July 30th 2015 - Super-Earth

Thanks for the help elaborating and sourcing Super-Earth#2015. My editing is a bit rusty after coming out of retirement. Best, Geeky Randy (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Geeky Randy: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceres - Map of quadrangles

Yes, the IAU aproves crater names. But the quad names are given after a prominent crater within it. Currently most of the quad names shown on the preliminary map do not exist, they did not obtain IAU approval. Just two of the 15 names saved, Asari and Rongo. The rest 13 names shown on the preliminary map of quads do not exist now, they were just preliminary and now dissapeared. That is why this preliminary map should be deleted. In other case it makes confusion providing a wrong information. 108.167.40.165 (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes - I understand your concerns - however - the approved IAU names of craters on Ceres may (or may not) be related to the unapproved, but proposed, names of quadrangles on Ceres - in any case - perhaps it would be better if you present your concerns to the "Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)" talk-page, instead of here, since you may wish to hear from other editors about all this as well - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your own comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Names of quadrangles do not exist on their own, they are taken after the name of the prominent feature within each quad. Currently there are 18 IAU-approved names for the craters on Ceres and among them there are only two of the preliminary names. So, it is absurd to save a preliminaary map in Wikipedia because such map serves as source of confusion. I'm not sure if it is necessary to open discussion instead just to remove a wrong information. I do it now and ask you to stop returning obsolete data to the page. If there are still any concerns on this issue you could present them to the "Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)" talk-page. Regards, 108.167.40.165 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your comments - if interested - please see the related discussion at the following Talk-Page => "Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)#Map of quadrangles" (*not*, as before, at "Talk:Ceres#Map of quadrangles") - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet lede

Hi there, saw you added a ref to Paleolithic diet. Per WP style, the intro (or lead) should not normally contain refs since it is meant to be a summary of the (duly ref'd) content in the rest of the article. Suggest the ref be moved into the body of the article. --Cornellier (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cornellier: Thank you *very much* for your note - yes - no problem whatsoever - added text and ref to the body of the article - hope this helps in some way - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! ;) Drbogdan (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hillary Montes for deletion

The result was *KEEP*. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hillary Montes 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/Hillary Montes until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Savonneux (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note - my posted comments are included below:

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Montes and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norgay Montes as follows:

• Keep. Hillary Montes is the second tallest mountain range on the dwarf planet, it is certainly notable. It is essentially the Alps of Pluto, with Norgay Montes being the Himalayas. The others can be merged, but Hillary and Norgay Montes are notable enough. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes - Hillary Montes is a significant geographical feature on the dwarf planet Pluto and is notable per WP:GEOLAND => Named natural features are often notable ... - also - the article is well-sourced - also - *entirely* agree with the comments presented above by DN-boards1 - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup => Added even more relevant references (see below) (as well as earlier newly added refs) to the "Hillary Montes" and "Norgay Montes" articles - per "The Christian Science Monitor" & "PBS NewsHour", July 2015 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Plea For Help - re Jaekelopterus

Would it be at all possible if I could get a big, strong, hypermasculine Wikipedian like your handsome self to help adjust the now-non monotypic genus Jaekelopterus' speciesbox to make list all of its species, instead of just the type species?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: Thank you for your comments - I'm *very* new with much of this but tried to update the "Jaekelopterus" article => from the "speciesbox" to the "Automatic taxobox" instead - it's *entirely ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way, you're heads and shoulders past me, if only because I've only successfully mastered the regular taxobox.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid

Hello Doctor

I've been meaning to speak to you about that pseudo-asteroid that may hit Earth this month. I reverted it because the claim is not based on fact and really not required for the article. My edit summary may have seen a bit rude but it was not meant in that way! I hope you can understand!

Goodnight from Australia! Luxure Σ 14:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Luxure: Thank you for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium

Hi! I'd love to ask for your attention on the ununseptium article; it's currently a FAC, but few people have actually reviewed the article. The WP:Physics subpage lists you as a user who might be potentially interested in an article on a superheavy element (as with all superheavies, it is more physics and less chemistry than a regular WP:Elements article), as a one-time activity or otherwise, and your attention would be highly appreciated, as the previous FAC has gained too little attention to even stand a chance to make it to the FA status; hope you can take part. Thanks--R8R (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and invitation to help with the "ununseptium" article - at the moment, I'm involved with other projects and interests, but will try to help, if possible, at some better opportunity - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RNA world + viruses

Interesting read: The data suggest “that viruses originated from multiple ancient cells … and co-existed with the ancestors of modern cells". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for sharing the link to the article - yes - good read - and - interesting - seems like the distinction between "nonliving" viral cells and "living" nonviral cells is becoming less distinct - at least to some extent - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Moon Express

Check this out on the Moon Express: http://www.space.com/30720-moon-express-private-lunar-launch-2017.html Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you for the link - seems like the technology may be available for this - hope all goes well of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you do me a favor?

Can you make an article on the rock Private Robert Frazer that Opportunity spent August 2015 studying? References are here: http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-missions/mer-updates/2015/09-mer-update-opportunity-rocks-on-ancient-water.html and http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-missions/mer-updates/2015/08-mer-update-opportunity-digs-marathon-valley-walkabout.html and http://www.nivnac.co.uk/martian_vistas/ Some photos are also there. I don't know what template to use for rocks on Mars, i.e. what infobox. Would you mind making the article for me? DN-boards1 (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@DN-boards1: Thank you for your comments - and request - *very* busy with one thing or another at the moment - but you are more than welcome to use one of my related edited articles, "Tintina (rock)" and/or "Jake Matijevic (rock)", as a guide (or template) for creating the [ [Private Robert Frazer (rock)]] article if you like - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy images

You might be interested in seeing this => "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Complaint: too many images in the articles" Huritisho 17:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your post - it's *greatly* appreciated - my comment on "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy" is copied below if interested - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Complaint: too many images in the articles":

{ {reply|Huntster|Huritisho|Joris}} Thank you for sharing your concerns before performing an images cleanup on the articles - I *entirely* agree with the views of [ [User:Huntster]] and [ [User:Joris]] re images - esp re the infographics - perhaps images cleanups may be best performed re specific images on a collaborative article-by-article basis? - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Past Water on Mars

New paper: [9], [10]. Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the links - just finished reading the related NASA report before finding your post here - *very* interesting studies of course - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I really like the article at [11] because it finally reveals that none of the atmosphere models match the findings in situ. There is a major geological mystery in the history of Mars. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for your comments - Yes - I noticed that in the Astrobiology article as well - and *entirely* agree with you - seems there's a lot more yet to discover about all this - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I heard that Jakosky, the PI of MAVEN orbiter mission, is sitting on very interesting data. He seems to be doing repeat observations to improve the precision and statistics. The past atmosphere is intimately linked to the presence/absence of liquid water. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"For decades, researchers have wondered if the flat, northern lowlands could have held an ocean during Mars' early history. The latest Curiosity results are re-igniting interest in this idea, says John Grotzinger.". BBC News. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the comments - yes - seems to be getting more interesting - if interested, added relevant references - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Marcy

Help me! - Please help me with... the "Geoffrey Marcy" article - a "WP:BLP" article afaik - is all *entirely* ok with the content of this article? - and in agreement with the very best policies of Wikipedia? - or not? - is there some better way of presenting the content of the article? - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce my edits of course - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any parts of the content you are particularly concerned about? I don't think you can expect someone to give the blanket approval you're looking for. I'd say the article inappropriately relies on primary sources and gives far too many quotes. It also seems to give a one-sided account of the sexual harassment issue, with Marcy's and his supporters' reactions covered in detail and the inappropriate conduct itself barely mentioned. I don't think that can be considered neutral coverage. Huon (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - seems you've covered all my concerns re the article - and more - your comments seem sufficiently worthy imo to be copied to "Talk:Geoffrey Marcy#Comments Welcome" - to help interested editors - please let me know if otherwise of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NASA - new images

Why do you take so long to add those images? - re one of your dawn spacecraft images. Just curious. Huritisho 00:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho: Thank you for your question - not up to me - up to NASA instead - NASA determines when the images become available - such images are generally posted on Wikipedia soon after NASA posts them on their "new images WebSite" (or some other NASA WebSite) - hope this helps answer your question - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's a really efficient way to edit. To post images as soon as they are released. Well, gj! Huritisho 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huritisho: Thanks for your comments - yes - agreed - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edits, esp if ok with others, of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You're just adding a small link to them, so that's ok :) Huritisho 16:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Beginning of Life

Interesting: [12], paper: [13] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes - Thank you - posted similar refs at "User talk:BatteryIncluded#US Congress - Astrobiology Report." and "2015 in science#October" => NEW & Somewhat Related => Scientists report finding fossil evidence of life on the very young Earth 4.1 billion years ago, 300 million years older than known earlier. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."

- Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you can fix the section in Abiogenesis: "The earliest biological evidence for life on Earth". Someone added the research at the bottom of the section, but the top needs updating too. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Added some text/refs to the Abiogenesis article - hope the adjs are ok - at least as a start - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Enceladus

In October 28 Cassini will perform a flyby through Enceladus' jets at an altitude of only 49 km (30 mi). I hope its analyzers will tell us more about the "simple" organics erupting from its sub-surface ocean. At least, it will get better pics of the Tiger Stripes. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Request re Oxia Planum

Requesting you create the Oxia Planum article, as it has turned the top contender for the ExoMars rover landing site: [14]. What say you? BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your suggestion - yes - created the Oxia Planum article - at least for starters - the article seems indicated of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I found this geologic study by the French: [15]. The image #6 is VERY good and would be very useful to the article, but I don't know how to convert PDF to jpg. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done @BatteryIncluded: - added File:NASA-OxiaPlanum-LocationMap-20151021.png and File:NASA-OxiaPlanum-GeologicalContext-Morphology-20140514.jpg to the article - hope these help - let me know if otherwise of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wizzard! Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin of organic compounds in meteorites

Interesting read: [16]. They think there are two ways (environments) the carbon was acquired before the Solar System was formed. (I think something was lost in translation Norwegian-English because the author mentions "genetic relationships" when there is no true genetics to speak of.) The high molecular weight precursors are PAHs and other macromolecules in pre-solar grains. The special article collection this month is at: [17]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the *Excellent* links - yes - *very* interesting reading - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Red meat: concern.

Hi I had previously seperated this into red meat and processed to make it more understandable. The bottom section is where i left all the content where the studies did not distinguish between red meat and processed red meat. When things are not controlled for the effects could be muddeled. This is basic science. THe only reason i left the text is as a note of what kind of content is left in this section. If you think i wrote it in a way that requires a cytation, please clean it up so that it does not require one otherwise the note will be most likely removed promptly. Citations are only needed for where there is controversy, this is a section heading saying what kind of content follows below, not a assertion of fact. Please fix as you wish and remove the tag as the comment will be soon removed otherwise. 108.237.220.82 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - you may be right about this of course - however, seems the "section" would be improved if the section had a citation(s) from a "WP:Reliable source" to support your viewpoint - otherwise the text may be considered "WP:NOR", which is discouraged - nonetheless, comments from other editors on the "talk page" of the "Red meat" article about this would be welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

MAVEN orbiter

NASA to Announce New Findings on Fate of Mars’ Atmosphere. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank you *very much* for the link - afaik - seems the MAVEN conference re "new findings" about the atmosphere of Mars will be on NASA TV at 2pm/et/usa, Thursday 11/5/2015 (ok to verify) - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: BRIEF Followup - evidence presented that the atmosphere of Mars has been stripped away by the Solar Wind (teleconference - 51:58)- in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I had forgotten all about it. Thank you! BatteryIncluded

References

Marcy

Hey Drb - thanks for poking at Geoffrey Marcy. I'm very hesitant to add any material to the article myself, since I am quite directly involved in the real-life situation, and only added the lines that I did because I found it vaguely awkward that our article on him was as positive sounding as it is given the amount of coverage the situation has received, and because of it's pretty much unprecedented nature in terms of the magnitude and speed of his fall from grace. The SFSU material seemed pretty directly relevant since it had been confirmed by someone who was SFSU's administrator handling sexual harrassment issues at the time, and pushed the dates of his behavior back by quite a bit. I added the Michael Eisen quote because besides his own prominence (he co-founded PLOS) he was one of the first two UCB faculty members to publicly speak out about Marcy's behavior, and adding at least one quote about his behavior seemed appropriate given that it's been publicly condemned by literally thousands of academics, including at least three dozen PhD-holding NASA employees, all but two of our astro faculty, etc. I'm going to avoid making any further edits to the article directly myself unless it's to remove blatant vandalism in one direction or another, but will shortly be starting to comment on the talk page more.

I would highly encourage you to exercise caution in deciding whether or not to include or exclude any material from the article, because a huge number of people likely to be active on the talkpage or article (myself heavily included) have real-world connections to the situation that brings our ability to follow NPOV in to significant doubt even when we attempt to do so. Pretty much any new editor and any established editor with connections to the UC system who edits the page can be safely assumed to have a conflict of interest in their edits in one direction or the other. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *greatly appreciated - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce my edits of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for KIC 8462852

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force

Please consider joining WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: Brief Followup - Thank you *very much* for the invitation - yes - currently a "WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force" member - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Global warming

SEVERAL Possible article additions are as follows:

ADDITION 1. Climate is the average (statistically, mean and variability) weather, usually over a 30-year interval.

ADDITION 2. In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause climate change and global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.

ADDITION 3. NASA-TV/ustream (11/12/2015@12noon/et/usa) - "Global warming-related" News Briefing.

IF Interested => NASA-TV/ustream and/or NASA-Audio (Thursday, November 12, 2015@12noon/et/usa) - NASA will detail the Role of Carbon on the Future Climate of the Earth - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• BRIEF Followup - REPLAY LINK (Audio; 66:01) => http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/77531778 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• SUMMARY (and possible addition to article) (see below) - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO₂) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere if half of global-warming emissions are not absorbed.
(NASA simulation; November 9, 2015)

References

Reply Talk:Health care in the United States

I have a reply here: Talk:Health care in the United States#Biased parts. Please have a look. Thanks.2601:647:4601:4634:A8EE:29FE:5863:6FC3 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

- Dispute resolution needed for Talk:Health care in the United States -
I need another person to come in and take a look at this issue regarding U.S. Healthcare on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Health care in the United States. Appreciate your help. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Global warming / Climate change / Climate

GW is the article for the present-day matters. Climate change is the long term stuff, so stuff like [18] isn't needed. One ref is enough. Climate, ditto; that section has see-main to GW, which is enough William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - no problem whatsoever - please uunderstand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce my edits of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Enceladus

I have nominated Enceladus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@DrKay: Thank you for the post - and notice - they're appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing guidebook: genes and proteins

Hi! You were suggested to me as someone with an interest in biochemistry - I wondered if you'd be willing to have a look at the Wiki Education Foundation's draft of a guidebook for genes and proteins articles? I'd appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eryk (Wiki Ed): Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - reviewed the draft and made some adjustments - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce my edits of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! Much appreciated. Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Physics and Star Wars

I also notice you wish to enlarge the map. While I understand your concerns, I think the way it was put on the lead was a mess. If you click on the map three times, you can view it in full size and detail. If you still wish to enlarge it in the article, I think the best way to do it is to allow me to expand the section so it can fit in the section. And as I explained in the talk page, I am in the process of citing and expanding the other sections like I did with the lightsaber section. But as I also explained this could take a few days, so be patient, I'll have it done. :-)--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nadirali: Thank you for your comments - my own related post on the "talk page" of the "Physics and Star Wars" article is as follows:

Copied from "Talk:Physics and Star Wars#Request to leave current sections":

@Nadirali and others - FWIW - attempted to improve the article - my efforts are presented HERE - seems a new effort to improve the article is now being attempted - if this newer effort is unsucessful for some reason, restoring my earlier effort is *entirely* ok with me - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. I've got the book with me and reading through the chapters will require me to make edits in long time gaps. Let me complete the article and then we can review my expansion together on the talk page. Enjoy the film- I don't plan on seeing it till January.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars articles to improve

While I continue my work on Physics and Star Wars, I thought you might be interested in improving List of Star Wars substances. It can be found in my sandbox User:Nadirali/sandbox. You are free to edit over there in my sandbox. Please try to find reliable sources to cite the article so it can be accepted.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you happen to look through Star Wars sources and analogues, try to italicise the word Star Wars wherever you see it. Thank you.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - they're appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Exoplanet - Wolf 1061c

I think the editors over at Wolf 1061c could use your help. Please watch out for Borg cubes! Viriditas (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your note re possibly habitable exoplanet "Wolf 1061c" - seems interesting - no lifeforms seems most likely imo atm; primitive lifeforms possible; Borgs unlikely (I hope) - iac, may have a closer look at the article next opportunity - Thanks again for your note - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10