Welcome!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place |
This is Drbogdan's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
Daily pageviews of User:Drbogdan
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Located in: Buffalo, New York | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
Established: 1846 – Endowment: $795 million – Students: 31,923 |
ART: Renoir's "Luncheon of the Boating Party” (1881) – Since 1923, At The *Phillips Gallery* In Washington, DC – Near My Apartment During My *GW University* Days.
(NOTE: My Related Clickable "Luncheon of the Boating Party" Image Effort on Wikipedia is Copied Below - Stay Safe and Healthy !!)
References
|
---|
References
|
Drbogdan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - of possible interest - just created a new article, "Hemoglycin" (related to one of my older articles, "Hemolithin") - while WikiSearching for a WikiLink for the "low-density lattice" phrase in my new "Hemoglycin" artice, I stumbled upon one of your own old Wikipedia efforts, "User:Viriditas/Computing megastructure" - but no WikiLink for the "low-density lattice" phrase - I decided that "Sphere packing" may be the best available WikiLink for the "low-density lattice" phrase - in any case - Comments Welcome - Drbogdan (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Have you been following the latest research papers? Two recent papers from last year:[1][2]. Press releases explaining the papers:[3][4]. Takeaway: "Mars may have had the conditions for life before Earth". Ignore this if you’ve already cited this work. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Copied from "Talk:Extraterrestrial life#Better "short description" of "ET life"?": (October 15, 2022)
This user believes that LIFE is "a chemical that can reproduce itself"..
- Dr. Dennis Bogdan (NYT 2012;1,2)Comment - As OA of this discussion re a "better" short description of "ET life", Thanks to all those who contrtibuted - it's appreciated - seems the original short description of "ET life" (ie,Life that did not originate on Earth) may be preferred at this time - this is *entirely* ok with me - no problem whatsoever - however - the discussion may be a bit more interesting if one were to consider a definition of "Life" itself - not easy - there are "many, many different attempts" to define "Life", but an easy worthy definition may be "somewhat challenging" (over 123 different definitions?[9]) - a short description of "ET life" may be related - incidentally, "my current preferred definition" of "Life" is a "chemical that is able to reproduce itself"[8] - and seems supported by some[10][11] - [NOTE - the aforementioned definition is broad - a Virus may be considered Life since a virus would be a chemical that can reproduce itself - in spite of the fact that the needed reproducing function (mechanism) is provided by (hijacked from) some host entity and that is not contained within itself] - "NASA" currently prefers "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution"[12] - [NOTE - this definition is less broad - a Virus may NOT be considered Life since essential parts may be missing, and require a needed host entity to provide any missing parts - especially those parts needed in reproducing itself] - nonetheless - exactly how "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, enter into the definition(s) of life is unclear afaik at the moment - perhaps how such life/non-life(?) substances enter into a short description of "ET life" may be even less clear I would think - in any case - these concerns informed my attempt to find a better short description of "ET life" on this talk-page - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Viriditas and ජපස: (and others) - Thank You for your recent reply - added, due to your recent interest about the notion of "Life Before Earth", another related reference[1] - and a "Graph" re "the regression of genome complexity over the years") - ALSO - related to all this is the 2014 work of "Avi Loeb", former head (2011-2020) of the Astronomy Department at "Harvard University" - posted in 2014 on my Facebook as => "SCIENCE: *LIFE* BEGAN SHORTLY AFTER *BIG BANG*? - NYT News (2014) ["Avi Loeb ponders the early universe, nature and life: Much-Discussed Views That Go Way Back"] => https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/science/avi-loeb-ponders-the-early-universe-nature-and-life.html[13] - TECHNICAL (2014) ["The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe"] => https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0613.pdf[14] - WIKIPEDIA ["'Origin of Life' (Abiogenesis)"] => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Life - Enjoy! 🙂" - in any case - Thanks again for your own recent reply - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas, ජපස, and Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Of possible interest in the search for life on Mars may be the following => On 21 February 2023, scientists reported the findings of a "dark microbiome" of unfamiliar microorganisms in the Atacama Desert in Chile, a Mars-like region of planet Earth.[16][17]
- iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - Seems there's a somewhat related article[18] from the journal "Nature" re "protoribosomes" (and the "Origin of Life") of possible interest - re the "David Kipping" "Astronomy PodCast (227:09)" - we're half-way through this *Excellent* interview - (got sidetracked with my newly created "Shakespearean actor" "Richard McMillan" article) - but we hope to complete the Kipping podcast at the first oppotunity - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - Somewhat related => Science (Nature Journal) News (10/16/2023) re "Detecting Life on Earth from Afar"[21] => https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03230-z ( archive no-ads version => https://archive.ph/nVVIZ ) - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and interested others) - *Entirely* ok with me to comment about the "Life Before Earth" "Redirect", either for or against, on the discussion page at => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § Life Before Earth" [original post => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17 § Life Before Earth"] - my own related comments are as follows:
Keep - As OA of the "Life Before Earth" "Redirect", seems there is sufficient (and ample) discussion of the "Life Before Earth" topic in the "Abiogenesis"- related discussions ( see => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Life before Earth - or not?" - and => Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 5#First sentence..." - and => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 4#Life from "Inanimate Matter" or "Simple Organic Compounds"?" ) - to justify the "Redirect" to the "Abiogenesis" article.
in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Life Before Earth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17 § Life Before Earth until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - of possible interest - seems a recent "Scientific American" article[1] about "exoplanets" and the "James Webb Space Telescope" (JWST) may provide a bit of a preview of upcoming studies of "exoplanets" and their composition, environmental conditions and potential for life. - seems to be a worthwhile read imo. - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The Fermi Paradox Revisited: Technosignatures and the Contact Era (2022)[4] Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Of possible interest => In April 2023, astronomers reported studies which concluded that, "... planets in the habitable zones of stars with low metallicity are the best targets to search for complex life on land."[5][6]
- iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !!- Drbogdan (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"The Universe contains life – on planet Earth – at least – and – we are not alone – life abounds – wherever we are – with microorganisms – at the very minimum."[7][8] - iac - Thanks again for your recent comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - Of possible interest - my "latest NYT comments (1/25/2023)[1] were published at => "https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/science/physics-cosmology-astronomy.html#permid=122777656" (also, "FaceBook") and are copied below (in case of a NYT paywall):
[START - NYT COMMENT/upd]
Wow - very interesting interview/discussion about the ongoing search for a "Theory of Everything" - a worthy overview about advanced physics to date - well done imo - perhaps related - a quote by physicists "Stephen Hawking" and "Leonard Mlodinow" (from their 2011 book "The Grand Design") may apply here as well:"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
One may wonder, of course, where did "a law such as gravity" come from - seems there may have been something rather than nothing after all? - in any case - if interested, "Wikipedia" has more details about the "Theory of Everything" at => "Theory of everything" - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dr. Dennis Bogdan "User:Drbogdan"
Supporting Reference: "The Grand Design (book)" - "The Grand Design" (2011) by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow
[END]
Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
File:Threebody.jpg
By Jove, I hope you have already read the Three-Body trilogy, and if you haven’t, please do so post haste! I read it many years ago, and have been relishing with great anticipation the new Chinese adaptation which I am currently making my way through on YouTube with the kind of satisfaction and delight I haven’t experienced in years. Of course, if you can’t bear to deal with English subtitles, then you should surely wait for the Americanized Netflix adaptation[1] (scheduled for release 2023-2024?), but I believe there is great merit to struggling through the Chinese adaptation first. However, if you haven’t already read the novels, don’t do it. Read them first, then approach it. Having talked with you about your film preferences before, I know for certain this is something you would love.
Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)"
@Viriditas: - If interested, seems the new "Three Body Problem" USA Version TRAILER (1:47) has just now (6/17/2023) been released[3] => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lj99Uz1d50 - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - UPDATE: Possible Real-World Concerns Regarding the "Three-Body Problem" ?[5] - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I just finished watching all 30 episodes. What a ride. I’m planning on buying the Blu-Ray on eBay, as they are the only site that offers it for sale. It would be great to find a dubbed version, as I find the subtitles distract me from the visuals. At the end of the day, the CGI is poor and there’s virtually no action of any kind except for maybe three or four episodes, so it’s a tour de force of acting and story, which is my dream (not a fan of superhero films, if you can’t already tell). I’m starting to think this might be the most accurate film adaptation of a science fiction book ever made. I’m somewhat sad that there are virtually no English-language films of this type and style made anymore. Everything now is about action and filmmakers spend almost no time chewing on ideas and concepts. This was 30 straight episodes focused intently on a single idea. Chinese filmmaking like this has no equal. Again, I highly recommend this show. You’re going to love it. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - FWIW - started watching the "Three-Body" 30-episodes MiniSeries - about one-third done - besides suggestions of some sort of a "Quantum world", the Series, at first glance, seems to be a combination (so far) of "Waiting For Godot", "HHGTTG", "The Holy Mountain" and, possibly, "Kin-dza-dza!" (milder animated version: "Ku! Kin-dza-dza") (ie, " "Mad Max" meets "Monty Python" by way of "Tarkovsky" "?) - we'll try to watch more at the next opportunity - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Finally - finished all 30 episodes of "Three-Body" - took awhile due to some real-world circumstances - nonetheless - we thought the series was Excellent - and agree - a very good ride - the Music was Excellent as well [ if interested, Music/youtube (Volume-1; 85:44) + (Volume-2; 84:32) ] - in any case - Thanks again for suggesting the series - it's *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - In September 2023, several possible solutions (12,409?) to the "Three-body problem" were reported.[1][2] - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
On 1 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article C/2022 E3 (ZTF), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I wasn’t sure if you were following this. I recommend listening to an interview with the authors. They found eight candidate alien signals but were unable to repeat the observation. I know you will enjoy the podcast! Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
I’m not sure if you remember British exomoonologist David Kipping from Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler, but Lex Fridman has a new mind blowing podcast interview with Kipping that you must listen to or watch. It’s episode #355. Prepare for amazement. I hope you have a comfy chair or couch, headphones, a warm fire, and four hours of free time. Enjoy, my friend! This is a trip you will not soon forget. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
08. "There May Be Many Technically Clever Life-Forms In The Universe - Many Such Life-Forms May Be Present In The Universe At The Moment - Or - In Times Past - But Since Space Is So Wide-spread And Time Is So Wide-ranging - Such Technically Clever Life-Forms May Not Ever Know Of Each Other."- in any case - Thanks again for the link and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
I only just found out about this book, but I think you might really like it. They also have an audiobook if you are into it: Meteorite: The Stones From Outer Space That Made Our World (2020) by Tim Gregory. Here is his website. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Most Competent Wikipedian in the History of the Multiverse Award | |
"Illegitimi non carborundum" – Just having fun with your haters on the redirect discussion board. Haters gonna hate. Don’t you pay them no mind. You’re the most competent human being I know. Those people won’t be happy until everyone is the same and there’s no perceptible differences between individuals. It’s not the world I want to live in. Anyway, don’t give them any more oxygen and just ignore them from here on out. Take a moment to touch grass; have some tea in the garden. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
@Viriditas and Tamzin: (and others) Yes - *entirely* agree - creating less "WP:Redirects" may now be in order of course - seemed that not too long ago, creating Redirects were being *encouraged* among WikiEditors - to help make it easier to find WikiArticles by searchers and the public - since then, there seems to have been some change in the related WikiThinking? - additionally, some Redirects were created to work better in Facebook (and related websites) since related posts to WikiArticle titles containing an ending ")" and/or ending "?" were not being detected for some reason - as a result, users would end up on a WikiError page instead of the WikiArticle as intended - I posted this problem in the "Village Pump" some years ago ( see "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 162#Workaround for dropped ")" in titles?" ) but did not obtain a better resolution to the concern at the time - a possible workaround seemed to be to create Redirects for such problematic WikiTitles - in any case - no problem whatsoever with this of course - just needed to know the latest WikiThinking about this these days - Thanks again for your comments - they are all *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
UPDATE (3/20/2023): Description of related problem is at => Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - SOLUTION (possible): Although not the ideal Solution - BUT - simply adding an UNDERSCORE to the end of such "problematic" WikiArticle Titles may help Workaround the Problem - at least for current FaceBook and my current EMail (Pop Peeper) (and, possibly, NYT) posts as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readin'_and_Writin' directs to a WikiError Page - BUT - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readin'_and_Writin'_ (with an added underscore) directs to the correct WikiArticle Title Page instead - and Not to a WikiError page - and Not with the use of an additional temporary WP:Redirect Page (see Dancin example described at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles?) - although not tested, this Solution should work in other social media postings (and newspaper postings) regarding such "problematic" WikiArticle Titles - this Solution, in part, was inspired by a suggested Workaround — Hamlet A.D.D..) — in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T28556 - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Three-Body - TV series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § Three-Body - TV series" [original post => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § Three-Body - TV series"] until a consensus is reached. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect 2022 protests suppressing reproductive rights in the United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at [original post => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § 2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States"] until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello there. I see from your membership in WikiProject:Medicine that you might be interested in helping me with an edit request I posted in February here:Talk:Vertex Pharmaceuticals#Triple combination treatments. My request was a response to a sentence that was added that I believe is an inaccurate interpretation of a New York Times article. Someone has already dismissed my request with little explanation, so I am seeking a second opinion from you, a more experienced editor. I would be thankful for any kind of help you could offer, even if it is just advice on how I can best have implemented a more neutral discussion of the subject. (I couldn't help but notice from the above discussion on your talk page that you are considering reading the Three Body Problem. I am in agreement with the above editor that it is an amazing trilogy, and if you have a chance to, you should indeed read it-before you watch the series.) Thanks so much, JohnDatVertex (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Sir, have you finished watching Three-Body? I am about to start Matter, the eighth book in the Culture series. It is unusual to me that no television adaptation has been made from these books. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Drbogdan! I hope you’re having a great Easter weekend. I’d like to expand the article Proteinoid, but have some problem with wording etc. In 1994, Pappelis and Fox proposed a taxonomic category for all proteinoid microspheres—Domain, or Kingdom Protolife. In addition, it includes a certain kind of proteinoid microsphere protocells, capable of synthesizing ATP, polynucleotides and polipeptides—"metaprotocells". The source: http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199907/0062.html Could you add this information to the article, please? It has been requested by someone on its talk page as well. I believe two or three sentences would be enough, simply to let readers know about that. In another paper, they suggested "progenote" (second to last universal ancestor) and "cenancestor" were metaprotocells https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-5056-9_26 Thank you! TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, the Human timeline is not relevant to chimpanzees and is too big and takes up room. A poster of chimps in a movie is also more relevant to a subsection on cultural depictions. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Somewhat related: Tried to include an appropriate note (ie, "Bonobo split") on the ((Human timeline)) at 2 mya re bonobos based on the following: "According to studies published in 2017 by researchers at The George Washington University, bonobos, along with common chimpanzees, split from the human line about 8 million years ago; moreover, bonobos split from the common chimpanzee line about 2 million years ago.[1][2]
- also tried "Chimpanzee➔Bonobo" on the ((Human timeline)) - and tried => "Bonobo-Chimp split" - more details at Template talk:Human timeline#Bonobo - iac - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ````
References
|
---|
References
|
Hi Drbogdan. I noticed your addition today to the Franklin article and I agree that doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01313-5 is an important new contribution. However, you have placed your mention of it straight into the WP:LEAD, without simultaneously putting it into the body of the article, where I think it needs to be placed into context. At present the bald statement that "Franklin was not a victim of the..." seems overly sensational, as the rest of the lead does not suggest she was! Perhaps you would consider refining the wording. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
In April 2023, scientists, based on new evidence, concluded that Rosalind Franklin was a contributor and "equal player" in the discovery process of DNA, rather than otherwise, as may have been presented subsequently after the time of the discovery.[1][2][3]" - should now be a bit better - *entirely* ok with me if you would like to make any further adjustments - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Have you had a chance yet to read the second edition of If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens...WHERE IS EVERYBODY?: Seventy-Five Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life by Stephen Webb?[5] I think you would really enjoy it. I'm making my way through it now, and I love how it goes into depth into the topic. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - Just now created the Stephen Webb (scientist)[1] article - surprised that there wasn't such a WikiArticle already - ok with me to contribute to the newly created article of course - interesting that Webb presented a very worthy (imo) TED talk in 2018 at the following =>
hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
John Durham’s Investigation Has Disclosed Corruption: His Own. The Barr-appointed special counsel was supposed to reveal “the crime of the century.” All he revealed was his incompetence—and worse.[1]
It would be good for the Durham special counsel investigation and Russia investigation origins counter-narrative articles. Somewhere there is a source that early on called Durham's efforts an attempt to "cover-up" (or "coverup") Trump's misdeeds. We need to find that source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Normally, I don’t tend to recommend that much by Robin Hanson, but this new video is something else. It’s almost 2.5 hours long, but it’s one of the best new discussions regarding ETI that I’ve ever seen or heard. Give it about 15 minutes for them to get the discussion going and set up the framework for the topic, and then it’s smooth sailing for the next two hours. The assumption behind this discussion is that life which may have seeded solar siblings in the stellar nursery could partly go towards explaining how an intelligent advanced alien civilization could potentially visit us and what it might mean. I hope you get a chance to watch this. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Drbodgan, I have undone your recent Ethan Siegel additions to various relativity related articles. Clearly the source is a private project of Ethan Siegel. We really can't count this as a reliable source. cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
According to Albert Einstein, much of the groundwork and discovery of his relativity theory was presented in the law of induction by Michael Faraday in 1834.[1][2]"
@DVdm: BRiEF Followup - restored earlier edits - with newly found WP:RS from Forbes[1] - should now be much, much better - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. 2402:800:6344:2A73:8DE5:C07C:DACA:63E6 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others): Seems Avi Loeb, Harvard astronomer, and his team, claim to have found ET material in the bottom of the ocean - many scientists are doubtful - my Comments were published recently (7/24/2023) in The New York Times. ( archive version => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PKN0r )[1] Drbogdan (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas and ජපස: (and others) - Thanks for your comments - re "Oppenheimer" (2023 film) - no, not seen yet, but would like to at some opportunity - director "Christopher Nolan" is a current favorite, seems somewhat like a "David Lean", but no "Fellini", "Kurosawa" or "Tarkovsky" of course imo - my WikiArticle, "The Bomb", about a two-hour 2015 PBS documentary film ("highly recommended" if possible) — WATCH FILM (complete; 115:05) => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrze43Uchm8 — concerns a more authentic (using recently declassified film footage) presentation of Oppenheimer and the times - re "Avi Loeb" - yes, *entirely* agree - seems some of his claims may help popularize science to many to some extent, but no "Sagan", or "Hawking" for that matter - nonetheless - claims made by Loeb may be more good than otherwise overall I would think - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
[START - MY NYT COMMENTS (8/24/2023)]
NYT Source at => https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/magazine/avi-loeb-alien-hunter.html#permid=12723784 (Archive Copy at => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/W9uBX )
Thank You for an *Excellent* article about Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb - and his search for signs of ET: My earlier NYT (2022) comments ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/magazine/extraterrestrials-technosignatures.html#permid=120460314 ) may also apply here: ... seems astronomers estimate that there are as many as "One Septillion" (1×10^24 or, 1 with 24 zeros) Stars in the observable Universe – more Stars (and Earth-like planets) than all the grains of beach sand on our planet Earth - in addition - there may be many technically clever Lifeforms in the Universe - many such Lifeforms may be present in the Universe at the moment - or - in times past - but since Space is so wide-spread and Time is so wide-ranging - such technically clever Lifeforms may not ever know of each other - nonetheless - we know the Universe contains Life – on planet Earth at least – and – we know we are not alone – life abounds wherever we are – with microorganisms at the very minimum - these facts are included in my "Top Ten Science Facts" ( a "clickable" listing with references from the responsible scientific literature ) about the Universe on Wikipedia ( if interested, see => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts - as well as - my NYT (2012) comments at => https://nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/can-a-jellyfish-unlock-the-secret-of-immortality.html#permid=7750849 )[4] ...BRIEF Followup - somewhat related: According to Nobel Prize-Winning physicist Didier Queloz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Queloz ): "I can't believe we are the only living entity in the universe. There are just way [too] many planets, way too many stars, and the chemistry is universal. The chemistry that led to life has to happen elsewhere. So I am a strong believer that there must be life elsewhere." If interested, even more related details are on Wikipedia at => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb - and => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life In any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
[END]
The only way I think I can agree to this as a "science fact": The Universe contains life – on planet Earth – at least – and – we are not alone – life abounds – wherever we are – with microorganisms – at the very minimum.
is if we are talking about the only known biosphere. Otherwise, I fear we know far too little about (a) what everyone will ultimately agree "life" is if it is ever discovered beyond the Earth and, given, (b) what precise circumstances are required to allow for life to develop in any given location. jps (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to see the Netflix original film Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine (2023)? It's not bad, but they kept it really simple, and I wanted them to go into more detail about the engineering challenges. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
(ie, * "Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine (Netflix; 2023) – film documentary about the development and deployment of the James Webb Space Telescope.)- might view the film at some opportunity - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Although there have been recent edits to the article on the town, we still don’t have an article on the Deniliquin impact structure (or whatever you would call it). "New evidence suggests the world’s largest known asteroid impact structure is buried near the New South Wales town of Deniliquin."[7] Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Noticed you're active at this article in question, and an experienced contributor. Soliciting feedback on if the Morrigan, Gary, and IPv6 "contributors" active there during August of 2023 are sock/meat puppets? M and G are identical, and IPv6 is in the same linguistic and ideological ballpark. Would like your opinion on the matter (and opinion of watchers to your page – they might be good ones! 😋). Thanks for your time. -- dsprc [talk] 12:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ScreenCapture-AnnasArchive-20221220.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. Wow, it's been almost exactly four years and a month since our last contact. What a four years. And what a four years for Small Body science- see 101955 Bennu, per our prior contact.
discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think it's been amply demonstrated that Rowan Forest is a dupe- he thinks he's informed and qualified, but he exceeds his (existent? non?) qualification by editing in excess. In this particular case, he exceeds his ability to comment- and edit- on solar system astronomy, cosmochemistry, the origin of Earth's water, high-energy physics in Solar wind and GCR exposure, etc. and actually starts getting in the way: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect The way is clear, and has been for a while now. If you'll bear with me: 1. Astrochemical water has been understood for some time now. Because solar wind particles are quasi- and superthermal, and because solar system impacts are largely hypervelocity impacts, the distinction between bound (mineralogical) water, hydroxyl, hydrogenating agents acting on oxides, etc. and "civilian" (layman) water is not a real distinction at all to us. It _is_ a distinction to the civilians, and that's civilian thinking for you. We don't expect Rowan Forest or other pedestrians to get it, so we don't ask. Snodgrass, C. Agarwal, J. Combi, M. Fitzsimmons, A. Guilbert-Lepoutre, A. Hsieh, H. H. Hui, M-T. Jehin, E. Kelley, M. S. P. Knight, M. M. Opitom, C. Orosei, R. de Val-Borro, M. Yang, B. 2017 The Main Belt Comets and ice in the Solar System, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. vol. 25 5 Alexander, C. M. O'D. McKeegan, K. Altwegg, K. Feb 2018 Water Reservoirs in Small Planetary Bodies: Meteorites, Asteroids, and Comets, Space Sci. Rev. vol. 214, iss. 1 Marty, B. Yokochi, R. 2006 Water in the Early Earth, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry vol. 62 pp. 421 Notice these are review articles, in review journals. It's time to stop playing. 1b. In any case, astrochemical water _does_ include both ice and liquid in asteroids... Again, this is beyond the civilians: Campins, H. Hargrove, K. Pinilla-Alonso, N. Howell, E. S. Kelley, M. S. Licandro, J. Mothe-Diniz, T. Fernandez, Y. Ziffer, J. 2010 Water ice and organics on the surface of asteroid 24 Themis, Nature vol. 464, pp. 1320 Rivkin, A. S. Emery, J. P. April 2010 Nature, vol. 464, pp. 1322 Schorghofer, N. Hsieh, H. H. Novakovic B. Walsh, K. J. Sep 2020 Preservation of polar ice on near-Earth asteroids originating in the outer main belt: A model study with dynamical trajectories, Icarus vol. 348 article 113865 Turner, S. McGee, L. Humayun M. Creech, J. Zanda, B. 2021 Carbonaceous Chondrite meteorites experienced fluid flow within the past million years, Science 08 Jan 2021 vol. 371, iss. 6525, pp. 164 (doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8116 - yes, it's open access) …because the notion of "comet" and "asteroid" as rigid categories with a hard boundary has been destroyed, and has been for a while now. Some relevant references are already in the Bennu article, assuming Rowan Forest didn't mangle them. 2. In this context (along with the while-in-progress study of water in Itokawa samples, from Hayabusa post-examination- Jin, Z. Bose, M. Peeters, 2018 49th Lun. Plan. Sci. Conf. #2083), both Hayabusa2 and OSIRIS-REx teams had confidence their science investigations would have something to report: Stolte, D. Jan, 9, 2014 7 Questions for Dante Lauretta, Leader of UA's Biggest Space Mission ( http://news.arizona.edu/story/7-questions-for-dante-lauretta-leader-of… ) You'll note one of Lauretta's answers: water. 3. The (in-flight) results were surprising: in December 2018- before OSIRIS-REx even entered orbit around Bennu- Lauretta could announce early results at a press conference. The water spectra were so obvious, they were spotted while the spacecraft was still technically in cruise. Being a press conference, there are multiple records (a YouTube repost) of it: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12658 "OSIRIS-REx Arrives at Bennu -- 2018 AGU Press Conference" https://mediastream.ndc.nasa.gov/Public3/webvid/SCI/2019/GSFC-2019-SCI-0925/ Again, note Lauretta's exact words, with bullet cards for visual emphasis. You may even be able to turn captions on, if you're still not 100% sure he said it. Other scientists, including from other organizations, confirmed this conclusion independently: Nuth, J. A. III Abreu, N. Ferguson, F. Glavin, D. Hergenrother, C. Hill, H. Johnson, N. Pajola, M. Walsh, K. Dec 2020 Volatile-rich Asteroids in the Inner Solar System, Planetary Science Journal vol. 1 pp. 82 (open access, I believe) Kaplan, H. H. Hamilton, V. E. Howell, E. S. Anderson, S. F. Barrucci, M. A. Brucato, J. Burbine, T. H. Clark, B. E. Cloutis, E. A. Connolly, H. C. Jr. Dotto, E. Emery, J. P. Fornasier, S. Lantz, C. Lim, L. F. Merlin, F. Praet, A. Reuter, D. C. Sandford, S. A. Simon, A. A. Takir, D. Lauretta, D. S. 2020 Visible-near-infrared spectral indices for mapping mineralogy and chemistry with OSIRIS-REx, Meteor. Plan. Science vol. 55, iss. 4, pp. 744 Potin, S. Beck, P. Usui, F. Bonal, L. Vernazza, P. Schmitt, B. 2020 Style and intensity of hydration among C-complex asteroids: a comparison to desiccated carbonaceous chondrites Per practice in our field, Lauretta is listed as the last coauthor on the Kaplan et al. 2020 paper. He is not actually a coauthor, in the English sense. The research group, as a courtesy to the facility "owner" who gave them the data they needed, list him out of politeness, and to increase his CV. Otherwise, note the serious names from our field who are validating the Bennu spectra. That is, if one is able to recognize the serious names from our field. 3b. In parallel, Hayabusa2 was in progress. Haya2 samples have now been recovered and studied, and they contain water. Both liquid: Zolensky, M. Dolocan, A. Bodnar, R. Gearba, I. Martinez, J. Han, J. Nakamura, T. Tsuchiyama, A. Matsuno, J. Sun, M. Matsumoto, M. Fujioka, Y. Enokido, Y. Uesugi, K. Takeuchi, A. Yasutake, M. Miyake, A. Okumura S. Mitsukawa, I. Takigawa, A. Mikouchi, T. Enju, S. Morita, T. Kikuiri, M. Amano, K. Yurimoto, H. Noguchi, T. Okazaki, R. Yabuta, H. Naraoka, H. Sakamoto, K. Tachibana, S. Watanabe, S. Tsuda, Y 2022 Direct Measurement of the Composition of Aqueous Fluids from the Parent Body of Asteroid 162173 Ryugu, 53rd Lun. Plan. Sci. Conf #1451 Nakamura, T Matsumoto, M. Amano, K. …and I won't list all 70-plus coauthors 2022, Early History of Ryugu's Parent Asteroid: Evidence from Return Sample, 53rd Lun. Plan. Sci. Conf #1753 …and cosmochemical water: Nittler, L. R. 2022 Can SIMS measurements constrain the D/H ratio of water on Ryugu? 2022 Hayabusa Symposium, #S21-02 Nittler, L. R. Barosch J. Wang, J. ALexander, C. M. O'D. 2023 Water in Asteroid Ryugu is Deuterium-Rich Compared to Earth and CI Chondrites, 54th LPSC # Verchovsky, A. B. Abernethy, F. A. J. Anand, M. Franchi, I. A. Grady, M. M. Greenwood, R. C. Suttle, M. Ito, M. Tomioka, N. Uesugi, M. Yamaguchi, A. Kimura, M. Imae, N. Shirai, N. Ohigashi, T. Liu, M-C. Yada, T. Abe, M. Usui, T. 2023 Ryugu's volatiles investigated using stepped combustion and EGA methods, 54th LPSC #2471 Yesiltas, M. Glotch, T. D. Kebukawa, Y. Northrup, P. Sava, B. 2023 Nano-Scale Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy of Ryugu Particles, 86th Meteoritical Society Meeting #6161 Note, too, some of the serious names involved here- if you can. If you can't, then what basis do you have to judge who is and isn't serious? 4. Again, one good collaborator/competitor in the field improves the breed. In light of the in situ (direct) Ryugu sample results, as well as the remote sensing (indirect) OSIRIS-REx data, the relevant teams are even more confident their lines of investigation would run through to interesting samples. Very interesting samples: Kurokawa, H. Shibuya, T. Sekine, Y. Ehlmann, B. L. Usui, F. Kikuchi, S. Yoda, M. Jan 2022 Distant Formation and Differentiation of Outer Main Belt Asteroids and Carbonaceous Chondrite Parent Bodies, AGU Advances Montoya, M. Plummer, J. Martinez, S. III Snead, C. J. Lunning, N. Righter, K. Allums, K. Rodriguez, M. Funk, R. C. Connelly, W. Gonzalez, C. Calva, C. Ferrodous, J. Lugo, G. Hernandez Gomez, N. Connolly, H. C. Jr. 2023 Materials-Compliant Containers in Preparation for OSIRIS-REx Sample Return, 86th Meteoritical Society Meeting #6050 …direct quote: " This carbonaceous material is predicted to be rich in water and organic compounds" Prince, B. S. Zega, T. J. Connolly, H. C. Jr. Lauretta, D. S. 2023 Developing Fluid Inclusion Analysis Techniques in Anticipation of OSIRIS-REx Sample Return, 86th MetSoc #6155 …direct quote: " We anticipate fluid inclusions to…" Bonato, E. Helbert, J. Schwinger, S. Maturilli, A. Greshake, A. Hecht, L. 2023 The Sample Analysis Laboratory At DLR And Its Extension To Curation Facility for MMX, 86th MetSoc #6035 …direct quote: "and presence of water", including on Ryugu, Bennu, lunar and Phobos samples The MetSoc meeting has abstracts posted publicly- just search the meeting site, or do a web search. (I will caution, though: the OSIRIS-REx sample return capsule was not given the extensive sealing that the Hayabusa2 capsule got. There is a chance that the OREx spacecraft held the capsule in the Sun too much, and baked off too much water. This is reviewed in Nuth et al. 2019.) So, who is this telling us our water is not "real" water? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Who is this telling us that our results- openly published, including peer-reviewed journals- is not "real"? Civilians, that's who. Untrained, inexperienced people attempt to correct us, in the process demonstrating that they _can't_correct_us_ . Who is this attempting to correct Conel Alexander on geochemistry? Who is this attempting to correct Mike Zolensky on sample handling? Who is this attempting to deny that Dante Lauretta- the Principal Investigator of OSIRIS-REx- did not, in fact, state publicly and clearly the results of OSIRIS-REx? And then make another public appearance, and state it AGAIN? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect "people who are at the amateur level, they really haven't seen the master level. So they've seen maybe hints of it, and maybe they've seen that, occasional things where another person's a little bit better than they are, but that's all they've ever seen… not knowing what the best looks like, we can presume that we're very close to that top, and the reason we think we're close to the top is we really haven't seen that top." "incompetent people are going to, it's going to be more difficult for them to learn just how, um, low their skill level is, and this isn't about denial this isn't about self-deception, they're just not in a position to know…" -Dr. David Dunning Interview As for the notion- a terrestrial notion- that hydroxyl, specifically, is not "real water", we in the field never had such narrow vision. Hydroxyl, being highly reactive, interconverts readily. Some refs, confirming prior refs: Zhu, C. Gobi, S. Abplanalp, M. Frigge, R. Gillis-Davis, J. Dominguez, G. Miljkovic, K. Kaiser, R. Jan 2020 Regenerative water sources on surfaces of airless bodies, Nature Astronomy Nakauchi, Y, Abe, M. Ohtake, M, Matsumoto, T, Tsuchiyama, S. Kitazao, K. Yasuda, Suzuki, K. Nakata, Y. Feb 2021 The formation of H2O and Si-OH by H2 irradiation in major minerals of carbonaceous chondrites, Icarus vol. 355 article 114140 …because the hydrogen held in organics is, too, considered water, as it becomes free to react in certain cases: Rahmdohr, P.1973 The Opaque Minerals in Stony Meteorites, Elsevier Publ. Co. Amsterdam pp. 15 "the paraffinoid hydrocarbons act to reduce the FeO, …whereby H2O and CO2 are expelled as reaction products." Nakano, H. Hirakawa, N. Matsubara, Y. Yamashita, S. Okuchi, T. Asahina, K. Tanaka, R. Suzuki, N. Naraoka, H. et al. May 2020 Precometary organic matter: A hidden reservoir of water inside the snow line, Scientific Reports vol. 10 pp. 7755 That's cosmochemistry for you- it's cosmic, not pedestrian. I'll also point out that deleting cited and relevant material is a violation of WP policy. Therefore deleting Nuth et al, Lauretta 2018, 2019, etc. among others is to be reverted immediately. We won't ask. We don't let unqualified laymen tell us what to say, how to work, what we can print, etc. when such laymen don't go to LPSC, MetSoc, SBAG, Goldschmidt, or even know what a Goldschmidt is. And they actually think they're helping. Now that you know the issue at hand, quite clearly, and the practices of Rowan Forest, Prosfilaes, etc., what is our resolution? |
107.19.9.250 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
"Template:Life timeline/sandbox2/doc" has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Drbogdan. Thank you for your work on K2-2016-BLG-0005Lb. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn))
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: - Thanks for your recent comments above re the "Deniliquin multiple-ring feature" - they're appreciated.
If interested, recently posted several brief comments re an effort to improve the "Life" article - and are copied below - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Copied from "Talk:Life/GA3#Drbogdan comments" --
FWIW - current version/20Sep2023 (here) seems a considerable improvement over earlier versions, culminating most recently/16Aug2023 (here) - Thank You for all your recent efforts with this very, very difficult challenge of course - nonetheless - for me at the moment, a more simple overall description of life continues to be preferred - life is a chemical (or matter) that can reproduce itself[1][2][3] - this description seems to better cover all currently known life forms - as well as all those related chemicals not usually considered life forms for one reason or another - including "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, - the one single process common to all life forms seems to be reproduction - whether internally within itself, or externally outside itself with the help of a host (and/or catalyst?) of some sort - even after starting, life matter seems to continue reproducing at all life form levels witnin all life forms (cells reproduce, tissues reproduce, organs reproduce, etc) and reproduction, by itself as a process, seems to best distinquish life matter from non-life matter overall - in any case - my current thinking about all this at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for all your help with this - it's greatly, greatly appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
ReferencesReferences
- ^ Luttermoser, Donald G. (2016). "ASTR-1020: Astronomy II - Course Lecture Notes - Section XII" (PDF). East Tennessee State University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 July 2017. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
- ^ Luttermoser, Donald G. (2016). "Physics 2028: Great Ideas in Science: The Exobiology Module" (PDF). East Tennessee State University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 April 2016. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
- ^ Bogdan, Dennis (2 December 2012). "Comment - Life Thrives Throughout Universe?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 20 September 2023. Retrieved 20 September 2023. NOTE: Archived no-ad/paywall version => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/sOPKZ
Drbogdan (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This has your name written all over it. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Copied from "Talk:Life/GA3#Drbogdan comments" --
Brief Followup - by coincidence, and seemingly consistent to some extent with my own published NYT comments[1] re a simpler, and broader, description of life,[1] very recent studies[2][3] may be a related way of describing life matter in the universe that may not be carbon-based, or even Earth-based, but possibly viable nonetheless - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - Seems the following recent Essay (The Atlantic; 5 December 2023),[4] entitled "What Is Life? - The answer matters in space exploration. But we still don’t really know."
, of interest - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Updated References:
Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Nonethelesss, further studies of the exoplanet, reported in September 2023, also found no signs of an atmosphere, and commented that the "planet could be a bare rock, have clouds high in the atmosphere or have a very heavy molecule like carbon dioxide that makes the atmosphere too small to detect,"[1][2]- should be ok - comment if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Please see the Education in Florida article and this Talk:Education in Florida#Shakespeare and Dr. Bogdan note I added to the talk page. Novellasyes (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Brief followup - above references[4][5] have been adjusted to be *entirely* ok for further addition to articles if interested - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Hi Drbogdan, I hope you’re doing well. If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask a question regarding the article Earliest known life forms you created. On its talk page, someone requested more details about the microfossils taxonomy. Would it be reasonable to add such information to the article? The microorganisms from around 3.42 Ga were archaea (archaeal methanogens and/or methanotrophs), and those from 3,465 Ma were bacteria and archaea (extant phototrophic bacteria, methane-producing archaea, and methane-consuming γ-proteobacteria); see refs 1 and 8-9, respectively. I’m not an experienced Wikipedia user, however, and don’t know where exactly it should be placed there. Since you’re the author of this great and interesting article, could you edit it, please? The information I mentioned seems relevant, I believe. Thank you in advance, and greetings from Poland, TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm so glad you created this article in 2020 after our little discussion about the trending topic. Once in a while, our talks pan out! Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your recent comments - may get around to your suggestion later - at the moment, if interested, posted some FB/NYT comments as follows => "SCIENCE: Modern Concerns of *Artificial Intelligence* (AI) and *Nuclear Apocalypse* Both Explained by *Prometheus*, Diety of Ancient Greek Mythology? - MY NYT COMMENTS (10/21/2023) => https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/books/review/robert-oppenheimer-john-von-neumann-prometheus.html#permid=128625038 ( archive no-ads version => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/UKkSe ) - WIKIPEDIA => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus"[1] - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. rootsmusic (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
* Keep. Yes - *entirely* agree with those above that consider the current article worthy (for a variety of reasons) - and relevant - noneteless - further improvements are ok of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I recently noticed you introduced large changes to ((user email b)), which I undid and moved to ((user email c)) -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 20:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Aloha, Regarding your contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_soaring&diff=1125917309&oldid=1103429778 if you look at the McRae reference there is no mention that dynamic soaring is used for interstellar travel. It is a summary of the reference that I added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_soaring&diff=1164350142&oldid=1151176482 This reference describes use of Greason’s reaction drive for interstellar travel. I changed Wikipedia Dynamic Soaring to ensure that this summary is verifiable from the original citations per Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please discuss here if you disagree. Dmcdysan (talk) Dmcdysan (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I found your name on WikiProject:Pharmacology. Since you are involved in various pharmaceutical and medical-related content, would you mind looking at my latest edit request for WuXi AppTec? Thank you very much! AM WuXi (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Cancer (film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § Cancer (film until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Denny (hybrid hominin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § Denny (hybrid hominin until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)