Open main menu

Welcome To Dr. Dennis Bogdan's ("Master Editor III") Talk Page

Welcome!

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 Beback  talk  03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents


LIFE, EARTH and the UNIVERSEEdit

Adrien Maggiolo (Italian journalist)Affenpinscher dogAline Charigot (seamstress and Renoir's future wife)Alphonse Fournaise, Jr. (owner's son)Angèle Legault (actress)Charles Ephrussi (art historian)Ellen Andrée (actress)Eugène Pierre Lestringez (bureaucrat)Gustave Caillebotte (artist)Jeanne Samary (actress)Jules Laforgue (poet and critic)LandscapeLandscapeLouise-Alphonsine Fournaise (owner's daughter)Paul Lhote (artist)Baron Raoul Barbier (former mayor of colonial Saigon)SailboatsStill lifeunknown person 
 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.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! & HNY 2019!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Drbogdan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Dreamy Jazz: 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!Edit

  Merry Christmas! A Christmas cookie for you. Thanks for all your volunteer work. All the best Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: 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 chemistryEdit

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)

@Rowan Forest: 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)
@Rowan Forest: 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 DNAEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: 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 => "Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) Four new letters in DNA alphabet" (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)
Drbogdan, 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 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hachimoji DNAEdit

 On 24 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hachimoji DNA, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Zanhe (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zanhe: - 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)
@Rowan Forest: 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 PallasEdit

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.jpgEdit

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[1] can be freely uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License!--MWAK (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@MWAK: 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)
@MWAK: - 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)

@MWAK: FWIW - images in the original article[1] (seems some of the images have been used, or referenced, in related articles[2][3]) 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)

References

  1. ^ a b Bailleul, Alida M.; et al. (20 March 2019). "An Early Cretaceous enantiornithine (Aves) preserving an unlaid egg and probable medullary bone". Nature Communications. 10 (1275). doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09259-x. Retrieved 22 March 2019.
  2. ^ Pickrell, John (20 March 2019). "Unlaid egg discovered in ancient bird fossil". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aax3954. Retrieved 22 March 2019.
  3. ^ Greshko, Michael (20 March 2019). "In a first, fossil bird found with unlaid egg - "I couldn't even sleep at night," the lead paleontologist says of her reaction to the discovery". National Geographic Society. Retrieved 22 March 2019.
Excellent! I'll start expanding the article.--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Clickable Periodic tableEdit

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)

@DePiep: 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, poly, nice. -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep: 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 diamondEdit

  • While I am here, a question. I have an issue with imagemap, and I don't have time (or knowledge) to solve it.
Template:NFPA 704 diamond(edit talk links history) (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 [1] (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)
@DePiep: 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 "Wikipedia: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)
@DePiep: Added the following to "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)" => "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Numbers OK in "Desktop View" - but Very Low in "Mobile View"?" - 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 "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Numbers OK in "Desktop View" - but Very Low in "Mobile View"?"

-- 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 biologyEdit

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)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for your comments re the "Evolutionary biology template" - and your explanation at "Template talk:Evolutionary biology#Image" (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#Should this article have a lead image?" - 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 luzonensisEdit

 On 11 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Homo luzonensis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stephen: 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 distanceEdit

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#Planetary Nebula NGC 7027 - age and distance") - 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 forceEdit

Hello Drbogdan,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Wikipedia: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)

@Femkemilene: 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)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: 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 reviewEdit

[ please see related discussion at => "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309#Quality rating" ]
- 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)

@Neil S Walker: 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)

@Neil S Walker: 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?Edit

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)

@RockMagnetist: - 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 => "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Quality rating" - and the previous post "User talk:Drbogdan#Peer review"), 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 plotEdit

 
Consolidated plot of KIC 8462852 dip maxima, 4256x836 pixels

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)

@Synchronist: 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#The Big Picture") - 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.)Edit

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)

@Synchronist, Incnis Mrsi, and Huntster: 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)
Synchronist, 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. Incnis Mrsi, 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)
(talk page stalker) 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)

CeresFA ReviewEdit

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 MarsEdit

It looks like another methane release may be happening these days.[1] 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."[1][2] - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

List of stars that dim oddlyEdit

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)

@Synchronist: 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 CaveEdit

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)

@Rowan Forest: 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 CaveEdit

 On 14 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Apidima Cave, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spencer: Thank you *very much* for your note - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

101955 BennuEdit

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?Edit

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. Serendipodous 17:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: 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)

TerrascopeEdit

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. [2].[1] paper at archive: [3][2] Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thank you for your comments - and references[1][2] - the Terrascope, as described in the video,[1] 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)
@Rowan Forest: 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)

References

  1. ^ a b c Kipping, David (2 August 2019). "Video (29:51) - Turning Earth Into a Telescope - The Terrascope". YouTube. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  2. ^ a b Kipping, David (1 August 2019). "The "Terrascope": On the Possibility of Using the Earth as an Atmospheric Lens". arXiv. arXiv:1908.00490v1. Retrieved 5 August 2019.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Writer's Barnstar
Your experience guide me! Jimmy Olano (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jimmy Olano: 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)
Return to the user page of "Drbogdan".