Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Bebacktalk03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion.%5B%5BWikipedia%3AMiscellany+for+deletion%2FUser+talk%3ADrbogdan%5D%5DMFD
^Bogdan, Dr. Dennis (February 16, 2020). "The one particular chemical is Nucleic Acid - a basic chemical for all known life forms - in the form of DNA - and/or - RNA - that defines - by way of a particular genetic code sequence - all the astronomically diverse known life forms on Earth - all such known life forms are essentially a variation of this particular Nucleic Acid chemical that, at a very basic level, has been uniquely coded for a specific known life form". Dr. Dennis Bogdan.
Testing a new Wiki-App: my "Webm Music Video" (webm video) - "Just Out Walking" - may return at a better time - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: - Related conversions/downloads/uploads seem to test ok - including web browsers (desktops/laptop) tested (so far) - Drbogdan (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: - May not always be available these days due to other interests and concerns (including real-world ones) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thanks for all your recent comments - interesting - re your iPhone - we don't have an iPhone and i'm happy you tried this - seems Wikipedia requires WEBM for video files - but iPhone may not? - maybe missing a relevant video codec for WEBM on the iPhone? - maybe the iPhone works better for the same video on Youtube (possibly MP4? - but not WEBM) at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNIDB-94jxc - if interested, my other songs are at => https://www.youtube.com/user/Joannebogdan/videos - iac - Thanks for trying - it's appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that I like the music. Not only does it remind me of "Going Up the Country" by Canned Heat (read that article to see why), but it also has a very modern feel, in the sense that internet videos often use this type of music as theme music and perhaps even as incidental music when the host is engaging in action on screen, such as driving a car down a road, or walking somewhere, such as on a farm or in a park. I could see internet video celebrities using this music as part of their soundtrack. For an idea of how this kind of thing works, listen to how the music is used in videos about Japanese culture in Abroad in Japan, as one of many examples. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, well done. BTW, if you’re on Reddit, check out r/sanfrancisco. Yesterday, a Redditor posted a map of their 30+ mile hike around the perimeter of San Francisco, complete with Apple stats. It’s an amazing discussion for several reasons. Check it out. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of my comments on ANI is as folliows (see below): - Drbogdan (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Thank You *very much* for the discussion - yes - and Thanks for all the complements over the years (see => User:Drbogdan#My Awards) (since 2006 - or earlier?) - yes - my intention is to present all my edits in *good faith* - always - and abide by all WP rules as best as possible - at the moment, my total edits over all wikis (including Wikitionary and WikiSpecies) is 98,193 (see => Special:CentralAuth/Drbogdan) - in addition, I've created 306 articles (perhaps noteworthy is Earliest known life forms), 70 templates (perhaps noteworthy are my efforts at {{Human timeline}} and {{Life timeline}}), 34 userboxes and uploaded 2,488 images (see => User:Drbogdan#My Contributions) - to date - my professional background (and related) is presented to help others better evaluate my editing efforts - some of my edits, particularly at User:Drbogdan, the related Talk Page, including 13 Talk archives (see => User talk:Drbogdan), the sandbox (see => User:Drbogdan/sandbox and related subpages) have been experimental efforts, learning opportunities to improve my use of WP:WikiCode, and test areas to explore new ways of presenting Wiki-related projects and articles (and more) - regarding some of my WP:Redirects - please see => my explanation for their creation as follows: *Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) - yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I would try to limit your participation in the Mfd’s and the ANI. You’ve said everything that can be said. Adding any more at this point could work against you. Also, you may want to change your focus and pay more attention to starting a new article and following the article creation process for a single topic, nominating for DYK, GAN, and even FAC. This will force you to learn the most current methods and procedures and to update your skill set. I notice you are sometimes risk averse to new things, but it would help to let go of that mindset. I think you would really enjoy expanding your reach. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing your talk page archives to see how this whole thing started. It looks like Warren misinterpreted your preference for talk page formatting, which is your longtime personal style, as an affront to his person. We both know you didn’t mean or intend this, but I have noticed this pattern to your edits and comments, in that you tend to do things in a very unique and personal way that often leads to misunderstanding and resentment from others, particularly the kind of personalities who expect things to happen a certain way and don’t like surprises or deviations from the norm. I think you should account for these kinds of narrow personalities in future interactions. I’m not saying you did anything wrong, because you didn’t. I know your style and I’m perfectly happy with it, but I can see how people who don’t know you might get the wrong impression. Something to think about? Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thank You for *all* your comments and suggestions - *entirely* agree - had thought nearly the same as well - besides - I've gotten busy with one thing or another these days with other interests and concerns (as before, mostly in the real-world) - so no problem whatsoever - should note that I have no problem staying within the norm - tried a few ideas to help make talk pages clearer, more useful and organized - incidentally, seems my actual starting/registraton date may have been lost during the early days of Wikipedia? => Seems My "Registration Date" Could Be -> "Before December, 2005" - Or, At Least, "October 24, 2007," (Date Of My "First Edit") based on my following discussion at => Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 5#What Is My Registration Date? - in any case - thanks again for your comments and all - they're *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of something fun we could collaborate on together. Have you considered looking at your image collection, particularly the ones you have uploaded (or ones you have planned to upload), and thought about any new articles we can create? I know you've got a few from some live performances or lectures by some famous people (or even hiking trails, or better yet, chemistry-related topics). If you can think of any events or topics we can create based on those images, I would be more than happy to work on the article improvement process with you, even if you only have an hour or so a day to do it. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - and suggestions - seems interesting - very busy at the moment with other interests and concerns (mostly real-world) - but may consider this further at a better time - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekaboo Galaxy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
I'm assuming this was a mistake or error of some kind.[1] I've removed it. If you have a link to a better source, I would be happy to consider adding it. Viriditas (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My best guess is that you intended to add a link to the article and somehow added the link to your comment instead. While I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in the article (last time I ate meat was in 1987), I don't think it fits the topic as an op/ed. Just FYI... the only reason I became aware of it was because of the discussion on Talk:Pleistocene human diet where someone pointed it out. Viriditas (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thank you for this - yes - such an edit/ref should *not* be there of course (for a variety of good WikiReasons) (hopefully there's no other such refs - please rv/rm/del/adj/ce edits/refs if any others may show up) - a better related reference may be here instead[1] - should be ok - let me know if otherwise of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed or fixed ten articles with similar problems. You can see it in my contribution list. I partially blame myself here, because I saw you putting together the NYT comment list on your talk page way back when, and I thought to myself, "what's the harm, the community will vote to delete it anyway", but I see it has slightly gone beyond that. Not sure what you were thinking here, but my man, I love you to bits, but please, put the brakes on this kind of thing immediately. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just saw you were one of the leading (active) contributors of the article. I was hoping to take it for a GA review. Care to join? If it passes, it can join Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 as a Good topic. Thanks and happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drbogdan, I work for Jeffrey Leiden, the executive chairman of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and I am trying to update his page. I noticed that you made edits to the Vertex page in the past, so I’m hoping you’ll be interested in taking a look at the edit request I’ve posted here. Another editor has already implemented the last bullet point in the request, would you be willing to implement the remaining three edits? Thank you, JohnDatVertex (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce the outcome of a community discussion at the administrators' incidents noticeboard, you have been blocked from editing. Please see this discussion for further information. This block is indefinite, meaning only that it will not automatically expire, it can only be removed if you successfully appeal. In order to do so you will need to convince the community that you understand the reason[s] why you were blocked, and explain how you will change your editing approach so that your future edits will not continue to be disruptive. Please see the blocking policy and the guide to appealing blocks. The message below is a standard template informing you of your block and with courtesy links for more information.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ivanvector, I just ran into this by chance (and Recent changes) and was surprised to see a talk page that looks like a user page that looks like someone's personal website--someone who is banned. There was this, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan, but that doesn't seem to have led anywhere for the talk page. User:Novem Linguae, how about just trimming all the NOTWEBHOST content and leaving the conversation about the block/unblock? And I know that the MfD was about the user page, but this edit suggests otherwise. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Thanks for the ping. The content located here on user talk doesn't seem to have the same problems as the promotional content that existed on the user page during the linked MFD (unless I'm mising something). I think I'd like to stay neutral on this one. I'm not really inclined to twist the knife here by trimming photos and biographical information from this editor's user talk page. But if someone else does I won't revert it. I hope you find this comment from me reasonable. Thank you and happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a blurry line between "promoting one's Wikipedia contributions", which we generally allow, and "promoting one's work outside Wikipedia", which we generally do not; you might agree that that line is even more indistinct for academics and others who write about things where they are actually subject matter experts. I think there's nothing here (as of this edit) which is really going against any rule or demonstrably causing harm to the project. But I do think the old mfd template is confusing here - I know that's where it's supposed to go, but user pages and user talk pages aren't quite "married" in the same way that articles and their talk pages are, and using the template looks to me at first glance that there was an MFD about the talk page specifically, which of course didn't actually happen. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this solves climate change and brings us some rain.
Hopefully you will not stop editing Wikipedia because it was your turn to be tossed into the volcano. Happens quite a bit, editors turn on someone once they are "taken" to ANI. Up to this point you've had no blocks, and the standard route for active editors is to give an initial 24-hour block, then 31, then a week or something, and then maybe they'll be tossed overboard. They took you from 0 to indef. My personal experience with your edits has been a case of looking forward to them, as I know you report new science and space related topics fairly soon after they happen. As for now, an indef is just that, indefinite. A few weeks or a couple months may be beneficial or may not be - you may totally realize that Wikipedia is yours as much as anyone's and come back strong, or you may break the addiction and get on with the next chapter. Have you got a book lurking within you that you haven't had time for? Again, thanks for your work here, and I hope there's more to come. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, Drbogdan, if you do decide to pursue the WP:Standard offer you will have learnt to make a major change to your approach to editing Wikipedia. That is expected before you can come back. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeCausa, the "offer" includes waiting six months, which is certainly not set in stone. Plenty of indef's have ended much earlier than that. What I was saying is that a 31 hour or three-day block is often enough to mark and provide a major change in editing habits, and going from no blocks in an editor's long-time Wikipedia career to indef does not seem at all like the norm, and comes across more like a pile-on. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but, in my opinion, you are misleading Drbogdan. Because of the issues raised and Drbogdan's non-responsiveness to those issues when put to him, it will take some persuading of the community to lift the CBAN. It all hangs on how Drbogdan responds (if indeed he wants to come back). If it's anything like how he responded at the ANI thread, he won't be back. I don't think it's helpful to him (if he wishes to come back) to underplay that. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not underplaying it, but, once again, to impose an indef as a first block is usually reserved for vandals, nogoodniks, and thirty edit know-it-alls. This is not the case here, and "the community' would be better served if it learned not to pile on in the future. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @DeCausa, this feels like potentially misleading Drbogdan. It’s an unusual situation to jump to an indef from nothing, but it’s one that was done with universal community consensus except the two people here downplaying it in response to a situation that itself was highly unusual. Typically someone with Drbogdan’s editing habits would have been blocked long ago and it’s pretty much impossible to argue that he wasn’t warned considering the long string of editors asking him to improve his editing and tone down the disruptiveness. As was pointed out in the ANI, no editors really believed that anything short of an indef was going to result in poor editing being stopped.
We understand your perspectives, but it’s a bit disingenuous to present the indef here as some sort of overreach when it was a community decision arrived at after a long line of bad behaviour going back at least a decade. It’s unreasonable to present this as a pile on rather than the good faith conclusion of the best course of action by a large number of unrelated editors, and if Drbogdan appeals his indef on the grounds of this being an unreasonable pile-on I think his appeal with be very quickly rejected. He, and to an extent both of you (@Viriditas), need to try to understand why the community spoke with one voice here. Your perspectives represent a slim minority of editors who engaged with that ANI, it’s not really reasonable to present your perspectives as some sort of co-valid minority report to a user who was indeffed on behavioural grounds.
he’s going to need to demonstrate an understanding of what lead to the indef that this sort of whitewashing is going to be mutually exclusive with. I think Drbogdan is capable of contributing positively if he’s willing to come back and learn how to improve his edits substantially, but you both need to shake the notion that this indef was overly harsh and out of line; it’s a perfectly reasonable and consistent response for what is effectively long term promotional vandalism and low quality editing on Wikipedia. Even if you personally don’t agree with that, it’s where the consensus lies and it’s what Drbogdan is going to need to directly address to return to an editing career.
I don’t think either of you are actually helping here, as much as I understand your desire to express sympathy. The results of the ANI were decided with consensus, this isn’t the place to continue arguing against that consensus. I also don’t want this to turn into a forumesque fight, so I’ll probably leave my response here as-is and not engage much further. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ06:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin characterised the ANI discussion as having taken a turn to personal attacks. Reopening the discussion here does seem undue. The initial comment here is good faith encouragement to return. And return is definitely possible, as the major reason the indef could not be argued against was the WP:HEAR issue. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t agree, unfortunately I think it looks like the initial comment is basically saying it was mob justice and not warranted:
it was your turn to be tossed into the volcano. Happens quite a bit
Drbogdan probably doesn’t get out of this without a sincere recognition of how his promotional and low quality editing was a problem, and editors reopening grievances with the consensus in ANI by both implying it was unreasonable and attempting to legalistically work around it are not doing him or Wikipedia any favours. It doesn’t particularly feel appropriate to bring up in this way here immediately following a pretty broad consensus of misbehaviour.
The two editors doing this were both in the ANI saying they didn’t really see the problem, which is itself somewhat problematic considering how cut and dry the issues were to most people. Even here they’re somewhat misrepresenting the ANI discussions and conclusion (for example, the promotional issue wasn’t the “100+ publications” thing, that was just a symptom of a larger problem of editing in his own news comments as sources themselves and his habit of linking everything he could back to his Wikipedia user page), and if Drbogdan accepts their version of events as fact he’s probably not getting editing privileges back.
But I’ll leave it at that. We shouldn’t be rehashing the ANI that was closed for concerns of it devolving into personal attacks here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, by personal attacks I was referring to a few late comments in the straw poll towards the bottom of the discussion which were leaning hard into casting aspersions on Drbogdan's character and assuming bad faith, not the general discussion of their actions which led to the sanction. I don't see anything wrong with discussing the issues here, except consider that Drbogdan is probably getting an email every time someone leaves a comment here but has not replied. A kinder approach may be to leave them alone until they indicate they're ready to talk about it. And just in case it's a point of confusion: blocked editors are allowed to edit their own talk pages to discuss their sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
persuading of the community to lift the CBAN. Is it a CBAN? I don't recall the word banned being mentioned in the discussion or the close.
If it is a community imposed indefinite block, can any admin just accept the unblock request once DrBogdan composes an unblock request showing a sufficient and convincing amount of behavioral reform? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The indef wasn't imposed by a "decision" of an admin - it was a community indef decision executed on the community's behalf by an admin. I assume that that makes it a CBAN whether or not the word "ban" was used - but I could be wrong on that. What's the answer? DeCausa (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only policy that gives the community authority to sanction an editor is the banning policy, thus by definition all community sanctions are bans. Blocks are a separate technical tool which administrators use to prevent disruption, and since edits in violation of a ban are presumed disruptive, site-banned editors are also normally blocked. By policy there is no difference at all between an editor "indefinitely blocked by the community" and "banned by the community", but there has been resistance to referring to editors in the first scenario as "banned" because of negative connotations associated with a ban, so many admins avoid saying that part out loud. As far as appeal process: sanctions imposed by the community need to be reviewed by the community; admins do not have authority to overrule consensus. There's not a set procedure for that, but typically a banned/blocked editor posts an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and asks for it to be copied to WP:AN, where the community discusses. There is no waiting period: if the banned editor believes they can make a convincing appeal five minutes after their ban is enacted they're free to do so. The standard offer (where six months comes from) is our statement of principle that no sanction is permanent and every editor has an opportunity to improve and appeal, though there are of course many seriously malicious actors who are functionally permanently banned. Drbogdan is a long way off from that, and I hope to see them back to editing soon. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drbogdan, the Wikipedia community is concerned about your editing habits. Some editors have expressed concerns with your "My 100+ Publications" list up above which implies they are peer-reviewed publications, when in fact they are comments you made in the NYT. Some editors have expressed their opinion that this is a form of self-promotion, and is misleading. I honestly don't care what people do with their user pages as long as it isn't explicitly attacking other people or intentionally denigrating people as a class, sex, race, etc., so it's never bothered me. I'm more of a live and let live kind of person in that regard, but the community doesn't accept what you're doing with the NYT comments and how you are using them here. I think a good first step in getting on the right track is to simply remove and delete all this material and all the links to it. Of course, that's only a first step, and really, just a baby step. A better approach is to completely revamp your pages and remove anything remotely perceived as promotional. I admit, this is not something I ever perceived before, nor is it something that concerns me, but you have to begin to address these concerns as they are important to others. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've started a discussion about the use of science-related press releases here. You may want to keep an eye on it as it directly pertains the type of edits you make. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
@Ivanvector: (and others) - Sorry - been *very busy* recently (as before, mostly real-world) - this may be ongoing in the foreseeable future atm - please understand that I may need a bit of time to make any suggested adjustments - nonetheless - Thank You for the recent ANI discussion - seems a major contention was some contents on my UserPage (original version) - the contents of this UserPage has since been entirely removed (latest version) by the community afaik - and should now be much less of an issue - are there any other specific issues to be considered? - my 306 created articles, 70 templates and other contributions can be considered on an individual case basis - and/or by WP:CONSENSUS - especially because many of these contributions, if not all, have since been edited by many other editors, and not only by me - hope this helps to fully restore my editing on Wikipedia - let me know if otherwise of course - and what specifically needs to be done further - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
As you were blocked via a community discussion, no admin can unilaterally lift the block, there must be another community discussion to remove it. I don't feel this statement is worth transferring to a noticeboard for discussion as you seem to not be understanding what the issues are here. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(Non-administrator comment) If what you took from the ANI discussion is that the primary issue was your user page, you really need to read through that whole thread again. Schazjmd(talk)17:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment - could you please be specific - seems there's a lot of vague comments presented after reviewing the ANI discussion - a specific concern(s) may be helpful - thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vague at all. What the closing admin said was quite clear and specific. I'll quote it in full for you:
Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the competence is required essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards for inclusion and not a collection of links. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert. Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely.
Thanks for your comments - and sorry for any past possible slights - they were completely unintentional - also - thanks for including the closing admin summary - yes - *entirely* agree - lesson(s) learned - and expect to present such material in a much better way if given the opportunity - my earlier editing thinking about all this could have been better - more specifically - I began considering, perhaps too late for some, of presenting sources from the responsible literature along with the related news items in the more popular literature if appropriate - I am not at all interested in making a mess - and didn't think I was - seems I could have thought better about this earlier - as before - lesson(s) learned - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no slights. We never interacted while editing articles so there could be no "slights". I'm not sure why you said that. As far as I know no one has ever complained about "slights". If you think that any of the editors who objected to your editing have an issue about "slights" then you continue to miss the point. DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - not re editing - but my own misunderstanding re your comments earlier in the ANI discussion - seems I could have worded my reply better at the time - sorry - Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: (and others) - re Twyla Tharp edit (20:46; 20240916) - and related note - complete news to me - coincidence - I'm not at all a sock (nor ever expect to be) - no interest in (or knowledge of) this whatsoever - besides - Tharp is very well known, and not at all obscure, to many afaik - in any case - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The admin decided not to check so I guess nothing will come of it, but yeah, she's an incredibly obscure figure. An IP editing that article within a six minutes of you posting here after it had been untouched for months raised some flags that you're editing still.
I'm not trying to fling around baseless accusations, and if it wasn't you then I'm sorry. But an IP editing one of your pet pages when you're actively online here not understanding why you were CBANned then that's where my suspicions came in, but it's not my intent to give you a hard time. If that actually wasn't you then that's an incredibly coincidence that defied credulity and I'm sorry for giving you difficulties for that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, "incredibly obscure figure" is quite an overstatement I think. I know who she is and I wouldn't say I was a ballet fan. I think she's reasonably well known - fairly prominent particularly in the 80s and 90s. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my specific concern was more "Obscure relative to the first edit in months being within six minutes of Drbogdan showing up here to request editing privileges back" but I'm not trying to keep pushing the point. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - the popular (at least to some) Twyla Tharp article has never been a "pet" page of mine (only a single edit of numerous ones since 2002?) - just another exaggerrated claim under cover of WP:Policies of one sort or another? - actually, my own favorite edited pages over the years are well described here - also - please understand that I'm not at all seriously interested atm (particularly after the recent ANI discussion and outcome/s) in further actively editing Wikipedia in any form whatsoever - I've had enough after 18+ years and 98k+ global edits - besides - I have a lot of other interests these days (as before, mostly real-world) - nonetheless - I'm very happy that a newer, fresher (maybe better) group of volunteer editors will (hopefully) further improve and manage the site - in any case - thanks for all the comments - some were greatly appreciated in fact - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said when I raised the concern, if I was wrong I’d owe you a sincere appology. I’m not trying to give you a hard time or cause any further issues for you, I just have a few pages on my watchlist which you were involved with and that one popped up very close to your replies here, and if you’ll let me be blunt considering you didn’t seem to understand the reason for your CBAN it didn’t feel unreasonable to me that you’d still be editing.
You’re absolutely right in pointing out this wasn’t one you were maintaining, I think I got this page and CDK Dance Company confused here but you have made questionable edits to Twyla Tharp before and the timing being within ten minutes plus the content of your unban request made me suspect it was you enough to raise at SPI.
Like I said, genuinely not trying to give you a hard time for things you didn’t do, and if that’s the case here I’m sincerely sorry. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And happy holidays to you. Do you know that per WP:SO you can apply for removing your ban after January 6? I hope you do so at some point, and in order to obtain the blessings of the community freely admit your errors, mistakes, self-promotion, godforsaken tendencies to overdue your own cites, and what about that thing with the milkmaid behind the barn? (kidding, for those literal minded amongst us). I miss your science updates, and hope that a resurrection can take place before Easter. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: - Happy Holidays to you as well - Thank You *very much* for *all* your related comments and support over the years ( as well as your very recent efforts at ANI ) - they're all *greatly* appreciated - *entirely* agree with you and your posted comments - seems you (and some others) and I may be on the same page with a lot of my Wikipedia efforts and well-meaning intentions over the years - also - seems I've favorably (and affirmatively) reponded to all issues that you've noted, and that I'm currently aware of, in the original ANI and/or in my Talk section above - may not have been noticed (or appreciated) by all reviewers for one reason or another, but they are there nonetheless afaik atm - all lesson(s) learned of course - seems that presenting my background credentials, and related qualifications for editing, may have been misunderstood as promotion (not at all my intention) - thought at the time this was *entirely* ok to do but maybe not after all - not sure what more I can say about all this - or do - currently, moved on to other interests - mostly real-world ones, but including resuming some earlier online ones (1; 2; 3 and some others) - iac - Thanks again for your own efforts and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe in two or three months your attention may come back to Wikipedia editing. You seem to be keeping up with the site, answering so soon here and knowing about the ANI short discussion, and I'd guess that you know the societal impact your edits have made to specific knowledge areas by editing Wikipedia. But, Christmas being right around the corner, my attention too drifts to visions of sugarplums and Zooey singing in Elf. The season awaits! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - yes - *entirely* agree - guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out - but at the moment - we're thoroughly enjoying ourselves with one thing or another - Thanks again for your posts - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drbogdan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Blade Runner 2099, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
To All - I'm currently edit restricted on en-Wiki - if interested - *entirely* ok with me if someone else manages and/or edits the page - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit - interesting (and completely new to me) re dup page - seems pages may need a clearing up of sorts (delete/merge/rm/etc) - iac - Thanks for your help - it's *greatly* apppreciated - Drbogdan (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
<CLOSING ANI CONCLUSIONS - MY (overdue perhaps) REPLIES'
Somewhat new to all of this (been busy in other wiki-areas over the years - see below), but seems it's been over 6 months since the start of my indev block (start date = July 6, 2024) - perhaps WP:STANDARD OFFER may now apply I would think - and hopefully, WP:AGF and WP:NPA (direct and/or indirect) apply here as well of course. Thanks.
"::I closed this quickly a few minutes ago since the latest comments have been fairly plain personal attacks, rather than discussing the substance of the complaint and appropriate action. It took me a while to organize my thoughts and copyedit myself - there's a lot to unpack here."
Thank you for your comments and conclusions. As before, I've been very busy recently with mostly real-world activities (but also with some earlier online activities - 1+2+3 and others) . Sorry for my delay in not responding earlier of course. Hopefully, my presentation here is appropriate and entirely ok (I'm really new to this wiki-area).
"::Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the competence is required essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards for inclusion and not a collection of links. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert."
Mostly untrue claims. Certainly none intentional. As before, claims have been exaggerated (also noted by others Here and elsewhere) and/or interpretable (with no or few supporting diffs) (along with selection bias - ie, selected 10 or so articles out of hundreds of edited articles?) (source). Such claims, perhaps to seem more credible than they really may be, seem to have been presented under cover of apparent WP:POLICIES of one sort or another. In addition, the importance of WP:IAR, in some relevant instances, have been downplayed and/or dismissed outright. For one example of possible related contention, the very long-time (many years) List of rocks on Mars article, originally a very enriched (helpful/useful) version (seemingly at least), and justified by WP:IAR, is Here, but is currently (without discussion or WP: CONSENSUS) changed to a less helpful/useful article instead. Seems like WP:MOS rules may overrule WP:IAR? Seems so at the moment in this instance. At least until there's a better resolution of the issue through further discussion and WP:CONSENSUS I would think. In any case, lessons learned here of course.
"::Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes, the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely."
Not true. Never said or thought this. Ever. Not my way of thinking. I've always tried to be open to improvement. Seems the better road generally. After all, nobody's perfect. Everyone could benefit from improvement of one sort or another I would think. My academic (and related) credentials have been presented only to describe my qualifications to edit Wikipedia, which, I currently understand, may be ok. Please let me know if otherwise of course. Nonetheless, my current UserPage is Here. (My earlier UserPage, if interested, is Here).
--
"::Separately from this close, I also *must say* that their habit - eccentric, maybe? - of hacking together *long run-on strings of comments* - interspersed - as they are - with *forced pause* breaks and sprinkled with self-aggrandizing - and off-topic, yes - links to their *achievements* [rm link for clarity] makes it - as others have said here - quite frustrating to converse with them. All the worse that the vast majority of their comments of this sort do not substantively reply to the comments they are left in response to."
Not ever true in my edits of mainspace articles. May be somewhat true on some talk-pages only. In any case, lessons learned here as well. Any specific rules broken in my editing have been entirely unintentional. As far as I currently know, all edits that may have been of some issue earlier have been completely corrected some time ago. I currently know of no real rules broken that may not be a matter of unsettled opinion. If otherwise, please specify rules that may have been an issue (and related diffs of course), and suggested ways that I may further improve my related edits going forward. I expect to adjust accordingly (and appropriately) as needed at the first opportunity of course. Thanks.
I'm also going to leave links here to Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors, and Wikipedia:Expert retention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 8:18 am, 6 July 2024, Saturday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−8)
Thanks again for all your comments and conclusions. I should note that I have numerous Wiki-contributions/edits, including Wikipedia (98,481 edits+306 articles+70 tiemplates+30 userboxes+2,494 images+and more); as well as many Wiki-contributions/edits to WikiCommons; WikiData; WikiQuotes; WikiSimple; WikiSpecies; Wiktionary; other Wikis and other related Wiki programs.
ADD: Drbogdan (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Wikipedia are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Wikipedia, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Wikipedia as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way.
Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too WP:BEBOLD with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like).
In any case, thank you for reviewing my request here. I hope my replies (noted above) help in some way to restore my en-Wikipedia editing. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Strong oppose: DrBogdan has never acknowledged their destructive editing tendencies or willingness to be overly promotional in weighting their contributions to wikipedia, a trait was has continued well into their CBAN with promotional-ish replies here (diff) and his edits to his userspace largely being to maintain promotional links. He continues above in lionizing the volume of his edit history without regard for quality and linking, inexplicably, his facebook, livejournal, and wordpress pages.
I and other editors have spent a lot of time since their ban cleaning up the daily updates and image galleries added persistently to articles.
Since his ban, I did more cleaning at Commons and this resulted in the deletion of 78 promotional images and selfies not contributing to the project. In this process I learned that Drbogdan has had a history of uploading images with copyright issues, as well. The meat of it, though, has been how he absolutely ruined entire science articles that have required complete rewrites to bring up to standard.
I have maintained a list of this process since it’s very time consuming. So far I’ve had to rewrite (with help from others in places) Curiosity (Rover),List of rocks on Mars, Ingenuity (helicopter), Jezero (crater), Animal track, Bright spots on Ceres, and Aromatum Chaos, in addition to the cleanup done before his CBAN. All of these were victims of indiscriminate image galleries added to articles and daily updates on mission status. If we look at one I still haven’t gotten to, like Mount Sharp, it’s still an absolute mess of images smeared all over it. The intent of this list isn't to be any kind of gravedancing, but rather Drbogdan's major contributions have been so consistently low-quality that it's necessary to manually review every single article he's been heavily involved in to remove indiscriminate galleries.
Drbogdan’s defence here and in the past has been a mix of the Shaggy defense and blaming my “persistence” at the ANI, despite my initial arguments at ANI being opposed to a ban. I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Drbogdan is motivated to edit, but unwilling to acknowledge any of the shortcomings in their editing process and I don’t actually see a planet in which their presence here is a positive given the timbre of this unban request. Especially considering it was so obviously going to be posted bang-on the six month mark. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although it sounds like he has some hair-shirt wearing and more 'splaining to do. Nothing wrong in asking for this return after six months (that's what six months means, not six months but maybe wait an extra week or two). Thanks to Warrenmck for their cleanup, not a fun thing to do but needed when mistakes are made. That's what the six month wait is for, punishment for those mistakes. Once six months is served and understanding is admitted the slate should be swept clean and the fatted calf slaughtered for a feast. In seriousness, I've missed Dr.'s edits to science and space articles, he catches and posts new information at a commendable rate and I often learned about recent events from those edits. Taking Warren's concerns into account, maybe Dr. can explain a bit more about understanding why many editors had such concerns to begin with. Thanks, and, hopefully, welcome back. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once six months is served and understanding is admitted
And, not or. Above Drbogdan is actively complaining about the edits made to List of rocks on Mars since his ban, and refusing to acknowledge that there were any issues with systematic low quality edits in the first place. For all people like to address his science credentials, by his own biography those are all in medicine and as an actual WP:EXPERT editor in the areas he's most keen to edit I've relied far less on my credentials in editing these articles than he has. There were other space-centric WP:SMEs hitting a wall with his editing pattern in the ANI, as well, if I recall. This is what resulted in several editors discussing a proclivity for WP:PROFRINGE and WP:TOOSOON; he has been operating on the assumption that his ability to accurately weight information within planetary science and astrophysics is good, despite constant removal of added content in those fields. Expertise is non-transferrable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Drbogdan, if he comes back, has to adhere to those things or he won't be editing for long. A six-month indef ban seems long enough for someone to realize there may be a few things to do differently (hard to do for those of us who know everything and think that our way is the highway). He knows that his edits will be closely watched again, so maybe when an edit seems like it may be in question he can bring it to the talk page first (either the article or to one of the "watchers" for comment). Several ways to go about this, and better to have him editing and being careful about penalty calls than watching from the sidelines. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bludgeon this, but I'm genuinely curious how you can possibly read an understanding of the underlying problem on his part from a post which basically can be summarized as "It wasn't me/I didn't do it/It wasn't intentional". I think there's some very serious wishful thinking on your part, because the above request to be unblocked actually contains every single element that lead to his CBAN; a refusal to recognize issues in the quality of his edits or in fact any meaningful wrongdoing at all and promotional editing.
I may be optimistic and hoping that this discussion will bring more comments from Drbogdan about these concerns. As I said, when we think we're right but other editors disagree then the process is to go through a long discussion to try to talk some sense into them (as seen from our point of view, which hopefully includes the ability to change our own mind) - because in Wikipedia even a 13-year-old high school student has as much say as a Dr. or professor. That power given to the uninformed is a trademark of Wikipedia, but somehow it works and the place runs well while growing and improving by the second. Dr. gives much weight to IAR, as he should (IAR, undiscussed by most editors, is policy and a darn good one), but you have to know it when you see it (from the perspective of that 14-year-old (who just this second had a birthday) editing while in study hall). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR in Drbogdan's case included a lot of copyvio, both at Commons (uploading non-free images) and in article spaces (linking copyright violating youtube videos inline in articles). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Wikipedia are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Wikipedia, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Wikipedia as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|}
So, as you can see I have collapsed the above discussion for the moment. This is community-imposed block based on a consensus determined at ANI, it must go through the same process if an unblock is to be considered. I can, however copy over the above comments if and when that is done so the users who have already commented don't have to start over. Before we go there, I'd like to ask, in light of what I have just explained and the feedback already given, if you are sure this is the appeal you want to submit for review by the community? BeeblebroxBeebletalks01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. And clarification of the relevant procedure. Yes, you may submit the related appeal. Thank you for your help with this. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments - seems like my current appeal above addresses the main concerns presented in the original ANI concluding comments - at least as far as I'm aware of at the moment - am I overlooking something? - Drbogdan (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many things. I've previously addressed them up above and they have recently been addressed in the current, now collapsed thread. This isn't rocket science. You're intelligent, and I think you can figure it out. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like my very last comments (copied below) in the collapsed thread does that in fact. Certainly intended to do that, and thought I did in fact - Drbogdan (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of my last comments in the thread:
Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Wikipedia are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Wikipedia, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Wikipedia as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Drbogdan (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too WP:BEBOLD with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). Drbogdan (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A stated interest in using bold and IAR to more of a degree than most editors may seem too close to how you've edited in the past that a group of users objected to. Maybe tone that down or even go the opposite way - in some instances where you believe IAR to be the correct solution maybe plan to first take these to talk pages for feedback (you can likely "feel" when an edit will be objected to, and those are the ones to discuss beforehand). In any case, after an indef ban, editing practices should at least be modified to take others points-of-view into account. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Yes. I *completely* agree with everything you've noted (and had thought of all of this earlier myself as well). I fully expect to do all of this at the next oppotunity. No problem whatsoever with any of this. - Drbogdan (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've copied over the appeal and the prior discussion to WP:ANI. Section title is Community block appeal by Drbogdan. Any further replies by Drbogdan may be copied over, comments by others should be made at ANI. Thanks. BeeblebroxBeebletalks23:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa, Lavalizard101, XOR'easter, and Canterbury Tail: - Reply - Thank you for your comments. Thought I covered all the relevant issues, and my expected editing improvements, in my comments above. Perhaps not. If possible, can you specify a particular issue of interest and suggested related improvement? Might be helpful in responding I would think. Thanks in advance for your reply - Drbogdan (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drbogdan, let me clarify. Why did you think it was a good idea to have Beeblebrox post a 1,200 word, 7,414 character request for unblocking? It frankly boggles my mind that you thought this would go over well. Your unblock request should consist of a message between 150-200 words maximum, focusing solely on addressing the specific nature of the block, explaining that you understand why you were blocked, what steps you will take to mitigate and avoid future problems, and demonstrating that it will not happen again. It's that simple. Beeblebrox gave you a hint that it was a bad idea, I told you it was a bad idea, and Randy tried to get you to understand that what you wrote was a bad idea. Now you've got 5 opposes to your unblocking and 0 supports. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your post and clarification. Wow. Yes. Seems I really misunderstood the process. Thought I was doing what needed to be done. And what had to be done. Guess not after all. Thanks to all that reviewed my effort, and tried to help of course. It's very, very much appreciated. - Drbogdan (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to have been moved to ANI without it being finalized and edited. For example, my words were not for ANI but for Drbogdan. Of course ANI will deny the appeal in its present form, this was obvious when it was copied over. Editors don't have time to analyze a free-flowing concept-heavy appeal and will likely reject it out of size and complexity alone. The good Dr. is long-time editor, has contributed thousands of hours to Wikipedia, and deserves better than a quick denial of his good intention to come back, be productive, and work closer with his community. The ANI discussion should probably be closed as "too early" and things worked out on this page before the actual and intended appeal is made. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, @Randy Kryn, I think you're not being honest with yourself and it may be time to recognize that DrBogdan has at no point shown the ability to accept and understand that his editing pattern was wrong. It's been well established at this point that his long and storied history of editing was disruptive in nature going back at least a decade and his editing history doesn't need to be held up as an example of what he's contributed here. Both on his talk page and at the last ANI you've put a lot of words into his mouth explaining his actions for him that he himself never once articulated.
The version of Drbogdan you're defending is not the one the rest of us are seeing, the fact that he's responding to you with Yes. I *completely* agree with everything you've noted while in the very same thread disagreeing with every single bit of feedback that lead to his ban and repeating the behaviours that lead to his ban here makes it somewhat clear he's saying what he thinks people want to hear, dependent on who his audience is, while critically reflecting on nothing.
The fact that a six month WP:CBAN wasn't enough to keep promotional links out of his own unban request, and the fact that DrBogdan straight-up lied to the community about the nature of his promotional links (he insisted the page indexing was accidentally left in when copying over a template, but the tags to index his page are their own individual edits after the fact) and he was editing in his New York Times comments to articles as sources comes right back to the discussion we had here six months ago when @DeCausa said If it's anything like how he responded at the ANI thread, he won't be back.
I don't think it's helpful to him (if he wishes to come back) to underplay that. And here we see the direct fallout of that. He's not coming back assuming he did nothing wrong except lose a game of tug-of-war with me in ANI without a fundamental recognition that his behaviour is out of line or that there was a consensus that his edits were low quality. Given how little a six month break seems to have gotten this through at all I doubt we'll ever see a WP:CBAN lifted, especially in light of his willingness to just say "yes I completely agree" at people without actually internalizing that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggested that the comments which were moved to ANI should not have been moved until language had been discussed and worked out here. My comments, for example, were meant for this talk page, not for ANI, and tossing Dr.'s appeal-as-written into ANI after it was being discussed here as inappropriate, and as a rewrite seemed to be underway, was too early for the overall community to judge the full situation. The process broke down right there, by copying comments over and calling that the appeal, and all I'm saying is that the discussion should be closed there as "too early for ANI comment" and allow for breathing room. The personal New York Times and other references would best be presented on talk pages of articles where Drbogdan is not fully recognized as a subject matter expert, and presented as ideas for inclusion. That would put space between the concerns and what could be valuable additions to the topic. Those are the kind of ideas where this seemed to be headed when the copy-over occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
tossing Dr.'s appeal-as-written into ANI after it was being discussed here as inappropriate, and as a rewrite seemed to be underway
He was explicitly warned against it and insisted it was fine as-is. I cannot imagine in the grand scheme of what was written that your comment even slightly poisoned the well, and since you're the only one objecting to transferring the comments over (including Drbogdan himself) I don't think that's a procedural concern here. If an editor needs their hand held at every step of the way to demonstrate their understanding of the problem, they don't understand the problem. It's very clear the verbiage Drbogdan wanted, which included an abundance of "I didn't do it" and promotional links, was going to crash and burn even if nothing was said here.
That you understand what he needs to do doesn't speak to Drbogdan understanding it. His replies to you agreeing with your concerns completely and directly counter every other statement he's made on the topic. You can't rehabilitate an editor who doesn't themselves see they did anything wrong at all in the first place, Drbogdan needs to see the issue, not you, and your insistance that he sees the issue is frankly deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory re: Drbogdan himself.
The personal New York Times and other references would best be presented on talk pages of articles
No, an experienced editor should know better than to include their own comments on a news article as reliable sources in wikipedia. That was an ergregious violation of WP:PROMO and WP:RS, not just a little difference in sourcing standards to bring to the talk page. There's further quite solid evidence that the promotionality was intentional and he continues to insist it was an accident. I get you like Drbogdan and to his credit he seems to be an intelligent, kind, and thoughtful person. Just not a good editor. To reiterate:
The version of Drbogdan you're defending is not the one the rest of us are seeing
Drbogdan has been saying yes - *entirely* agree - lesson(s) learned for literally a decade now, you'd expect that the unban request would demonstrate that even an iota if it were true. I think Drbogdan is bullshitting the community about his understanding of the issues and willingness to change and that his edits have mostly either been deleterious or WP:VANISPAM and it's clear the community is past the point of tolerating it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we both have different positions on Drbogdan, as I have been one of his most vocal supporters. However, I think we both agree that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is part of the issue at hand. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that I have spent years discussing things with the good doctor, so I feel I have a rough grasp on what he's like here through that virtual interaction alone. My take is that Drbogdan is a good person and means well, but genuinely doesn't understand what people are saying (or writing), and tends to read things here with a patina of his own overlay. This is often referred to as "he only hears what he wants to hear". I myself have been guilty of this in the deep past and I've had to develop and refine my own personal metacognition skills to deal with it. I still fall back into it now and then, but I'm far more self-aware of my own weakness in this regard than I was before, which gives me a better handle going forward. I recommend that Drbogdan try to work on this in his own time. I've been told that developing active listening skills can help. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective, but I think the evidence that Drbogdan was bullshitting people about the promotional edits being unintentional, coupled with how often he just said “yes, *completely* agree -and- understand” in ways that caused him to contradict himself repeatedly makes it look like he’s profoundly insincere anytime he says he understands what he’s done wrong or it’s an accident. And remember, there was rock solid evidence that the indexing of his userpage and editing in of New York Times comments were manually done individually. Both of those he gave excuses for that don’t actually make any sense given the edit history.
Even now, after all this, the good doctor’s livejournal he linked is still pointing to a diff from before his userpage was blanked and calling it “my profile”. I think perhaps you were taken in by the charisma of a self-promotional spammer, essentially. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I was "taken in" by Drbogdan, nor do I see his "self-promotion" as anything more than a big ego on his part which comes into conflict with Wikipedia culture. He isn't making money from SEO (at least that I can tell) and he appears to be a retired person with too much time on his hands. I would invite you to search for all the interactions I've had with him on this page in the history, as well as my talk page and elsewhere. I just don't get how you could characterize our interactions as one person taking advantage of another. I did try to encourage him to do research and create content, and the one time he did so, I think his page got deleted or redirected. Other than that abject failure (which most editors experience at least once), I can't imagine how he took advantage of me in any way. But, like I said, please examine every word I said to him and every word he said to me. I would be very interested in what you come up with. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't get how you could characterize our interactions as one person taking advantage of another.
I don't think I implied this, I more meant that his kindness and charisma was masking that the promotional edits seem to have been intentional. However, I do see a bit of this being true; I don't think editors would have missed the promotional editing and abuse of wikipedia resources had they not been masked by a firehose of low quality edits and well-meaning behaviour. I do think he took advantage of editors in coming across as sort of bumbling while at the same time very clearlyWP:PROMO editing and acting around that in a way that says he knew it was wrong. It's not just been a misunderstanding of the rules and norms on his part. See: mistruths around the source of some of the promotional material.
please examine every word I said to him and every word he said to me
You attempted to gently guide him towards standard editing many times, and every time he agreed and then just did what he was going to do anyways. I don't think it was until this most recent unban request that I really mapped Drbogdan as a WP:NOTHERE editor, but I do think that's the case now.
We probably should take this to one of our personal talk pages at this point.
@Drbogdan: if you'd like a piece of actionable feedback from these discussions that's likely going to be a necessary step if you ever intend to edit again: Stop using old diffs and archived backups of your deleted-for-promotionalism pages on social media as "your profile". It's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia and it's always going to be a roadblock to convincing people you've understood the concerns raised. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Randy Kryn and Viriditas: (and others) - Thanks for your comments and suggestions - your thinking about all this is way off - not at all interested in anyone in the world seeing my links - even on Wikipedia, including those on my earlier pages - supporting my qualifications to edit (and more easily keeping track of my contributions) seemed a worthy side benefit - but they were all primarily intended, as now, as navigational aids for myself only - at times as well, as opportunities for learning, testing and working with code in different ways - an enjoyment of sorts with me these days - if others could freely benefit in some way from all this, that's completely ok with me - but that's not my primary intention at all - also - some of your comments are greatly appreciated, but some could be much better (you, and others, know this I would think, I would hope) - perhaps more WP:AGF and WP:NPA may help? - maybe not - not my field or current interest - iac - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drbogdan, you're again bullshitting us. If they were intended primarily as internal navigational aids then the bulk of the comments you posted on the New York Times and archived here wouldn't be pointing back to your Wikipedia profile and your livejournal wouldn't be linking to a historical copy of your blanked userpage while calling it "My Profile".
The time for WP:AGF to be assumed was before you got caught lying about the nature of those promotional edits. It's not a personal attack to point out that your editing pattern here is low quality and promotional, you were literally indefinitely banned for those two things. Being defensive, rather than introspective, probably isn't the winning play here.
To reiterate for posterity, when you were asked to NOINDEX your user page at the ANI:
Done - added "" to top of user and talk-pages - new to this and entirely unintentional - seems to have been part of an earlier copy/paste template
Here's the diff, far removed from any template, where you manually add in the indexing tags to your page. Here's a diff of you manually editing in the fields to cite yourself when inserting your own New York Times comments into an article, which you also insisted was unintentional.
You're very, very, very unlikely to get your CBAN removed while accusing editors of engaging in personal attacks for pointing out mistruths you got caught repeating, and asking editors to WP:AGF isn't going to fly when we can demonstrate a lack of it in your engagement with community concerns. You're going to have to recognize that you got caught doing something without just going Thank You *very much* for your help with this - yes - *completely* agreewitohut misrepresenting your past actions.
Just treating the CBAN as a temporary time out since a few other editors "won" an argument is misunderstanding how this all played out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Started as a test on my UserPage for me to track and access cmts - thought at the time it might be ok - and not at all an issue - any other use was a ref mixup error on my part, and now entirely solved a long time ago afaik - Drbogdan (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to follow your reasoning. How did you come to the conclusion that it might be ok? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed (some people say I'm a few fries short of a happy meal), but even a moron like myself knows that it's not okay to cite your personal comments from the NYT. I don't understand your lapse in judgment here. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good question - re my UserPage - didn't know of any rule at the time that might have said otherwise - also - my thinking at the time about WP:BEBOLD and WP:IAR may have played a part - incidentally - I can easily understand the view others may have about all this - and I respect that - but it was not at all my thinking at the time - maybe I should have considered other views but I didn't think that it, being on a UserPage, would be an issue - so I didn't - iac - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specifically referring to your use of the NYT comments as a cited citation in a Wikipedia article, not your user page. Please address that. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As before, this was a ref mixup error on my part, (ie, main link with cmt vs main link without cmt) and now entirely solved a long time ago afaik - Drbogdan (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been several times as I recall at the moment - after a search for instances - seems better described at the time in the present TalkPage notes above - Drbogdan (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not deferring to older discussions. I'm talking about right now and trying to get closure on this one detail. Any idea why you added your NYT comments to Wikipedia articles several times? Because I honestly don't understand it, and Warren and others are using this as an example of why you shouldn't edit Wikipedia. Unless and until you begin facing these questions head-on, they aren't going to let you back to edit. Think about your answer before you reply. The best way to approach this is to tell the truth. The more you do that, the closer you will be to regaining access to Wikipedia. Please think about this for a while. Sleep on it and come back to the question. No need to reply right away. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As before, they were all ref mixup errors as I recall - in 20/20 hindsight, I should have been more careful in discovering the errors sooner, but wasn't for some reason - we're very busy these days with one thing or another (real-world activties) and that may very well have been a contributing factor I would think - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t, and every time you reply by pointing to things elsewhere avoids the problem under discussion. To get unblocked, you have to be willing to acknowledge the problem you caused, show that you understand it is a problem, explain that it won’t happen again, and discuss ways you will prevent it from being a problem in the future. Nobody is going to unblock you if you keep answering with variations of "we are all extremely busy and doing other things at my house”. Look up the the term “tin ear”. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly errors on my part, and should not have ever happened, and, by being more careful with such edits, don't ever expect it to happen again - Drbogdan (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No - it was a well-intentioned and good faith effort. But misunderstood on my part. Well. Back to regular stuff. No problem whatsoever. Plenty on our plate these days. Thanks again to *everyone* who reviewed the effort and commented. It's all *greatly* appreciated. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is declined. I believe this UTRS request was not made by Drbogdan and instead, they are being impersonated by a long-term vandal. I suggest UTRS requests from this user be declined unread unless properly authenticated. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This tech is old. I was talking about this five years ago, maybe even longer. The reason it is only coming to market now is due to regulatory hurdles. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments - yes - I was aware of this perhaps even earlier - worked on this project in the real-world in the 1970s - not an easy challenge - tried various spectro methods - but to no avail at the time - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, glad that I'm talking to a maven, then. I have family that uses the Lingo and the app. It has not changed their eating habits, unfortunately. I've been on a self-imposed, restricted diet for many decades because I didn't want to end up like them. I eliminated added sugar from my diet about 25 years ago. It's surprising how much sugar people in Hawaii consume. Younger people today might not realize how much of a problem it once was. I remember in the 1970s, almost every kitchen table had a sugar bowl, and people would add sugar to everything. It's crazy thinking back on it. Of course, they would often be smoking and drinking at the same time. We've come a long way, baby? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - seems we've come a long way - at least in some things - hope the new noninvasive Glucose tech actually works - could help a lot of people in the world I would think - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't believe or wrap my mind around the fact that lead gasoline was known to be harmful in the 1920s and yet the government (under the influence of the oil companies) allowed it to be sold until 1996. Never learning a damn thing from their mistakes, they did the same with tobacco, and are now doing the same with oil and gas in general. The latest estimates from climate scientists show that the failure to reign in oil and gas may lead to the deaths of millions in the near future. It is unclear how commercial agriculture will survive, and vast areas will be uninhabitable. The sheer stupidity and ignorance here is compounded by conservatives and corporations calling for people to have more children. It's insanity all around. I'm hoping Elon Musk does figure out a way to get to Mars so he can take all the conservatives with him and we can finally live in peace. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - *entirely* agree - seems money rules now (and then) - reminds me of one my comments - published in 2013 - perhaps prescient of today in some ways? => "Seems *400 people* now own *HALF* the wealth in the country - more money now in fewer hands - eventually, *one person* may end up owning it all - at least in theory - a *monarchy* of sorts may result from unlimited inequality - and from starving the poor - maybe we could do better? - maybe there's more valuable things than money - like good health and happiness - for the greater good - and the greater number - these days however, to understand the world, one may need only to follow the money - glitter rules - or so it seems" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. How much money does anyone need? The whole system is a farce. Most people just want to live in relative comfort, do meaningful work, and be happy and healthy like you said. That's not asking for a lot! Life is simple, but the billionaires can't stop, won't stop, it's never enough for them. Don't reply, they will only block you. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your notice - *complete* news to me - thought my recent talk-page posts were *entirely* ok - guess not - sorry - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.
User talk page access has been restored. If you abuse your access again, the odds of you ever regaining editing privileges on Wikipedia will be significantly diminished. Do not use the page as a social network. See, for example, WP:NOTBLOG. Use this page only for unblock requests or other necessary communications. Do not suggest or link to article topics or content suggestions. — rsjaffe🗣️03:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg)
Perseverance rover & Ingenuity helicopter => 1402 sols (1441 days) (3 years, 346 days) (landed February 18, 2021).
.jpg)
Interactive image map of the global topography of Mars, overlain with locations of Mars Memorial sites. Hover your mouse over the image to see the names of over 60 prominent geographic features, and click to link to them. Coloring of the base map indicates relative elevations, based on data from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor. Whites and browns indicate the highest elevations (+12 to +8 km); followed by pinks and reds (+8 to +3 km); yellow is 0 km; greens and blues are lower elevations (down to −8 km). Axes are latitude and longitude; Polar regions are noted. 
The redirect Valinor Hills Station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 4 § Valinor Hills Station until a consensus is reached. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Done I've copied over the appeal and the prior discussion to WP:ANI. Section title is Community block appeal by Drbogdan. Any further replies by Drbogdan may be copied over, comments by others should be made at ANI. Thanks. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
