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

Welcome! Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   The Basics of Wikicode   Manual of Style   Editing tutorial - 9 videos (26:35)   How to edit a page - video (03:03)   How to write a great article - video (03:38)   Do assume good faith   Do be bold   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Help contribute to articles   Help pages I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE, EARTH and the UNIVERSE[edit]

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

"Art of my Nature Timelines on Wikipedia"

"Click HERE for my other related image efforts"

"USA News: Political Cult - My Comments"[edit]

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)[reply]

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

• FWIW - seems relevant - Yes - the Republican Party may now be a cult^[1][2] - 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^[3] - an historic 2017 tax cut "heist" largely benefits this ultra-rich group of people afaik^[4] - and represents a "non-negotiable red line" to Republicans re negotiations^[5] - as well as, similarly, with Democrats^[6] - 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^[7] - 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^[8] - my 2013 NYT comments may be especially relevant^[9] - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Harwood, John (May 23, 2021). "Dismissed in 2012, this diagnosis of GOP ills has now become undeniable". CNN News. Retrieved May 23, 2021.
2. ^ Kagan, Robert (September 23, 2021). "Opinion: Our constitutional crisis is already here". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 23, 2021.
3. ^ Kertscher, Tom (May 10, 2011). "Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined". Politico. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
4. ^ The Editorial Board (December 2, 2017). "A Historic Tax Heist". The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
5. ^ Benen, Steve (May 3, 2021). "Why it matters that McConnell refuses to touch Trump-era tax cuts". MSNBC-News. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
6. ^ Weisman, Jonathan; Tankersley, Jim (September 13, 2021). "House Democrats' Plan to Tax the Rich Leaves Vast Fortunes Unscathed - The House Ways and Means Committee's proposal to pay for trillions in social spending leaves wealth gains and inheritances largely alone. It focuses instead on a more traditional target: income". The New York Times. Retrieved September 14, 2021.
7. ^ Rampell, Catherine (May 17, 2021). "Opinion: Almost half of Republicans admit they're ready to ditch democracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
8. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (October 2, 2021). "Comment - USA: Overturning The 2020 Election *Failed* - Hopefully, No Future Tries?". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2021.
9. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (April 26, 2013). "Comment - USA: More Valuable Than Money?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2015. Retrieved May 22, 2021.

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

"USA News: Attempted Coup - My Comments"[edit]

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)[reply]

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.^[1] - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (April 26, 2013). "Comment - USA: More Valuable Than Money?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2015. Retrieved November 29, 2020.

FOLLOWUP NEWS (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",^[1] "The Washington Post",^[2][3][4] "CNN News"^[5][6] and "The Boston Globe"^[7] news reports - these reports are largely based on material from the 2021 book "Peril" by American journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa^[8] - 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^[3] - later, on October 31, 2021, a detailed timeline of events was reported^[9] - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Stay safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[10] 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.^[11][12] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Copied from "Talk:Big lie#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^[1] 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,^[2][3] NBC News^[4] and Yahoo News^[5] - 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^{[1][2][3][4][5]} - others are funding the Big Lie with their own Big Money^[6] - 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)

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Goldmacher, Shane; Shorey, Rachel (31 July 2021). "Trump Raised $56 Million Online in First Half of 2021 - The former president raised far more money online than any other Republican, federal records show, and more than each of the three main fund-raising arms of the Republican Party itself". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
2. ^ ^{a b} Goldmacher, Shane; Shorey, Rachel (17 April 2021). "Trump's Sleight of Hand: Shouting Fraud, Pocketing Donors' Cash for Future - With breathless, often misleading appeals, the former president promised small donors that he was using the money to fight the election results, but in fact stored much of it for future use". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
3. ^ ^{a b} Goldmacher, Shane; Shorey, Rachel (31 January 2021). "Trump Raised $255.4 Million in 8 Weeks as He Sought to Overturn Election Result - The former president's fund-raising slowed significantly after the Electoral College delivered its votes to make Joseph R. Biden Jr. the 46th president". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
4. ^ ^{a b} Smith, Allan (24 March 2021). "Capitol riot suspects ramped up donations to Trump after his election defeat - An NBC News analysis of Federal Election Commission filings found that people alleged to be rioters upped their contributions after Election Day". NBC News. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
5. ^ ^{a b} Zahn, Max; Serwer, Andy (31 March 2021). "Ken Burns: People are making lots of money off 'the big lie' of US election fraud". Yahoo News. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
6. ^ Mayer, Jane (2 August 2021). "The Big Money Behind the Big Lie - Donald Trump's attacks on democracy are being promoted by rich and powerful conservative groups that are determined to win at all costs". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2 August 2021.

"Newsweek"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"TIC 400799224"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"ALH 84001"[edit]

• 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)[reply]

@Viriditas: - Thanks for the update reference re "Allan Hills 84001" meteorite studies^[1] - 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)[reply]

"Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory"[edit]

• 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)[reply]

@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."^[1][2][3] - should be ok, at least for starters - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment"[edit]

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)[reply]

@Viriditas: Created the "Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment" article^[1][2][3][4] - at least for starters - any additions and edits welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"J6 committee"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"Template:Ceres Quads - By Name"[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
• 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^[1] that are not currently available for use on Wikipedia - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Panspermia"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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")^[1][2] 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^[3][4][5][6] - 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)^[7] 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^[8] and asteroids^[9] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Steele, Edward J.; et al. (1 August 2018). "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?". Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 136: 3–23. Retrieved 28 January 2022.
2. ^ McRae, Mike (28 December 2021). "A Weird Paper Tests The Limits of Science by Claiming Octopuses Came From Space". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 29 December 2021.
3. ^ Sharov, Alexei A.; Gordon, Richard (28 March 2013). "Life Before Earth" (PDF). arXiv. arXiv:1304.3381v1. Retrieved 28 January 2022.
4. ^ Sharov, Alexei A. (12 June 2006). "Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life". Biology Direct. 1: 1–17. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-17. PMC 1526419.
5. ^ Siraj, Amir; Loeb, Abraham (17 April 2020). "Possible Transfer of Life by Earth-Grazing Objects to Exoplanetary Systems". Life. 10 (4): 44. arXiv:2001.02235. doi:10.3390/life10040044. ISSN 2075-1729. PMC 7235815. PMID 32316564.
6. ^ Loeb, Avi (29 November 2020). "Noah's Spaceship". Scientific American. Retrieved 28 January 2022.
7. ^ Kolata, Gina (13 June 2012). "In Good Health? Thank Your 100 Trillion Bacteria". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 January 2022.
8. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (13 November 2014). "Landing on a Comet, a European Space Agency Mission Aims to Unlock the Mysteries of Earth - Comment". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 January 2022.
9. ^ Hautaluoma, Grey; Handal, Joshua; Jones, Nancy Neal; Morton, Erin; Potter, Sean (20 October 2020). "NASA's OSIRIS-REx Spacecraft Successfully Touches Asteroid". NASA. Retrieved 28 January 2022.

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^[1] speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth and spread to the early Earth on space dust^[2] and meteoroids.^[3] 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.^[4][5][6][7]"

References

1. ^ Rampelotto, Pabulo Henrique (26 April 2010). Panspermia: A Promising Field of Research (PDF). Astrobiology Science Conference 2010. Houston, Texas: Lunar and Planetary Institute. p. 5224. Bibcode:2010LPICo1538.5224R. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 March 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2014. Conference held at League City, TX
2. ^ Berera, Arjun (6 November 2017). "Space dust collisions as a planetary escape mechanism". Astrobiology. 17 (12): 1274–1282. arXiv:1711.01895. Bibcode:2017AsBio..17.1274B. doi:10.1089/ast.2017.1662. PMID 29148823. S2CID 126012488.
3. ^ Chan, Queenie H.S. (10 January 2018). "Organic matter in extraterrestrial water-bearing salt crystals". Science Advances. 4 (1, eaao3521): eaao3521. Bibcode:2018SciA....4O3521C. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao3521. PMC 5770164. PMID 29349297.
4. ^ Ehrenfreund, Pascale; Cami, Jan (December 2010). "Cosmic carbon chemistry: from the interstellar medium to the early Earth". Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2 (12): a002097. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a002097. PMC 2982172. PMID 20554702.
5. ^ Perkins, Sid (8 April 2015). "Organic molecules found circling nearby star". Science (News). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 2 June 2015.
6. ^ King, Anthony (14 April 2015). "Chemicals formed on meteorites may have started life on Earth". Chemistry World (News). London: Royal Society of Chemistry. Archived from the original on 17 April 2015. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
7. ^ Saladino, Raffaele; Carota, Eleonora; Botta, Giorgia; et al. (13 April 2015). "Meteorite-catalyzed syntheses of nucleosides and of other prebiotic compounds from formamide under proton irradiation". PNAS. 112 (21): E2746–E2755. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112E2746S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1422225112. PMC 4450408. PMID 25870268.

"HD 84406"[edit]

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

@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^[1][2] - 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)[reply]

@Viriditas: - Brief Followup - although calibrating and adjusting JWST continues, seems some "first light" images^[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 

  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.

"Claude Debussy"[edit]

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)[reply]

"Template:Taxonomy/Pentecopterus/doc"[edit]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"Location of the Earth in the Universe"[edit]

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)

NEW (as/of 20220217)[reply]

Old Original

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 → Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex → KBC Void → 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"45 day transit to Mars is now possible"[edit]

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

@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^[1] - the reported laser technology, maybe 45 days - seems an improvement - if it works^[2] - nonetheless - reminds me of one of my published comments some years ago^[3] - and - if humans become involved in this faster laser-related transportation system, another of my related published comments^[4] - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chicxulub impact"[edit]

"Chicxulub impact" may have occurred in boreal spring

• An asteroid killed dinosaurs in spring—which might explain why mammals survived. Ars Technica^[1]
• The Mesozoic terminated in boreal spring. Nature^[2]

Trivia: Jennifer Ouellette, the author of the Ars Technica article,^[1] is married to Sean Carroll. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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"^[3] - in any case - Enjoy! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thiomargarita magnifica"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"Early Earth" / "Endurance" / "Music"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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"^[1][2] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]