Loading AI tools
DrBogdan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Drbogdan, I noticed that you attempted to add Good Article nominations for two articles to the WP:GAN page. Unfortunately, this is a page generated by a bot, so both of your additions were overwritten because they weren't properly submitted.
Before I even get to the mechanics of submitting an article, I'd like to urge you to read the Good Article criteria, which explains what an article is judged on. You might also want to look at other Good Articles on films, to see what sorts of information are typically included. "Making North America (film)" is a very short article, and doesn't have some usual sections for films, such as Production information; these will be needed if the article is to be reviewed successfully. Any information in the article's lead section is expected to also be in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD, one of the GA criteria, for further details), and the section on reviews needs to be more in your own words rather than almost entirely quotes from reviewers (and preferably more than two to get a broader range of opinion).
The instructions for submitting nominations are at WP:GANI, along with some excellent information about the entire process. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I did research. It is not gmo. "YouTube video" (11:25) [unsigned by: Kowwe (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)]
Interesting hypothesis:[1] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Another new paper, this one on a simulation of sugar synthesis in space: "Ribose and related sugars from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogs." .[4] Not sure if to use this. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(help)Hi! I see you've been adding {{Life timeline}} to a whole lot of articles. Several of them are good or featured articles. May I suggest that you slow down your enthusiasm and ask for input on articles' talk pages before adding the template? I'm sure it will be welcomed by many; but some articles already have their own version of timelines, or other templates in place, and editors may have objections or ideas about placement. — Gorthian (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For your quick involvement in the development of the article Gravitational wave observation which is noted on Wikipedia's main page In the news section! --Pine✉ 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
I removed the "hatted template" you added to the recently started discussion on the evolution talk page, as it constitutes vandalism, please do not add it back, if you wish to contribute to the discussion feel free to do so without being disruptive, thanks. Willietell (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I want to apologize to USER:Drbogdan as I thought it was you who added the "hatted template" and I was wrong. I am sorry for not looking closely enough and for jumping to conclusions and coming here and accusing you of such a thing. I hope you can accept my apologies. Willietell (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit to cult film. The topic of this article is cult films, not transgressive pornographic films. That means that the sources must describe the phenomenon of cult films explicitly, not indirectly discuss related concepts. This is kind of important, as the article is a GA, and it could be delisted if people add their own original research. Certainly, sexploitation, erotic, and pornographic films are a part of the cult film umbrella, but to discuss them in more detail, we'd need sources to explicitly describe them in the context of how they relate to cult films as a whole. The other problem is the article is already a bit too long, and adding even more detail about specific films is kind of overdoing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I just noticed that the ExoMars articles do not show a map of the 2 selected landing sites. The lander will go down in Meridiani Planum, but I do not find any annotated map that can be useful. Any advice and help will be appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I like it that the Europeans have very well defined long-term goals: .[4] CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
References
NASA Briefings/livestream – Experts to discuss the latest Ceres, Mars, Pluto results (near Houston, TX; March 21 – 22, 2016)[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Hi Dr Bogdan, I saw you tend to go to conferences and understand science. Can you review Anjan Contractor, up for deletion? I work in a 'maker lab' in his home town of Houston, so I know him. But I also know that his 3D food printer for nasa is up for inclusion in the Smithsonian. He's also gotten a ton of press from 2013 to literally yesterday. Perhaps it's too advertorial and can be cut back?3Dnasa (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Paper[1] "This finding may appear to undermine currently held hopes that life will be found on nearby planets, but it is important to be aware that the presence of ice and water are by themselves not sufficient; there has to be an atmosphere which includes water vapour at a sufficiently high partial pressure for proteins to be active." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Slow Sunday? Take a pick: . Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
While researching about Breakthrough Starshot I created a standalone article. I noticed your edits on Breakthrough Initiatives and I think you might be interested in contributing to the article also. nafSadh did say 00:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
FYI: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
No methane release during the second year. The first detection was "episodic"; it is not "seasonal": [1] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unnamed 2020 Mars rover mission. Since you had some involvement with the Unnamed 2020 Mars rover mission redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Exoplanet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The Administrator's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your edit on "Black Hole Information Paradox" Editor1729 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
Hello. Do you think we should mention this?:[1][2] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
References
I notice you put both of these on {{Human timeline}}. These only have any effect on user and user talk pages. It has no effect in the template namespace (because it's already indexed) or article space (because such user control is disabled there). What's its purpose? Also having both is redundant because {{INDEX}} just adds __INDEX__ anyway. Additionally, the way you added it introduced extra vertical space - in fact, a whole extra paragraph - which is something you should always be careful to avoid in templates. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
If you check my recent contribs, you'll see I've removed the nature timeline in some articles. Please be careful when adding them where they may not be relevant enough or be totally off-topic. Same thing in the gravity article now, the nature timeline doesn't seem to be related in any way to the section, so I intend to revert it. Cheers, FabulousFerd (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Would you like to be nominated for adminship? I would nominate you if you would like to be an administrator. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
i dont know wiki tags very well, your edit is much cleaner. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.20.206 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You may want to check you're au fait with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments after some of your edits on Talk:KIC 8462852 lately. It's misleading for you to edit your own comment to remove all capslock and acknowledge that the source you're presenting is unreliable after someone has replied to your original comment saying that the source seems unreliable and making a reference to the capslock. It makes it look as if the second editor has missed your point about reliable sourcing and is repeating you, and is shouting in capslock because they themselves are angry about it. This is very confusing to someone who reads the thread at face value. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hubble space telescope spots some newsworthy images of Europa: . Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Thanks for the thank-you re Template:Life timeline: I was hesitant to tamper with the complex structure that i could not have created, for lack of both template saavy and subject-matter knowledge. It's good to have the feedback that "putting my oar in" was at worst harmless.
--Jerzy•t 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Good day, Dr. Bogdan. I wondered if you were aware that some of us have been working to explicate the new super-large spacecraft and launch vehicle for transporting goods and people at interplanetary distances. I know you work at lot on planetary spaceflight articles, so thought you might want to take a look: ITS launch vehicle.[1]
There is also an article on the overall meta-project Musk envisions, but as a practical matter for getting probes, rovers, and other science gear to far-off planets, this new LV offers several outstanding advantages. You may want to use a link in other articles, as sources and discussions with space scientists and various space agencies may warrant such. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Check this out: Asgardia (nation). I "think" it is meant as a catalyst for political discussion. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. I recently discovered that the 'YYYY in science' series, and from the history I see you've been active contributing to the 20YY pages. These pages will be very useful to me personally, and I'd like to pay it forward by helping contribute to them. I have a few structural changes I'd like to suggest ... but want to reach consensus first. Where is the best place to have that discussion? (I'm a novice at editing wiki pages, but willing to learn and contribute) I was thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject Years in science but that appears defunct (do you know why so? could we revive it?).
A few things I'd like to do:
Totally open to hearing feedback, reasons why any of the above isn't a good idea (or why it is a good idea), other areas where I can contribute to these pages, etc.
Metawade (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
(Metawade) Thanks for the responses, all! There are indeed pros and cons to both approach (which is why I'd like to get a conversation started around this). Rather than cluttering Drbogdan's talk page, let's move these discussions to:
Thanks for uploading File:PBS-TheMysteryOfMatter-DvdCover.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Features_and_artificial_objects_on_Mars&diff=746448856&oldid=746414812, what browser are you using? I'm on Firefox v.46 and when I made that edit all alignments were precisely (I literally measured pixel by pixel) on the borders of the images. I wonder if our templates render differently in different browsers? That would be bad... — Huntster (t @ c) 14:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know whether I'm doing the right thing or not but you are suggested to review some content posted in this discussion. You are also encouraged to ask for outside input and participation.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
And thank you for your response. I too am busy at the moment outside of Wikipedia and am less of a regular contributor, so I too will not participate in that discussion for the time being but have insisted the proposed content stay on the talk page if not incorporated into the articles. You can read all my arguments there. And again you are also encouraged to invite outside input to help diversify opinions. Best of regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Dr., I added a small note on the BI talk page. Just FYI. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, we are discussing on whether the interactive table should be added to articles, and in which way. Please join. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Copied from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#"Interactive Periodic Table" added":
{ {reply|DePiep|R8R Gtrs|Sandbh|Alchemist-hp|Kbrose|Graeme Bartlett}} FWIW - Thank you for inviting me to discuss my newly created interactive "{{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}" - yes - added the template to the "chemical elements" for the reasons posted below - however, the additions were reverted, without any apparent discussion that I'm aware, by "User:Kbrose" - for my part - the template was added in good faith as a possible improvement to the articles - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there's "WP:CONSENSUS" of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for inviting me to this discussion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Copied from "Talk:Thorium#3 periodic tables":
--3 periodic tables--
We don't need three period tables in this article. At the bottom there already was Template:Periodic_table_(32_columns,_compact) but template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap was just added by User:Drbogdan. So one of these two should be cut. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your comments - yes - the newly created "{{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}", an "interactive image map" updated to include the latest officially named elements, was added to the chemical element articles - this version seems to be in the more familiar "Periodic Table" form and, as such, may be more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[1] - (also - somewhat related discussions at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording" and "Template talk:Life timeline#Class Aves as a subset of Dinosaur?") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (September 3, 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Retrieved September 28, 2016.
In correcting an accidental delete of another post, I may have deleted your post. Not sure how to restore one, while keep the other. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.