User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 11

Dr. Dennis Bogdan: Fremont Peak (Wind River Range; Rocky Mountains; Wyoming, United States)

Near the top

During a backpacking trip

Enjoying the view from near the top at about 14,000 feet

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.
(NOTE: My Related Clickable "Luncheon of the Boating Party" Image Effort on Wikipedia is Copied Below - Stay Safe and Healthy !!)

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.

(view • discuss)

Life on Earth – Earliest known appearances (Mya = Millions of years ago)

0.2 Mya
Humans

180 Mya
Flowers

200 Mya
Mammals

240 Mya
Dinosaurs

3500 Mya
Oxygen

4280 Mya
Microorganisms

4410 Mya
Water

4540 Mya
Earth

Location of the Earth in the Universe

Earth

Solar System

Gould Belt

Orion Arm

Milky Way

Local Group

Virgo SCl

Laniakea SCl

Our Universe

"Art of my Nature Timelines on Wikipedia"

"Click HERE for my other related image efforts"

"USA News: Political Cult - My Comments"

MyArchive10
FWIW - seems relevant here as well - should be *entirely* ok of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Copied from the "Viriditus – Political Cult" Talk-Page (May 23, 2021)

• FWIW - seems relevant - Yes - the Republican Party may now be a cult - but to what end? - following the money (cui bono?) - may be behind much of this imo - although the ball may be hidden - via theatrics, ploys and whatnot - after all - just 400 people have more wealth than half of all Americans combined - an historic 2017 tax cut "heist" largely benefits this ultra-rich group of people afaik - and represents a "non-negotiable red line" to Republicans re negotiations - as well as, similarly, with Democrats - all in all - a way of maintaining an "american aristocracy" of ultra-rich people? - at the expense of tax payers? - a return to a "plantation economy"? - updated to modern times - and modern dress - develop a following - promote a cult - denounce democracy - as well - seems the current Republican Party wants to rule, not govern, and, by way of another American Civil War involving race or the like, wants to return to a time of The American Revolution, and embrace a monarch like King George - simply backwards - going backwards in time - backwards in USA History - or so it currently seems - my 2013 NYT comments may be especially relevant - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References
References

Now, that's just what the doctor ordered! Viriditas

"USA News: Attempted Coup - My Comments"

MyArchive10
FWIW - seems relevant here - and, as well, related to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Copied from the "2020 United States presidential election - Coup Attempt" Talk-Page (November 25, 2020)

• Comment - WOW - most "opposes" above seem to be wishful thinking (and/or unrealistic thinking) re the current very non-traditional WH administration - and seem to be presenting an attempted coup (or attempted "legislative coup" or "self-coup" or "power grab" or "refusal to give up power" or "democratic backsliding") as a moot (or irrevelant) point (since the GSA is now permitting the newly elected administration to proceed) - seems an attempted coup ("testing-the-waters", so-to-speak), based on numerous WP:RS references (see listing above for some), that's seemingly failed (so far), is still an attempted coup (or the like) that may still be ongoing (and/or underway) in the WH - and, at least, may need special noting in Wikipedia - via of its own article - after all - there has been - to date => no actual concession from top WH leaders; an unexplained shuffling of top leadership at agencies, including the Pentagon; no official acknowledgement of the newly elected administration from top leaders of the opposing party; numerous WH tweets broadcasting an alternative narrative to millions - and there's a lot of days to go before January 20th, 2021 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ADD => FWIW - This apparent attempt (so far) all seems remarkedly consistent (imo) with my own published (somewhat prescient?) NYTimes Comments some years ago, in 2013. - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References
References

UPDATE (September 20, 2021) => Seems new detailed information about the actual coup attempt by the Trump WH administration has now been more fully described in "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", "CNN News" and "The Boston Globe" news reports - these reports are largely based on material from the 2021 book "Peril" by American journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa - also - see the related Eastman Memorandum article detailing the 6-point plan to overturn the 2020 election in which Joe Biden was the clear winner - this plan has been described as an instruction manual for a coup - later, on October 31, 2021, a detailed timeline of events was reported - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You're a prophet and in good company: Then-CIA director Gina Haspel said the US was 'on the way to a right-wing coup' after Trump lost the election. On January 31, 2021, a detailed overview of the attempt to subvert the election of the president of the United States was published in The New York Times. The danger will not be over until Trump and his followers are completely divorced from US politics. Stay alert. -- Valjean (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Trump's attempts were described by
federal judge David Carter as
"a coup in search of a legal theory".

UPDATE (April 11, 2022) => On April 10, 2022, Liz Cheney, Republican member of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, stated in an interview, “It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful ... I think what we have seen is a massive and well-organized and well-planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election.” - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE (June 10, 2022) => At the first hearing on June 9, 2022 of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, the committee panel noted that Mr. Trump attempted to overturn a free and fair democratic election by promoting a seven-part conspiracy. According to Bennie Thompson, chairman of the committee, “Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup, a brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after Jan. 6, to overthrow the government ... The violence was no accident. It represents Trump’s last stand, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.” Trump, according to the committee, "lied to the American people, ignored all evidence refuting his false fraud claims, pressured state and federal officials to throw out election results favoring his challenger, encouraged a violent mob to storm the Capitol and even signaled support for the execution of his own vice president." - (also see related listings, as/of 12 June 2022: "List of coups and coup attempts", "List of coups and coup attempts since 2010", "List of coups and coup attempts by country" - as well as "Talk:List of coups and coup attempts#agree".)

UPDATE (July 29, 2022) => * Video (18:49): "Inside Trump's Election Plot" on YouTube (MSNBC News; July 29, 2022)

References
References

"USA News: Big Lie Makes Big Money? - My Comments"

MyArchive10
FWIW - seems relevant here as well - should be *entirely* ok of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Big lie/Archive 1#The Big Lie Makes Big Money?": (July 31, 2021)

Also, Copied to "Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#The Big Lie Makes Big Money?":
(as a further way of attempting to overturn the 2020 USA presidential election - and, possibly, future USA presidential elections as well)

Also, Copied to "Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#The Big Lie Makes Big Money?":
(as another instance of being less-than-truthful - and to make a lot of money)

Should this very recent New York Times news report be added, in some way, to the "The Big Lie" article - as perhaps another reason, besides pursuing political power, in the near term and/or later, to continue promoting "The Big Lie"? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: The NYT source is not directly related to the topic of the article. And WP:OR says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." --Renat 14:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: (and others) - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - more direct WP:RS may be helpful re the issue - several such direct references may include The New York Times, NBC News and Yahoo News - there may be more direct references (perhaps many more) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Besides making Big Money from The Big Lie during the current go-round in 2020-2021 - others are funding the Big Lie with their own Big Money - all in all - Money seems to be a very Big Part of the Big Lie - in one form or another - and, perhaps, should be part of The Big Lie article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Drbogdan, this all seems to be very directly related to the subject. -- Valjean (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this Trump/GOP angle on the subject deserves its own article? I suspect that some objections to the section in this article are related to WP:COATRACK, and by folding this section and some content from two other articles (Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud) into a meta-article entitled Big Lie (Trump/GOP), we'd have a legitimate and good-sized article. There are likely other possible ways to merge this content, but I feel it needs to be done. The final title can be discussed.

This matter is taking on greater importance as the lie that may succeed in destroying American democracy and American's confidence in their own elections (Putin giggles with glee...). Rs coverage is growing, so it's certainly DUE. What do you think of that idea? Then this article and the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article would just mention and link to that article. We simply can't do the subject justice here. -- Valjean (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestion - yes - *completely* agree with considering a newly created article re this and related material - perhaps overdue since this may have been going on for some time I would think - flexible with article title, layout and content - your suggested title "Big Lie (Trump/GOP)" may be a good start - could always be changed later - you're more than welcome to use my own related content/references here (and perhaps elsewhere) for the article if you like - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a big "comfort" to be derived from Trump's efforts: they deplete and waste the wealth of Republicans. Much worse, and sadder, they actually kill them and reduce the number of GOP voters. His fundraising scams and his anti-vaccine, COVID-19 skepticism has serious consequences. The GOP has become a suicide cult. -- Valjean (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: On June 13, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack presented testimony that Trump knew he lost the 2020 election, but nevertheless, promoted the false narrative to exploit donors, and, as a result, raked in "half a billion" dollars. (NOTE: Added Edit to "Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election".) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Newsweek"

Please note WP:RSP says "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable" and the particular article you added is an exclusive. soibangla (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Thank you *very much* for your comments - and letting me know this - news to me - seems things changed a bit over the years re Newsweek - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"TIC 400799224"

I think the material you recently added to the variable star article might be better placed in a different article. The variable star article discusses different classes of variable stars, while the material you added to the article concerning TIC 400799224 is specific to that one star. It might be better to make a separate article about TIC 400799224.PopePompus (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@PopePompus: Thanks for your note - yes - *entirely* agree - added to "List of stars that dim oddly" instead - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes - "List of stars that dim oddly" is a good place for it. I was unaware of that list, but putting it there makes more sense than making a seperate article about the star, which might forever remain a stub.PopePompus (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@PopePompus: - Yes - seems "List of stars that dim oddly" was one of the article/lists I created some years ago - should have added "TIC 400799224" there earlier - Thanks for your help in my considering this listing - seems better after all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"ALH 84001"

• Organic synthesis associated with serpentinization and carbonation on early Mars (2022)

There’s too much information released on a daily basis. I can barely follow 1% of it. How do you do it? Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for the update reference re "Allan Hills 84001" meteorite studies - added to the main article - agree re a lot of daily information reported - not always able to keep up either - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory"

• Mars rover detects carbon signature that hints at past life source (Science)
• Depleted carbon isotope compositions observed at Gale crater, Mars (PNAS)

Cheers. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Added the following to the "Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#2022 events" article => "On 17 January 2022, scientists reported finding an unusual signal of carbon isotopes on Mars by the Curiosity rover which may (or may not) be associated with ancient martian life and suggesting, according to the scientists, that microbes residing underground may have emitted the 'enriched carbon as methane gas'. However, abiotic sources of the unusual carbon signal have not been completely ruled out." - should be ok, at least for starters - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment"

I just noticed that we don’t have a page on the proposed Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment (P-ONE).

• Astronomers propose building a neutrino telescope — out of the Pacific Ocean (Space)
• Website

There appears to be a lot of sources about this proposed project, and it looks like it is already underway in the development stage. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Created the "Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment" article - at least for starters - any additions and edits welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably should mention the idea began with Elisa Resconi and then became an international collaboration. Also could mention more about the detector, such as the depth it will operate at, and how it will measure up in terms of the differences with other detectors and what they expect to discover. Ocean Networks Canada also has an open image policy, and will very likely donate an image of the proposed site for the neutrino detector as long as we go through OTRS. However, that’s probably not needed, as we could create our own based on the available data. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"J6 committee"

I'd like to ask again - and you're certainly by all means perfectly free to ignore my third request, but please would you not include the full reference markup in your edit summaries? It's very distracting and makes it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff of your edits, and I really do want to see your good work in a clear way. Thanks again. soibangla (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: - Thanks for your comments - Yes, I'm aware of your concern re shorter edit summaries - as well as the concerns of others (maybe most others, including myself) who suggest longer edit summaries - seems to depend on the particular article and group of editors involved - I'll try to do better - but no promises - this is a mixed picture for me (and possibly others as well) - perhaps the length of edit summary space could be more limited - to physically limit the length of the edit summary? - this might be a good solution - and eliminate a certain amount of guess work I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about shorter summaries. My summaries are routinely huge, but it's all content. I don't see what value is added by including the full reference markup. It subtracts value, in my opinion. It makes me less interested in what you contribute, or at least makes it harder to see what your contribution says. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Thank you for the clarification - seems I unintentionally misunderstood - yes - Content is ok in the edit summary; References less so - seems easier to manage after all - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Template:Ceres Quads - By Name"

The result of the discussion was "KEEP". ✗plicit 03:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
"Template:Ceres Quads - By Name" has been "nominated for deletion". You are invited to comment on the discussion at "the entry on the Templates for discussion page" - or - "its relisted location". WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"My posted comments" on the "discussion-page" are copied below:

• KEEP - As OA of the template, the template may help provide a certain amount of perspective and orientation re the "dwarf planet Ceres", and may be useful in related articles I would think - nonetheless - I'm flexible with this, and would support whatever the "WP:CONSENSUS" view is decided of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• NEW TEMPLATE UPDATES - Updated the template with official Quadrangle Names, and with Wiki-Links to relevant Wiki-Articles - this should make the template more useful, and much more "Keep-Worthy" I would think - there are now 4 transclusions re the {{Ceres Quads - By Name}} template - template is consistent with other reported Ceres Quadrangle maps that are not currently available for use on Wikipedia - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References
References

90°N 180°E

0°N 0°E

0°N 180°E

North Polar Area

Asari

Ac-H-1

ASARI

Coniraya

Ac-H-2

CHAHAL

Dantu

Ac-H-3

DAGAO

Ezinu

Ac-H-4

EBISU

Fejokoo

Ac-H-5

GURCHO

Haulani

Ac-H-6

HOBNIL

Kerwan

KUMBA

Ac-H-7

KUMBA

Nawish

Ac-H-8

MAINAO

Occator

Ac-H-9

PALO

Rongo

Ac-H-10

RONDO

Sintana

Ac-H-11

SILADI

Toharu

Ac-H-12

TAUBEWA

Urvara

Ac-H-13

WAYU

Yalode

Ac-H-14

YUMYUM

Zadeni

Ac-H-15

ZELUS

South Polar Area

Topographic map of Ceres as of February 2015. Darker areas represent lower elevations, and brighter areas represent higher elevations.

[]

"Panspermia"

Main pages: Talk:Abiogenesis § Panspermia in the lead, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Panspermia/Abiogenesis

I know you mean well, but there is a deep, ongoing bias against the idea of panspermia that has occurred for many decades, and Wikipedia reflects this bias in many ways, so it is not unusual to find editors biased against it. To give you only one example, for the last thirty years or more, the most vocal objection to panspermia is that "it pushes back the origin of life to some earlier time and place", which has been used as a thought-terminating cliche to stop discussion. This objection, which appears to be purely philosophical at its core, is unusual, since virtually every major discovery about the origins of humanity, from cultural artifacts, to the development of language and art, to the origins of technology, to even the origin of the universe itself, pushes back the origin of X to some earlier time Y, but for some unusual and unexplained reason—panspermia isn’t allowed to do this, unlike every facet of knowledge about our existence!

When you dig down deep, and get to the heart of the question, the reality of our inquiry into the origins of life becomes clear: we will never know anything about an origin point, because the arrow of time goes in one direction. Unless one builds a time machine, there is no way to know. But somehow, panspermia, unlike every other theory of origins, isn’t an acceptable paradigm. And in case you doubt this, look at the proponents of the great filter. For them, the proposition of panspermia is the most terrible thing imaginable, because it means the great filter is ahead, not behind us. So there’s a kind of deliberate effort to deny that panspermia is a viable hypothesis. It’s not worth getting blocked or banned over. There’s a paradigmatic barrier when it comes to this subject, and it’s unlikely you’ll change any hearts or minds. Best way to approach this is incrementally, and to bring it up for further discussion in the future. I’ve been on the sidelines watching this opposition to panspermia for years, and you must realize by now, it is totally irrational. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for your excellent comments - yes - *entirely* agree with you - although it may not help in the end, thought it noteworthy that even the Britannica (referred to earlier, in possibly a misleading way, in the related "Abiogenesis discussion" by another editor) recognized "panspermia" in an ok way imo - the Britannica comments, and more (see copy below), have been added to the "Abiogenesis" discussion - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Abiogenesis#Panspermia in the lead"

To be clear - seems the Britannica presents "panspermia" in the "abiogenesis" article as follows: "In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia." - and links the related "panspermism", not only to the "abiogenesis" article, but also to the "Svante-Arrhenius" article - an 18th century Swedish chemist who, according to the Britannica, "launched the hypothesis of panspermism" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

ALSO -

AFAIK atm - seems there was no "life" in the "very early universe" - and then there was life - on "planet Earth" at least - life may (or may not) have begun uniquely on Earth ("Terrestrial abiogenesis") - or elsewhere ("Extraterrestrial abiogenesis") and related to "Panspermia" - the notion of panspermia has been discussed numerous times in the archives of this "Abiogenesis" article - even somewhat recently (2018), there's been many authors (over 30) in a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable science journal ("WP:RS") who have presented the notion that life forms in the "Cambrian explosion" may have come from outer space - and not otherwise - this particular study seems fringe ("WP:Fringe") imo atm - nonetheless, perhaps panspermia itself - with many other even better "WP:RS" mentions in the responsible scientific literature - is worth an appropriate mention (at least) in the abiogenesis article? - including in the lead? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

ALSO -

FWIW - related - but closer to home so-to-speak - humankind itself may already be in an age of panspermia, by actually participating (unintentionally) in the panspermia process - after all - astronauts (each astronaut carries over 100 trillion "hitchhiking" bacteria) and human equipments delivered to astronomical bodies beyond earth, may be a very real not-hypothetical aspect of panspermia - technically, in Wikipedia (at least), considered "Forward contamination" - this may include the Moon, Mars (one of my Wiki-articles describes "Tersicoccus phoenicis", a NASA-clean resistant bacteria, and likely already on Mars as a contaminant), comets and asteroids - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References
References

ALSO -

RECENTLY REVERTED TEXT IN LEAD

NOTE: "Panspermia" has been in the LEAD of the "Abiogenesis" article for at least the last eight years - from "at least 2014" to the most recent revert "29 January 2022" - and has most recently been presented in the following way (see copy below): [ which seems *entirely* ok to be in the lead to me - added by Drbogdan (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC) ]

Copied from "Abiogenesis version at 07:06, 29 January 2022"

"The alternative panspermia hypothesis speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth and spread to the early Earth on space dust and meteoroids. It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth."

References
References

"JWST" / "HD 84406"

Hi, does HD 84406 represent first light for JWST? Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Great question - on my mind (and probably many others) also - just don't know at the moment - seems trying to align JWST with the HD 84406 star is for testing and calibration reasons - not sure if that qualifies for first light - nonetheless, added a related edit to the first light article - hopefully, NASA will clarify the issue soon - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Brief Followup - although calibrating and adjusting JWST continues, seems some "first light" images have now been released? - related NASA mirror alignment video (2/11/2022; 3:00) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Want to hear something funny and weird? That article is written by Dennis Overbye. Whenever I read his articles in the NYT, I read them in my head with the accent of ex-NPR correspondent Peter Overby, who has a very distinctive American regional accent. I wonder if there is a word for that? Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Selfie: Primary mirror of JWST at destination.
• 
  18 images of same target star HD 84406 by the 18 unfocused mirror segments.
• 
  Phase 1 interim image, annotated with the related mirror segments that took each image.
• 
  18 unfocused images of same target star HD 84406.
• 
  Phase 1 annotated completion image of HD 84406.
• 
  Phase 2 completion, showing "before and after" effects of segment alignment.
• 
  Phase 3 completion, showing 18 segments "stacked" as a single image of HD 84406.
• 
  Alignment Selfie
  (14 March 2022)
• 
  Fully Focused Evaluation Image
  (16 March 2022)
• 
  Image Sharpness Check
  (28 April 2022)
• 
  Image Comparison: "Old" Spitzer and New Webb Space Telescopes (May 2022)

References
References

"Claude Debussy"

It’s strange to me, that given Claude Debussy is a featured article, that it says almost nothing about his influence on the composition of modern film scores, and only a few words about his massive impact on jazz harmonies. This deserves at least two large paragraphs, if not its own separate article. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Template:Taxonomy/Pentecopterus/doc"

Template:Taxonomy/Pentecopterus/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - @Jonesey95: - As OA, no problem whatsoever - *entirely* ok with me to delete asap - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Location of the Earth in the Universe"

Location of the Earth in the Universe

Earth

Solar System

Local Fluff

Local Bubble

Gould Belt

Radcliffe Wave & Split

Orion Arm

Milky Way

MWay Subs

Local Group

Local Sheet

Virgo SCl

Laniakea SCl

KBC Void

Our Universe

Universe

OBJECTIVE: To Make An Image-Template About The "Location of Earth In The Universe" As Clickable To Relevant Wikipedia Articles As Possible - There Doesn't Seem To Be Any Such Template At The Moment (afaik) - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Click HERE for my other related image efforts"

NEW (as/of 20220217)

Location of the Earth in the Universe

Earth

Solar System

Radcliffe Wave

Orion Arm

Milky Way

Local Group

Virgo SCl

Laniakea SCl

Our Universe

Old Original

Location of the Earth in the Universe

Earth

Solar System

Gould Belt

Orion Arm

Milky Way

Local Group

Virgo SCl

Laniakea SCl

Our Universe

Reference Template

Earth → Solar System → Local Interstellar Cloud → Local Bubble → Gould Belt → Orion Arm → Milky Way → Milky Way subgroup → Local Group → Local Sheet → Virgo Supercluster → Laniakea Supercluster → Local Hole → Observable universe → Universe
Each arrow (→) may be read as "within" or "part of".)

COMMENTS Per your image up above, should you change Gould Belt to Radcliffe Wave? Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Viriditas: - Thanks for the suggestion - yes - seems the "Radcliffe Wave" is bigger (8,800 ly) than, and includes much of, the "Gould Belt" (3,000 ly) (also see => "Radcliffe wave#Overview" ) - series of related images above are now updated - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of several components of this, and I'm not sure what it adds to e.g. Observable universe. Why were some of these particular items selected? 1. The solar system image is an artistic amalgam of planet images, but there are better representations of the scale of the solar system, if you're going for "where are we?" 2. The Radcliffe wave does not contain the solar system. 3. Your "Our Universe" image is a simulation and the caption doesn't say anything about where the data came from. How does this relate to the "Observable Universe"? - Parejkoj (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Parejkoj: - Thanks for your comments - and noted concerns - images are meant to be an abbreviated (and simplified) summary/overview of the location of the Earth in the universe - the related image captions are linked to relevant articles with much more detail - the images are mostly a navigation aid, and not at all meant to be overly precise and technical - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Parejkoj: - I am interested in reading about how you would re-design or re-construct these series of images to better represent the subject, as well as improve the sourcing. I think you raise a good point that this can be improved. Please help us! Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Part of my problem is that what is included or not feels a bit WP:OR to me (even besides Radcliffe Wave not being relevant at all, as far as I can see). Do you have some books or articles that give a list like this that you could reference? - Parejkoj (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Parejkoj and Viriditas: - For starters at least => maybe the Wikipedia "Location of Earth" article itself might help - and related very detailed vertical table in the article - and vertical graph (see the low-resolution vertical image on the right-hand margin - which can be enlarged) - ALSO - the "{{Earth's location}}" template (see below) may help - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Parejkoj and Viriditas: - Brief followup - Nine sequential images seems the best for size - Ten images is the "maximum" limit for the "{{multiple images}}" template (please see => "User:Drbogdan/sandbox-timelines-01#Earth series") - some "extra" images (and/or locations) were omitted from the "NEW (as/of 20220217)" version (see copy above) due to size limits (see the five omitted "extra" images below) - hope this helps - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Location of Earth - Extra Related Images/Locations

Local Fluff
(>Solar System)

Local Bubble
(>>Solar System)

Gould Belt
(>>SolarSystem)

MW Subgrp
(>>Solar System)

Actual Universe
(>Our Universe)

Location of Earth - Not Clickable

NEW - @Parejkoj and Viriditas: - FWIW - Newly created "CLICKABLE" "{{LocationOfEarth-ImageMap}}" template (see template below) - just now finished mapping link coordinates in images template to relevant Wikipedia articles - mapped template link coordinates via => http://maschek.hu/imagemap/imgmap/ - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Clickable image of the Location of Earth. Place your mouse cursor over an area in the image to see the related area name; click to link to an article about the area.

(view • discuss)

"45 day transit to Mars is now possible"

How exciting is that? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Saw this yesterday (16 February 2022) in the news - interesting - seems it usually takes about 210 days to travel from Earth to Mars these days - the reported laser technology, maybe 45 days - seems an improvement - if it works - nonetheless - reminds me of one of my published comments some years ago - and - if humans become involved in this faster laser-related transportation system, another of my related published comments - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Chicxulub impact"

"Chicxulub impact" may have occurred in boreal spring

• An asteroid killed dinosaurs in spring—which might explain why mammals survived. Ars Technica
• The Mesozoic terminated in boreal spring. Nature

Trivia: Jennifer Ouellette, the author of the Ars Technica article, is married to Sean Carroll. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for the trivia re Jennifer and Sean - yes - knew that - Sean has been one of my friends on FaceBook for a long time - I commented a lot some years ago (2011) on several of his "Cosmic Variance" forums on the "Discover Magazine WebSite" - links (if still active) to my forum comments are noted on my LiveJournal - esp the "Universe Out Of Chaos" forum (cmts 169506;169986;170051;170248) and "Hawking and God" forum (cmt 170070) - one example of my comments was related to the notion of the "Universe Arising To Something From Nothing" => "Seems Your Proposal Is That The Universe Did NOT Come From "Nothing" [after all] - But From "Something" ("Chaos" and/or "Fluctuations") Instead - Is This Type Of "Somethingness" *Always* Present? - And Related Perhaps - Is True Absolute "Nothingness" *Always* NOT Present? - If So, Doesn't This Notion (picking a presently popular phrase) "Kick The Can Down The Road" so-to-speak? Is There A Place For True "Absolute" Nothingness In Your Thinking? - Where Did This New "Something" Come From Originally? - nonetheless - more recently (2022) - the latest understanding of physics seems to suggest it's all a dream in any regards, at least when considered in terms of "quantum mechanics" - in any case - Enjoy! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Thiomargarita magnifica"

Largest bacterium ever discovered may rewrite the definition of eukaryotes and prokaryotes

• Largest bacterium ever discovered has an unexpectedly complex cell. Science.

It’s so large that it’s visible to the naked eye. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your "largest bacterium" posting - interesting - decided to create a "WP:REDIRECT" => from "Thiomargarita magnifica" to "Thiomargarita" - at least for now - Thanks again - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Early Earth" / "Endurance" / "Music"

A new model for the first 500 Myr of Earth; Endurance found

• A wet heterogeneous mantle creates a habitable world in the Hadean — Nature (3/2/2022)
  • Confessions of a former fireball — how Earth became habitable — Yale (3/2/2022)

• Endurance: Shackleton's lost ship is found in Antarctic — BBC (3/9/2022)

Aloha! Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your recent comments and refs - they all seem very interesting - also interesting, at least to me atm, is the seemingly intimate relationship of "music" and "human evolution" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the Divje Babe flute? Given how modern humans tend to appropriate other cultures and then wipe them out, perhaps it’s not a stretch to think that we got music from the Neanderthals before destroying them? Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for the comment - news to me - but very interesting - may need to study this a bit more - yes - very interesting - Thanks for letting me know about this - Enjoy! : ) - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey"

Have you had a chance to check out The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey (2022) yet? It’s surprisingly and refreshingly quite good. I like the gritty realism and the acting. The writing reminds me of a mashup between Memento (2000) and Limitless (2011). They also use the camera perspective as a silent, but universal third-person narrator in a way that is reminiscent of the best novels. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - and suggestion re The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey - not aware of this miniseries, but saw Memento and Limitless some time ago - we're currently watching some Kurt Vonnegut films, including some adapted short stories (Welcome to the Monkey House) - and might next try to get caught up with the Raised By Wolves miniseries - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I dropped out of Raised by Wolves after the first few episodes of the second season. It just got too silly, and it felt like they were deliberately making it confusing for the audience. I don’t know if I will go back to it, but the first season was entertaining. I think they had some good ideas, but it increasingly felt like a B-movie version of Westworld. I think it probably appeals to people who aren’t all that knowledgeable about science fiction, but for me, it just felt like it wasn’t working. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - As for science fiction, we thoroughly enjoyed "Copenhagen" (2002,GB) recently - much more real science, than fiction - the film, starring Daniel Craig, is based on an award-winning play by Michael Frayn about a purported historical meeting between physcists Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg - highly recommended - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s a good tip, thank you. I still haven’t seen The Adam Project (2022), but I really enjoyed Reynolds in Free Guy (2021), so I’m looking forward to it. Rewatching Better Call Saul right now, and I’m starting to think this is one of the greatest television shows of all time, right up there with The Wire and Mad Men. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - We enjoyed both of the Reynolds films somewhat recently - thought they were both light, easy and, in some ways, clever as well - just finished "Mother Night" (1996,USA) by Vonnegut (my related fb post) - a bit heavy but well done - the style reminded me of Beckett: surreal and absurd in parts - we attended a Vonnegut lecture on creative writing in Pittsburgh in the early 2000s and were favorably impressed - not familiar with the other TV shows although aware they are very highly regarded - only so much time these days - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just reading about how Vonnegut struggled to find success until finally making it into the big time with Slaughterhouse-Five (1969). I was wondering if you had any personal recollections from that year. In other words, from your personal perspective in 1969, what was it that set Vonnegut apart or made him appear extraordinary for the time? Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Actually, my own familiarity with Vonnegut was well before 1969, and involved some of his earlier science fiction short stories and novels - seems 1969, due to the ongoing Viet Nam War at the time, inspired (and popularized) a lot of antiwar novels and films, including "M*A*S*H" (1970,USA), based on the related 1968 novel, but others, like some of the antiwar works by Vonnegut, as well - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What's the latest with JWST? How long before we get the first bio or technosignature data? Come on, we know they are out there! Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This user knows the Universe contains Life – on Earth – at least – and knows we are Not Alone – Life abounds – wherever we are – with Microorganisms – at the very minimum.
- Dr. Dennis Bogdan (NYT 2021)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - seems to be less of a concern to me at the moment after realizing: "This user knows the Universe contains Life – on Earth – at least – and knows we are Not Alone – Life abounds – wherever we are – with Microorganisms – at the very minimum." - even made a related Userbox to celebrate the idea - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I finally had some free time to watch The Adam Project. It was a lot of fun and exactly how I envisioned it. At this point, it feels like Ryan Reynolds is not just an actor, it’s a genre. One thing I noticed about the film was how many scenes showed Mark Ruffalo (5’8”) looking up to Ryan Reynolds (6’2”). You would have thought the director would have accounted for that discrepancy and made some adjustments to the scenes. Makes me think the film was shot on very short notice. I wish they had used Jennifer Garner more in the story, as she was given very little screen time and basically disappeared at the end. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you had an opportunity to see Everything Everywhere All at Once yet? I am slightly hesitant, as the Daniels were responsible for Swiss Army Man (2016), 97 minutes of which I will never get back again. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a bad film, just really disturbing on so many levels. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comment about the "Everything Everywhere All at Once" film - new to me - may find out more about the film later - just finished "CODA" (three "Oscars" including best picture) - well-deserved in our opinion - currently re-watching the latest version of "Dune" (six "Oscars") - if interested, I'm presently working on my newly created article on star "WHL0137-LS" (nicknamed "Earendel") (farthest star observed to date) - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you’ve been having fun! I haven’t seen CODA yet, but I did see Dune when it came out. My complaint is that it should have been produced as miniseries, not a standalone film. Have you seen Devs yet? I’m thinking of giving it a try next week. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - the current "Dune" seems much better (artistically and otherwise) than the three-part 2000 "Dune Miniseries" imo - part 2 of the latest "Dune" is currently in process; depending on the level of success, parts 3 (and more) may be considered later I would think - as for "Devs" - my related FaceBook post was made several years ago (5 March 2020) ( see => https://www.facebook.com/drbogdan/posts/10159292239364691 ) - I have yet to see an episode - watched "Moonfall" last night - Joanne really liked it; I did too, but thought it was too much like director "Roland Emmerich's" earlier 1996 "Independence Day" film - nonetheless - Emmerich's "The Thirteenth Floor" film, based on the 1964 novel "Simulacron-3" by "Daniel F. Galouye", is one of our favorites - although not as good, of course, as the classic German 1973 "World on a Wire" ("Welt am Draht"), also based on Galouye's novel - the full two-part German film (with eng subs) is at => (part1of2/105:46: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk-ocrjCas8 ) (part2of2/107:39: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n1qrxbW4PM ) - incidentally, this German film may also be related to "Devs" in some ways - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"SpaceX Starship"

I think you know this is leading, a Mars rocket and an eccentric billionaire project :). I am not exactly solid at writing about the space colonization uses of the rocket though, so I think having you running down the article would do it justice for how ambitious the project is. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: - Thanks for your comments - and suggestion - no promises, but may look over the article next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I hope you would stay safe as well! Feel free to take a look at the article any time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Earliest known life forms"

I think you're mistaken
(In reference to this article) I wasnt changing the actual protection settings of the page - {{pp}} is actually the banner or small top right icon that displays the current protection. I was removing it as the page no longer had protection, and was now being put into Category:Wikipedia_pages_with_incorrect_protection_templates as the template wasnt needed. Am i good to re-do this edit? Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382: - Thank You for your comments - and clarification - yes - seems I may have misunderstood after all - also - yes - *entirely* ok With me to re-do the edit of course - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Viatris"

Hi Drbogdan. I noticed your name listed as a participant in the WP:Pharmacology, as well as having an interest in Pittsburgh, so I thought you might be amenable to taking a look at a simple edit request to the Infobox that I recently posted for Viatris, a company that is headquartered near Pittsburgh. I appreciate your help, and thank you in advance. PittGuy123ABC (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done - @PittGuy123ABC: - Suggested edits added - should be ok - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Template:Human timeline"

You updated this to include "earliest rock art" a few months ago: in your edit summary you mention a date of 200,000 ya which is supported by the cross-link, but the arrow is actually at 2 Mya! Can you fix it? PaddyLeahy (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done - @PaddyLeahy: Thank you *very, very much* for finding this unintentional error - and letting me know - as it turns out, had to omit the note ("earliest rock art" at 200,000 ya) since, at the current template scale, there was simply too much unfixable text overlap - should now be better (without the noted entry) - Thanks again for the find - its *greatly* appreciated - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Drbogdan for your quick implementation of my edit requests. I also wish you a safe and healthy spring and summer. PittGuy123ABC (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"WHL0137-LS"

Hi there! We seem to be headed towards an edit war concerning the supernova status of Earendel. On the Talk:WHL0137-LS page, there are indeed two separate topics about the use of the present tense: "Using present simple" and "Tense - this star does not exist any more." In "Using present simple" Lithopsian makes an excellent point about using the present tense for all information concerning the star's properties. When I suggested that this should apply to the supernova as well, I received one post of agreement and no other answers at all. If you see any compelling reason (beyond "seems better") why it should be different, then please say so on the Talk page, so we can start working towards a consensus. I'm going to change the sentence back to present tense right now. Please don't change it again without prior discussion. Thanks! Herr Hartmann (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Herr Hartmann: - Thanks for your comments - no problem whatsoever - wasn't fully aware of the concern (until now) - *entirely* flexible with this - and - *entirely* ok with me to present the edit as you like - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Atmosphere of Mars"

Given the new research about sound on Mars, I propose the addition of a new section for the article atmosphere of Mars titled "Acoustic environment". Secondary source found here. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Takeaway

• Speed of sound is slower on Mars than on Earth. Martian atmosphere is 100 times thinner than on Earth.
• Mars has at least two speeds of sound that vary by pitch. This phenomenon has only been recorded on Mars so far. It is thought to be caused by the low pressure and thermal turbulence of Martian surface air.
• "Mars is the only terrestrial-planet atmosphere in the Solar System experiencing a change in speed of sound right in the middle of the audible bandwidth (20 Hz – 20 kHz)."
• Due to these unique conditions, Mars is much quieter than Earth.
• Any live music produced on Mars would also have unique properties.

Mars sounds (Perseverance) (video; 1:29; 1 April 2022)

@Viriditas: - Yes - *entirely* agree - added the text/refs/video copied below to the "Atmosphere of Mars" article - should be ok, at least for starters - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-- Acoustic environment --
In April 2022, scientists reported, for the first time, studies of sound waves on Mars. These studies were based on measurements by instruments on the Perseverance rover. The scientists found that the speed of sound is slower in the Martian atmosphere, 100 times thinner than the terrestrial atmosphere, than the atmosphere on Earth; the speed of sound on Mars, within the audible bandwidth between 20 Hz - 20 kHz, varies depending on pitch, seemingly due to the low pressure and thermal turbulence of Martian surface air; and, as a result of these unique Martian conditions, sound is much quieter, and live music would be more variable, than on Earth.

References
References

"HD 84406"

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HD 84406, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 84406 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"Notable films of the day"

Have you seen All the Old Knives (2022) yet? This could have been a great film, but I’m sorry to say it’s not. It’s worth watching if you like tight, one-room, theatre-like pieces like I do. Plus, it features the always wonderful and beyond beautiful Thandiwe Newton, whom I have had a crush on since Westworld. She’s really a delight to watch. The problem with the film is that it’s got a great story, but the director wasn’t really able to salvage the backstory, which should have supported the overall film to the denouement. While you will figure out the film in the first five minutes, there is a subtle twist at the end that I liked. Otherwise, I recommend it for its atmospheric qualities. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - and suggested film - no - doesn't seem our type of film atm - we've just finished the recent reboot of the "Planet of the Apes" films - esp "Rise (2011)"; "Dawn (2014)"; and "War (2017)" - all much better films/stories than expected - we're currently busy with the recent "three-part PBS film" (by "Ken Burns") of author "Ernest Hemingway" - interesting bio of an interesting writer - looking forward to the very recent "two-part PBS film" (also by "Ken Burns") of "Benjamin Franklin" - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The funny thing about Pierre Boulle's novel La Planète des singes (1963)—when I was a child, I borrowed it from my local library, only to discover that it was written in French, with the English translation at the end. Is that how English translations of popular works used to be published? In any case, the most fascinating thing about the reboot that you watched, is the advancement of technology between 2011-2017, and if you pay close attention, you can see the progression in each film. The last film is a tour de force in motion-capture and CGI, and up to that point (2017), I don’t think there had ever been anything like it. If you haven’t had a chance to watch the BTS (probably on YouTube), please do. It’s a master class in the artistry of filmmaking. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Yes - *very* aware of the "CGI" and "MC" film technology in the "Planet of the Apes" reboot films - and yes - also aware of the "BTS" on "YouTube" - seems a "fourth related film" is currently in process - may involve even greater advances in "CGI" and "MC" I would think - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I too read "Apes" when it was new, in English, as well as Boulle's "Kwai" and no, each was only in English. Dual-language editions have become rare in recent decades. They were less rare when we were young and eager, and libraries liked them for their scholarly connection, but they were never the usual way for consumer products. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson:, sorry I just saw this. I guess I’m late to the party. IIRC, the dual-language edition was from the early 1960s, possibly some time between 1963-1968. I remember the cover and binding had a strange yellow color to it. It’s weird, because I haven’t encountered editions like that since that time. In any case, it’s clear to me that Rod Serling was responsible for the success of the original film. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Abiogenesis"

Dr Bogdan, per the MoS we don't normally add refs to the lead. I've actually today removed no less than 29 refs from the lead of Abiogenesis - they've been there for years - and ALL OF THEM were missing from the article text. That means that they had ALL (unimaginably) been added to the summary but not to the article itself, a piece of methodology that strikes me as utterly absurd. So, it was with a mixture of horror and astonishment that I saw, and instantly removed, a fresh accretion of yours just now.

To be clear, the lead is *only* a summary of cited text in the article body.

It should not contain *anything* that is not already in the article body.

If any new citation contains something that absolutely must go into the article, (and we're aiming at "the main points" not comprehensiveness, as the field is enormous - we cannot possibly cover everything), then it must be described in plain English and cited in the article body, not in the lead.

Further, the adding of citations to existing material is generally an odd thing to do. If the material is uncited, why is it there - original research or just badly-written? Finding a source and then seeking an article and a paragraph in which to add it is putting the cart before the horse: the purpose of citations is to support new claims; it is not the purpose of articles to support what editors (or worse, authors, often with conflict of interest in their case) consider interesting citations.

If the new material is *so* important that it requires mentioning in the lead, that should be without repeating the citation; it should be a brief text summarizing the incredibly important new material. I'd say that very few discoveries would meet this criterion; the discovery of chemiosmosis, and the role of white smoker hydrothermal vents in providing electrochemical power, would seem to be the most recent examples that justify a mention in the lead. The great majority of "exciting" reports of computer simulations, exobiological signals, syntheses of 6,5 dimethyl-banana-diesterase "proving" that nucleic acid precursors could form spontaneously etc etc are not lead material.

Regression of genome complexity increase.

One more thing. I've put in a lot of work to clean up the article, cutting it down from an unbearable 330,000 bytes to a still-long 200,000 bytes. I really do not wish to see this steadily creep up again with incessant accretions of random titbits. We should not be adding anything that is not necessary; I've been following Saint-Exupery's maxim, that perfection is attained not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing to take away. I'm not convinced your recent addition comes into that lofty category.

I do hope this is all clear to you, as it should be standard across all science articles (if not the whole of the encyclopedia, actually). By the way, I've now nominated the article at GAN. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: - Thank you *very much* for your excellent comments - I *entirely * agree with you - I knew this earlier but was unable to decide on a better location in the "Abiogenesis" article for the reference - I ended up with adding the ref here - hope this is ok - completely ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - other related references - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

References
References

The question is what purpose the ref serves. Does it improve the article? and if so, is that improvement so crucial that we feel it is worth the hundreds of additional bytes it is occupying in the article? At the moment I think not but you are free to try to convince me! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: - Thank you for your reply - it's *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - your judgment on this may be the better one after all - incidentally - your recent editing of the "Abiogenesis" article could not have been better imo - I'm favorably impressed - and for that reason as well, your thinking on this should be given even greater credit - also yes - happy to see you nominate the article for "WP:GA" - seems the article has been developed sufficiently to proceed to the next higher level (so-to-speak) - thanks in large part to your own recent editing efforts of course - Thanks again for your reply - and efforts - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Dr Bogdan, I don't wish to be abrupt, but it does seem necessary to state plainly that Wikipedia is not a news site. The article is a summary overview, not a list. Many thanks for your present understanding and future cooperation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Yes - I agree - Thanks for the reminder - and revert - no problem whatsoever - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"Luncheon of the Boating Party"

"Luncheon of the Boating Party"

I know you are a fan of the "Luncheon of the Boating Party" (1881), but it just occurred to me, the use of colors in this painting is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. I know you studied chemistry, and there’s quite a bit about the revolution in color pigments and optics in and around this time. I haven’t researched or read anything about Renoir in this regard, but I’m sure there’s something there. For example, in regards to Monet, I previously wrote about how outdoor, landscape painting was helped along by the invention of technology like the collapsible metal paint tube (1841) and portable easel. Although, I didn’t go into detail in the article, this technology was apparently a real game changer for the time. I did, however, note that Monet's novel use of colored shadows derived from color theories popularized by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) and Michel Eugène Chevreul (1786–1889), which in turn influenced Vincent van Gogh and Camille Pissarro. I’m curious if these ideas also influenced Renoir, but I haven’t seen anything yet. The impression I get from the literature is that Renoir was more working class and less interested in intellectual matters. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for your *Excellent* comments - Yes - visited the "Luncheon of the Boating Party" painting at the "Phillips Gallery" in "Washington, D.C." several times in the early 1960s while a student at "GWU" - the Gallery, near "Dupont Circle", was only a block or two from my apartment at the time - *thoroughly enjoyed* each time and viewing - *very* impressive painting imo - not able to comment about the technology and chemistry behind the painting (you seemed to have done a bit homework with this), but I would not be at all surprised if the color pigments in the painting were special in some ways - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

"Attempted USA coup"

Please establish consensus on Talk:List of coups and coup attempts. I can find plenty more sources that call the Jan 6 incident an "insurrection", regardless of the fact that Liz Cheney called it a "coup" yesterday. I prefer "coup" myself, but my or your preference doesn't matter. The sources matter. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - as noted on the relevant edit page(s) => "rv edit - seems quoting an official Congressional Select Committee source, ie, Chairman Bennie Thompson, at one of the highest government levels currently active in the USA government today, and as reported by one of the world's foremost WP:RS, The New York Times, is a good faith and sufficient edit addition - please seek WP:CONSENSUS to "remove" the edit - thanks." - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

My Edit Addition (10 June 2022) - Copied from the "List of coups and coup attempts" article:

• 2021 American coup attempt: On 6 January, former President Trump attempted a coup attempt based on testimony by Chairman Bennie Thompson of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. According to Thompson, “Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup, a brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after Jan. 6, to overthrow the government ... The violence was no accident. It represents Trump’s last stand, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.” Trump, according to the committee, "lied to the American people, ignored all evidence refuting his false fraud claims, pressured state and federal officials to throw out election results favoring his challenger, encouraged a violent mob to storm the Capitol and even signaled support for the execution of his own vice president." The panel also noted that Mr. Trump, by promoting a seven-part conspiracy, attempted to overturn a free and fair democratic election.

References
References

No, that doesn't help. The published source does not characterize the event as a coup, it just quotes a politician, and the fact that a politician said something has never been a reason for including an entry in the article. Politicians aren't reliable sources except for verification of what they say. Many politicans state views that are demonstrably false (like "election was stolen"). A discussion about using a politician as a reliable source has been started at WP:RSN.

Consensus is required to include contentious claims, not to remove them. See WP:BURDEN. Thank you for starting the RFC. You forgot to tag it for the RFC bot to find; I have just done so.

I really, really want to include this wording, and I hope the consensus among recent sources evolves to the point where we can. We need to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, however, and so far I am not seeing justification grounded in policy to include it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been checking this out and your referencing of policy and there's nothing saying we can't include it. It's just your personal reading of the policy.

Based upon the huge consensus right now. There is something called WP:OWN that says you can't hold a page hostage because you don't like the contribution.

All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by a community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act possessive of a particular article or topic (or any part of it), nor does any of us have any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. As each edit page clearly states: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.

Rep. Thompson is not simply airing his own opinion, but speaking in his capacity as chair of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Legislative committee reports based on multiple primary sources are even potentially secondary or even tertiary sources depending on context.

Thompson's comments were made outside the scope of a declaration the committee had voted. That makes his remarks 'his remarks' and they are a primary and acceptable WP:ABOUTSELF source that he thinks this. Until the committee votes or a court makes a finding or some other body makes a formal statement, we have Thomspon's characterization. NPOV requires that we all approach this work in a way that allows us to write NPOV text that disagrees with our opinion but agrees with opposing editors at least to the extent possible giving appropriate weight to available RSs.

Anyone is always an RS about themselves. In this case, using inline attribution that Chair Thompson described Jan 6 as an attempted coup satisfies WP:Verifiability. Taken alone, I don't believe it would be enough to pass muster with WP:WEIGHT, but there are loads of others sources describing those events with that word, and the only sources not calling it a coup are Trump-aligned right-wing propaganda sources doing little more than scoffing, hand-waving, and table-pounding. There is no logic-based reasoning or evidence that rejects that term.

There is no policy firewall saying we can't include the aforementioned content. The coup attempt happened more than a year ago and so the press and the bipartisan committee feel comfortable finally calling this a coup attempt. It is not WP:TOOSOON and wikipedia is mirroring what the press is reporting. Maybe it is crazy that is has come to this but the sources are just saying it like it is. So should we. Makofakeoh (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Makofakeoh: You seem to have missed the fact that far more neutral sources call it an "insurrection" in their own voice than a coup. Recent coverage refers to the event as a coup only as a quotation. It is WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:WEIGHT. And yet you claim there is "nothing" saying we cannot include it? Thus far, nobody has demonstrated a policy-compliant reason for Wikipedia to refer to the event that way in wikivoice, and discussion in the article about the event, 2021 United States Capitol attack also has had a consensus to not call it a coup (instead, the article discusses usage of the term). Until that article title is changed accordingly, the list article has no business, er, "trumping" it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Pre-coffee edits"

Thanks for this. At ANI, I sometimes see someone comment on the dangers of mixing wiki and drink. For me, its editing before coffee! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for your comments - *entirely* understand - no problem whatsoever - very happy to help - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"JWST and exoplanets"

NOTE: My Related FaceBook Posts (7/9/2022) => https://www.facebook.com/drbogdan/posts/pfbid02JvstGA8z1XF8dnbLeu3AU58Urj4a4TBCTQNPMuQBFXVZreWsGzPtxonFP3tKYAzLl - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

JWST images (7/12/2022)

What does life produce?

Hard to keep track with the news cycle, but aren’t we supposed to get the first JWST exoplanet atmospheric mapping data soon? Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yes - my current understanding is that the first such information(s) may be available sometime soon - however - I'm not aware of exactly when at the moment - seems some micrometeorites may have caused some delays - and there may be need for some recalibrations - guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I see we are just under a month from the first images, but I read something last week about imaging TESS exoplanet target atmospheres within 30 light years! I’ve waited decades for this. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yes - I would also be interested in such studies of course - seems that the "MERMOZ" astrobiology project, described in one of my earlier Wiki articles, may be able, at least to some extent, detect biosignatures of life remotely - doesn't seem the project is ready yet for use among the stars - but may be useful some day I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: FWIW - First Official JWST Science Images To Be Released Tuesday, 12 July 2022 (NASA-TV live; 10:30am/et/usa) - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Great news! Looking forward to it. I might have to throw a party. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: the teasing has begun. This is like being tickled to death. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Update: Related "NYT News" (7/2/2022) article => "Webb Telescope Will Look for Signs of Life Way Out There - The first question astronomers want to answer about exoplanets: Do they have atmospheres friendly to life?" - about analyzing the atmosphere of "exoplanets" for "biosignatures" with the "JWST" - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: and others - Update: NASA released the first official images from the new JWST. - My Related Published NYT Comments (7/12/2022) => https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/science/nasa-webb-telescope-images-livestream.html#permid=119260011 =>

[START NYT COMMENT]

Dr. Dennis and Joanne Bogdan
Pittsburgh, PA - July 13, 2022

Thank You for an *Excellent* article about the new "James Webb Space Telescope" (JWST) - after all the years in building, and, afterwards, successfully installing the telescope in its place in outer space, what a wonderful success all around for those involved - what an astronomically impressive accomplishment - and now - the spectacular images of the heavens - and related science studies. for the first time ever, that may now be able to be accomplished - seems such studies may include the analysis of the atmosphere of exoplanets for biosignatures, which may provide hints of possible Life (as we know it), or, at least, the conditions compatible with such Life, beyond our Solar System - if interested, Wikipedia has several relevant articles as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope - and - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet - and - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for the article and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan

[END NYT COMMENT]

Enjoy !! - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: and others - Update: NASA released the first FIVE official images from the new JWST. - My Related Published NYT Comments (7/12/2022) => https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/opinion/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope-awe.html#permid=119279300 =>

[START NYT COMMENT]

Dr. Dennis and Joanne Bogdan
Pittsburgh, PA - July 13, 2022

WOW !! - the new view of *Star-Filled Galaxies* by the *James Webb Space Telescope* is really, really impressive.
How many Galaxies are there as far as we know?
Current estimate => 200 - 400 billion Galaxies (or more)
[NOTE: A more recent ref estimates "~2 Trillion galaxies"] - each with up to over 100 trillion Stars
Awesome Facts about Galaxies and Stars => Space is really, really, really (astronomically) Big !!
1. A typical Galaxy contains about 100 million Stars on average.
2. Astronomers estimate that there are as many as "One Septillion" (1×10^24 or, 1 with 24 zeros) Stars in the observable Universe – more Stars (and Earth-like planets) than all the grains of beach sand on our planet Earth. - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan

[END NYT COMMENT]

Enjoy !! - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hubble (2017) vs Webb (2022)

Deep Field – Galaxy Cluster

@Viriditas: and others - *EXCELLENT* COMPARISONS => OLD Hubble versus NEW Webb Views of the Same Stars and Galaxies - NBC News (7/12/2022) => https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/compare-photos-nasas-james-webb-space-telescope-hubble-space-telescope-rcna37875 (also, at "ABC News") - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: and others - Update: How astronomers chose the first official images from the new JWST. - My Related Published NYT Comments (7/12/2022) => https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/science/webb-telescope-pictures.html#permid=119301455 =>

[START NYT COMMENT]

Dr. Dennis and Joanne Bogdan
Pittsburgh, PA - July 14, 2022

Thank You *very much* for a much better understanding of how pictures from the new *James Webb Space Telescope* (JWST) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope ) are chosen - if interested, comparisons of images from the new JWST with those of older space telescopes, including Hubble, may be viewed at => https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/compare-photos-nasas-james-webb-space-telescope-hubble-space-telescope-rcna37875 - and => https://www.universetoday.com/155686/now-we-can-finally-compare-webb-to-other-infrared-observatories/ - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan

[Related draft comments below - too late to submit for NYT publication]

FWIW - interesting to compare the latest *James Webb Space Telescope* (JWST) images ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/opinion/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope-awe.html ) with those presented over 60 years ago in a Special Issue of *Life Magazine* (December 20, 1954) entitled "The Starry Universe" ("The Star-Studded Reaches of Measureless Space") with text by Lincoln Barnett ( https://books.google.com/books?id=WlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false ) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_We_Live_In_-_Life_magazine ) - seems we've come a very long, long way with the latest JWST images from such older views of the Universe I would think - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan

[END NYT COMMENT]

@Viriditas: - and others - According to recent news, seems several new upcoming future telescopes, like the "Giant Magellan Telescope" (GMT) and "Solar Gravitational Lens" (SGL), may be much much better (and much, much more powerful) than the "James Webb Space Telescope" (JWST) - other future telescopes may be one(s), including a "radio telescope", on the "far side of the Moon" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - and others - Update - Related News (NYT; 9/15/2022) re searching "extraterrestrial atmospheres" of "exoplanets" for "biosignatures", "technosignatures" and related - astronomers formed a new group called "Categorizing Atmospheric Technosignatures" ("CATS") to list related survey results - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - and others - Update - My NYT Comments (9/17/2022) re *Detecting ET* are at => https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/magazine/extraterrestrials-technosignatures.html#permid=120460314 - and at => https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/magazine/extraterrestrials-technosignatures.html#permid=120460314%3A120489716 - and (in case of a NYT paywall) are also copied below =>

[START NYT COMMENTS]

Thank you for an *Excellent* article - seems astronomers are now ready to seriously, and more responsibly, Search for *Biosignatures* and *Technosignatures* on other planets far out in outer space - after all, we've come a long way with the latest *James Webb Space Telescope* images ( see => https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/science/webb-telescope-pictures.html#permid=119301455 ) from the Universe described only about 60-some years ago ( see => "The Starry Universe" in *Life Magazine* [1954] => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_We_Live_In_-_Life_magazine ) ( Life Magazine Issue [1954] => https://books.google.com/books?id=WlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false ) - if interested - Wikipedia has several relevant articles => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosignature - and => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technosignature - and => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan

Brief follow-up - seems astronomers estimate that there are as many as "One Septillion" (1×10^24 or, 1 with 24 zeros) Stars in the observable Universe – more Stars (and Earth-like planets) than all the grains of beach sand on our planet Earth - in addition - there may be many technically clever Lifeforms in the Universe - many such Lifeforms may be present in the Universe at the moment - or - in times past - but since Space is so wide-spread and Time is so wide-ranging - such technically clever Lifeforms may not ever know of each other - nonetheless - we know the Universe contains Life – on planet Earth at least – and – we know we are not alone – life abounds wherever we are – with microorganisms at the very minimum - these facts are included in my "Top Ten Science Facts" ( a "clickable" listing with references from the responsible scientific literature ) about the Universe on Wikipedia ( if interested, see => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts - as well as - my NYT (2012) comments at => https://nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/can-a-jellyfish-unlock-the-secret-of-immortality.html#permid=7750849 ) - making some real sense of such "Science Facts" may take a bit of time I would think (understatement intended) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dennis Bogdan, PhD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan

[END]

Enjoy !! - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Search for Earth analogs"

"Earth 2.0 mission (China)"

• ET White Paper: To Find the First Earth 2.0
• China is hatching a plan to find Earth 2.0
• China Reveals Massive Project to Find ‘Earth 2.0’

Old news, but I only just saw it. I looked for coverage on Wikipedia and didn’t find anything, but I think there’s several places where we can mention it. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Doc, let me know if you get a chance to look at that white paper and if anything strikes you as interesting. I’m going to try and read it tomorrow. Is there an international effort to look for Earth 2.0 or is it happening on a nation by nation basis? I know many of these projects are already international in scope due to the participation of multiple agencies, but it seems odd for China to try and go at this alone instead of combining efforts with other countries. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: The search for Earth 2.0 - although interesting, seems limiting to me atm - don't think there's anything special about the particular size and/or mass of the planet "Earth" re the existence of "lifeforms" - the better (less limiting) notion to me is that "habitable exoplanets" reside in "habitable zones" - regardless of "exoplanet" size and/or mass - at least from a chemistry (and related biological?) point of view - may study this further at the next opportunity - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is being able to detect them en masse in the first place with new technology. So this is more of an engineering problem at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Added a "Earth 2.0 mission" subsection and text (for starters) to the "Earth analog" article (at "Earth analog#Earth 2.0 mission") as follows: In the Spring of 2022, China proposed a technical mission that includes a space telescope with the objective of detecting "thousands of terrestrial exoplanets over a wide range of orbital periods and in interstellar space including Earth 2.0s, which are habitable Earth-like planets (0.8-1.25 Earth radius) orbiting solar-type stars". The mission would use a "space-based ultra-high precision CMOS photometer combined with a microlensing telescope" which would allow such determinations according to the astronomers proposing the notion. - seems ok for starters - any adjustments, additional text, etc, welcome of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"January 6 hearings"

Hi, just curious .... what does WLS mean? ...... and FWIW I think this edit [1] creates redundant WP:OVERLINK but I don't feel strongly enough to bang the table about it and if you really want to keep that I won't object. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for your comments - and for all your recent help on the "United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings" article - "WLs" => "WikiLinks" - "WLs" may not be an official designation - adding the extra "WLs" to the "J6 Hearing Schedule Table" seems a bit better way for some to navigate to the correct SubSection in the article - hope this helps in some way - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Nineplanets.org" - "issue"

Given the age of the site, the fact that it's not very well sourced, and the number of ads it has, I would say that nineplanets.org is a not a reliable source. I saw you linked to it in your recently reverted addition to IC 1101; if you found something interesting on that website, please try to figure out where they sourced it from and use that instead. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Parejkoj: Thank you for your comments re "NinePlanets.org" - *entirely* agree with you - the site seems "WP:QUESTIONABLE" and doesn't seem to be a "WP:RELIABLE SOURCE" after all - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Comparison of HST/JWST images"

Hi, This is not the "original" image anyway, which is more probably the TIFF version. PNGs are not used as originals by NASA. If an adjusted version is needed, another JPEG version can be created. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: - This concerns a Comparison of originally aligned Space Telescope images - not an original NASA tiff and/or jpg image - as before - in my earlier reply to you at => "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drbogdan#Webb's_First_Deep_Field" - there's subtle, but significant, differences in JWST images when compared with the equivalent HST image (at => "File:NASA-HubbleSpaceTelescope-DeepField-2017.jpg" - I had hoped you understood that the aligned original (at => "File:NASA-JWST-FirstDeepField-20220712.png" ) was preferred to your proposed non-aligned images (one example => " File:Main image deep field smacs0723.png" ) - editors (including myself/User:Drbogdan and User:Tomruen), have tried to align the images to best compare the JWST image (at => "File:NASA-JWST-FirstDeepField-20220712.png" ) with the equivalent HST image (at => "File:NASA-HubbleSpaceTelescope-DeepField-2017.jpg" ) - Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Concerns now seem to have been solved (with a newly cropped image => "File:Webb's First Deep Field (adjusted).jpg") - for additional details, see =>"Talk:James Webb Space Telescope#Help with HST / JWST comparison images" - and => "User talk:Huntster#Help with HST / JWST comparison images" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Left: image taken by Hubble (2017) vs Right: the image taken by Webb (2022)

Deep Field – Galaxy cluster SMACS J0723.3-7327.

"JWST post altered"

You put some photos on Talk:James Webb Space Telescope. Another editor has changed these photos without changing your signature. The result is that you now appear to say something that is different from what you wrote. I reverted the change because it is dishonest to smuggle in an amendment under someone else's name. The editor has reverted my change. I'll leave it for you to decide whether to accept these changes. OrewaTel (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@OrewaTel: - Thank You for your comments - yes - "rv edit by the editor" - and - added a related subsection (at => "Talk:James Webb Space Telescope#Help with HST / JWST comparison images") - Thanks for your help with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"GLASS-z13 Galaxy"

Hi, I appreciate your addition of images to the GLASS-z13 article, but next time can you please upload the original images, especially the more widely circulated ones? I personally oppose using AI-upscaled versions (especially by third parties) since it distorts the original data without any accurate or scientific basis. Thanks. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 16:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - Yes - *entirely* agree - at the time, tried to find the best possible (original?/"RAW"?/etc) images of the "GLASS-z13 Galaxy" - including from the following WebSites: "https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/main/index.html" - and => "https://jwst.nasa.gov/" - unable to find them for some reason - *very happy* you've found better images, and uploaded them to Wikipedia - not (yet) familiar with "AI upscaling" images - new to me - may have to do some homework with this at some opportunity - in any case - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Human timeline"

Hello Drbogdan, I'm trying to adapt the template {{Human timeline}} on the wikipedia in breton and I have an issue related to lua or something else althought I didn't change anything except for translation. I saw your name on the template's history and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to have a look at my problem and give a hand if you can ? We are really only a handful working on breton wikipedia and I don't know who I could ask that.
The breton template is on the page br:Patrom:Rizenn amzer Homo, the breton equivalent to module:Graphical timeline is on the page br:Modulenn:Graphical_timeline. Thank you for your time. Kadwalan (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kadwalan and Hike395: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - I tried to reproduce the "{{Human timeline}}" template on your noted "br:Patrom:Rizenn amzer Homo" website - but, for some reason, the template wasn't reproduced - I'm not sure I know how to fix this template problem - I'm somewhat a newbie with template coding - perhaps "User:Hike395" or those at "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)", much more knowledgeable with template coding than I am at the moment, can help you solve this template problem - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Drbogdan Kadwalan (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kadwalan: Module:Graphical timeline depends on the following three templates. If you copy them over to br and change their names, you should change the names in the Module at the following line numbers:

• Template:period color (line 541)
• Template:period start (line 542)
• Template:period end (line 543)

I'll add a comment for other people who will translate. — hike395 (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thanks you for your quick answer. I hadn't checked that this time. I forgot the Template:period color (br:Patrom:Prantad liv) but the others were ok. It doesn't change the warning I got though : "Lua error in the Module:Graphical_timeline at the line 551 : attempt to compare nil with number." You can write on my english talkpage or my breton talkpage, I don't want to bother Drbogdan to much ;-) Kadwalan (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

NOTE (original poster wiki-sites) => br:Implijer:Kadwalan / br:Kaozeadenn Implijer:Kadwalan - added Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"TOI-1452 b"

I didn’t see you editing TOI-1452 b, so linking here in case you aren’t aware of it. Source. - Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comment - and reference re "TOI-1452 b", the possible "exoplanet" "water world" - interesting of course - somewhat aware earlier but sidetracked with other efforts - may be possible to detect "biochemicals" in the "atmosphere" with "JWST" and related - the much closer apparent water worlds (of-sorts) of "Europa" and "Enceladus" may prove to be interesting as well of course, and may also contain suggestions of "biochemicals" - guess we'll just have to wait-and-see how this all plays out - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Brief Followup - added several new edits to the "TOI-1452 b" article - they seem ok - at least for starters - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"For All Mankind"

Am I imagining things, or did you tell me some time ago that you saw For All Mankind? Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank You for your comment - and reference to the 2019 TV Series of "For All Mankind" - this TV Series is entirely new to me - I'm only aware (up until now) of the classic *real-world* 1989 documentary film with the same title (ie, "For All Mankind"; and now available in a "2022 4K Blu-ray Criterion Edition") re the 1968-1972 "Apollo Space Program" - this *real-history* documentary is Highly Recommended - made me feel, for the first (and only) time of being on the actual rocket journey to the Moon (not to my liking; I prefer being Earth-bound - besides (imo atm), space travel is clearly harmful to human health; and humans traveling to the stars is clearly a "quixotic notion") - the TV Series may be worthy, and I may view some of it at some opportunity - iac - Thanks again for your comment and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. The reason I like the series is because it captures some of the original excitement and enthusiasm of Star Trek in an altogether different context, such as the alternate reality of late 20th century Earth. It’s not a coincidence either, as many of the key people involved in the older Trek franchise are active on this show, including Ronald D. Moore, Joe Menosky, and Michael Okuda. So for me, the storytelling is what draws me to the show, but it’s also one of the first shows in its class that I can recall that gives women fully fleshed out characters and equal time (if not more) on the screen. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"Earendel"

Earendel star

Hi. I rv'd your new img, as IMO it's extremely misleading. If we just label it as a picture of the star, then readers are likely to think that the visible star in the img is Earendel, especially as it's so much brighter than anything else. And there's no way to tell the readers where Earendel is in that image without modifying the img itself. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: - Thank you for your comments - and reverting the image in the "Earendel" article (re: the earliest, and most distant, known star to date) from the "newer JWST image" to the earlier, and more clear, "Hubble image" - yes - *entirely* agree - the earlier image seems to be the better image after all - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: (and others) - Brief Followup - updated the image in the "Earendel" article with an "even better, less misleading, image" which notes the "Earendel star" with text, as well as the star's relevant location among neighboring stars in a background context view - should now be even better - please comment if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy Drbogdan (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe next year we'll get a good JWST image, when the spectroscopy results are published, but this looks like our best option for now. — kwami (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Milky Way Stars"

"At best, Science and Religion help humankind brighten and travel well the dimly lit labyrinth of existence: Science with faithful facts and knowledge illuminating reality, and at least a practical wisdom, and hopefully, a beneficent one;
Religion with knowledgeable beliefs and faith bearing wisdom, and perhaps a spiritual reality that is, preferably, a rational one."
- Dr. Dennis Bogdan (NYT 2021)

Milky Way's graveyard of dead stars found
It’s a few days old, as I only just saw this.. I was wondering what you thought about it. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for the comment - Yes - saw this earlier - seems interesting - and worth study imo - but somewhat busy with one thing or another at the moment - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Incidentally (and if interested), one of my recent Wikipedia projects was creating another "UserBox (my 28th)" based on one of "my published Quotes" => seems somewhat worthy ("the quote" had been published earlier in the "NYT (3/2/2021)") - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. The end of the article had this important tidbit: "Tuthill added that "for me, one of the coolest things we found in this work is that even the local stellar neighborhood around our sun is likely to have these ghostly visitors passing through. Statistically our nearest remnant should be only 65 light years away: more or less in our backyard, in galactic terms." I'm not an astrophysicist, but I'm curious about the implications of this finding. I will ping jps (@ජපස:) as I believe he is an astrophysicist and can explain a bit more about what this means. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your latest comments - hopefully - no such star-remnant "ghost" (invisible?) objects, are lurking in the vicinity (possibly like the rogue planet in the 2011 film "Melancholia", or the on-track comet in the 2021 film "Don't Look Up"?) of course - guess we'll just have to wait and see what may be found in future studies - and around the corner so-to-speak - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

65 light years is pretty far away still, but you can see it is much closer than the nearest known black hole (5400 light years) and nearest known neutron star (400 light years). There is an expectation that many remnants may be very difficult to detect. If there is an isolated black hole or a slowly spinning neutron star, we may not be able to see them directly. I'm not sure that I'm as impressed as Tuthill is about the local density. Somewhat more interesting is to have a galactic scale and density for so-called "compact objects" (which are black holes, neutron stars, and white dwarfs) and the conclusions of this study that the distribution follows something wider than the thick disk without spiral structure is useful for modeling and population studies, but the press release nature of this story is one that is highlighting a new paper with somewhat novel results -- I'm not sure it is as profound as they are implying. jps (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Counterpart" and more

Were you born an optimist, or did you become one later in life? I had to ask, based on your recent edits. :-) (Re: Foer, The Atlantic) Also, what do you think of the show Counterpart? I may give it a try. I’m only on the second episode. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank you for your comments - hoping things go well - and in a good way - like many others I would think - re "Counterpart" - new to me - the show series seems well regarded - and interesting - Thanks for the suggestion - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - BRIEF Followup => if interested - my very recent, somewhat related, FaceBook Post is as follows =>
USA Today: VOTE Against Fascism 2022 - see => "https://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2022/10/12" - by Multiple Pulitzer-Prize Winner "Mike Luckovich" - My Wikipedia Article => "Friendly Fascism (book)" - AND => "Fascism" - As noted in my Wikipedia article (ie, "Friendly Fascism (book)"): "The next wave of fascists will not come with cattle cars and concentration camps, but they'll come with a smiley face and maybe a TV show. [...] That's how the 21st-century fascists will essentially take over."
After all - this attempt to take over the USA government is not at all new in "American History" - besides the "attempted take over of the USA government on January 6, 2021", the GOP has a history of trying to take over the USA government - and not too long ago => see "Busness Plot of 1933" (and related "1977 film" "The November Plan", and recent "2022 film" "Amsterdam") - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Friendly Fascism was indeed timely in 1980, as that was when the gears of the Koch Network began to turn, leading us down the cliff of tyranny to where we are today. It's fascinating how much the language itself is controlled by those in power. They will fight and rail against ideas and concepts until those ideas have no more currency and the public gets tired of them, and then they will refresh those ideas in new clothes for a new generation. For example, the right used to rail tirelessly against "social justice" until they realized that most people were for it. So they grabbed a hold of "wokeness" and used that instead. We are essentially dealing with the same cast of secret monarchists over time, who keep using the same strategies over and over again, often involving the use of language as a weapon and the invention of culture wars to distract the public from their looting of public treasuries. I'm often fond of arguing that fiction is a form of simulation. Huxley warned us of this state of affairs in Brave New World (1931) and Orwell with Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Bradbury was remarkably prescient with Fahrenheit 451 (1953), where he lays out an entire scene predicting the first ever reality television show and the impact it has on its audience. Is it at all surprising to hear that entertainers like Kanye West and failed businessmen (with very small hands) like Donald Trump have said that they don't read books? Writers like Huxley, Orwell, and Bradbury were able, in my opinion, to create simulations of potential and probable futures based on a small sampling of known facts. It may be said that the human mind is a form of supercomputer that can simulate potential future realities using the medium of fiction to convey these warnings to others. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Yes - *entirely* agree with your *Excellent* comments - and presented *very, very well* imo - (although somewhat different of course, some of your comments reminded me of the computer simulations described in the 1973 film "World on a Wire" and related source materials, including the 1964 novel, "Simulacron-3", as well as the academic work of Oxford philosopher "Nick Bostrom") - (incidentally - seems "Blade Runner 2099" may now be in the works) - iac - Thanks for sharing your own on-spot in-the-real-current-world comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to ask, are you a fan of Black Mirror? It’s the brain child of Charlie Brooker. I feel like Brooker has not yet reached his true potential and could possibly produce even greater works than this in the future. And did you ever get a chance to see Devs? I watched the whole thing in a single week, so it’s easy to complete the series. The honest truth is that I’ve never been a big fan of Alex Garland, but I appreciate and respect his efforts. The acting carries the show, as usual with Garland’s work, but the writing is mediocre IMO. I think it’s definitely worth seeing, but it’s forgettable. What I liked most about it is that the scenes were shot in my old stomping grounds, and what’s even funnier, is that the location shots for the Devs HQ, where most of the action takes place, were filmed on the close outskirts of UC Santa Cruz, precisely in the location where I was chased by a large, 400 pound mountain lion protecting her cubs in the 1990s. I survived to tell the tale (and there were many deaths during that decade, mostly joggers in and around Palo Alto and the surrounding area) because the wind changed direction and she lost my scent. Good times! Nothing like being chased by an apex predator at sunset in Santa Cruz, except I did swim with a massive school of sharks in Cancun without a scratch. I won’t be doing that again. In any event, I’m on the fourth episode of Counterpart and I don’t have any complaints. I think it’s just impossible to dislike J. K. Simmons. He’s the epitome of the everyman and forces the audience to walk in his shoes. The editing and direction of the show is good. I’m kind of hooked at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your latest comments - we watched the first several seasons of "Black Mirror" and thought it very good - maybe too good - and a bit too much for us to continue at the time - haven't gotten around to "Devs" or "Counterpart" yet - maybe later - just finished the three "Invaders from Mars" films and thought the "original 1953 usa version" (not the "1953 reedited uk version" or "1986 remake") the best of the lot - seemed the original usa version was (properly imo) "dreamlike", "surreal" and nearly "Felliniesque" in some ways - more recently - we stumbled on the "Dobie Gillis" TV series - light, easy and fun - balances off the more dramatic films we've been watching - the 1976 three-episode "The November Plan" (based on the historical "Business Plot of 1933") may be up next - so far, best films we watched this year (2022) may have been "Nope" and "Prey" - seems some regard "ancient humans" as somewhat "predators" - I disagree with this atm - seems ancient humans (more opportunistic "frutarians" for the most part) were more "prey" than not imo - and perhaps evolved legs, not to run after dinner, but rather to avoid being dinner instead - sorry about your close call(s) with real predators - done a lot of "mountain climbing"/"backpacking" some years ago in some wild areas, but (fortunately) no such close calls - seems the "ninth hearing" of the "US Jan 6 committee" may be on this afternoon (13 October 2022) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the good tips. I don't think I've ever seen Invaders from Mars so I'll check it out. I decided to check out mountain lions last night, only to discover that they never get above 250 pounds or so. So the 400 pound specimen I ran into must have been around 200. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

References
References

"ET life description"

Sorry, I missed the discussion. By the time I had logged in, things had settled down. It’s such a minor issue that it doesn’t seem worth it to get involved, as the wording adjustments are so small and minor. I apologize for not being of any help. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever about not contributing to the "discussion" re a short description of "ET life" - nonetheless - *entirely* agree with you - the discussion re a short description of "ET life" seems a bit small and minor - however - the discussion may be a bit more interesting if one would consider a definition of "Life" itself - not easy - there are "many, many different attempts" to define "Life", but an easy worthy definition may be "somewhat challenging" (over 123 different definitions?) - a short description of "ET life" may be related - incidentally, "my current preferred definition" of "Life" is a "chemical that is able to reproduce itself" - and seems supported by some - [NOTE - the aforementioned definition is broad - a Virus may be considered Life since a virus would be a chemical that can reproduce itself - in spite of the fact that the needed reproducing function (mechanism) is provided by (hijacked from) some host entity and that is not contained within itself] - "NASA" currently prefers "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution" - [NOTE - this definition is less broad - a Virus may NOT be considered Life since essential parts may be missing, and require a needed host entity to provide any missing parts - especially those parts needed in reproducing itself] - nonetheless - exactly how "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, enter into the definition(s) of life is unclear afaik at the moment - perhaps how such life/non-life(?) substances enter into a short description of "ET life" may be even less clear I would think - this all somewhat underlies my recent concern(s) over a "better short description of ET life on the talk-page" - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like your proposed changes are getting more discussion. I would be more willing to contribute if I could see the different proposals in text form instead of as links. For example, you could make a list of all of the proposed versions to date (including those in the current discussion). That would help me consider adding a comment. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - not clear about your suggestion, but copied the entire "Extraterrestrial life" talk-page discussion (to date) below - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is to simplify the question and offset the choices like this:

1. Life that did not originate on Earth
2. Life in the universe outside of life on Earth

It makes it easier for more people to comment. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: At this point, I'm willing to accept the majority opinion thus far, and simply accept the old edit (ie, Life that did not originate on Earth) - you may be right after all - it may just be too small and minor at this time to have a go-round about it - incidentally - somewhat related - we just now finished watching "Life", a 2017 film about "ET life" - and a warning of sorts about the possible risk (hopefully unlikely) involved with a real-world "Mars Sample Return" someday - iac - Thanks for your recent concerns - they're appreciated - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. I only just remembered that there was a recent article about new research that might shed some light on this discussion. I would have to go hunting for it, but it was published a few weeks ago. Basically it was saying that new evidence indicates that it is much easier for life to get a foothold (at the molecular level) than previously thought. I'll keep looking for the article so I can share it with you. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ET life - "short description" discussion (as/of 22 October 2022)
Copied from "Talk:Extraterrestrial life#Better "short description" of "ET life"?" (9:45am/et/usa, October 22, 2022) => -- Better "short description" of "ET life"? -- @GhostInTheMachine and Kitchen Knife: (and others) - My newly added short description for "Extraterrestrial life" has been "reverted" - my short description of "Extraterrestrial life" was => "Life in the universe outside of life on Earth" - and replaced the older description (ie, "Life that did not originate on Earth"). This older description would suggest, for instance, that newly created life-forms on the "International Space Station" may be considered "Extraterrestrial life" since such life-forms may have been newly created in space and not on Earth in fact - my newer short description (ie, "Life in the universe outside of life on Earth") seems clearer - "Extraterrestrial life" means, by definition, that there is no relationship whatsoever with life on planet Earth - in addition, my newer short description seems more consistent with the related "Encyclopedia Britannica" definition => "Extraterrestrial life [is] life that may exist or may have existed in the universe outside of Earth" - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) ADD - @BD2412, Cambalachero, Chiswick Chap, Cyclopia, Dekimasu, Dunkleosteus77, Huntster, PaleoNeonate, Paul H., Snow Rise, Tgeorgescu, Vchimpanzee, and Viriditas: If possible (and if interested), related "Comments Welcome" regarding Short Description of "Extraterrestrial life" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC) The older description is fine. The life on the ISS originated on earth, that it has changed and evolved on the ISS makes no difference to its origins. Leave it in the original form until you can get a consensus for change. That is how these things are normally done.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Exactly, well said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC) "Outside" is a spatial term. It was useful a pair of centuries ago, but now that we can leave the planet, and even take other lifeforms with us, it is not enough to set the distinction. "Originate" has the problem that it can lend itself to interpretation. We all use it to mean the species, but it can also be understood to be the individual. I'm sure that the day a baby is born in a base on Mars or the Moon everybody will call him an "extraterrestrial", even if he's not. And the ISS is not a stable environment (in some years its orbit will decay and it will fall back to the planet), but what if we left a lot of extremophiles on Mars, an extinction event takes place here, and they have some millions of years to thrive undisturbed and evolve their own way? Would they still be terrestrial life? Perhaps not. I propose "Hypothetical life unrelated to life on Earth" Cambalachero (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC) I also favor the older version: "life in the universe outside of life on Earth" is fairly cumbersome in its wordiness and flow, even to the point of having notable cognitive load. The difference isn't massive, but a short description ought to be instantaneously easy to parse, and "life originating on earth" or something to that effect, is the most instantly recognizable idiomatic phrasing for describing this topic. And personally, I don't think the syntactic issue with "originates" the OP sees in the wording is likely to be an issue for even relatively uninformed readers: I think it's fairly clear that when we talk about such life in the context of the ISS (or even anything moving beyond the mesosphere or even LEO or HEO), when we say it "originates" from earth, we are talking about the organism as a lifeform, not the particular specimen in question. Who knows if the day may come (perhaps even faster than we expect) where an organism may alter so significantly in some observable evolutionary aspect that we will perhaps have to really start to consider new and more nuanced wording here--but even then, when I say "we", I mean humanity and scientific nomenclature broadly, not we as the editors on this article. Because ultimately this still has to come down to a WP:WEIGHT call, and in my opinion, "life originating on Earth" seems to me the obvious choice in those terms, and likely to stay that way for some time to come. SnowRise let's rap 00:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Comment - As OA of this discussion re a "better" short description of "ET life", Thanks to all those who contrtibuted - it's appreciated - seems the original short description of "ET life" (ie,Life that did not originate on Earth) may be preferred at this time - this is *entirely* ok with me - no problem whatsoever - however - the discussion may be a bit more interesting when one considers a definition of "Life" itself - not easy - there are "many, many different attempts" to define "Life", but an easy worthy definition may be "somewhat challenging" (over 123 different definitions?) - a short description of "ET life" may be related - incidentally, "my current preferred definition" of "Life" is a "chemical that is able to reproduce itself" - and seems supported by some - [NOTE - the aforementioned definition is broad - a Virus may be considered Life since a virus would be a chemical that can reproduce itself - regardless of the fact that the needed reproducing function (mechanism) is provided by (hijacked from) some host entity and that is not contained within itself] - "NASA" currently prefers "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution" - [NOTE - this definition is less broad - a Virus may NOT be considered Life since essential parts may be missing, and require a needed host entity to provide any missing parts - especially those parts needed in reproducing itself] - nonetheless - exactly how "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, enter into the definition(s) of life is unclear afaik at the moment - perhaps how such life/non-life(?) substances enter into a short description of "ET life" may be even less clear I would think - in any case - these concerns informed my attempt to find a better short description of "ET life" on this talk-page - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC) The status of viruses, prions etc has always been a problem because they don't have a metabolic system, which is usually seen as a problem. There will be a big upheaval in the system if life is discovered on Mars and seems to be part of the same tree as life on Earth, as the gravity well makes it far more likely that life moved from Mars to Earth not vice versa making us all extraterrestrial. Any form of Panspermia is going to mean the entire question needs to be revised. The ability of life to survive on the outside of the ISS suggests panspermia is possible.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC) For crying out loud, people, it's a short description. It's meant to be a quick identifier of the topic of the article, not a catch-all that handles every possible subtlety -- see WP:SDNOTDEF. The current "Life that did not originate on Earth" is perfectly fine. Slightly better still would be: "Life not originating on Earth" -- a bit less wordy even. All this nonsense about panspermia and all these refs are smoke and mirrors. This isn't complicated. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Oh, and if folks want to add a qualifier of "hypothetical" at the beginning, that would be fine too. Either way, really. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC) My comments about panspermia were not intended to change the definition but just some point for discourse, as any reasonably intelligent person would have been able to tell. Try to pay attention.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC) References

References
References

"Minecraft" edit

Hey! I noticed that you added some sort of source to the external links section on Minecraft. I reverted it because it wasn't an appropriate external link. Mind explaining your reasnoning behind the edit for me? 15:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: - Thank You for your comments - and "revert' - no problem whatsoever - the edit (see below) seemed relevant/related to the "Minecraft" article - maybe not after all - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

* Entire known universe recreated in Minecraft by 18-year-old – Space.com, October 2022.

It might be relevant however it definitely does not belong in the external links section. If it's notable enough then it can be included in an article as a ref. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"AWARD: A Barnstar for you!" – "Voices of Music"

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job on Voices of Music. If I could do it all over again, I would devote my life to playing early music. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank you very, very much for the Barnstar re my recently created "Voices of Music" article - not at all expected - and *greatly* appreciated - yes - had some wonderful moments with "early music" over the years - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Please consider submitting to WP:DYK as your seven day window is closing. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Viriditas: Thanks for the suggestion - I'm somewhat of a newbie with this but seems my DYK nomination may be at the following link => "Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 27" - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Good work! My only suggestion is to be proactive with the hook and be more specific. They will likely want a different, more specific hook because a hook that says "one of the most popular" isn't easy to quantify or nail down and is too ambiguous for DYK. It's a common problem, so don't beat yourself up about it, as everyone makes that mistake at first. Take another look at the article you wrote and find something more concrete. If you can reliably prove that they were the first early music group to broadcast their concerts in high-definition video over the internet, that would make a great hook! Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: because you’ve received credit for seven DYKs, I believe WP:QPQ is in effect.[2]. It’s probably not fair since you’re not active in that area, but since you’re technically past the five credit threshold, my understanding is that you have to review a hook first. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank You for your comments - and encouragements re "WP:DYK", "WO:QPK" and related - they're greartly appreciated - may not be up to this at the moment due to some real-world challenges and other interests - may follow up at some better opportunity - Thank You in any regards of course - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can’t do it, I will look into the rules in terms of helping out. Funny thing is, the rules say that if you have extra, unused QPQ, you can apply those to future noms. And I have a lot from 2015, I just don’t see how those are tracked to prove it. It doesn’t matter, I’m perfectly happy to do some new ones, but technically, I should be able to apply my unused QPQs to your nom, but I don’t think it works like that. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Voices of Music

Hello! Your submission of Voices of Music at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soman: (and others) - [My related Reply =>] - As OA of the Voices of Music article - Thank You for your comments - and review - the references noted in the article are the best available that I've been able to find at the moment - I've *really* searched for better WP:RS - yes - *entirely* agree - better WP:RS refs are preferred - others are welcome to look for better references of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination – New message

Hello, Drbogdan. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Voices of Music.
Message added 09:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You also need to provide a QPQ for your nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Z-Library"

Thank you - ref with hlist is now all right. But why did you delete the onion url? The registration is optional, as everything is viewable and downloadable without registration. For extra functionality (Bookmarking...) you need to login Wladefant (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wladefant: - Thank You for your comments - and question - removing the onion url seemed appropriate earlier given the recent concerns re the website - at least until things seem a bit more settled and sourced - in any case - Thanks for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Pillars of Creation"

I love the new animation you added to the page: showing the close 2D view from JWST morphing into the older widefield view from WISE.

Only problem I see in the media file is that the English description does not clarify the two sources: is written as a pure WISE image. So, tried to make a quick edit to improve, and something strange is preventing this page] from properly rendering, so I can improve the description text. If it is rendering for you, wonder if you might just improve the text to show "JWST (2022) + WISE (c. 2010 or whatever)" heritage in the animation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@N2e: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestion - not clear re the suggested problem and correction, but added the following text to the image description page => "Location of the "Pillars Of Creation" (JWST; 2022) within the Eagle Nebula (WISE; c.2010) - animation (0ː15) → https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/PIA25433.mp4" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a great improvement. Just needed the clear text to show BOTH instruments, rather than just one, and the approx. time epoch of the data from each instrument. Good work. N2e (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"AWARD: A Barnstar for you!"

	The Original Barnstar
	For simply being a good long-time editor Rlink2 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Thank You *very much* for the "Barnstar award" - it's *greatly*appreciated - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"CEERS-93316"

Hi, mind if you update your graphic File:EarliestGalaxyCandidates-20220807.jpg with CEERS-93316? Its redshift was updated from z = 16.7 to z = 16.4. Nrco0e (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done - @Nrco0e: - updated "CEERS-93316 graphic file" to z = 16.4 (from earlier z = 16.7) - should now be ok - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Nrco0e (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Earliest galaxy candidate (at z=16.4) and the History of the Universe (logarithmic scale; 7 August 2022)
[Compare: Nature timeline - History of the Universe (linear scale)]

References