User talk:Maxim Makukov

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your comment in your article's Articles for Deletion discussion. Well said. GRuban (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Maxim Makukov! Thank you for your contributions. I am I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! jps (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome words. But I have neither inclination nor time to contribute to wiki articles :) Maxim Makukov (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Regarding Your Comment[edit]

I've read your comment regarding the deletion issue here.

Obviously, Wikipedia has no resources to verify that you are who you claim to be, but I'm very willing to assume you are.

That being said, I fully empathize with your concerns about how press coverage inaccurately and incompletely report on your work. Therefore, I also understand your that a Wikipedia article might just perpetuate those inaccuracies.

On the other hand, surely you must think your work has some merit and should be seriously considered and accurately represented.

Therefore, am I correct in my understanding that you pointed to three articles (only one of which was accessible, your article "Space ethics to test directed panspermia") to illustrate, in a sarcastic tone, that in fact peer reviewers and publishers do not in fact consider your results "so harebrianed, drivel and psudeoscientific" as some of Wikipedia editors have suggested, which is why literature is still being published regarding your findings and proposals?

Secondly, you stated at the top, you "have never been a proponent of panspermia." Yet your paper on the ethics of directed panspermia is about a form of panspermia. The reason I raise this is that I had initially intended to make some reference to your work in the panspermia article, but like many other articles on controversial issues at Wikipedia, virtually every edit is attacked by people who want to block information. So, I'm the one who started the article about you, based on the media reports. I had thought it would be less controversial, but I didn't know I was being "followed" by others who have been consistently anxious to revert my edits. That led to immediate nomination for deletion before the material could be further researched and developed in a form that could subsequently be moved to the panspermia article (most likely under a new sub-section, "directed panspermia"). Do you oppose any inclusion of your material in Wikipedia, or specifically in the panspermia article, or do you believe it should be addressed within some other Wikipedia article? Or, if you weren't being sarcastic, are you now stating that this whole code in the DNA analysis was just an April Fool's joke, as jps has asserted?––GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think my comment was sarcastic, the humor there is quite friendly. No, I am not stating that the whole business was just an April Fool's joke, and I see no any reason (apart from personal preconceptions and biases) to regard the topic we deal with as something indecent and shameful (provided that one is familiar with the topic adequately, rather than through a distorted prism of mass media). I am not a proponent of panspermia or, for that matter, any speculative theory. I am a proponent of facts, and the facts show that the case proposed by Francis Crick, Carl Sagan and Leslie Orgel should be regarded at least as seriously as conventional scenarios of how life appeared on Earth. I am completely Ok if someone manages to show that what we describe in Icarus paper might be explained away with a natural cause, or even a statistical fluke. However, none has done so yet (as for us - we have tried to do that for a few years, and exactly because we failed, we published our claim). Maxim Makukov (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm can be friendly. I used the term only to describe the paradox you invoked. Specifically, on one hand you appeared to dismiss your work saying the "results themselves are certainly so harebrained, drivel and pseudoscientific" yet immediately shift gears to cite journals that have taken these and similar results seriously. It's that shifting of perspective that I was attempting to characterize as a form of sarcasm . . . not the a hurtful insulting form of sarcastic humor . . . but rather statement of contrasts, which in this case I take to mean that while you acknowledge that some consider the results harebrained drivel, they are substantive findings that deserve attention and explanation and are in fact receiving attention and further discussion.-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'P.S.'-- In following some of the links you provided and doing a related search I found a paper you might be interested in. Perhaps you have already seen it; if not this symmetry in genetic code may interest you: Chi Ming Yang, The naturally designed spherical symmetry in the genetic code. arXiv. (2003) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessYou2 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know this arxiv preprint. It's one of those work, when you know what the author is doing but you never know why he is motivated to do that, and what actual results he has yielded that might clarify anything in our understanding of something. Maxim Makukov (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]