User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 9

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

 "Art of my Nature Timelines on Wikipedia" 

 "Click HERE for my other related image efforts" 

Mars landing locations
]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2022 in science


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 2022 in science requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ionmars10 (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * An article you recently created, 2022 in science, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of spamming your page with like a bunch of these [sd notes], I'm just going to let you know now that I'm going to also nominate years 2032 to 2050. We're going to need to talk about this. /  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and efforts - seems creating the basic starting pages (in outline form) of "2022 in Science" inclusive to "2050 in science" - without more sources and related - could have been a better effort on my part after all - seemed, at the time, doing the pages in a batch effort would be better than doing the pages individually at some later time - guess not - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, probably lol. Well, you got at least one outline to work with now! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the 2022 and beyond pages. Drbogdan, I appreciate the effort and thought. Just a bit too soon for those.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your Articles for creation: 2022 in science has been accepted
 2022 in science, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=2022_in_science help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing!  DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Christina Koch" astronaut - time spent in space
Hi! - Just wanted to mention I updated Christina Koch to reflect that she attained the record of longest *single* spaceflight as opposed to the overall record - the reference you cited clearly indicates this. Just a heads up! :) Jewell D D (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - they're appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Brief followup - a relevant NYT reference has been added to the "Christina Koch" article - should be ok - please comment if otherwise of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Timothy Leary" edits
There has been extensive discussion on Talk. It is difficult to build consensus when only one other person appears to be reading Talk. If you have knowledge of the subject matter, your involvement would be appreciated. BillHaywood (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - seems WP:CONSENSUS for your edits is required before adding them to the main article - there's no such agreement at the moment - seems some editors have taken issue with the edits; while still other editors may be aware of your edits but, by choosing not to post support, may not be agreeable to them - this may (or may not) change in time - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Quadratic equation"
Hi there, regarding this revert by, see also Talk:Quadratic formula. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments - and link to the talk-page re the edit-add of the NYT reference to the "Quadratic equation" article - yes - *entirely* agree - NYT is not an official professional source for the Quadratic equation - no problem whatsoever - with the revert or otherwise - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"More Music from Peter Gunn" ≠ "The Music from Peter Gunn"
"More Music from Peter Gunn" and "The Music from Peter Gunn" are two different albums (both 1959). Therefore a redirect from "More Music from Peter Gunn" to "The Music from Peter Gunn" is wrong. I blanked it. What should be done with More Music from Peter Gunn? Remove? – Patricia Tegtmeier (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Result of Redirect Discussion: "KEEP" - Steel1943  (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of More Music from Peter Gunn


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on More Music from Peter Gunn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"More Music from Peter Gunn" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect More Music from Peter Gunn. Since you had some involvement with the More Music from Peter Gunn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply - Thank you for your recent notes re "More Music from Peter Gunn" WP:Redirect - the following comment was added to the Redirect discussion => * Comment - as OA of the Redirect, whatever is decided by WP:CONSENSUS is *entirely* ok with me, no problem whatsoever - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan 14:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)  - Thanks again for your notes - Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone involved! – Patricia Tegtmeier (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Hemolithin" - History section
Dear Dr Bogdan, The Hemolithin wiki article would benefit from a History of the research - this might encourage more serious scientific discussion. I need to send via Email a word file for you to place at the end of the current wiki Hemolithin. May I do this - there is a graph time line and taxt - I cannot add the graph image without your help? Julie mcgeoch@fas.harvard.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgeoch (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note: copy of this reply also sent via email) Thank you very much for your Wikipedia comments - and suggestions - can't promise anything at the moment, but can look at your suggested material and see what might be useful (best if cited in some way in "reliable sources" => "Reliable sources", otherwise the material may be considered "original research" => "WP:NOR" - which may not be allowed) - and what may be permitted depending on current Wikipedia policies and practices - hope this helps in some way - at least for starters - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Higgs boson"
Hello sir. I currently have no idea of how to direct message you, however, I need to inquire an old and seemingly obsolete question in some eyes, what exactly is the so called "Higgs Boson"? I've done research on it and have found long and similarly vague answers from all sorts of sources, and I've found that you of all people may be able to help me, seeing as you're qualified for alot of things, may you explain it in a way of simple manner to me? I've asked all sorts of people and they've only produced vague and bad awnsers to me, so now I'm putting my hope in a stranger online SCP 1174 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your comments - seems the best answer to this is on the "Higgs boson" Wikipedia article itself - however - a simpler version may be found on the "Simple Wikipedia" at the following link => "Higgs boson" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Fomalhaut b"
Thanks for helping edit the article to keep it up-to-date. I rewrote the lead section a bit, but it's going to need a lot of work.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  15:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and efforts on the "Fomalhaut b" article - should note (if you're presently unaware) that a related discussion is on the talk-page at => "Talk:Fomalhaut b" - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Windows XP"
Development status information - Base support ended on April 14, 2009 - Extended support ended on April 8, 2014 - Full support ended on -> August 31, 2019 <- found wrong information, the right would be: -> May 21, 2019 <- because on January 24, 2020 I had made a video updating the operating system. had taken the information from the wiki's print page that day - the video is this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zmKaXMQhLI the minute 3:08 the photo information is shown - Brazilian Video. if i'm wrong, please just say. - Albertvmaia (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - seems you may be right about the date - however - a citation from a WP:Reliable Source (other than a Youtube video and related), supporting the new date information, would be even more helpful I would think - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Windows XP (last update proof images WSUS) => Windows Last Update (WSUS) - reference image to Brazilian video! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zmKaXMQhLI - May 21, 2019! - Full support ended on August 31, 2019 - please ask for the edition of the Windows XP page. - in Full support ended on --> August 31, 2019 <-- --> May 21, 2019! <-- :) - Albertvmaia (talk • contribs) 04:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to conclude with these two photos are on the day they shoot the video for internet - I hope your doubts are over. page information: January 24, 2020! - Wiki: Windows XP (USA) - Wiki: Windows XP (Brazil) - Photo of evidence and annotated systems - Evidence of data! - I found it on my computer and remembered that I had saved it and enjoy and update Windows 7 and 8.1 today at the same time before recording my videos for 2023 and 2024 - if there is any change I will alert you - if nothing changes on the US page and not here is fine - matter closed! - Albertvmaia (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Earliest known life forms"
Hello. In the article LUCA, it is stated that "Studies from 2000–2018 have suggested an increasingly ancient time for LUCA. In 2000, estimations suggested LUCA existed 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago in the Paleoarchean era,[7][8] a few hundred million years before the earliest fossil evidence of life (…). A 2018 study from the University of Bristol, applying a molecular clock model, places the LUCA shortly after 4.5 billion years ago, within the Hadean.[16][17]" I propose to add the information to the paragraph about LUCA in the section "Earliest life forms", I feel the update would be accurate. Thank you in advance. Have a nice day! --Jojnee (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and recommended edit re LUCA - yes - agreed - seems the proposed edit would be ok - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

PS. I apologise to bother you once again. Recently, I've edited the article Retroposon, I put a (wiki)link to "retropseudogenes" (processed pseudogenes) to make it more clear for readers. Because there seems to be no consensus regarding the proper terminology (e.g., some authors tend to use the words "retrogene" and "retropseudogene" interchangeably), I decided to use a term commonly employed by scientists—"retro(pseudo)genes". Since you're a scientist as well as an experienced Wikipedia user and pending changes reviewer, could I ask you to review the edit? Especially, I mean the way I added a link to the other article, I tried my best to do it properly, but is it OK with the WP standards? Thank you very much in advance! Cheers, --Jojnee (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - and suggested review - at first glance, and afaik atm, the edit re wikicode may be ok - however - there may be no mention of "retropseudogene" or "retro(pseudo)genes" in the cited reference - perhaps the language in the cited ref should be used? - iac - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. Yes, I understand. Perhaps a good solution will be to cite in refs the book that I read. It states: Retro(pseudo)genes are products of reverse transcription of a spliced (mature) mRNA. (…) Retro(pseudo)genes like other retrotransposons have been inserted into the genome as double-stranded sequence generated from a single-stranded RNA. Processed pseudogenes, as sometimes retropseudogenes are called, have been generated (…) However, not all retroposed messages have to end up as pseudogenes. (p. 166). I planned to add it, but had some troubles while trying to prepare a proper citation format. --Jojnee (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the recent edit. I wonder if it would be better to replace "the universal common ancestor" with a simple "the LUCA" in the second sentence (the one regarding a 2018 study). It is a small thing, but perhaps would save some space. Kind regards, --Jojnee (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - *entirely* agree - the article has been updated - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Neutron star"
Just wanted to extend thanks for finding and adding that infographic! Wish I'd found it first ;) -- Marx01  Tell me about it 11:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your comment - if interested, there's two types of the infographic: Horizontal "(File:PIA23863-NeutronStars-Types-20200624.jpg |thumb|center|800px| Neutron Star Types (24 June 2020) )" and Vertical "(File:PIA23863-NeutronStarTypes-20200624.jpg |thumb|center|800px| Neutron Star Types (24 June 2020) )" - Besides the "Neutron star" article, the infographic may also be relevant to the "Magnetar" and "Pulsar" articles I would think atm - iac - Thanks again - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'll send these out to the astro folks I work with! :D -- Marx01  Tell me about it 12:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Film1932: Blonde Venus (Marlene Dietrich)"

 * --Orphaned non-free image File:Film1932-BlondeVenus-OriginalCriterionBluRayCover.jpg--

Thanks for uploading File:Film1932-BlondeVenus-OriginalCriterionBluRayCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"COVID-19 drug development"
I found a CCR5 antagonist in May that showed promise for treating COVID-19 and have been following its progress. Last week the company announced that its phase 2 mild/moderate trial had achieved statistical significance for one of its endpoints and submitted an EUA based on those results and it's April phase 2b/3 severe/critcal trial that is underway. I noticed that it wasn't on the COVID-19 drug development page so I created an account and proposed text for it on the talk page. The edit was denied so I revised the entry, explained a bit about different classes of monoclonal antibodies and provided more background information. It is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding this biologic's significance for treating C19. It is also possible that I am misunderstanding the standards for inclusion on the page, but the feedback I received didn't communicate that in a way that I understood and the reasons provided for refusal seemed inaccurate. I was hoping that you would take a look at the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 drug development. If you choose to share any thoughts about the discussion or how I can improve in my research I would be grateful. --TwoCandlesInTheDark (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and request to review your suggested edit to the COVID-19 drug development article on the related talk-page - at first glance, seems your comments, and those of others (esp User:Zefr) are excellent - and appropriate for Wikipedia discussions re such issues - seems best to see how the discussion develops - others, more knowledgeable than I at the moment re the issue, may share further relevant comments I would think - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your own comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and sharing your thoughts. Sometimes it is difficult to determine the merit of a position as a participant in a discussion. You have helped me align my enthusiasm with reality. I appreciate your assessment and agree that input from domain experts would be the best next step. TwoCandlesInTheDark (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"Book2021: Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth"
As a heads up, I have moved Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth to draft space at Draft:Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth per WP:TOOSOON. Notability hasn't been demonstrated, but given a release date in the near future, it may get there at some point. I've also removed links and redirects as appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * --Orphaned non-free image File:ExtraterrestrialFirstIntelligentBeyondEarth-BookCover.jpg--

Thanks for uploading File:ExtraterrestrialFirstIntelligentBeyondEarth-BookCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"LocationOfEarth" - Kudos for your template
Dear Dr. Dennis Bogdan:

Would it please be possible for you to add left-right scrolling to the otherwise excellent "LocationOfEarth" template? I'm appealing to you, since you seem to have made the most extensive, recent formatting changes.

The "LocationOfEarth" template shows too wide for some screens. It needs a left-right scrollbar in those cases where it exceeds 100% of the available window width. Being over-confident and adventuresome, I have tried and failed to use the "wide template", "scrolling", and "scrollable" templates, to add scrolling, and changing the "style" directive inside the template; I have failed. While I might aspire to be an emerging master editor of "math" notation (my own field), this job would appear to need a more masterful editor.

The only template that appears as if I could make it work is the "scrolling table" template, but that would require a conversion of the entire template into table format, rather than a minor tweak of its as-is formatting. That is more drastic than I'm comfortable with; it usually gets me in trouble. Could you please help?

Regards from Oregon/ Dr. Tom Lougheed Astro-Tom-ical (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Tom - Thank you *very much* for your comments, kudos and request - they're all appreciated - my "LocationOfEarth" template was made with very basic skills and informations - some of my own earlier related template testing could be found here => "User:Drbogdan/sandbox-timelines-01" - and especially here => "User:Drbogdan/sandbox-timelines-01" - I'm unable at this time to do more advanced template coding, including scrolling - however - several suggestions - you may like to experiment with this further yourself (perhaps in the "Template:LocationOfEarth/sandbox") - or - make a completely new and different template (similar, but this time with scrolling) - or - you may ask for advanced template help with this at "Village pump (technical)" - I would think the advanced template coders there would be more than happy to help you with your template ideas - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Dennis - Drbogdan (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

and others - Brief Followup - Seems the "" itself may not continue to be available in article space for one reason or another (see here, here and, to some extent, here) - however - the underlying template source code may still be useful in some way - if interested, the underlying template source code is as follows:

 

- Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Template question: Follow up
This discussion more or less answers a question you once had. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Aliens on 1,000 nearby stars could see us
Hi. Given this announcement and new paper ("Which stars can see Earth as a transiting exoplanet?"), it would be great to have an article on the 1,004 stars within 326 light-years that can spot Earth based on line of sight. Not sure what it would be called, however. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you - thank you for your comment - and suggestion - yes - saw the news    recently also - creating a related article seems like a good idea to me as well - possible article titles (for starters): "Earth as transiting exoplanet"; "Earth transiting Sun"; "Exoplanet Earth"; "Detecting Earth from distant stars" (current favorite); others? - in any case - Thanks again for your post - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Brief followup - decided to start the article as "Detecting Earth from distant stars", afterwards renamed to "Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems", (made "redirects" of the other suggested titles above at the moment) - can always change the article title later - hope this is *entirely* ok - Comments (and new article editing) Welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Might want to start User:Drbogdan/Earth Transit Zone. I think that's the best subject title at this time. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for AfD
Nomination of Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! Gone are the days when an editor could create a new article and work on it for a few minutes before being nominated for deletion. Drbogdan, I think the article can be kept, but given the obsessive paper pushers and bean counters that worship administrative rules and procedures, it would be more fruitful to move it to your user space where we can refine it first. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

- Thanks for all your comments - and suggestions - related discussion at => "Articles for deletion/Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems" - copies of the original article are now at => "User:Drbogdan/Earth Transit Zone" - And => "Draft:Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems" - And => "User:Drbogdan/sandbox-DetectingEarthAsExoplanet" - one of these may be a copy we can further expand I would think - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - NOTE: re Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion => "The result was KEEP". (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC) - added by Drbogdan (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

"Spaceflight" WikiProject notice
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Solar System" WikiProject notice
Thank you for your contributions on articles related to the solar system. Given that interest, have you considered joining WikiProject Solar System? We are a group of members working to improve articles related to the solar system. Please add your name at the list of participants to join with us. Questions? Ask at the discussion page of the project. Thank you. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Timothy Leary" refs
Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Joanna Harcourt-Smith and Timothy Leary. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - using a better ref instead - should now be ok - iac - Thanks again - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You too. :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Strangerers"
Thanks for uploading File:TV2000-The Strangerers-Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"Post-1932 politics" notice
Just a standard note for the topic area. PackMecEng (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)