Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 10 April 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Welcome!

Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Amino acids in asteroids

Are you into amino acids? I found this report today:. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - Yes, Thank You *very much* for sharing this amino acid study - Great Find imo - May relate to the challenge of finding some biosignatures for ETs but also, perhaps, in providing more evidence that the location of the "primordial soup" (so-to-speak), may have been somewhere among the stars - and not exclusively on planet Earth as some may think - Thanks Again - the study is greatly appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token ac58b6ed602a1eae9c98da5541e2afe9

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Composer templates

I undid some of your edits to composer templates. First, "noinclude" seem improperly use so that the articles the templates where placed on where put in the Composer template category. Secondly, categories such as Category:Ballet composers where added to templates such as Template:Igor Stravinsky. Stravinsky may be a ballet composer (and the article "Igor Stravinsky" is placed in Category:Ballets Russes composers), but the template is not a ballet composer. Hyacinth (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your comments - and edits - no problem whatsoever - not very clear about the categories re composer templates in the first place - thought I'd see what others, more experienced, might think if I added several categories - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

New medical organization

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review of Flying Spaghetti Monster

I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

hi

can you please check my new edits. I put a citation. If it's wrong, revert it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.131.18 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - it's appreciated - seems best, for now, to revert - added the following edit summary:

"rv possibly good faith ip edits - perhaps WP:RS & WP:REF may help? - maybe first discuss adj text on Talk Page? - per WP:BRD & related."

Hope this helps - in any case - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

new panspermia possibility

What I was doing was discussing with a friend about the possible origins of the moon. Since i was actually typing, i had to actually think about my responses before typing and while i was in the middle of typing one response, some thought hit me like a ball peen hammer. it solves ALL questions.
1) The earth mark 1 wasn't lifeless, it had bacteria and an ocean.
2) When struck by Orpheus to create our moon, all life on both planets were disintegrated but some material containing life was sprayed into space and instantly froze.
3) After the earth cooled enough to support life again, some of the bacteria took hold after raining back down on the planet. in the mean time, some of the bacteria made its way to Mars and started up there.
4) A collision back there blasted off a chunk of Mars sterilizing the planet and made it land in antarctica to be found by modern scientists for a life on mars debate.
this solves the panspermia idea, it solves the life on mars idea, it solves the question on if life existed on the earth mark 1, and most of all, it poses a new question about the real age of our solar system since we now know the explosion that created earth mark 2 was 4.5 billion years ago and life existed back then on our planet. how did life start in the earth mark 1? who knows, maybe panspermia again. it also solves the origin of the moon. Wheller007 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comments - if interested, my own present thinking about life-forms was published recently in the New York Times at the following => http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/can-a-jellyfish-unlock-the-secret-of-immortality.html?comments#permid=105 - as well as on my LiveJournal at => http://drbogdan.livejournal.com/5861.html - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:ChiZeroOne#Fomalhaut b is Rogue planet or Exocomet?

Mars

	The Mars Star
	To Drbogdan, for your excellent and quality contributions to Mars related content. Here is wishing you a great 2013, and success in your editing. Fotaun (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar

		The Space Barnstar
		For creating and developing KOI-172.02, and for your excellent contributions to articles about space. Fotaun (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

@Fotaun - Wow! - Thank You *Very Much* For The Mars Star and The Space Barnstar- They're *Very Much* Appreciated - I Wish You A Great 2013, And Success In Editing, As Well - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you for that! Fotaun (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your contributions and improvements to articles! Fotaun (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Fotaun - Thanks Again! - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

Indeed, Chandra is the reviewer of his own journal and his own articles: . Please see my comment and questions in the Panspermia talk page. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - I *entirely* agree with you and your recent edits on this - truly reliable sources are better of course - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Asian mass media is having a field day. I think that starting the Polonnaruwa (meteorite) article would help Misplaced Pages keep it as objective as can be. I would be gratefull for your knowledge and vigilant eye on it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The new article on Polonnaruwa (meteorite) looks good - yes, the artcle's now on my watchlist - guess we'll have to wait and see - thanks for letting me know - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up: The unsanitized and complete version of Sharov's hypothesis was published on the JoC . Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment - my thinking at the moment is that the original NIH publication (in 2006) is worthy and substantial - the "copied"(?) JoC publication (in 2009) is inconsequential in comparison I would think - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lake Vostok

This is the original press release: http://rt.com/news/lake-vostok-russia-bacteria-944/ "There has been one strain of bacteria which we did not find in drilling liquid, but these bacteria could in principal use kerosene as an energy source,” the head of the laboratory of the same institution, Vladimir Korolev said. "That is why we can’t say that a previously-unknown bacteria was found,” he stressed." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for the ref re the bacteria - relevant sections of the Lake Vostok and 2013 in science articles have now been updated - hope the updated texts are ok - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Article: Just What is Going on at Lake Vostok?. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this latest news - interesting - seems to support one of my favorite sayings these days: "If you want to understand the mysteries of the world, follow the money; the mysteries of the universe, the evidence." - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest news story is that the newly discovered bacteria is "new" after all? => Mysterious bacterium found in Antarctic lake (AP News, 12:09pm, March 11, 2013) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a wonderful saying. I hope you don't mind if I start using it. Regarding the new bacteria, remember that microbiologists are able to culture only 2% of all existing bacteria, mostly for their medical/commercial implications. So finding a kerosene-eating bacteria is not surprising. I think that the point is growing bacteria that inhabits the lake water, and they have to wait for a pristine sample. Thanks again, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem whatsoever using the quote - seems to work for me these days - also yes, waiting for the results of a pristine sample makes a lot of sense to me as well - thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Drbogdan; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

New Mars rock: Tintina

Maybe this Martian rock (Tintina) can have a wiki-article?: Curiosity breaks rock to reveal dazzling white interior (BBC News, 19 March 2013). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I Was Considering Something Like This (re latest hydration findings) - Recently Added An Image/Caption of The "Tintina" Rock (and others) To The List of rocks on Mars Article - Busy At the Moment - But Soon - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Created Tintina (rock) article - at least for starters - hope it's ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Age of the Universe

FYI, I've reverted your update to the Age of the Universe. I had already updated the age based upon the journal article, which quotes 13.798 ± 0.037 × 10 years when combining the Planck-only data with the estimates from other sources; the 13.82 billion number that's widely circulating in the press appears (as far as I can tell) to be the Planck-only number, which is marginally higher but doesn't include other data. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you *very, very much* for this information - seems I may have to re-do some other edits - including 2013 in science; Big Bang; Cosmic microwave background radiation; Hubble's law; Planck (spacecraft); Universe - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Energy of the cosmos

Hi Dennis, I see we've been editing a couple of the same articles recently and was wondering if you'd be interested in helping with something. In the Physical cosmology article there's a poorly written section, Energy of the cosmos, that really needs rewriting. I copied the section to my sandbox with the intention of including material from the second half of this Stanford University cosmology lecture by Leonard Susskind, which I'd recently watched.

To be honest, I was getting in a muddle trying to decide how far back to begin, and how much or little detail to go into. I suppose it could stick to the four epochs described in the video, as that follows where the energy of the Universe was deployed at different times. Then there's dark matter and dark energy. It get's confusing! If you'd like to have a go at writing something you're welcome to use my sandbox, or maybe just provide a bit of opinion and a few pointers. If nothing else I hope you enjoy the video. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestions - sounds interesting - at the moment I'm somewhat busy w/ a few projects but may take a look-see, at least, at the first opportunity - thanks again for your post - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. No worries. Anyone else reading this is also welcome to join in. Feel free to make changes to my sandbox. nagualdesign (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Extraterrestrial skies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Extraterrestrial skies is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Extraterrestrial skies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Roodog2k (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your post - my comment was posted on the Discussion WebSite and is also copied below:

• KEEP - Seems to be a *Very Popular* (and Reader-friendly?) Misplaced Pages Article - ALSO - seems to satisfy WP:NASTCRIT #3 => "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals." => See References - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernican Principle Arbitration Notice

I have filed for arbitration on this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit&section=2 Wyattmj (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Copernican_Principle and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)