User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 8

LIFE, EARTH and the UNIVERSE
 "Art of the Nature Timelines on Wikipedia" 

 "Click HERE for my other related image efforts" 

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! & HNY 2019!

 * Thank you for your "Happy Holidays" Greeting - Happy Holidays to you as well - your Greeting is *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A COOKIE for you!

 * Thank you *very much* for your Christmas cookie - and comments - Happy Holidays to you as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Pre-biotic chemistry
I noticed long ago that there is no article on pre-biotic chemistry, and it only has a redirect to a disambiguation page called Chemical evolution. Similarly, Prebiotic (chemistry) redirects to Abiogenesis. If I create it, would it be too redundant with Abiogenesis? Are you interested in expanding it if I create it? But would that make me a creationist? Rowan Forest (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - might be a consideration (re "Prebiotic chemistry", "Pre-biotic chemistry", "Prebiotic (chemistry)" or the like) - but may be redundant with abiogenesis - however - if you decide to work on such an article that may be differentiated in some way from abiogenesis, I might help to expand the article when possible - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Brief Followup - created new redirect (ie, "Pre-biotic chemistry"), retargeted "Prebiotic chemistry" to "Abiogenesis" - instead of "Chemical evolution" dab, alphabetized "Chemical evolution" dab - all noted redirects now target "Abiogenesis" - hope these adjs are *entirely* ok - and helpful in some way - please let me know if otherwise of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, prebiotic chemistry is abiogenesis. The redirects are appreciated. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hachimoji DNA
What an interesting article! I had a great time reading it, and it's very well-written. Are you nominating it for DYK? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestion - they're *greatly* appreciated - no - haven't thought of adding the news to "DYK" (seems worthy to nominate imo of course) - however - the news is currently being considered for "ITN" at => "In the news/Candidates" (update: now posted to ITN) - (also, if interested, the news has been posted to "my FaceBook page") - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're very welcome!! If it doesn't pass muster at ITN for being too "sciencey" (sigh), definitely nominate it for DYK. If you've never done a DYK nomination, let me know and I can walk you through it—I recently did my first myself. Cheers!! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hachimoji DNA

 * - Thank you *very much* for your post regarding ITN recognition (related discussion) for the Hachimoji DNA article - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing up the article so quickly, I really enjoyed reading it! Many people on ITN (and Wikipedia in general) are too focused on pop culture. It's baffling how some regard the death of a fashion designer as more significant than the creation of artificial DNA letters (unless they flunked their high school biology). -Zanhe (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And you did a very good job on the table. That was not easy. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - and appreciation - as well as your own recent *Excellent* edits on the "Hachimoji DNA" article - your edits are *Greatly* appreciated - the table was somewhat new to me, but fun learning - currently, trying to convert one of the images in the table (ie, File:Hachimoji P base.svg) from PNG to an SVG with only vector elements (and no raster elements) - seems my efforts could have been better - maybe fun for some other day - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Athena mission to Pallas
I just created this stub and I would be delighted if you expand on it as time permits: Athena (spacecraft). One pressing question is which program or project is making this competition between SmallSats and CubeSats. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Fossil-AvimaiaSchweitzeraeWithUnlaidEgg.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps useful to point out that the images of the original article can be freely uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License!--MWAK (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments - yes - I think I realized this sometimes after uploading the image - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall :o). I could also quickly expand the article, creating room for more of the images, which you then might upload on Commons...--MWAK (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Yes - expanding the article seems like a good idea - I'll try (time and all permitting) to upload relevant images from the original article - Thanks for your comments - and suggested efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - images in the original article (seems some of the images have been used, or referenced, in related articles ) have now been uploaded to Commons & added to the "Avimaia schweitzerae" article (at least in a temporary way - for starters) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I'll start expanding the article.--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Clickable Periodic table
Hi. About that PT template you made two years ago ;-) This TfD said it is unused, but I noted there that it might be a useful improvement still. So today I tried to make it work. Goal: in article periodic table, the first template better be clickable.

Now I just discovered that it requires an image (jpg, png) but not an svg. I am thinking if the svg could be made clickable (File:Simple_Periodic_Table_Chart-en.svg), in a different way.

I have noted the site you mentioned to map an image, imagemap-generator.dariodomi.de. So maybe not this time, but I know other situations where I could use that site. Thanks for this contribution. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and recent efforts with the PT template - pretty sure I tried to use an SVG image version some years ago - but also without success - also yes - the noted imagemap link ( at => http://imagemap-generator.dariodomi.de/ ) was very helpful with this template at the time, and with several other of my earlier (beginner-level) template efforts, including => Template:Renoir-BoatingParty-ImageMap - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and your own template efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed this Renoir on your page! Must be done smart, don't have the time to explore it now. BTW I've asked for a clickable svg here. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah,, nice. -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - if interested - besides the "Template:Renoir-BoatingParty-ImageMap", several other of "my templates" also used the noted imagemap link, including => "Template:Features and artificial objects on Mars" - as well as - the related "Template:Mars map" - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! DePiep

NFPA 704 diamond

 * While I am here, a question. I have an issue with imagemap, and I don't have time (or knowledge) to solve it.
 * NFPA 704 diamond (I created; they are safety code numbers for chemicals) uses imagemap to respond to clicking the diamonds. All fine, used in Chembox and Drugbox. See mobile (for ammonia).
 * The problem is: in mobile view the numbers are shifted downwards (lowered in their diamonds). Any idea for improvement? -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - and concern - yes - seems verified with my own pc systems - "desktop view" all seems ok with all browsers tested (ie, Windows 10/Dell 8930/Chrome Browser-v73.0.3683.86/64-bit & Firefox Browser-v66.0.1/64-bit & Opera Browser-v58.0.3135.118/64-bit) - also yes - "mobile view" presents the numbers all lower in the diamond - interesting - don't know the answer to this at the moment, but asking the question on the "Village pump (technical)" may be a good way to find out I would think - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it does not have priority over here. So much more to improve! Best. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the following to "Village pump (technical)" => "Village pump (technical)" - perhaps - someone may have the time, and wherewithal to solve this - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Copied from "Village pump (technical)" -- Numbers OK in "Desktop View" - but Very Low in "Mobile View"? --

Numbers added to the "Template:NFPA 704 diamond" are *entirely* OK in the usual "Desktop View" (see, for example, the noted diamond and added numbers in the "Ammonia" article) - HOWEVER - the added numbers are all *significantly lower* in the noted diamond in the "Mobile View" of the same "Ammonia" article (esp with Windows 10/Dell8930/Chrome-Firefox-Opera Browsers) - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Image in Template:Evolutionary biology
Just to let you know, I've removed the 'man's place in nature' image from this template. I have explained why on the template's talk page. I suspect you know already what I've written there, and why. If not, feel free to discuss; the message is always the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments re the "Evolutionary biology template" - and your explanation at "Template talk:Evolutionary biology" (well stated imo) - no problem whatsoever on my part - should note that the original image effort began with other editors on the "Evolution" talk-page at => "Talk:Evolution" - my role was to be supportive with this effort - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, the box does have a very good image in Darwin's Finches, which is both sufficient and appropriate. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Homo luzonensis
Stephen 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and for ITN recognition consideration re "Homo luzonensis" - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Planetary Nebula NGC 7027 - age and distance
Dr Bogdan,

I have a possibly naive question relating to planetary nebula NGC 7027 (NGC_7027), to which you recently contributed). Is there an error in the article or is there an explanation to what follows? I read that this PN is only ~600 years old (I checked the source in note 8, the citation is correct). I also read that this PN is located ~3000 light-years from us (I checked the source in note 2, the citation is correct). If I understand correctly, this means that what we currently observe is what used to take place ~2400 years before this PN came into existence. But I also find a Hubble image of this PN in the article (looks like it's a photograph of what we will only be able to see in a few thousand years, i.e. it seems to have required a time machine, but there is no such indication in the article)... Do I miss something or is there an error in the article? Whatever the answer, I assume that some clarification might be needed in the article. Thanks in advance and sorry for asking you specifically - didn't know who to write to.

BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.25.191.177 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post - good questions - perhaps the best place to find answers to your questions is on the related talk-page - at => "Talk:NGC 7027" - I'm copying this post to that talk-page (at => "Talk:NGC 7027") - perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this than I at the moment will be able to help you with your questions - Thanks again for your post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate change - task force
Hello Drbogdan,

You are currently noted as a participant of the WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - busy at the moment, but may consider your suggestions further at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

''' status check? ''' Hi, I'm trying to tune up the list of active participants. May I move you to "inactive"? If you come up for air and want to get involved again you can always move back to the active list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note - yes - a bit busy these days with one thing or another - ok with me re move to "inactive" at this time - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your note - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hope you get a chance to join us again, and all the best with the many other things on your plate! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer review
[ please see related discussion at => "Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309" ] - added by Drbogdan (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)  Hi. I earlier came across an article you created and then you subsequently gave a quality rating of "B". It was, on review and according to that project's quality scale, a Start class article, perhaps a very generous C. It is unusual to see articles rated by their creator or largest contributor, so I was intrigued by your user page list of "My created Articles". I was dismayed to see that you have rated all of your own articles as B class, without regard for the criteria. Would you agree that this is most unusual, and that you have circumvented the peer review process..? Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - I had no idea at the time that there was such a process - or that the article creator could not grade created articles - I do now - thank you for letting me know this - I was wondering at the time why the articles did not seem to be graded by anyone - and thought the best way to get the process started was to grade the articles myself - and then be corrected with better rankings by someone more knowledgeable about the ranking system than I - I would not contest a responsible ranking of articles by someone who seemed to know the process - hope this explanation helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and for letting me know there is such a review process - and that there are those who are able to responsibly rank the articles - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - As I noted in the recent AN discussion => ''UPDATE: Decided to clear the "B" ratings I noted in my created articles - this seems to add "???" (instead of "B") to the rating - which may be a preferred ranking notification - until a better ranking is assigned by an editor more familiar with the associated WikiProject - hope this is *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :)'' Drbogdan (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleared rankings?
Drbogdan, I can understand reassessing The Joy of Science, but why would you clear the rankings? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your comment - and question - the rankings were cleared only (hopefully) on the articles I created, and had added a class "B" grade - which I did in order to encourage an editor more knowledgeable than I to better rank the article - seems, according to a recent AN discussion (please see => "Administrators' noticeboard" - and the previous post "User talk:Drbogdan"), clearing the ranks completely might be the better way of encouraging a more knowledgeable editor to present a better ranking assessment - please understand - if I unintentionally cleared a completely ok ranking at the "The Joy of Science" article, please feel free to restore the ranking of course - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just curious. The truth is, I don't think that rankings below GA matter much, and I never hesitate to classify articles I work on. Occasionally, people greatly overestimate the quality, but that's easy to fix. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Tabby's Star dimming data - consolidated plot
Dear Dennis, I got tired of waiting for someone to create a consolidated plot of the data from Tabby's Star, so I created one myself based on the original Boyajian et al and Sacco et al papers, and have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in two sizes:

At this resolution, it's of course impossible to meaningful depict every little dip, so I've chosen to focus on the dips of greater than or equal to 1% -- and also, of course, this is normalized data -- but I think a very clear picture is painted of what might be coming in the future. Shall we add to the main page in addition to, or possibly in place of, your existing consolidated plot? And if you yourself wanted to do so, go right ahead -- I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia image placement.Synchronist (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments - and efforts with the consolidated plot of dimming data re Tabby's star - Excellent work imo - yes - added your plot to the "gallery section" of the main article (in place of my own earlier "Very Rough Draft" plot) (see related discussion at => "Talk:KIC 8462852") - hope this is ok - please understand that further improvements to the plot/caption and all are welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and plots - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dennis, it looks good, doesn't it?!? And what a great title you came up with: "all known dimmings", and of course with the implication that we are talking about major dimmings, and also dimmings to date. Thank you so much, Dennis!!!Synchronist (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tabby's Star Consolidated Plot (cont.)
Dear Dennis: User "Incnis Mrsi" has added a .png version of the consolidated plot to Wikimedia Commons alongside my original .jpg version, and has then gone on to insert this .png version in place of the .jpg version on the Wikipedia "KIC 8462852" page.

This would be OK, I suppose, given that some people may think that .png is a superior archival format (although I am of course always careful to specify lossless .jpg); however, there has also been a curious and unfortunate side effect: the .png looks OK in one's browser, but if you try to download it, you end up with a vastly abbreviated 27K file!?!

Going beyond the question of how this might be possible from a technical standpoint, what should we do? Revert the edit? Or should I add my own .png version of the consolidated plot to Wikimedia Commons, and re-replace on the "Tabby's Star" page? And in asking this question, I'm sure you realize that I regard this -- as I am sure you do as well -- as a quite informative archival image.Synchronist (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your latest comments - yes - your "original JPG plot" is *Excellent* ("Bruce L. Gary", a "Tabby's Star" expert, also agrees in a private email to me recently) - also yes - I see the possible problem - but not sure at the moment how best to sort things out - maybe posting a comment to "User talk:Incnis Mrsi" (or "User talk:Huntster", who may be more knowledgeable than I about this) might be a good start? - also perhaps - redoing the plot in PNG yourself might also be helpful I would think - in any case - hope my comments here help in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's no problem having a jpg and png version exist side by side on Commons. However, as far as I can tell, there's nothing technically wrong with the PNG except that it has a transparent background. It is certainly a more reasonable file size than the lossless JPEG., would you mind re-uploading the file with a simple white background? The transparency rather seriously impedes its usefulness. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PNG is not “a superior archival format” – seemingly somebody here conflates it with TIFF. But it is, in fact, the only raster format supported by Wikimedia which is appropriate for pictures consisting of colorful lines, especially over bright background. JPEG is severely ill-advised for such images due to at least three reasons; read more at project:Preparing images for upload here and on Commons. Surely this is SVG which is really “superior” than raster stuff, but not all users are handy with SVG whereas just choosing [ PNG] instead of the default [JPEG] in a drop-down menu (on saving the drawing) is an option accessible for everybody having IQ about 100. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone -- all's well that ends well.Synchronist (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Dennis, if you wanted to email me (Glenn Smith) at gsmith@space-machines.com, there's some additional background info I could share about the consolidated plot.Synchronist (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ceres – FA Review
I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Methane on Mars
It looks like another methane release may be happening these days. I think I'll wait for an official/scientific report before editing the article Methane on Mars. May be the expected "seasonal" release, but if not, then that would be kind of random. And therefore, back to the drawing table. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post - and comments - yes - agreed - wait-and-see at the moment - regards => "on 22 June 2019, scientists working with the Curiosity rover on the planet Mars reported the detection of a significant amount of methane (21 parts per billion), a possible indicator of life." - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is strange that we still have not heard from the ExoMars TGO team on the orbital data obtained during this release. I think they had enough time to figure the background noise. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - *entirely* agree - maybe something's afoot (so-to-speak)? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

List of stars that dim oddly
Dennis, looks like your List of stars that dim oddly is getting a lot of well-deserved attention!Synchronist (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and for making the Tabby's Star plot used on the List (and related articles) - the List may have been somewhat overdue - esp since there may be a growing number of such stars being detected and described (most recently, for example, HD 139139) - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Apidima Cave
I started a draft on Apidima Cave last night. Hoping to blend both versions, if you don't mind. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and help with the article - no problem whatsoever - the help is *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Apidima Cave
 Spencer T• C 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for your note - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

101955 Bennu
The geochemistry of space (and off-Earth, and in the mantle for that matter) is admittedly esoteric and less accessible. Therefore I have taken great effort to provide numerous, peer-reviewed and consistent citations for all "claims" (in the context of WP, that is). I have even been called upon to limit these extensive citations, as you can see from the article's history and talk pages. However, the net result still stands: Solar System hydrogeochemistry, odd as it may look to the uninitiated, is not in dispute. A side issue is that OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa 2 are operating as fast or faster than the peer-review process, and sometimes more pedestrian citations are included out of expediency. In between are conference proceedings.

You appear to be versed in peer-reviewed journals. If you have access to, e.g., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Space Science Reviews, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, EPS, JGR, etc., then it's simply a matter of you reading the listed citations. I have included pointers/blurbs in my cites to make this reading less tedious. If you do not have official access, many of the journal papers cited are nonetheless open access, if nothing else by chance. You may have sufficient luck verifying citations this way. If you do not have the time or inclination to actually check my citations (as Rowan Forest apparently feels), then what exactly do you propose to resolve this issue? A highly-technical article is served by highly-technical citations, not by assumption of high competence by editors who did not, will not, and maybe cannot check the citations given.

If you think the solution is for me to educate all current and lurking WP editors, I feel I have already done so by providing more than ample citations. That's the point of literature search, avoidance of duplicated effort. I do not feel it is my responsibility to rewrite papers for the convenience of all current and lurking- I had already begun doing this, and Rowan Forest won't grasp that, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.100 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - seems best to add these comments to the "Talk:101955 Bennu talk-page" - in order - to sort out the related issues about the "101955 Bennu" article - and - to find an agreeable way to improve the article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you interested in clearing Ceres (dwarf planet)'s FAR?
Because if you are, I'd be happy to help, though I'd prefer not to do it alone, because I don't really have the knowledge of that article's terrain that you do.  Serendi pod ous  17:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - and suggestion - very busy with one thing or another at the moment - may help sometime later if possible - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Terrascope
Check out the Terrascope, a proposal to use Earth's atmosphere as a gigantic telescope. Instead of using gravitational lensing, it proposes to use atmospheric lensing. . paper at archive:  Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and references - the Terrascope, as described in  the video, seems very interesting - but to be fully realized, the project may take a good bit of time, money, effort (and luck? - due to the many variables [some unknown?] involved) I would think - esp enjoyed the video talk re the Terrascope - I for one would be supportive if you decided to make a related Wikipedia article (seems "Terrascope" is currently redirected to => "Ptolemaic Terrascope", a magazine) - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He is very eloquent and has done the preliminary math and models. The project would only need a small flying detector, no expensive lenses and mirrors. The magnification (VIS) would be unprecedented, and at very low cost. I may wait one year to see the feedback Kipping gets from the science community. Only then I can assess if it is fringe or acceptable for Wikipedia science-article standards. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - yes - *completely* agree - waiting a year or so makes a lot sense to me as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And, for Wikipedia purposes, we would need-third party sources too. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you *very much* for The Writer's Barnstar award - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Windows 10 security
I undid your edit. We do not normally use the WP:LEAD to introduce content not found later in the article. It just feels thrown in as a scare tactic up-front. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - restored the Windows 10 security concerns to the Windows 10 section - seems to be a better location for the Windows 10 security concerns after all - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Venus absorber
The observation of the "unknown absorber" in Venus' atmosphere was noted a very long time ago. And hypotheses of its nature being microbes in the atmosphere, dates at least since 2002. See: Atmosphere of Venus: "It has been proposed that microbes at this level could be soaking up ultraviolet light from the Sun as a source of energy, which could be a possible explanation for dark patches seen on UV images of the planet."[61][62]  Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - yes - saw this after posting my comments and refs to several articles - seems interesting esp if found to be real, and not a speculated explanation - seems the "Venus Atmospheric Maneuverable Platform" probe may help better understand this when employed - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just remembered that Carl Sagan was a vocal proponent of that hypothesis -microbes in the atmosphere, so the hypothesis dates way back. I think the reporter was not aware of it. The actual paper focuses on the newly discovered long-term pattern of absorbance and albedo, and how it relates to the climate. It would be nice if you adjust the entries accordingly. Cheers,  Rowan Forest (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - agreed - updated my edits in the three affected articles (ie, "2019 in science"; "Venus"; "Life on Venus") to the following (or equivalent): "In August 2019, astronomers reported that newly discovered long-term pattern of absorbance and albedo changes in the atmosphere of the planet Venus are caused by "unknown absorbers", which may be microorganisms high up in the atmosphere of the planet. " - edits should now be ok - please let me know if otherwise - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Generic object of dark energy
Thanks for creating Generic object of dark energy. User:Winged Blades of Godric while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~. Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for your cmt - please see my reply and related on the talk-page for the Generic object of dark energy article - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup comment
Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Generic object of dark energy, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!
Hi Drbogdan, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) a8:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note - added name/support to listing - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs
Regarding, did you see that I had already made a section on the talk page a week ago? TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and efforts with this issue - seems such a substantial edit should first have agreement (one way or another) before adding to the main article - also - seems waiting for some agreement at the moment may be indicated - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic pulses on Mars & groundwater
Hello. The original paper ("InSight Observations of Magnetic Pulsations on Martian Surface: Initial Findings and Implications.") does not mention anything on water. I wonder where did the press get that thing about deep aquifers? The fact that the phenomenon is associated with local midnight implies that it is not a geophysical effect, but connect to the interaction of the solar wind with the planetary magnetic field. Any ideas? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - hadn't noticed that the purported water findings weren't discussed in more detail in the referenced article - on a closer view of the NG ref, a referenced tweet (re an ongoing conference and related unpublished presented information?) may have been somewhat involved in reporting the water finding - may now be on the lookout for more details - NOTE: seems my original edit may have been adj by another editor - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Formation of rocks
Hi Doc. I noticed you had previously edited the Formation of rocks article. Please take a look at the edits I recently made to explicate a fourth type/classification of rocks (major subclasses) that I learned about only recently.

I was surprised to find no article for Primitive rocks, so made a redirect earlier today. Would appreciate a review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps especially appropriate with the Physics Nobels that were awarded earlier today. Maybe astrophysics is no longer the poor stepchild of Physics.  N2e (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and your newly added edits in the "Formation of rocks" article - your newly added edits look very good to me atm - no problem whatsoever - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mars 2020 Rover
Hello. I tried but came empty handed: Do you know the dimensions of the landing ellipse of the Curiosity rover? The 2020 Rover uses an improved system with an accuracy of only 40 m. I would like to compare them side-by-side but I need the data. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found it: Mars Science Laboratory landed within a 20-kilometer (12-mile) ellipse. Source: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/timeline/edl/], Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a Judge for the rover's name. :-) All the entries are in and we will be doing several eliminatory rounds; we just finished the first one. I spent a few hours last week reviewing essays by children sent to NASA on their proposals for the rover's name. It is lovely to read how children perceive science and space exploration, and how they perceive this mission. It is a privilege to read their thoughts and ideas. They are artists and explorers by nature, and it is remarkable the positive outlook they have for humanity. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - and *Congratulations* about being a Judge for the rover's name - yes - agreed - such viewpoints about all this can be refreshing, in a very good and positive way - Best of Luck with the entries and choices of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Prime editing
Prime editing (DNA) is the latest advance in the field of gene editing:. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your comment and reference re DNA-editing - interesting - by coincidence, just created a new related article, Unnatural Selection that may be of interest - any additions welcome of course - iac - Thanks again for your comment and reference - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
Drbogdan, I mentioned you at Talk:Abiogenesis - Fartherred (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - please see my reply to your concerns re my rv on the talk-page of Abiogenesis - Thanks - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wind River Range edits
Howdy. I was looking over the numerous copy pastes you have done from another article to mountains/forests in the Wind River Range. The one in particular for Shoshone NF is not very pertinent. It has numerous unrelated issues such as wikilinks to various things that are not needed/or have already been linked. The link to "nighttime cold temperatures" links back to a section in Rocky Mountain National Park. Some of those urls do not open for me either. I think a section on hazards is fine but it needs to be modified to be relevant to the specific parks/forests and mountains. Your diffs:. Thoughts?--MONGO (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes - completely agree - edits could be better - all refs seemed ok last time I looked (admittedly not recently - seems at least one may be outdated - and without an archive copy - there may be more) - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce my edits of course - I'll try to improve recent edits at my next opportunity - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BRIEF Followup - checked all my noted refs - all now seem to be ok except the "County10 News/County10.com (2017)" ref - this particular ref could be removed (couldn't find a backup copy on archive sites) - I've just now backed up all the other refs on the "Archive.today" and "Wayback Machine" archive sites - hope this helps in some way - please let me know if otherwise of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your efforts. Thank you.--MONGO (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Kerogen
Hello, I noticed that an edit of yours added two broken DOIs (there was a triple a instead of double). No big deal if it was a typing error, but if you think you might have used an automatic tool back then I'd like to know which, so that I can check whether they make the same mistake elsewhere as well. (It could also be that the publisher was providing bad metadata back then.) Nemo 16:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note - and for fixing the ref DOIs - seem like a typo on my part - no automatic tool was used - hope this helps - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Terrascope and NASA videos
Hey Drbogdan, Read about the terrascope and was quite interested. Made a page about David Kipping (currently still draft) and mentioned terrascope herein. A simple redirect to that page can then be made when page is finished.
 * Update, page now pending review

Can you also look at the NASA video requests here and perhaps get this going ? I'm not sure how to get the request passed (no one is paying attention to it). Genetics4good (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestion re the terrascope and David Kipping - seems an interesting and worthy consideration - for my part, very busy with one thing or another at the moment, but may be interested later - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to you looking into the NASA videos. I certainly would like to see those videos appearing at pages here at the wikipedia. Genetics4good (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - NASA video (2:05) now uploaded to Wikipedia - see => File:NASA-WeeklyArcticSeaIceAge-1984-2019.webm - Details: latest version (September 30, 2019) of the NASA video "Weekly Arctic Sea Ice Age with Graph of Ice Age By Area: 1984 - 2019" ( source at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjFfcPC_4JE - from the original website at => https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4750 ) has been converted from the original "mp4" format to the *webm* file format (via X Media Recode v3448) and uploaded to Wikipedia ( at => File:NASA-WeeklyArcticSeaIceAge-1984-2019.webm |thumb|NASA video "Weekly Arctic Sea Ice Age with Graph of Ice Age By Area: 1984 - 2019"]] - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what I was really thinking about was for someone to do a sort of automated batch upload of the entire NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio videos database. That's why I thought of you (as it contains a lot of video's on planets, ... too). Genetics4good (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - and clarification - such a noted project might best be handled by those at the "WP:Village Pump" (or equivalent) I would think atm - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:David Kipping still isn't approved for inclusion to wikipedia. The reviewer mentioned notability issues. If you're interested in the page, you could see whether you can improve it enough to get it through. Genetics4good (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Homo erectus
It looks like H. erectus went extinct only 100,000 years ago:. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - refs seem very interesting - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)