User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 2

new panspermia possibility
What I was doing was discussing with a friend about the possible origins of the moon. Since i was actually typing, i had to actually think about my responses before typing and while i was in the middle of typing one response, some thought hit me like a ball peen hammer. it solves ALL questions. 1) The earth mark 1 wasn't lifeless, it had bacteria and an ocean.

2) When struck by Orpheus to create our moon, all life on both planets were disintegrated but some material containing life was sprayed into space and instantly froze.

3) After the earth cooled enough to support life again, some of the bacteria took hold after raining back down on the planet. in the mean time, some of the bacteria made its way to Mars and started up there.

4) A collision back there blasted off a chunk of Mars sterilizing the planet and made it land in antarctica to be found by modern scientists for a life on mars debate.

this solves the panspermia idea, it solves the life on mars idea, it solves the question on if life existed on the earth mark 1, and most of all, it poses a new question about the real age of our solar system since we now know the explosion that created earth mark 2 was 4.5 billion years ago and life existed back then on our planet. how did life start in the earth mark 1? who knows, maybe panspermia again. it also solves the origin of the moon. Wheller007 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recent comments - if interested, my own present thinking about life-forms was published recently in the New York Times at the following =>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/can-a-jellyfish-unlock-the-secret-of-immortality.html?comments#permid=105 - as well as on my LiveJournal at =>http://drbogdan.livejournal.com/5861.html - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar

 * @Fotaun - Wow! - Thank You *Very Much* For The Mars Star and The Space Barnstar- They're *Very Much* Appreciated - I Wish You A Great 2013, And Success In Editing, As Well - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well thank you for that! Fotaun (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
@Fotaun - Thanks Again! - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology
Indeed, Chandra is the reviewer of his own journal and his own articles:. Please see my comment and questions in the Panspermia talk page. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - I *entirely* agree with you and your recent edits on this - trulyreliable sources are better of course - thanks again- and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Asian mass media is having a field day. I think that starting the Polonnaruwa (meteorite) article would help Wikipedia keep it as objective as can be. I would be gratefull for your knowledge and vigilant eye on it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded(talk) 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The new article on Polonnaruwa (meteorite) looks good - yes, the artcle's now on my watchlist - guess we'll have to wait and see - thanks for letting me know - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up: The unsanitized and complete version of Sharov's hypothesis was published on the JoC . Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment - my thinking at the moment is that the original NIHpublication (in 2006) is worthy and substantial - the "copied"(?) JoC publication (in 2009) is inconsequential in comparison I would think - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lake Vostok
This is the original press release: http://rt.com/news/lake-vostok-russia-bacteria-944/ "There has been one strain of bacteria which we did not find in drilling liquid, but these bacteria could in principal use kerosene as an energy source,” the head of the laboratory of the same institution, Vladimir Korolev said. "That is why we can’t say that a previously-unknown bacteria was found,” he stressed." Cheers, BatteryIncluded(talk) 13:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for the ref re the bacteria - relevant sections of the Lake Vostokand 2013 in science articles have now been updated - hope the updated texts are ok - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Article: Just What is Going on at Lake Vostok?. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this latest news - interesting - seems to support one of my favorite sayings these days: "If you want to understand the mysteries of the world, follow the money; the mysteries of the universe, the evidence." - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Latest news story is that the newly discovered bacteria is "new" after all? =>Mysterious bacterium found in Antarctic lake (AP News, 12:09pm, March 11, 2013) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 00:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a wonderful saying. I hope you don't mind if I start using it.  Regarding the new bacteria, remember that microbiologists are able to culture only 2% of all existing bacteria, mostly for their medical/commercial implications.  So finding a kerosene-eating bacteria is not surprising.  I think that the point is growing bacteria that inhabits the lake water, and they have to wait for a pristine sample.  Thanks again, -BatteryIncluded(talk) 12:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem whatsoever using the quote - seems to work for me these days - also yes, waiting for the results of a pristine sample makes a lot of sense to me as well - thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback tool deployment
Hey Drbogdan; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

New Mars rock: Tintina
Maybe this Martian rock (Tintina) can have a wiki-article?: Curiosity breaks rock to reveal dazzling white interior (BBC News, 19 March 2013). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I Was Considering Something Like This (re latest hydration findings) - Recently Added An Image/Caption of The"Tintina" Rock (and others) To The List of rocks on Mars Article - Busy At the Moment - But Soon - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Created Tintina (rock) article - at least for starters - hope it's ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Age of the Universe
FYI, I've reverted your update to the Age of the Universe. I had already updated the age based upon the journal article, which quotes 13.798 ± 0.037 × 109 years when combining the Planck-only data with the estimates from other sources; the 13.82 billion number that's widely circulating in the press appears (as far as I can tell) to be the Planck-only number, which is marginally higher but doesn't include other data. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124;contribs) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very, very much* for this information - seems I may have to re-do some other edits- including 2013 in science; Big Bang; Cosmic microwave background radiation;Hubble's law; Planck (spacecraft); Universe - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Energy of the cosmos
Hi Dennis, I see we've been editing a couple of the same articles recently and was wondering if you'd be interested in helping with something. In the Physical cosmology article there's a poorly written section, Energy of the cosmos, that really needs rewriting. I copied the section to my sandbox with the intention of including material from the second half of this Stanford University cosmology lecture by Leonard Susskind, which I'd recently watched.

To be honest, I was getting in a muddle trying to decide how far back to begin, and how much or little detail to go into. I suppose it could stick to the four epochs described in the video, as that follows where the energy of the Universe was deployed at different times. Then there's dark matter and dark energy. It get's confusing! If you'd like to have a go at writing something you're welcome to use my sandbox, or maybe just provide a bit of opinion and a few pointers. If nothing else I hope you enjoy the video. Kind regards,nagualdesign (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nagualdesign - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestions - sounds interesting - at the moment I'm somewhat busy w/ a few projects but may take a look-see, at least, at the first opportunity - thanks again for your post - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. No worries. Anyone else reading this is also welcome to join in. Feel free to make changes to my sandbox. nagualdesign(talk) 04:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Extraterrestrial skies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleExtraterrestrial skies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Extraterrestrial skies 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.Roodog2k (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post - my comment was posted on theDiscussion WebSite and is also copied below:


 * KEEP - Seems to be a *Very Popular* (and Reader-friendly?) Wikipedia Article - ALSO - seems to satisfy WP:NASTCRIT #3 => "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals." => SeeReferences - in any case -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernican Principle Arbitration Notice
I have filed for arbitration on this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit&section=2 Wyattmj (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC) You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atArbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Thanks, — Precedingunsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.
 * Thanks for your comment - on theWikipedia Arbitration Pagewas as follows:



Statement by Drbogdan
FWIW - my usual "edit summary" re the Copernican principle article urged a discussion on the article's talk page - to reach WP:CONSENSUS among interested (& knowledgeable) editors per WP:BRD - as follows =>edit - text doesn't seem well settled - please discuss on talk page - and reach "WP:CONSENSUS" first - per "WP:BRD" & related." - afaik this seemed appropriate at the time for the text/refs involved - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see for potential suggestions on moving forward. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk 07:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post - my comment on the Noticeboard was as follows:



Opening comments by Drbogdan
, my involvement in the Copernican principle article was limited to the questionable quality of newly posted text and references- and urged a discussion on the article's talk page - to reachWP:CONSENSUS among interested (& knowledgeable) editors per WP:BRD - as follows =>edit - text doesn't seem well settled - please discuss on talk page - and reach "WP:CONSENSUS" first - per "WP:BRD" & related." - afaik this seemed appropriate at the time for the text/refs involved - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mars 3 probe
RT: "Russian space fan may have found lost Soviet Mars probe in NASA photos" Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yes, just uploaded related image - File:PIA16920-MarsSoviet3Lander1971-PossibleDebrisField.jpg - of the possilble "debris field" and related - Thanks again - and -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Brits are still looking for Beagle 2; I hope they will find it some day in the same way. Have a great weekend. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree re Beagle 2 - thanks for the comments - hope you have a great weekend also- Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-cellular life
I just added a "Controversy" section to the Non-cellular life. Please review and edit at will. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - your newly posted section is *excellent* imo - thanks again -and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Archicebus
Thank you for your initial work on the Archicebus article. I will be working to expand it significantly over the coming days, as I did last night. Just so you know, I'venominated it for "In the news". – Maky  « talk » 11:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Maky - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and help with this material (some of this is a bit new to me atm) - it's all *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Brief followup - and fwiw - I've noted some of this material earlier on 2013 in science - as well as Archicebidae & Archicebus &Archicebidae & Archicebus - Enjoy! :)

Past habitability of Mars
Hello. I wanted to let you know that while researching and documenting the past habitability claims by NASA, I finally understood the context of the NASA press release early this year. Basically, their press release stated that the chemistry pointed at the likelihood of past habitable environment on Mars, a fact that I contended as a "media stunt" as habitability requires several factors, not just soil chemistry. So I believe I edited your post then, toned it down and used "cautious optimism" in the Wikipedia article. Now it is clear to me that they did reach the past habitability conclusion by using not just on the soil chemistry and evidence of past flowing water, but on all other environmental factors previously characterized by other missions. The soil chemistry and the ancient stream bed finds were the final nail, not just the only proof. I see now that the Curiosity find complemented the previous discoveries of a now dead magnetosphere (global magnetic field) and the long-gone thick atmosphere that acted together as a radiation shield, and with the higher atmospheric pressure, presence of liquid water and soil chemistry, made it potentially habitable in the past.

As far as current surface habitability goes, the papers available bring it near to zero, but the subsurface habitat models and hypotheses are looking good.

So, it looks to me like the press release was not a complete list of the factors that helped them reach the conclusion, it only mentioned the last find that completed the past habitability requirements. So I want to apologize with you for that. I should have noticed the lack of scientific criticism after that release. I also want to let you know that I have always attempted to edit the astrobiology-related articles with the best accuracy and impersonal objectivity I can. Please don't hesitate to keep me in line in the future, I know you long enough to trust you in this media. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @BatteryIncluded - Thank you for your *very* clear comments - they're *very* much appreciated - no problem whatsoever - seems to come with the territory to some extent - for us all at one time or another - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought you may find this article on Esperance rock (clay) interesting:Old Opportunity Mars rover makes rock discovery.
 * "We run around talking about water on Mars. In fact, what Opportunity has mostly discovered, or found evidence for, was sulphuric acid." Cheers, BatteryIncluded(talk) 16:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note - and link - hope to check this out first opportunity - Thanks again- and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @BatteryIncluded - Brief followup -BBC news story seems similar to an earlier NYT news story - which provided the source for my posted notes on theOpportunity article as follows:

 Copied from Opportunity (rover): On May 17, 2013, NASA announced that a preliminary analysis of one of the rock targets, named "Esperance", suggested that water in the past may have had a neutral pH.< ref name="NASA-20130517"> This was later confirmed in further studies, supporting the notion that ancient Mars was a "water-rich world with conditions amenable for life".< ref name="NYT-20130607">
 * I also posted the related image of "Esperance" rock at that time - maybe let me know if I may have missed something? - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 16:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops! you are ahead of me several months. I know you follow closely the latest rocks on Mars and I thought it was recent news judging by the date on that BBC news clip. I did not know you already had documented it in Wikipedia and I did not search for it before writing you. CheersBatteryIncluded (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever - Thanks in any regards of course - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello! I thought you may enjoy this NASA video: . Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link - added several relevant NASA videos to the Timeline article - hope they're ok - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

DB Reminder
@Drbogdan => Recovering Global Account - enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ip
The attack of IP in 2013 in science defused.Alborzagros (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - not clear about your statement - the followingip editwas reverted because the edit blanked a section without explaination - this is usual procedure based on WP:BRD and related - hope this helps - thanks again for your comment - and -enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Universe
Hello Drbogdan, Could I ask for your opinion on the latest contributions to the Universearticle today? The reference quoted, whilst looking informative, is a site asking the person to join and to me is advertising. I reverted this entry as possible "spam", but it has been reinserted without explanation. Your views are appreciated. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @David J Johnson - thank you for requesting my opinion on the video - "Cosmography of the Local Universe" (Vimeo/17:35)(YouTube/17:35) - at the moment - I'm favorably impressed with this video - and that it's linked on arXiv -the oustanding benefits of the video seem to outweigh any consideration of spam in my opinion -hope this helps in some way - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I'll leave things as they are then. Best regards, David,David J Johnson (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD for Concerns for an early Mars sample return
Hello Drbogdan, just to say this article has been nominated for deletion, and you were involved in the debate when the article was created. Here is the notification:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleConcerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelinesor whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return 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.

Robert Walker (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC) BracketBot(talk) 01:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC) --->

EXPOSE astrobiology experiments
Hello! I am creating the EXPOSE article and have some difficulty finding the published results of most experiments. If you have some interest and time, I would greatly appreciate your expertise. I always enjoy working with you. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - they're appreciated - I enjoy working with you as well of course- yes, may try to have a look-see at the next opportunity - Thanks again for your comments -and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Found only abstracts. Hope they'll do. By the way, take a look at this conference on the 2020 Rover: . -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment - and link - they're appreciated - your recent editing efforts on the EXPOSE article (and others) are excellent - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Nik the stunned  08:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Martian Gullies
An article that you have been involved in editing, Martian Gullies, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Solaris
Hello, thanks for adding the 1968 film to List of films featuring space stations! I figured that list would be interesting to readers who visit Elysium (film). (Though the page view statistics are currently bust, drats...) For referencing the 1961 book, I don't think we can do that for films that did not exist at the time because films may have named the station differently or not at all. Google does not seem to show film reviews (I search for "Solaris Station" intitle:review) but nothing immediately pops up in form of a proper noun. The "Space Station" column is just a field to fill in if it is easy to do so, but it's not required. (Helps to show whether or not it is a real-life space station or a fictional one too!) Erik (talk &#124;contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Erik - Thank you *very much* for your comments - no problem whatsoever -another, possibly relevant reference - at least for the Solaris (2002 film)(?) - is as follows => { {cite web |last=Lem |first=Stanislaw |authorlink=Stanislaw Lem |title=The Solaris Station |url=http://english.lem.pl/arround-lem/adaptations/soderbergh/147-the-solaris-station|date=December 8, 2002 |work=Stanislaw Lem - The Official Site |accessdate=July 28, 2013 }} - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 14:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

CO2 in Martian soil
Hi Doc!

As part of my current wanderings through the WP Mars articles, I've just hit Martian soil. There's a claim in there that there's probably CO2 in the soils at the Martian equator. This sounds all kind of wrong to me - equatorial P/T should make CO2 gaseous, even in the subsurface I think. I came to you as I see you've been dominantly editing this thing "lately".

Is there any chance you either 1. put this info in, and have a reference to set my mind at rest, or 2. could back up my suspicions that this isn't true?

Thanks! DanHobley (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - not my text - usually my edits are cited - hope this helps in some way - thanks again for your comments - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, reviewed by Paul Krugman.
Hi, of all the literary critics, couldn't we find something better than a jape by an virtually unknown screenwriter? perhaps we could find an actual critic commenting on the literary errors in the fiction work instead of a blogger/screenwriter, and the NYT blogger/Nobel winning Economist Paul Krugman who didnt write the jape, rather repeated it? if you are so inclined, please reply in the talk page of the article where there is an ongoing discussion of this very source. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @Darkstar1st - Thank you for your comments - my own comments were posted on the Atlas Shrugged discussion page as follows:

 Copied from Talk:Atlas Shrugged @Darkstar1st - Thank you for your comments - myrecent edit revertmay be summarized in a more complete (orig trimmed for space) "edit summary" as follows:  "reverted edit deleting text/refs - the original edit seems well-cited (including NYT ref) by notable sources Paul Krugman and John Rogers (writer) - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE,WP:NOTABILITY & related." I *entirely* agree w/ you - other well-cited and notable edits (including from worthy literary critics of course) seem appropriate (and welcome) for this Praise and Criticism section as well - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope the above helps in some way - in any regards - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Frederik Pohl - ITN
Thank you for your work on this article.BencherliteTalk 22:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bencherlite - Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Drbogdan, thanks for your work on the biography, including provision and expansion of references. Please don't disturb the YYYY-MM-DD format of retrieved dates there (and archived dates, if any, which should be the same).
 * Massive conversion by a robot, less than a day after your Tuesday contribution, is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, following my yesterday complaint.
 * Today I named you there, more or less in vain, to clarify the nature of the robot's work as I see it. No offense intended.
 * In the biography I restored YYYY-MM-DD again, with no other change. --P64(talk) 15:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @P64 - Thank you for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 15:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

LADEE
To be launched tonight to the Moon: Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer. This article may need some care while the rush goes on. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note - may take a look-see at the first opportunity - thanks again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet counts
The recent increase to 981 (and now 997 as I write) comes from duplicate entries in the database where a Kepler number is used when a KOI number already exists e.g.http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/kepler-39_b/ is already included ashttp://exoplanet.eu/catalog/koi-423_b/ Astredita (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Astredita - Thank you *very* much for your comments - yes, I noticed the increase also - I've noticed other such increases in the past as well and then, the counts, perhaps after duplicates were identified and removed, would then decrease back down to a more regular count - maybe we'll just wait a few days and see how the counts are then - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Religious views of Albert Einstein
You reverted an edit, asking me to "present to the talk page". Did you not see the section I had started on the talk page? 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This comment seems gruff. Apologies, it isn't meant to be. I've opened an NPOV discussion. ==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 Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note - my comments were posted on the Noticeboard - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Kochs
The opinion of Bernie Sanders is undue weight for the Koch articles you are adding it to. Lots of people have an opinion about the Koch's, what makes this one special? Should we start adding rants about Bernie Sanders to the Bernie Sanders article? Arzel (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Arzel - Thank you *very much* for your comments - actually, I *entirely* agree with you - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 15:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

40 billion Earths?
I'm not sure about this 40 billion figure. Some newspapers say 20 billion, some say 10bn. Some give a very specific 8.8bn. Basically the numbers are all over the place. They're all based on the same reference http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/10/31/1319909110 but it's behind a paywall so I haven't read it. Do you know if the paper gives an actual number as opposed to just a percentage? The 40bn obviously comes from 20% of 200bn but the question is: is 200bn an estimate of the number of Sun-like stars, or of the total number of all types of stars?Astredita (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just found a quote:“There are about 200 billion stars in our galaxy, with 40 billion of them like our sun, Marcy [a co-author of the paper] said. One of his co-authors put the number of sun-like stars closer to 50 billion, meaning there would be at least 11 billion planets like ours.” http://www.itwire.com/science-news/space/62156-88-billion-earth-like-planets-in-milky-way Astredita (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Astredita - Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes, seems the estimated numbers could be better sourced and related - seems some edits may need updating -Thanks again for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - Seems astronomer Geoffrey Marcy (co-author) isquoted as follows:  Marcy says if you combine that result with this newer study looking at sun-like stars, it suggests that our Milky Way galaxy contains something like 40 billion Earth-sized planets with lukewarm temperatures. "So that's really the stunning number, I think," says Marcy.

ALSO, just now received a recent email message from astronomer Erik Petigura (co-author) as follows:

 Hi, Dennis.

Great question! We found that 22±8% of G and K type stars have an 1-2x Earth-size planet in the habitable zone. Converting that into a number of planets requires multiplying by the number of stars in the Galaxy. Astronomers quote different total numbers of stars in the Milky Way. Most say 200 billion stars. But one often hears 100 billion and sometimes 400 billion. It's not well known.

About 1/4 of the stars are GK "sunlike" stars. So, adopting 200 billion stars in total, the Milky Way has about 50 billions sun-like (GK) stars. Of those, 22% have a planet 1-2X the size of Earth in their habitable zones. Thus we have 22% of 50 billion suns, coming to 11 billion Earth-size planets in the habitable zones of the sun-like stars in the Milky Way.

If you include the red dwarf stars, the vast majority, the total comes to 40 billion Goldilocks planets.

Cheers,

Erik

On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Dr. Dennis Bogdan  wrote:

Hello Erik,

I'm a Wikipedia editor currently involved with some astronomy articles - Question (if possible) => how many habitable earth-like (or "earth-sized"?) exoplanets are estimated to be orbiting sun-like stars in the Milky Way Galaxy? - seems the media has reported "40 billion" ( ref => http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/cosmic-census-finds-billions-of-planets-that-could-be-like-earth.html - some editors on Wikipedia think the estimated number may be different (estimates range from 8.8 billion to 100 billion) -

Thanking you in advance for your reply - Enjoy! :)

Dennis

in any case - hopefully, some of this helps in some ways - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW - a supporting citation for "11 billion" earth-sizedexoplanets orbiting sun-like stars in the Milky Way Galaxy seems to be => < ref name="LATimes-20131104"> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following this up. That clarifies where the numbers come from. So the 40bn is a combination of earths around red-dwarfs and sunlike stars, and not as I assumed a straight percentage of something. Astredita (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Astredita - Yes - seems so - may try to update earlier edits at next opportunity (any help welcome of course) based on the following text/refs =>

 Copied from my recent edit at => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_science#November Astronomers report, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.< ref name="NYT-20131104"> < ref name="PNAS-20131031"> 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.< ref name="LATimes-20131104"> The nearest such planet may be 12 light-years away, according to the scientists.< ref name="NYT-20131104" />< ref name="PNAS-20131031" />
 * should be ok but please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Curiosity starting point.
I was going to correct my mistake when you caught it first. Thanks and sorry.BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @BatteryIncluded - no problem whatsoever - if possible, maybe verify my estimate of the linear distance traveled in the "close-up" map - unable, so far, to find a suitable citation - Thanks in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks right to me. Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very* much for your help with this - it's *very* much appreciated - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comet ISON video
Hey Doc, was wondering if you'd mind me uploading a higher quality version of the ISON video on top of your copy. I cut the intermediate steps out of the process, going straight from YouTube to OGV format (btw, the YouTube native format of the video was actually WebM, which can be uploaded straight to Commons now), thus cutting down on unneeded compression. — Huntster (t @c) 09:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you *very much* for your comments re the Comet ISON video - *no problem whatsoever* uploading higher quality versions of the video - and anything related of course - also - thanks about noting the WebM format - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 12:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comets template
Hi. You did a fantastic job with the Comets template, thanks. I wanted to take away the collapsible feature, so it appears open on pages where it is the lone template. You seem to say in your edit that that's fine with you, so this is an informal hanging-out on your talk page request to change that one thing back again. It seems rather obvious that having a full template open for inspection and links on the pages where it is a single template would be better for the readers enjoyment and ease of surfing through related pages. Thanks!Randy Kryn 3:30 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for your email note - and appreciation - I had a lot of fun doing the template(s) - yes, displaying the template either way (ie, "collapsed" or "uncollapsed") is *entirely* ok w/ me - for a template solution that's global (rather than one that may be customized for an individual page - if possible?), presenting your view on the{ {Comets}} template talk-page may be helpful, I would think - esp since there may be at least one other (ie, ) who seems to prefer a "collapsed" version - in any case - Thanks again for your note - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 04:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments on { {Comets}} template talk-page. Just a little more assignment for you to do. Thanks again for all the firm & solid efforts, worth appreciable ! - Ninney (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see where the problem might be, a coding problem. What you call the collapsed version isn't, on the pages it's on the template is showing up totally collapsed now, with just the title showing. How it looked yesterday was open fully when not on a page with two templates, except for the new sections on the bottom which should stay collapsed because of their length. Please check out a few of the Great Comets (I was putting the template on those yesterday) to see the total collapsed state the template is in when it's just typed in Comets. Thanks again, and I may ask you for some coding help at some point on a template I really like that needs help. Randy Kryn 12:41 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - yes, seems some newer (less familiar) template code has been added -may have to study this more to adj the template - ok w/ me if you want to try of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you !
@ - Wow - Thank you *very much* for the Barnstar - it's *greatly* appreciated -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Denisova hominin
Hi, I was doing a search after reading a New York Times article that said it was similar to the Denisova but did not make the link yet. Even your source in Nature did not say the find was Denisovas but could be link yet more of a mystery.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html But I see you are still editing the article, but it may be a bit early yet to use either source in this article. It could be a link between hominids or early humans. Since I was figuring out how to find you and post the link I have found yet another in Nat Geohttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131204-human-fossil-dna-spain-denisovan-cave/ I hope you can use this to better portray the findings that may rather fit in another article, that is if you can explain why and how the DNA found links hominid or to early humans. FYI, even the scientists have not figured that out yet. Thank for helping, and forgive me if I posted this in the wrong place. Oh, I find this exciting and hope to hear/read more about the find RupJana (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank You *very much* for your comments - and noted references - I *entirely* agree with you - the find is exciting of course - your comments may also be useful on theDenisova hominin talk page (esp here?) and you may wish to present them there as well - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - they are *very much* appreciated -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mars Armageddon
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24715-fiercest-meteor-shower-on-record-to-hit-mars-via-comet.html The sky is will be falling! -BatteryIncluded(talk) 19:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for the Link - *very* interesting - may add text/ref to relevant article (if not done already of course) - *entirely* ok w/ me to use the ref if you like => < ref name="NS-20131206"> - in any regards - Thanks again - and -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm travelling at the moment with my kids; no time. Take it and run it! By the way, this is the primary article, referenced at the bottom of New Scientist:Icarus, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.11.028 CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new link as well => < ref name="SD-20131201"> - both links are *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 22:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MSL shifting mission objectives
Hello! I looked at the [beautiful] new article collection you added at and was very pleased to see the deliberate and official shifting of scientific objectives for the MSL/Curiosity :
 * When the Curiosity rover landed in Gale crater 16 months ago, its goal was to find a place on Mars that was habitable 4 billion years ago. It has done that, and now a spate of new findings is driving the mission in a new direction: searching for traces of ancient life. Leaders of the 400-strong Curiosity science team say their latest discoveries, published online today in Science, are narrowing down how and where to look for “molecular fossils”—organic matter that might have come from ancient martian microbes. “Our mission is turning a corner,” says Curiosity project scientist John Grotzinger of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena. “We are beginning to map a way forward, a way to explore deliberately for organic matter.”

If you remember, in the beginning of the mission, astrobiology was a secondary goal (second to habitability). I think that the MSL and Curiosity article must be updated...the team is now "exploring deliberately for organic matter" (biosignatures / biomolecules), and the rover has a couple of decades to do so!. I think this shift of focus/objectives is a huge development in the mission timeline that must be highlighted. What do you think? As usual, I get my MSL updates not from NASA bulletins but from you. :-) Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for your comments - and excellent reference - looking for fossils seems like a great idea to me as well - in fact, I posted such a notion in myLiveJournal back in 2008 (if interested, seeHERE and/orHERE) - yes, I *entirely* agree w/ you - the Curiosity and MSL articles may need some updating based on the latest findings, refs and related - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes! As it turns out, it seems the team found a way around perchlorate interference and so now the rover may have found actually organic matter at the bottom of that lake bed:“This is combustion of organic carbon, folks.” they are “tantalizing” rather than definitive. I guess they will take their time in finding out if it is cometary carbon matter or biogenic matter. My understanding is that ancient organics have been cleaved long ago by cosmic and solar radiation, so the rover would REALLY need to dig 1 or 2 meters deep.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems *very* interesting to me as well - guess we'll just have to stay tuned - and see what develops - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel very excited about this. So, what do you think, do we include the "tantalizing" report, or hold back for a while and let them be thorough? For best accuracy in Wikipedia, I would wait and see what else develops. This may become Viking revisited until ExoMars settles it for good in 2019. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree w/ you - wait and see (for more substantial material) may be best of course -although - *entirely* ok w/ me if you find articles where some of this (referenced) material may be appropriate - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From this paper: "Carbon isotopes indicate multiple carbon sources in the fines. Several simple organic compounds were detected, but they are not definitively martian in origin."
 * It looks looks like the expected simple non-biogenic cometary organics. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At first glance - "not definitively Martian" suggests to me the detected organics *may* be Martian - but other possible non-Martian sources of the organics need to first be "ruled-out" (so-to-speak) - interesting (cautious-but-perhaps-justified) phrasing - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Tis the season

 * @Huntster - Thank you *very* much for the Greeting - it's *very* much appreciated - Happy Holidays to you and yours as well of course - and - Enjoy! :)Drbogdan (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)



BatteryIncluded (talk) is wishing you aMerry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotesWikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @BatteryIncluded - Thank you *very* much for your Holiday Greetings -Hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year as well - Thanks again - and -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2013

 * @Fotaun - Thank you *very much* for the new Barnstar Awards - they are *all* very, very much appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

List of minor planets: 216001–000000
Hi,

Since these aren't being used, I'm putting up 214, 215, & 216,000+ for deletion. I've added some of the links to the main articles; you might want to check my edits over the last couple hours to verify they're all real. (There's been some vandalism in these articles, adding spurious MPs.) There are some red links I did not move, as I tried confirming a couple and failed. If they're real, could you add them to the proper lists?

From the 214,000+ list:

From the other lists:
 * 233472 Moorcroft
 * 275264 Krisztikey [spelling differs from main list (275264 Krisztike)]
 * 290001 Uebersax

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)