Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Bebacktalk03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AM WuXi: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and requests - at first glance, your suggested edts seem ok - others may like to comment as well of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Mirage yet? As you know, I like high-minded, but low budget science fiction films. This surely fits the bill. Netflix advertises it as a cross between Doctor Who and The Butterfly Effect, which got my attention! Well, the film was as bad as you might think, but the story and script are fascinating. I'm also curious what could have been done by the writer/director/editor to improve it. Interestingly, Anurag Kashyap remade and adapted it for Indian audiences as Dobaaraa, but I haven't had time to see that yet. Anyway, super interesting film when you consciously ignore all the things that don't make any sense! In other words, popcorn chewing, B movie madness... Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thanks for suggesting the Mirage film - IMDb rates the film as 7.4/10 - seems interesting - yes - we enjoy thoughtful sci-fi of course - may take a look at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good eye, doc. You never cease to impress me with your penetrating insight. I'm picturing an all-seeing-eye coming out of your forehead. It only occurred to me the next day that the director was trying to share his love of cinema with the audience with homages throughout the film, scenes I didn't really pickup on until I had time to think about. I think the latter part of the climax, with the jumping off of the building, was supposed to be reminiscent of Open Your Eyes. You're way ahead of me, doc. At least give me time to catch up... Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - yes - noticed the jumping-off similarities at the time of viewing - both films are Spanish sci-fi, a notion which may have been somewhat at play I would think - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)== Book "How Life Works" (2023) worth considering? ==[reply]
Having already added the book at Philip Ball, I came across this, and have also added this reference. But I also saw that you had created How Life Works as a redirect to Life. Do you still feel that is a good idea? Incidentally, my edition (Piccador) gives the date of the US and UK editions as 2023. PJTraill (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PJTraill: - Thank You for your comments - and question re the redirect - it's *entirely* ok with me to retarget the redirect from Life to some other WikiPage if you like - no problem whartsoever - improving the ref and related is also *entirely* ok with me - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people had a heavy night's drinking and some loose chat at a cosmology conference? Seriously, there's nothing new here. There's no suggestion cells could survive on dust impacting Earth's atmosphere – the results are predictably fiery. Could chemicals arrive? Sure, they do that all the time, as the article already accepts; but a wide range of organic molecules were certainly synthesized by processes on the early Earth, as the article also discusses, so the panspermo-dustio-chemo-theory brings precisely nothing to the table. Sorry but we can do better than this, and it's a waste of time on the talk page, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such (LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 1024 stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe,[1][2][3] there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: - re: "rule it out completely" - sorry - my phrase was intended to be academic, and not at all otherwise - seems my wording could have been better - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero: (and others) - Thank You for your *excellent* comments - panspermia seems unlikely based on your comments of course - but panspermia - in the form of forward contamination from Earth - may have already occurred in fact - after all - one example (there may be others - maybe many others?) is that Tersicoccus phoenicis, a bacterium which resists sterilization, was not cleaned from devices sent into space - and may currently be on planet Mars (and elsewhere?) - further - seems humans are really, really filled with microorganisms[4] which suggests that where humans (or their devices) end up in space, so too do other life forms - panspermia may be easier than some may think - and life, like water, may find a way, so-to-speak - and may have found such a way much earlier in the history of Earth as well - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may happen, yes, but again, wait until we find life on Mars before discussing if it's native life, natural or artificial panspermia. Otherwise, there's no point to it. Besides, this is the talk page of the article about abiogenesis, and that scenario would have nothing to do with it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PittGuy123ABC: - very busy atm with other interests (including real-world ones) - nonetheless - would prefer comments from other editors about all this - to better understand the current WP:CONSENSUS - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: (and others) - Seems recent news (2/9/2024)[1] presents the latest goings-on with the upcoming showings of the two "Three-Body Problem" TV miniseries -- in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2024
Thank you, doc. I don't know how they will improve on the Chinese-language version; I really liked it. My only complaint is that the CGI was pretty bad, and given the artistry and talent of the cast and crew, and the resources available to the production, it seems unusual to me that they go this route. I'm wondering if I might have misinterpreted this. For example, because the majority of the CGI takes place within the game world, perhaps they wanted the audience to be reminded that it was a game, and this makes a lot of sense once I think about it, but the graphics bothered me to the point where I found it annoying. Not sure if this is just my personal hangup or what. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - *Entirely* agree - the CGI graphics could have been much, much better in the original CH version - and still suggest game-world-play I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I just watched Sam Esmail's Leave the World Behind. Very, very disappointing. First of all, I'm a huge fan of Esmail, so I don't really know what happened here. And the cast is superb. The only thing I can figure is that maybe Sam shouldn't have adapted it from the novel, I don't know. I've seen this kind of thing happen before. The art of adapting a novel to the screen is very difficult. I was surprised that the original writer, Rumaan Alam, wasn't involved. IMO, the script was terrible. Surely Sam is smart enough to know that this kind of story had been done a thousand times before. I'm curious what type of person this film appeals to; maybe someone who has never seen a science fiction film before? I don't get it. The whole thing was a waste of my time, I'm sorry to say. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: (and others) - Another related reference[4] - suggests the Netflex 8-part miniseries (season 1) to be broadcast on 21 March 2024 - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: (and others) - NOTE: Added the following text/ref to the "3 Body Problem (TV series)#Future" article => "Although a second season has yet to be renewed as of March 22, 2024, as many as four seasons (or more seasons?) may be possible."[5][6] - Additionaly - USA version = 489 mins (8x60) (33% LESS time than CH version) IMDb rated 7.6/10 / CH version = 1350 mins (30x45) - IMDb rated 7.6/10 - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: (and others) - We're now finished with all 30 eps of the CH version of the Three-Body Problem TV adaptation, and we're currently done with all 8 eps [now updated] of the USA version - we think both versions are good (not excellent), but involve different styles of the original source material - an overview of the entire USA version (including possible future seasons 3 & 4 ?) may be well presented in a recent Esquire review article[7] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the first eight episodes yesterday. I liked seeing old members of GoT (Game of Thrones) again, but many of the scenes were long and drawn out without the thematic narrative of GoT and the wonderful soliloquies and deep thoughts of that show, which is incredibly strange, since the original novels and the Chinese-language production have all of that. What gives? The last episode wasted most of the narrative going into Saul Durand's refusal of being the Wallfacer, which could have been easily reduced to several minutes instead. I felt like episode eight had a lack of editorial oversight and failed to give us enough of the foreshadowing to come. One bright spot I did enjoy, particularly with episodes six and seven, was Alex Sharp's acting as the character Will Downing, one of the few genuine, human touches in the entire show. Liam Cunningham was also great (as usual) as Thomas Wade, but the writing held him back in such a huge way that it felt like another missed opportunity. I'm sad to say that none of the genius of GoT can be found anywhere here, except for a few scenes with Alex Sharp and Rosalind Chao, who everyone loves no matter what she does (Star Trek fans unite!). Jess Hong as Jin Cheng is clearly the attraction for the entire series so far, and she's wonderful to watch, but the writing doesn't do her any favors. Overall, if this does amount to a first season (we will see), I give it five out of ten stars. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: (and others) - If interested - seems several (down-to-Earth?) interpretations of the novels and related film adaptations of "The Three-Body Problem" were recently presented by "The New York Times".[8]
Hi there @Drbogdan. I'm afraid I've just undone one of your edits over at Three-body problem. I'm assumed it was a plug for a recent piece of work so was bold. However, afterwards I spotted it was you, and figure you've got a good reason for adding it. Anyway, I've put a note on the talkpage to explain my actions. If you want to re-add it, could you make sure it's clear what it's about and why it's notable? While I'm sure it's valuable work, it feels incremental and a tad recent to me, but I'm no mathematician. In any case, I wanted to give you a heads-up for my rash deletion. :-) Cheers, PLUMBAGO10:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plumbago: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and concerns about my somewhat recent edit - and the related undoing/revert of the edit - the related references[1][2] seemed relevant and worth adding to the main "Three-body problem" article but, for one reason or another, may not be in fact - others more knowledgeble about this than I are welcome to comment of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits at the beginning of 2023 on the GPs. I am wondering if you could expand these references for the journals, especially Nature which I can't access, to include a few lines in the section 2023 (address below). I've started this section to include the Rhoads et al. study from January 1, but would like to include some text from your 2 references. (These might be better put in that section rather than at the top). The article needs generally updating, but any JWST data should take precedent. In your own time of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_galaxy#2023
Cheers Richard Nowell (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nowell: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestion(s) re the noted refs[1][2] - I'm also unable to track down the full "Nature" article (seems it may have been available earlier) - nonetheless - may have to defer to those more knowledgeable than I am about expanding (and/or updating) the text in the Pea galaxy article - others may do a much better job with this than I would at the moment - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Copied from => "User talk:Warrenmck#When did human language begin?")
Thank you for your recent rv of my edit re an approximate starting age for the beginning of human language[1] - this is somewhat relevant to my own "{{Human timeline}}" template - the best current determination seems to be between 1.5 to 2.0 million years ago - based on the recent news report[1] - however - you seem to be more knowledgeable than I about all this - just curious - what would be your own current estimate re the beginning starting age of human language (based on the responsible scientific literature if possible)? - Thanking you in advance for your reply - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sorry for the late reply on this, I’ve been travelling and had spotty internet access. I reverted that edit of yours to 2024 in science, and like with the edits on dark energy you were bold, which clearly from your time on Wikipedia we are all benefitting from. That said, I think it may be worth considering engaging with either Wikiprojects or talk pages before editing in new research to do mass edits to relevant articles, especially on topics you’re unfamiliar with. please note that I left your recent additions of this in the other two articles you added it to, since that seems like a very relevant place to discuss those recent discoveries in an article, though personally (and I’m not the arbiter of this!) I’d have considered some more hedged statements until the academic communities involved have a chance to weigh in more.
I do appreciate your effort here, but a couple of times you’ve created situations where a large chain of edits on an article need to be undone or substantially modified to restore the quality of an article, and there’ve been a couple of instances now of the articles you’re citing being misrepresented either in weight within a given field, or the strength of the statements that the article you’re citing claims (such as that revert, where your statement was “researchers report the origin of human language…” and the article in question was a proposal from a synthesis of different data sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestions - they're all *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - incidentally - I chose "researchers" since the researcher British archaeologist Steven Mithen was presenting a "synthesis" of other studies by other researchers - and not studies by himself alone - nonetheless - "researcher" could perhaps have been better wording after all - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am filled with admiration for your "thank" message after I reverted your additions to the articles on Holst and The Planets. Very, very few editors would be so magnanimous. My greetings! Tim riley talk15:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap, PJTraill, Viriditas, and Warrenmck: (and others) - AI Results - "Life Starts" and "Earliest Life" - Wiki Useful or Not? (ref => MsCopilotAI/20240406)
QUESTION - Are such AI Results of any use in any way on Wikipedia in your opinion? - probably not but perhaps worth asking the question nonetheless - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--- Contents:
01 - How did Life Start? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("Abiogenesis")
02 - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("Earliest known life forms")
--- You - How did Life Start? Copilot - Life’s origins remain a captivating mystery, and scientists have proposed several hypotheses. Let’s explore some of the fascinating ideas:
Simple Organic Molecules Formation:
Simple organic molecules, akin to the nucleotides that form the building blocks of life, likely played a crucial role in life’s origin.
Experiments suggest that these organic molecules could have formed in the early Earth’s atmosphere and then rained down into the oceans.
RNA and DNA, the genetic material for all life, consist of long chains of these simple nucleotides.
Replicating Molecules and Natural Selection:
Replicating molecules evolved, allowing them to copy themselves and pass on genetic information to offspring.
The ability to self-replicate likely emerged through an RNA self-replicator, where RNA molecules could copy themselves.
This led to an “RNA world,” where RNA performed multiple functions: storing genetic information, self-replicating, and basic metabolic tasks.
Natural selection favored variants of self-replicators that were more efficient at copying themselves, gradually leading to a stable replicating system.
Cell Membrane Formation:
Enclosing replicating molecules within a cell membrane provided significant advantages.
Membranes kept genetic material close and allowed for different internal and external environments.
These encased replicators out-competed “naked” replicators, leading to organisms resembling modern bacteria.
Evolution of Modern Metabolic Processes:
Initially, life relied heavily on RNA for various functions.
A pivotal shift occurred when cells evolved to use different molecules for distinct roles:
DNA (more stable than RNA) became the genetic material.
Proteins (efficient promoters of chemical reactions) handled basic metabolic processes.
RNA transitioned to a messenger role.
This marked a significant step toward more complex life forms.
Primordial Soup and Progressive Chemical Reactions:
Life likely emerged from a primordial soup of chemicals.
Stanley Miller’s famous 1952 experiment explored this idea, demonstrating that life could form through progressive chemical reactions.
In summary, life’s origin involved a gradual process, with each step building upon the complexity that evolved previously. While we still don’t have all the answers, the journey from simple organic molecules to complex organisms remains a captivating scientific quest! 🌱🔬🌏12345
You - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms? Copilot - The earliest known life forms on Earth date back billions of years. Let’s delve into the fascinating history:
Biologically Fractionated Graphite (Jack Hills, Australia):
Evidence suggests that life may have existed as early as 4.1 billion years ago. This conclusion is based on the discovery of biologically fractionated graphite within a single zircon grain found in the Jack Hills range in Australia 1.
These ancient graphite grains provide a glimpse into the distant past, hinting at the presence of life during Earth’s early years.
3.7 Billion-Year-Old Microorganisms:
The oldest undisputed evidence of life comes from microscopic organisms (microbes) that left their mark in rocks approximately 3.7 billion years old.
These microbial signals consist of a type of carbon molecule produced by living organisms 2.
Stromatolites (Pilbara Craton, Western Australia):
Stromatolites, layered structures formed by microbial communities, provide evidence of ancient life.
The earliest direct known life on land may be stromatolites found in 3.480-billion-year-old geyserite from the Dresser Formation in the
Pilbara Craton of Western Australia 1.
Microfossils:
Various microfossils of microorganisms have been discovered in rocks dating back to around 3.4 billion years.
Notably, Apex chert rocks from the same Australian craton region and hydrothermal vent precipitates from Barberton, South Africa, contain evidence of ancient life 1.
Preserved Molecular Compounds:
Around 1.73 billion years ago, preserved molecular compounds of biologic origin indicate the presence of aerobic life.
Therefore, the origin of life on Earth likely occurred at least 3.5 billion years ago, possibly even as early as 4.1 billion years ago—shortly after the formation of our planet and its oceans 1.
Extensive Biosphere:
Life on Earth exists in diverse environments, including soil, hydrothermal vents, rock, and even deep-sea environments.
Microorganisms have been found in extreme conditions, such as the Atacama Desert (one of the driest places on Earth) and deep-sea hydrothermal vents with temperatures exceeding 400°C 1.
In summary, life has persisted and adapted across geological time, leaving behind intriguing clues about its ancient origins. 🌏🔬🌱
Um, yes, the rules are clear; that way madness lies. Consider: its answers are cobbled together from social media, chat, guesswork, Wikipedia articles sourced or not, vague inference, assumptions, opinionated dinner-party talk, the pub bore, the worst of the tabloid newspapers, and any other dross and floor-sweepings from the litter-tray of the world. Not too good? No, it couldn't be worse if we tried. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason people tend to warm up to the LLMs is because their conversational style is so charming and magnetic. This is also why they are so dangerous. They are potential psychopaths in training. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump supporters try to nominate a LLM for president at this rate. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the really, really *Excellent* replies - and *Excellent* wording (made me chuckle) - think I've got the message - not a good idea - not at all unexpected of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This bit "The challenge for abiogenesis (origin of life)[7][8][9] researchers is to explain how such a complex and tightly interlinked system could develop by evolutionary steps, as at first sight all its parts are necessary to enable it to function." implies that all the steps are evolutionary and none of them are freakishly unlikely random events. But with a big enough universe such events can't be ruled out. "One origin of life on Earth could be the result of a remarkable and inexplicable pathway to life."[8]Justin the Just (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You recently added a new theoretical physics paper to Dark energy, Dark matter, Universe, and a few other pages. I (and another editor, it seems) have reverted those additions since it's just one person's theoretical math paper without wide reception in the scientific community and is a type of paper more typically considered a thought experiment (though a valuable one) in astrophysics (hence it's use of Tired light). Since it would completely and totally upend our understanding of astrophysics, it's most certainly an extraordinary claim and we should wait for more mainstream sources before editing into Wikipedia. Considering it's based on ideas which themselves aren't accepted in astrophysics, I wouldn't hold my breath too tightly on this one. :)
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: (and others) - Thank You for your comments re my edit[1][2] - and re your reverts - yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)== Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent? ==[reply]
This is the second time in a month you've seriously looked at mass-adding content relating to discrediting the best understanding of physics on the basis of a single paper in a popular source. I'm not trying to discount the huge amount of time or effort you're putting into this, but I genuinely think you may want to consider a temporary self-imposed WP:TBAN on articles relating to Dark matter, Dark energy, and alternative models of astrophysics more broadly. At least until you've spent a bit of time with WP:ECREE and WP:RS. For example, I'm not 100% sure what your New York Times comments have to do with wikipedia? But between that and the AI post above you may want to spend a bit more time with some of the basic content guidelines of Wikipedia. It's a bit tricky keeping up with your posts to multiple talk pages2all over the place1asking the same thing3 and issues with you masseditingarticles with fringe-ypositions which create some quality control issues (though I can't really object to your decision to take these discussions to talk pages first!).
One thing that jumps out to me is you may want to get involved with the physics Wikiproject where you could post a centralized discussion thread on new findings rather than splitting it across all possibly relevent talk pages and having disparate discussions to keep track of? Note I'm not an admin and I'm not suggesting any kind of sanctions or anything similar are warranted for you, I am just asking you to consider a step back on this since the way you're currently engaging with these topics creates a lot of extra work for other editors that really doesn't need to exist. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ01:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestions - they're appreciated - no problem whatsoever - simply trying to post recent related news publications ("WP:RS" of course) (one of my recent NYT examples[4] - which includes "ECREE") in a very, very limited number of possibly relevant talk-pages, in order to determine if the noted news items are worthy of adding to the related Wikipedia articles - seeking a second-opinion of sorts from others - your own related opinions are understood (and appreciated) of course - seems to have been an *entirely* acceptible way of considering such new content over the years - as far as my "NYT" (and other "WP:RS") "Comments" re Wikipedia: among other reasons - my comments are intended to help promote Wikipedia articles to the public; to help support my background to edit Wikipedia in the first place; to help develop my abilities to better edit Wikipedia; to help maintain an active awareness of the latest "WP:RS" news on behalf of Wikipedia where relevant and possible; and more - nonetheless - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my suggestion was you only add it to the Wikiproject Physics talk page; adding it to even more article talk pages isn’t helpful, since the only way to keep track of the discussion is searching through your edit history to find where the conversation is talking place. There’s a guideline relating to the behaviour you’re engaging in at WP:TALKFORK, and the general guideline is to not split discussions of the same thing across multiple talk pages. Again, I think you’re contributing some great content to Wikipedia but you seem to be editing at a pace that outpaces your understanding of the guidelines and procedures on Wikipedia and that ends up creating a lot of extra work for editors. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That poster pointed out the difference between advertising a centralized discussion and decentralizing that discussion, though. They're talking about creating a link that says "There is a discussion taking place at LINK" rather than having it split across a large number of places. Thanks for taking the feedback in good spirit :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"[3] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all[1][2] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
FWIW - Added the following NOTE (see copy below) to all relevant talk-pages including:
Hi @Drbogdan, I understand you've been trying to engage with these topics in good faith, but it's gotten to a point where you're editing in New York Times articles on related articles which is creating a workload for editors who need to undo those changes.
related notes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
were all in the last month, all reverted, and all were the same style of editing. This is partiuclarly disruptive in your handling of astronomy and astrophysics topics, where you have a history of editing in the same New York Times articles en masse to topics, such as with:
I understand you're trying to sincerely improve Wikipedia, but I don't think this editing pattern is helping. It also seems you're highly skeptical of some topics in astrophysics, and while I appreciate you engaging with the wikiprojects on those following our last discussion on this, I think it may be worth considering if you're positioned to evaluate information that runs counter to the scientific mainstream on astronomy related topics or what represents a major breakthrough in the field? You may also want to read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press, which highlights that popular press isn't a great source for scientific breakthroughs.
Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context needed to judge experimental results. Be particularly wary of any result reported as surprising or revolutionary, which may be an indication of exaggeration or worse. Popular press articles tend to overemphasize the certainty and importance of any result, for instance presenting a new theory as overturning previous knowledge or a new technology as just around the corner. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may rely uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by the public relations department of a university or national laboratory. News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk or uncertainty in meaningful terms.
A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure, nor should they be considered when describing what aspects of a field the relevant experts consider interesting, surprising, or controversial.
This editing patter is getting disruptive and it takes a fair bit of time to extirpate some of these edits from their articles, and this seems to be especially true in astronomy articles. I'm not an admin, I'm just a user trying to help improve Wikipedia, but I'm also someone who has had to take some time addressing some of these edits and I'd like you to at least reconsider your approach here pretty fundamentally, and perhaps bow out of some of the mass editing on astronomy topics entirely. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: (and others) - Thank You for your comments, compliments and suggestions - seems some of my editing efforts could be better - yes - *entirely* agree - will try to present better edits - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: - Thank You for your comments - all my edits are intended to be relevant and appropriate by Wikipedia standards (including WP:5P5 and WP:IAR as needed) - some editors may agree with my edits, and some may not - my talk-page edits are also intended to be relevant and appropriate by such standards - in the present instance, my intention is to improve the post by presenting a more readable, accessible and helpful post - again - some editors may agree, and some may not - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drbogdan The title of this post is intended to inform you and other editors that your disruptive editing has been raised with you in the event this continues and escalates. Please stop editing my words, that's inappropriate and I've been trying to engage with you on this productively. If you insist on changing my own words to suit you I'm going to WP:ANI this situation. I will not engage in a further revert, and I'm going to drop this so it doesn't turn into an argument on your talk page and an edit war. I'm leaving the hat for you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ17:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: Thanks for your comments - your recent talk-page edits were news to me - seems you're the only one to present such concerns to me over the years - if anything, seems editors wished my edits to be more bold, and not otherwise - nonetheless - seems I've already agreed with your concerns (see comments above) - and expect to do better - not at all interested in any go-rounds (never was) - yes - *entirely* agree - let's move on - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Bogdan, Dr. Dennis (February 16, 2020). "The one particular chemical is Nucleic Acid - a basic chemical for all known life forms - in the form of DNA - and/or - RNA - that defines - by way of a particular genetic code sequence - all the astronomically diverse known life forms on Earth - all such known life forms are essentially a variation of this particular Nucleic Acid chemical that, at a very basic level, has been uniquely coded for a specific known life form". Dr. Dennis Bogdan.
Testing a new Wiki-App: my "Webm Music Video" (webm video) - "Just Out Walking" - may return at a better time - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: - Related conversions/downloads/uploads seem to test ok - including web browsers (desktops/laptop) tested (so far) - Drbogdan (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: - May not always be available these days due to other interests and concerns (including real-world ones) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clickable image of the Luncheon of the Boating Party (1881) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.). Place your mouse cursor over a person in the painting to see their name; click to link to an article about them.
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg)
Perseverance rover & Ingenuity helicopter => 1325 sols (1362 days) (3 years, 267 days) (landed February 18, 2021).
.jpg)
