User talk:David J Johnson

Welcome

Hello, David J Johnson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Qwfp (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Newark

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#How_to_list_Continental_flights_to_Newark.3F.3F. I have not seen you engaging in the discussion. Please do not change until consensus is reached. Please add your thoughts to that page. Everyone has different opinions on this matter. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordans, Buckinghamshire

Apparently (although I have only just discovered this myself) in order to get the infobox to display a "dialling code" you have to use the parameter "dial_code". Confused? You should be. A full list of the valid parameters can be found at Template:Infobox UK place. Also, I've just replied to you at Talk:Stokenchurch. -- role^player 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.B. Cooper

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Helpdesk

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chzz ► 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Black

I would say that 4 known reflects that fact there is a belief by informed sources of more victims but as yet there is no proof. Unibond (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Airport

Hi David, thanks for your words of support on the Bristol talk page, it appears that the user in question's edit history, that he no longer has any issue with the edits made originally by Jamie2k9. Let's hope it remains that way. --NorthernCounties (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone

I agree with you, let's see if it continues or the individual gets bored (hopefully!) Cj1340 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and take care. Best regards, Ddavid David J Johnson (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell

Done, at requests for page protection. I've watchlisted the Roswell UFO Incident page as well. Good diligence, DJJ! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help, David. David J Johnson (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, who is the dummy who page protected Roswell UFO incident to stop a proper scientific discussion on the case by SUNRISE Information Services? If you are able to accept Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 from so-called Area 51 scientists who have no verifiable facts to contribute to the discussion, then it may well interest you to know that SUNRISE has a book with verifiable facts from the scientific literature confirming the metallic foil composition and status of titanium technology and titanium-based shape memory alloys in 1947, not to mention the connection between the USAF at Wright-Patterson in the study of titanium-based shape-memory alloys after 1947 and the shape-memory Roswell foil that ended up at Wright-Patterson AFB for analysis in July 1947. If anyone here is a verifiable scientist, the first thing you do is verify the new entry by reading the book and checking the references. If you don't, accept the new item into the Roswell UFO incident page. It is there for the world to see and let others check the claims if you or anyone else on this page can't do the job properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.170.169 (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not replying to unsigned abusive comments. David J Johnson (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Watkins

I don't know what this edit is about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Watkins&diff=515473260&oldid=515459832 I have not "deleted" - unless you are referring to the beer.

If you check the sections you will see that the content was in the section labelled "life" - a book by another author, published after the persons death, is nothing to do with the persons life. Neither is a beer.

Oranjblud (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleting useful material is not helpful. If you do not think it is in the right section, create a new section. Editors tend to add material to passages that already exist, so when the title becomes misleading, the solution to improve, not to enfeeble the content. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. I certainly agree that Michel should be mentioned, though I think the new editor maybe has a point about the beer! If anything this paragraph should be transformed into a new section - maybe entitled 'legacy' or 'influence'. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

Would you like to learn some manners - you comments on User_talk:Paul_Barlow#Alfred_Watkins this person seems to want a "edit war" are completely at variance with WP:AGF, nor am I an unregistered editor whatever that is.

You might also like to read Wikipedia:Canvassing - see the second paragraph "However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate."

Finally I would like to draw your attention to the original problem - which was that adding details of another persons views, formed in the 1960s, into the section about the life of someone else who died in 1935 is completely and utterly idiotic. For that I coudl suggest you could read WP:Competence, or suggest try to pay better attention to the points legitimate editors have made explicit to you both on your own talk page, and in edit summaries.Oranjblud (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, let me see. You say someone should learn "manners" because they say you want an edit war, for which there is at lease some evidence, and then you go on to accuse that person of being "completely and utterly idiotic". Pot/Kettle to say the least, methinks. I think you could do well to peruse WP:Competence too. It really is an deeply inappropriate link in this case. Look at what it is actually about. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Paul B. My only concern was to ensure that edits were given a reason and explained in a logical and reasonable way. This plainly was not done. I am happy with the page as it exists at 21.00. With thanks for your help and best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Portland Lighthouses

Hello, and thanks for the message - you are right that the Breakwater lighthouse could be worth noting, although there doesn't seem to be as much information on it than the other three. I believe there may be a good amount of information for all lighthouses to warrant separate articles and having recently found a couple of Stuart Morris books based on Portland, there may be some good information in there too. I think that another article for the Portland Bill lighthouse should be separate from the Portland Bill article - like Pulpit Rock, for example, is. There would certainly be plenty of information on that lighthouse. Ajsmith141 (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did have a quick look on the Portlanders site but couldn't find anything. Will have to check again more thoroughly at some point but there is this [1].Ajsmith141 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the link - article done: Portland Breakwater Lighthouse, Dorset Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Portland

Thanks for the message - I'm glad the articles have been appreciated. The Windmills are certainly worthy of their own article and I have planned to create one. I originally added a section about them on the Weston, Dorset page but I'm certain there is plenty more info out there. I will probably get on with the page tonight or tomorrow. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article done: Portland Windmills. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much, great article. David J Johnson (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. My mistake on the captions - the two photos are the only ones on the geograph.org.uk site but next time I visit Portland I will take some photographs of the windmills. I only first saw the windmills back in 2010 during a visit, and despite growing up in Fortuneswell as a child I didn't realise they existed. Me and a friend had a look inside both the shafts last month and they seem perfectly stable which is one thing but they do need cleaning up and looked after. Ajsmith141 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Regards. Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines and logo usages

Greetings. If the section about AAdvantage was more than just one line, I feel the logo could be there. Or if there was a major discussion about the new branding in the article (not just a line), then I can see the logo being there. However, we need to keep fair use/copyrighted work usage to a minimum and if people want to see the logo, they can go to the articles about the program itself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for yours. I still feel that the logo should be there, as this is the main page for American Airlines and should emcompass all logos - regardless of separate articles on some aspect of the airline. The previous AAdvantage logo was there without comment and I really see no reason to change that. Folk are not going to the AAdvantage page just to see a logo? However, I do not want to stand on ceremony and I'm prepared to accept a majority view. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know there were other editors discussing about it and I just wanted to share my view point. All it is just about is commentary; if there is more commentary about the logo itself or re-branding, then yes the logo can still be there. The only thing I can think of is maybe merge the two articles together and then we can use the logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you, I see no reason for a sep article about a airline loyalty scheme and there lies the solution. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sagan and pantheism

Hello David. In case you haven't seen the citations I added about Sagan's pantheism, I would like for you to review them at Talk:List of Pantheists and see if it affects your opinion since I'm not sure you had a chance to review the case carefully. I would appreciate that very much. If you have already done this, nevermind. Thank you Allisgod (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your mail. I have reviewed your citations and it does not change my opinions - as they are other folks opinions on Carl's view. Carl, from personal experience and also written evidence, never advocated pantheism. With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "personal experience"? Allisgod (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply my personal knowledge of Carl from the SETI Institute. Carl was on the Board - and I am still a Charter Associate.David J Johnson (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that means. Most people categorized as pantheists, never say "I am a pantheist". It's a rare philosophical description and it's not anything one subscribes to. Sagan agreed with Spinoza and Einstein on God, which makes him a pantheist. This is the opinion of many PhDs in philosophy and theology. Allisgod (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has become somewhat tiresome. I have answered your queries, from - albeit - personal knowledge of Carl. You appear to be pushing your own views without any evidence. I rest my case. David J Johnson (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My views? There's a dozen sources that say he's a pantheist. What are you talking about? Are you saying he told you personally, "I do not subscribe to the views of pantheism"? I am just trying to understand Allisgod (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David

Hi, Thank you for your note, as you can check the "view history" of the pages, you see that Slurpy121 (which is me, only that I forgot to log in) undid the change, basically, I fixed my own error and I am sorry for any trouble or inconvenience I have caused. I thought at first France played a big role during the war, but after doing some reading and research, I proved myself wrong. Anyways, I wish for the best and Good luck :) (69.255.225.227 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Many thanks for yours and best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Bravo (film)

My purpose in editing the plot section of Rio Bravo is to clarify some sections of the plot writeup and to correct some obvious errors.

One example is in the first paragraph where Dean Martin's character was referred to as the deputy sheriff which he clearly was not because Jon Wayne's character swears him in as deputy a short while later. Therefore I added the word former to clarify the character. Similarly, I added a sentence to place Angie Dickinson's character in the poker game instead of just getting off the stage. This change makes John Wayne's actions understandable. The remainder of the changes follow the same idea – clarify the existing plot writeup without a complete rewrite which I don't believe is really necessary and add a few words and sentences here and there to make the plot more understandable without making it larger. The largest change I have made is to the ending scene between Jon Wayne's character and Angie Dickinson's character. Not only is it important to the movie but it can easily cause confusion because it differs slightly from the written script (at least as it was published on the Internet). The scene between Stumpy and Dude is often edited or omitted in movie versions shown on television so I have clarified that.

As far as the occasional typo and spacing, I am using NaturallySpeaking software to dictate the changes and there are occasional problems where the software doesn't quite put in what I want and I sometimes have to change it again later. Have patience, I am going to work on this movie until I think it is perfect because it is one of my favorites and I want what is in the plot to exactly describe what happens in the movie without being too wordy.

I am having a little issue with the fact that the editor shows the spacing between sentences differently from the way they show in the text. Perhaps you have a word of advice on how to deal with this apparent problem. Perhaps I am missing something obvious.

I have the DVD of the movie and will be adding it to the references section when I get a chance to read up on the proper way to add references. Thank you.Historyphysics (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I got the signature right.

- I cannot help with your technical points, I'm afraid - but I am concerned by the number of typos that appear in your edits. My own view is that the plot section is too long - but that can be discussed on the Talk Page. I am intrigued by the alterations made to the end sequence, only the full version has been shown in the UK. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Cosmology page

Hi, Several people have been reverting the description of Biblical Cosmology to one that is just completely fraudulent and doesn't have hardly a thing to do with the Bible's actual description of the cosmos. It's nearly a carbon copy of the Babylonian one and not accurate at all. It's about as accurate as calling America a communist nation. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be accurate? All who have reverted it simply do not seem to care about accuracy. They may have good intentions, but their description is not accurate at all. I have MUCH more documentation of this I can add if you wish, even by agnostic scientists. I'm also a professor myself and have done quite a bit of study into the Bible as well as science and history. Wikipedia is very good in many places..but there is unfortunately a bias against historical facts in some areas, sometimes in Christian areas, but not limited to that by any means. I use wikipedia a lot...but we need to make sure it is accurate, not just supporting a prejudiced agenda. Sorry I haven't contacted others about this..I just figured out how to use the talk pages just now. Bryan Dotoree (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect this is something that should be discuseed on the appropiate Talk Page. You and others(?) are reverting edits without giving a reason for your reverts. Additionally, 3 reverts without a reason can be considered as "Edit Warring" and can result in block. In any case there will be many who will not consider your source as "historical fact". I repeat this should be a discussion on the Cosmology Talk Page and not here. David J Johnson (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, there are explicit reasons for the editing as mentioned above, but if you want, I can add that to the actual editing. I didn't realize that was necessary. Describing the Bible's cosmology as Babylonian is seriously fraudulent. THAT is the reason for the edit.
  - I'm sorry but what I have written is historical fact (the only valid source for describing biblical cosmology is the Bible itself. PERIOD.) and quite a few major scientists agree with that, including agnostic ones. See the page.Dotoree (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop "shouting". Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USS Scorpion revert

Hi! I added a single sentence on the page of USS Scorpion, where I mentioned that it was fictionally mentioned in Neville Shute's On the Beach, which is one of the most well-known literary works about nuclear war. You removed this as irrelevant. Kindly tell me why this is irrelevant? If so, why don't you also go to the page of for instance The Orient Express page and remove all the fictional references, such as the Agatha Christie novel? Wikipedia does include the mentioning of prominent fictional references to real boats, trains or buildings etc. I am going to undo your revert within a few days, unless you come up with some reasonable arguments. Sponsianus (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for a long-delayed response. I have answered on your Talk Page. The main point being that the fictional novel was published in 1957, the USS Scorpion was not even laid-down until 1958. Also Orient Express is a real train, the Christie novel being set on it - the Shute novel cannot be set on a vessel that did not exist at the time of publishing. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Neville Shute's novel was first published within months (April 1957) after the production of the real USS Scorpion had commenced (January 1957), which would have been well known at the time. Apparently Shute referred to the fictional fate of the "real" USS Scorpion, and the fact that the ship was so modern it was not completed yet would hardly have been an obstacle for an author of a dystopian novel - rather, the other way around! Fictional references to real vessels are just that - fictional. On the page of the Mary Celeste you will find many unrealistic references to that ship, including spaceships named after it. So yes, I think it's relevant that a well-known author of the era found it worthy to use the name of the USS Scorpion. Sponsianus (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yours. Frankly, you seem to be assuming too much. What evidence do you have that Shute knew that USS Scorpion was under construction? And, in any case, this vessel was re-named and the actual name Scorpion was not laid-down until 1958 and launched much later. Please explain how this was well-known at the time. I find it very hard to believe that Shute wrote a novel about a sub that was hardly under construction when his novel was published. The examples you give of Orient Express and Mary Celeste refer to trains/ships that were already in service and are therefore not strictly relevent to your PoV. I see nothing in your much delayed comments that warrants a reversion to your contribution of June 2012 and it appears nor do any other Editors.

Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at Bermicourt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bundy

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Ted Bundy

Re your message: Not a problem. I did not notice the previous accounts and I think you are correct about it being the same person. I revdel'ed one of the earlier offensive account names from the edit history. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: You're welcome. Thanks for the good work. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David -- Don't know if you've noticed, but our Bundy loser seems to have opened a whole series of obscene socks, the latest being "ChristRaper666" (I kid you not). Not an issue, since Gogo Dodo and several other admins are onto him, and have been diligently blocking each sock as it appears -- though it's a shame that they have to waste their time with this nonsense (one of many reasons I refused adminship, and can't understand why anyone would want the job). And I wonder how empty one's life has to be, for fruitless vandalism of a web site to becomes one's principal entertainment vehicle. A clue might be one of his iterations, "ContrantlyMasturbating" (yes, misspelled). Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoctorJoeE, Many thanks for your message. Like yourself, I just wonder how empty one's life has to be to keep vandalising like this. I am very grateful to Gogo Dodo for protecting my Talk Page and other admins for their efforts to stop this. Nevertheless, I'm sure you and I (amongst others) will continue to look after the Bundy and Cooper pages. Best regards,David J Johnson (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Monument

Not guilty! I simply changed the spelling of Blackdown to Black Down (which is how it appears on the OS maps), inserted a link to the hill and changed a few letters to lower case. The culprit who deleted the image (in fairness, probably in error) was - I cannot tell a lie - User:Jonathancbpowell. Here's the edit: [2] Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your Talk Page. David J Johnson (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --Bermicourt (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at Wer900's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There's a featured article candidacy going on for this article right now. Please contribute your thoughts. Wer900 • talk 23:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drake equation

I will work on a draft on the Drake equation‎ in the coming weeks before making the change in the article. I may not completely re-write it but I certainly want to emphasize its purpose, meaning and value. I will let you know when ready for your review/edits. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to that. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Dotoree & Cosmology Talkpages

Re your message: That's two giant walls of oddly formatted text that was a little bit WP:TL;DR. Especially since I am not at all familiar with the topic at hand. Since they haven't made any edits to article space in awhile and are sticking to the article talk page, I'm inclined to say to just let it go. Sometimes you just have to let the conversation die out on its own. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Soldiers

Why are you deleting my film credits? (i.e. We Were Soldiers) My credits are verifiable. Please explain.EdVanzd (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, because you have placed your name far too high on the cast list. You have already been warned before about this self-advertising and writing articles about yourself. Continuation of your actions may result in a block. If you wish to add your name it should be way down the list, as per the official sites for We Were Soldiers. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I placed my name under the character I was paired with in the film, Chris Klein. Our characters' storyline was built on the relationship. It is a logical placement.EdVanzd (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equal and Fair Inclusions

I believe that if all insertions about anyone are correct then his/her article should remain. Fact is fact and should not be erased from the pages of history. Who are we to choose a hierarchy of importance referring to individuals within entertainment (or any field for that matter)? Either everyone stays (as long as their pages speak only fact), or everyone within their respective industry gets deleted. No favorites.EdVanzd (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, you have been told by several editors that it is against Wikipedia policy to write, self advertising, biographies. You have also originally placed you name in the cast list for We Were Soldiers in a position which was not supported by the official film sites or your role within the screenplay. Wikipedia operates within accepted guidelines and your actions to date have not abided by these conventions. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tim Zukas has been warned and I have some advice for you. Thanks, David for notifying me, so (although I'm not admin), could stop the edit war. Sincerely, WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 00:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 21:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 21:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 report FYI

In regards to your comment on my talk page, you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Syngmung reported by User:Nick-D (Result: ). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, Have replied on your Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universe

Hello, why did you consider this movie Cosmography of the Local Universe is spam? This link is its article on arXiv. I think it's one of the best simulation and model about local universe to date.Earthandmoon (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a site asking viewers to join and therefore advertising. Wikipedia does not carry advertising "spam". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David J Johnson - thank you for requesting my opinion on the video - at the moment - I'm favorably impressed with this video - and that it's linked on arXiv - the oustanding benefits of the video seem to outweigh any consideration of spam in my opinion - hope this helps in some way - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, many thanks. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I replaced vimeo's link by this link.Earthandmoon (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a question

Hi David J Johnson, thanks for those reverts. :) I was wondering, would you be interested in having rollback rights? You do a lot of vandal-fighting and I think the rights would help you. Best. Acalamari 11:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acalamari, many thanks for your message. Yes, I would be interested in having rollback rights. Good talking with you again. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I'm always happy to offer rollback to those who can make effective use of the tool. Good to talk to you again, too. Acalamari 11:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks and best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes on author pages

Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Thomas Hardy in the past year, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Happy to help. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will get round to it in the next few days. David J Johnson (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Secret Intelligence Service

Hi David, I'd say probably not per Wikipedia's tendency to take common names into account, but I don't feel too strongly about it ... I was onlyhistory merging the Secret Intelligence Service article, and I know hardly anything at all about the subject. Graham87 15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia.
Message added 19:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Paizo Publishing material needs to be discussed before any further edits/reversions. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy redux

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Use of CAPS

You told me that using CAPS was SHOUTING - and you implied offense.

I apologize. I am new to WIKIPEDIA and had not known this. For several years now (since Email became common) I have used CAPS when BOLD or Italic was not available. The intent was not to make my argument necessarily stronger (or louder), but to allow the reader to rapidly scan through the text zeroing in on key words (in CAPS).

Guidance appreciated.

BSmith821 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me : on reading this I realized I was still using caps :-)

BSmith821 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy

Whatever, I sign in, so if I'm not a registered user then please define registered (no, really, don't. Thanks). Why you would want to delete the Bundy page from one of the most general categories rather than one of the narrower ones is beyond me, unless you just want to wield your power [EDIT, insert "impressive"] impressive power as a member of the "serial killer task force." I make many many productive edits as an editor , so your insult has just been deflected. I do this in the interest of teh Gen'ral Internets, so thanks. But like I said, whatever dude. Inhighspeed signing out.

I need a translation for this unsigned "contribution"!! David J Johnson (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Killer

It wasn't a test edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.92.128.150 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was and please sign your "contributions". Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the word "test" means? I wasn't testing anything. Your edits on Graysmith are against Wikipedia practice. Get acquainted with Wiki before you start annoying people. 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.92.128.150 (talk)

Before you accuse me of not knowing Wikipedia practice. I remind you that you are an unregistered user, you revert any comments that warn you of your edits, you fail to explain your revisions and you cannot sign your contributions. Your edits on Robert Graysmith are only duplications of material that already exist in the article. It is you that is not abiding by Wikipedia conventions. David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your registration does not make you a higher class of user. I did explain my Graysmith edit, check the history. I am entitled to blank my talk page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages. 180.92.128.150 (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said my registration made me a higher class of user. With reference to User Talk page guidelines, you will note that it states that it is better not delete entries, so that editors can refer to comments. It appears that you only delete entries that are reminding you of Wikipedia conventions. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caps or not in headings

I was trying to make the headings consistent. Is there a convention or rule I need to read about? BSmith821 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the caps are initials for some organisation/project etc, headings should be in upper & lower case, also please do not sign edits on the article page, only sign on Talk page. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wickramasinghe & BSmith821

Thank you for your interest and concern regarding user BSmith821's POV and advertisements. User BSmith821 statement of purpose in his user page is clear that he is a single-purpose user that does not hold Wikipedia's integrity and neutrality as his intention to edit. He managed to dock the ANI by stepping down but now he is back at it, and his campaign to promote Chandra Wickramasinghe's fringe work is distracting from constructive editing. I will appreciate suggestions on how to proceed in order to stop his advertisement campaign in Wikipedia. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BatteryIncluded. my concern for the "neutral point of view" is increasing. Please see BSmith821's long-winded reply to my concerns on the article Talk page. You have done sterling work in bring sense to the article and this "editors" contributions - sorry advertising and PoV - are in danger of reverting the article back to its previous mish-mash. My advice would be to get an experienced administrator to have a look at the recent history of the article and, in particular, BSmith821's edits the statement on his Talk page - and then take the appropiate action. Please let me know if I can help in any way. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Cheers Bi

United Airlines Flight 93

I thought that we were talking about the site of the crash, or the "field" in the infobox. Backspace (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The field was near the township, not in it. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that your last statement is accurate, then I would propose that the given geographical coordinates are inaccurate, for they are indeed in Stonycreek Township. Backspace (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the coordinates and they are correct for the crash site. I see no evidence for the site being "in" the township. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the coordinates are not in Stonycreek Township, what Township (or Borough) are they in? If we consider only adjacent entities then we have the finite choices of:

Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania (My choice for the most likely candidate)
Allegheny Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania
Brothersvalley Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania
Indian Lake, Pennsylvania (a borough)
Quemahoning Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania
Shade Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania
Shanksville, Pennsylvania (a borough)
Somerset Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania

Backspace (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the coordinates for the crash impact area are correct as shown on the article. Nothing else matters. A someone who lost a friend in this event, I think you're going off at a tangent. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. David J Johnson (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in, but I have to agree with David. I've been out there -- the crash site is a field near the township. Is that not sufficiently accurate? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that identifying the name of the political entity in which it lies is "going off at a tangent". We have already identified that it is located in the State of Pennsylvania, and in Somerset County. Somerset County is divided into townships and boroughs. It had to land in one (or more, if on a town line) of them. The given coordinates, assuming that they are accurate, happen to place the site in Stonycreek Township, is all that I am trying to say. Backspace (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Santamoly (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of façade to facade

First of all you only edited one of the "façade"s leaving it inconsistent. Second I only changed the original spelling because I saw multiple other articles about architecture using the "ç". There is no reason to change an accepted and correct spelling. It helps pronunciation and we are all entitled to our opinions. I went by what is consistent. Jasonli42 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed the other version. You have been told before regarding the English versions of wording and not to change. Please abide by Wikepedia conventions. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and the Universe

Hi David, Why did you remove yourself from the Universe? Do you feel like it's not true, or not relevant?

I have opened a talk to this page, would you please add your comments there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universe#The_Universe_includes_You

Thank You, Mihai

Extremind (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mihai, I will certainly have a look at the Talk page as soon as I get the time. Just very busy at the moment. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Universe Talk page. Apologies for the delay. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 In General

I may be wrong, but I think I have seen you make multiple edits or reverts on pages having to do with 9/11, which would lead me to believe it is something you are very knowledgeable about and/or interested in. Why no mention of this on your user page, especially since you are in the serial killer thing? I've never been to the UK before, is 9/11 a popular (I don't want to say popular because it is actually a tragedy) topic of conversation over there? There is a guy on YouTube, Myles Powers, who made a wonderful series debunking many of the nonsense claims about 9/11, and he is from the UK as well. I was never aware anyone else in the world thought about it as much as any American would.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Answered on your Talk page. Regards,David J Johnson (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't usually (ever actually) promote YouTube videos on Wikipedia, but if you are interested in the subject, I would definitely check out the series of 7 videos Myles Powers made if you ever have time, it is a very intriguing and insightful set of videos. And you as well keep up the good work. Cheers! Zdawg1029 (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's funny, there is a David Johnson who runs around YouTube adamantly supporting the conspiracy theories of 9/11.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not me! Thanks for the info though. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, I think you are one of the -- probably self-appointed -- suppressors of dissent for 9/11 articles found on Wikipedia. You removed my posting in the article, "September 11 Attacks," which said "the certainty of these attacks and their link to all the damage is widely disputed" (citation consensus911.org). That statement quite true, within common limits of generality. You commented that there are separate "conspiracy theory" pages. So there are! -- and the "conspiracy"(unnecessary adjective) theory article I affiliate with, "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theory," has abundant references to the "main-stream-news" theory. So would you remove such references, also? (I may be working on improving that article.) I think both theories should be cross-referenced, and your removal of my statement defeats the airing of good evidence and research. If you need to be convinced that dissenters about the "September 11 Attacks" are not purely some marginal group, please see the video, "9/11 Controlled Demolition: Experts Speak Out," available at AE911Truth.org and Amazon.com, and books such as _The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7: Why the Final Official Report about 911 is Unscientific and False_ by David Ray Griffin -- which has an interesting list of named endorsers. (See Amazon.com.) Web sites such as AE911Truth.org have lists of named endorsers in the thousands. It would be very big of you to restore the edit you removed. Cross-referencing should not be suppressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickler4accuracy2 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please sign any contributions you may make. Secondly, no-one is "self appointed", any editor is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia - so long as their contributions are from reliable and respected sources. The "conspiracy theories" which you appear to be trying to further, have been widely discounted as fringe and have been constantly deleted by many editors from the main articles about 9/11. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for widely discounted fringe theories. Therefore, I will not be restoring your edit. If you disagree, I suggest you take it to the appropriate Talk page and not here. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome

The article for the plot of We Were Soldiers is preceded by the message "This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (September 2012)" Indeed, as the plot summary now stands, it is too long, full of unnecessary details (because it's *supposed* to be a *summary*, not a verbatim reprint of the screenplay), and it is therefore boring. Had I seen the section for putting my reason for my edits, I would have said as much, but I am new to this and made a mistake. I disagree with your opinion that my summary left out important plot elements; I merely said in 512 words what the original article said in 905 words. Thanks for the welcome. Sam Yep (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, Answered on your Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angels of Mons

David, I fear that you are in error when you say that "This is a fictional story, no citations needed" - it is a factual article about a fictional work, and therefore does indeed require citations where appropriate - check any of the other articles about works of fiction for examples. QuipQuotch (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QuipQuotch, My view has not changed, but I am happy to accept consensus. Regards, David,David J Johnson (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, Wikipedia makes no distinction between articles about works of fiction and other articles when it comes to the need for citations, so I am afraid that your view is somewhat unusual. In any event, the article in question is about more than Arthur Machen's short story - it is about the legend inspired but it, and the various claims made by real people concerning the legend. QuipQuotch (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wow signal reverts

I couldn't figure out why you reverted the correction of the capitalization (twice). Is there something I am missing? --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, because it is totally unnecessary. Reagrds, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Surely capitalizing the first letter of a sentence is necessary, is it not? --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I misread the correction. Apologies and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, it looks like you've done great service to the project on that page. Thanks for all the hard work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Look forward to working with you again. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. Since you seem to be in involved in SETI, let me ask you: I was wondering if you could point me a link about the Wow signal that describes its properties. Was there a modulation of any kind suggesting data? Were quasars ruled out? Thank you for keeping this article neutral and clean. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BI and good to hear from you. Regarding the properties of the Wow! signal, the best references are by Jerry Ehman, who discovered the signal, and are detailed in references 2 and 10 in the article references. Also Robert H Gray's book "The Elusive WOW", published Palmer Square Press, Chicago; goes into detail of the signal and subsequent searches. Hopefully, the book should still be available from Amazon. To answer your question: quasars were ruled out - the signal was only received once and then for only 70 odd seconds. Unfortunately Jerry did not look at the printout until several days after the signal was received, which precluded a immediate follow-up. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This portion answers my question: "The signal could have been varying (modulated) at a frequency faster than once every 5 seconds (or 0.2 Hz, corresponding to one half the data collection period) and we wouldn't have seen that modulation since our observatory was not equipped to detect such modulation. Also, any modulation occurring at a frequency slower than once every 144 seconds (about 0.00694 Hz, corresponding to twice the duration of the 72-second Wow! signal) would not have been seen"

So basically, they were scanning the sky, not actually listening. I still find it strange that they did a second scan of the same portion of the sky years later, and not 3 days after they found it. I read recently that very distant galaxies can bend light (Gravitational lens), so I think the RF signal could have come from nearby, not from that exact point in the sky. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgeway Hill Viking burial pit

Hi, sorry I'm a bit confused about the location of the Ridgeway Hill Viking burial pit. I know I only gave approximate coordinates but, you reverted back to coordinates which seem to me to be far more inaccurate. Is there any reason why you think the B3155 Road Bridge going over Radipole Lake in central Weymouth is a more accurate location? Pasicles (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the actual site is just beyond the footbridge (Weymouth side) rh side of the relief road, A354, approaching Weymouth. Regret I do have my OS map to hand to give correct location. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tell you what, just let me know what you think the grid reference is on this geograph link, and I'll see if I can correct it. Pasicles (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made a slight adjustment anyway. I can adjust the coordinates a bit further, if you want get back to me on that. I should mention that it's very easy to get to an OS map: if you just click on the coordinates taking you to GeoHack, and then scroll down to "Geograph Britain and Ireland" and click on "Photos", that takes you to the Geograph website. If you then click on the map at Geograph, that opens up an interactive OS map which you can scroll around and zoom to your heart's content. Pasicles (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Pasicles and apologies for the delay, but I am very busy at the moment. I have looked at your adjusted coordinates and the site should be further north - almost adjacent to the southern side of the footbridge. Hope this helps, sorry but I have to rush away. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Laitinen

Re your message: He says that he is leaving Wikipedia. I do not think he was begin malicious, just not clear on what Wikipedia is about and perhaps a little too strident in his protestations. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at Rzxz1980's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Already gave the IP final warning. Rzxz1980 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy

Hello, David J Johnson. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ansell-Lamb

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/unsolved-murder-jacci-ansell-lamb-strangled-862420

She was christened Jacqueline but called herself Jacci. FWIW, I worked on the case. Hengistmate (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told by those who think this sort if thing important that if someone posts on your Talk page you're supposed to reply there. But, like much of Wikipedia, it doesn't matter.

Re spelling: not the first time Wikipedia has declined to let the facts interfere with its terrifically serious functioning.

No strong theories about the killer. Probably a one-off. But you should have seen GMP laughing when it was first suggested that Jean Jordan was one of Sutcliffe's. Hengistmate (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 175 ' Revert weasel wording.'

' I left your change to "members" rather than "terrorist", as I believe it's supported by the MoS (see WP:TERRORIST for support for your position). Acroterion (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beingsshepherd#AA_Flight_11

By your rationale, we should go through Wiki articles, changing references to U.S. armed forces, to terrorists. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

Absolutely not. U.S. armed forces are a legal entity, I hardly think that terrorist attacks on 9-11 fall into this category. May I respectfully suggest that you contain your conspiracy theories and anti-US themes to the many sites on the internet and not an encyclopedia. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hum...Beingsshepherd is an odd bloke. I suppose if he keeps at it he'll end up banned from 9/11 pages. I usually remind these folks that keep saying we're suppressing information that the website does have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories and they're easy to find.--MONGO 01:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

' The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state). ' ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Er what 'conspiracy theories'? Respectfully my eye: ' ...the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time...' ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

The only entities that did not see the 9/11 attacks as acts of terrorism by terrorists were rouge nations. From the UN to countless leaders the attacks wee almost universally condemned as acts of terrrorism.--MONGO 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* MONGO, how is (for example) my overruled, factual, mentioning, of the disparity in Flight 11 hijacker numbers, between the 9/11 Commission's report and 100% of their primary witnesses; characteristic of a stigmatic "conspiracy theory"?

It seems that typically: those of my article edits (however in-keeping with the rules), which may undermine the official version of events in these September 11th matters; are swiftly and obdurately censored (and now I'm being repeatedly threatened, by multiple admins(?)).

' Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. ...The term is used most by the United States... ' ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

Gosh, I've just seen this on your user page: ' The incredible TEAM AMERICA EAGLESTAR...which I award to all well behaved members of my "CABAL". ' lol, 'nuff said. Beingsshepherd (talk)Beingsshepherd

Beingsshepherd, Can I respectfully suggest that you post the above comments either on your Talk page or on an Admins page? Please keep your theories or bias to the appropiate article and not here. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye...I usually redirect the wackos away from my talk page back to the article talk pages, which was going to be my suggestion to you. This character doesn't even understand that the Team America Eaglestar is a comical and farcical joke! It was conjured up after dealing with guys like him.--MONGO 11:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It sounds as if David has earned one of those Eaglestars. How does one venture to join up? Does it come with a forest green Merry Man suit? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to sit down and rest in a darkened room, after this honor!! David J Johnson (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's roughly equivalent to an OBE, if OBEs were inflatable critters found on top of car dealerships. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought it meant "other blokes efforts" ! David J Johnson (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly man! OBEs are out-of-body experiences! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the darkened room......again! David J Johnson (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The awesome **COWSTAR**...usually awarded to those who have had to put up with a huge amount of "stuff"!--MONGO 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observe: after he lost the argument, Johnson banishes me from the symposium, so that the corrupt triumvirate, may revel in crass, unfettered, mockery, in my absence. Enjoy .Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

Are you looking to get blocked? No one is mocking you, though we may of course be mocking your argument. Now go forth and troll no more.--MONGO 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's review: David suggested that you make your case on the applicable article's talk page, or on your own; this is "banishing" you? Now, let's be clear: David has asked you politely to stop posting on his talk page, which he has every right to do. You have every right to continue voicing your opinions and concerns on the aforementioned article talk pages, or your own talk page; but if you continue being disruptive, you will in all likelihood trigger a block, as Mongo has already explained. I hope this is clear. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airport date nuisance

I have blocked him for a week. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Laitinen

As you should clearly see, after clicking this link, it is 56th on the list. I politely ask you to not revert my edits again, without a proper reason. If there is another list where it is 65th, show it to me.Lord Laitinen (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have checked before editing. The article's first list, "Tallest Skyscrapers in the world" ranks the Bank Tower as 65th, your measurement is from the "highly subjective" "Height to pinnacle" listing in the same article. That is my proper reason for reverting your original edit. Could I respectfully suggest that you make a proper check before posting comments such as the above. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I felt that I should make a point. Earlier, I remember you asking Gogo Dodo to "deal" with me, which I thought was odd and disrespectful, due to the fact that I never heard of you or spoke to you before. I do not care for disrespect, and I just wanted to make sure you knew that.Lord Laitinen (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester South Railway Station

Hello David, on the bottom of the info box, it gives a link to the office of rail statistics who have just released the 12/13 information. Thanks, Jack Bellminsterboy 2nd April 2013 15:49 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I've answered on your Talk page. Many thanks for all your help. Best regards, David,David J Johnson (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jet2.com flights to EWR

Hi there. Those flights are ad-hoc/irregular charters and are not to be listed per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I thought and my reason for deleting them, although they reappeared! Regards David J Johnson (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thank, but I could use your help

The IP at Talk:September 11 attacks whose thread I collapsed (which you thanked me for) has started an ANI thread on me for doing so, as well as removing his bad faith sockpuppet investigation on Tarange, and even removing comments from my own talk page. I've mentioned you indirectly, but not by name yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await developments. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem. It appears to be WP:BOOMERANGing on him anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Portland

Hi David,

I don't suppose you have a copy of the book "The Coastal Defences of Portland and Weymouth," by Andrews, E.A., and M.L. Pinsent? This rather elusive book is referenced in a number of places but I can't seem to find any actual copy of it, and was curious to see whether Portland's East Weares Rifle Range was perhaps mentioned, even though it is not a defence as such. There seems to be very little information on the range, which is surprising for such an iconic landmark on that side of the island. I have attempted to submit the range to English Heritage for consideration of becoming a listed monument, but no response as of yet.

I hope you've enjoyed any of the Portland pages you may have come across. At this rate I'll have little left to write about! It got to a point where I thought a template for the island was necessary to collaborate everything for ease of accessing the many different pages.

Kind regards, Ashley Ajsmith141 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ashley and good to hear from you. I'm afraid I cannot help with the book, I have checked on Amazon and come-up with a blank. The only thing I can suggest is to check with a Portland or Weymouth local library? Thank you for all your contributions for Portland. May I just remind you that a recent pic is needed for North Mill on the Portland Windmills page, most of the ivy having been removed - or blown-off. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, no worries, it certainly seems difficult to find. Good idea about the library, they might have it. I've got some recent pics of both windmills, and will update the article as some point. Seems another surrounding field is about to be quarried too, so soon the windmills will be surrounded with them! Ajsmith141 (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Dick

Thank you for the thank you. Do you like the picture I put of Steven J. Dick on the article's main page? Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerald, Many thanks for the message and for inserting the pic of Steven J. Dick - really good pic. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump

Hello David, and thank you for your messages. I haven't figured out how to use the "Your notifications" dropbox yet so I'm replying via your Talk Page. Best regards. --Jumbolino (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jumbolino, Many thanks for your kind message. I intend to wait a while to see if there any further comments, before deciding on a possible next step. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Killer

Hi, David. I don't know about the rest of 99.238.74.216's edits, and a glance at his talk page shows that he seems to have ticked off a bunch of editors; but this one doesn't strike me as vandalism. There are a number of bare URL references in the article, right at the end. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of the unregistered IP are currently under review. The number of bare URL references doe not strike me as warranting a linkrot tag. David J Johnson (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting the IP. But there are bare references that ought to be fixed, so the tag is appropriate. TJRC (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We agree to differ. Also please use the Zodiac Killer section of my Talk page, rather then creating a new section. David J Johnson (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skip it, I've fixed them all and removed the template, so I think we should both be happy now. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories

I am notifying editors who participated in the recent discussion regarding the September 11 attacks that a brand new RfC has been created. The RfC was created in a brand new discussion thread. I don't wish to see any editors be disenfranchised so you may wish to comment in the new thread. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, I have contributed. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi David, I'm sorry we seem to have our differences on the Sept 11 Attack talk page. If you'd like, I'd be happy to address your concerns in more detail here, off the article talk page. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No absolutely not. The article Talk page is the correct place for any comments - where there is nothing to hide. David J Johnson (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last surviving Confederate veterans

I left this reply on my talk page: Sorry to say that I have not followed through yet. I decided to research the matter. While I found references to the prior findings and a few sentences that point to them, I found nothing more on them. That gave me a little pause and I let it slip into the background. Still, I need to gather such information as I have and present it to someone for a further look. Rather than go immediately to an administrator, I think I will pose the question to a few editors who work regularly on American Civil War articles to see if we can get something of a consensus. Thanks for keeping up with this and giving me a nudge. Donner60 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply on my talk page: I agree. I wanted to present the best case and slipped up when I found this would require more digging around than I thought. Regardless of that, it is original research and most of it is quite dubious. I don't think there is any bad faith which is another reason why I hesitated while searching for a definitive source. Still, it is outside the Wikipedia policy in any event. The early warnings may or may not have convinced the user of that. Also, I think most or all of the conclusions are speculative at best. No real correlation between common names in unit rosters and the "survivors" can be made and such additional sources as are mentioned don't seem to make the connection as well. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have time later tonight to get this together. Do you think we should notify the author of these changes or wait until we see the responses? I don't think there is anything to hide but the user has been notified at an earlier date and does not seem likely to respond. Donner60 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to turn-in, 23:42 in the UK. It would be a courtesy to inform the IP editor of the revert to the original article, because of Wikipedia policy on "original research". They have not responded to earlier warnings, so I doubt if they will now. It may take a admin to warn them of any infringement/edit warring after this. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have written almost two pages of explanation of the no original research policy, mainly with direct quotes from the Wikipedia page on that topic and on verifiability. I have begun to write examples of the problems with the research. I think that an explanation of this sort will be needed to support reversion of the revisions to the article and to explain to others why there is a problem. I also have done some more research but the two key articles are not online. Some support for the debunking of the claimants after Crump is already noted on the page and can be included. Far too late to finish it tonight but I have made good progress. Donner60 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further delay. I came down with a sinus infection but after I have had antibiotics for a day, I am back at the computer. Donner60 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little vandalism reversion this week and have changed my essay concerning the last surviving Confederate veterans after coming close to finishing it. My energy level has been low as I recover from the sinus infection and cope with the effects of antibiotics, which I find tiring. As I noted before, I started writing an essay on original research and some of the problems with the article for the article talk page. I now have decided that the most conservative approach would be appreciated by neutral parties and administrators, and maybe even the editor.

I have a new essay in progress to place on the user's talk page as a first step. I have rewritten and somewhat shortened the original research explanation from the first draft essay. I also have started explaining the problems with the user's work on each of the 11 persons other than Crump. Policy guidelines on assertions that a user's work is original work through synthesis seem to require extra care. Because I can see some use for some of the facts the user asserts, I think a small part of his work, such as some reference to Professor Hoar's work, might be saved, at least if rewritten. I plan to ask him to modify the work, offer to do it myself (which I would rather not do) or if he agrees to neither, inform him that I will take it to the talk page first and then to a noticeboard or administrator if finally required. I would finish my first draft essay for the talk page but it would be similar to the talk page draft. I call these essays because they will be several typewritten pages. That is too long for most purposes but I think we have a special case here. I think the user genuinely thinks his work is valid and that he has uncovered something no one else has found. I also surmise the user may be a young person, who I do not wish to discourage. Yet, Wikipedia can not make exceptions and allow original research and speculation by the Wikipedia writer on that basis. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're...welcome?

Should I take that to mean that you're thankful that I left the article? - Mr X 18:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No!!, Many thanks for all your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. I was just being silly. Cheers. - Mr X 18:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good wishes, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David J Johnson (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)== Draft message on last surviving Confederate veterans ==[reply]

I was about to post the following essay on the user's talk page when I thought I should solicit your opinion. Is this the right approach? Is it stated well, correctly and respectfully? You can see why it took me so long to complete this and why I have conflicting feelings about this. Not all of the previously given statuses of the claimants were shown as debunked as concluded by William Marvel and apparently a few other writers. This leaves the possibility that some additions to the article, if not original research, might be made. It also raises questions about the sources used to support the previous conclusions. Complete support is not given in the previous article. Rather than go on at length only to add a lengthy draft raising many of the same points, I will leave it at that. Please give me your views and do not feel rushed. I know this is quite much to look over. The draft:

You have done interesting and diligent research and writing on the article Last surviving Confederate veterans. I do not doubt your good faith or neutral point of view. I wish I could leave it at that but I think your additions need modification to fit within Wikipedia guidelines on original research and synthesis and to avoid speculation. At the risk of being tedious, but because I also respect your effort and think some of it can be saved or rewritten, I explain my position and my suggestions in detail. I do not wish to discourage you in any way. Any criticism I express is meant to be constructive and not negative. I simply think it is necessary to conform changes to the article with Wikipedia guidelines and to avoid unsourced conjecture.

If you agree with my assessment, I assume you will prefer to make revisions to the article, rather than have me keep only a little of your work and revert the rest. Also, you are familiar with the topic and appear to have the main sources available to you. I provide below detailed comments on the text of the article for your consideration. First, I think I need to explain why I think much of the revised article is not in line with Wikipedia's policy against publishing original research. Another editor and I noted this to you a few months ago. Your changes since then appear to have been an effort to provide more sources and better analysis rather than to limit your additions to material contained in sources considered reliable and verifiable under Wikipedia guidelines, rather than to provide your own new analysis.

Your work has much original content or analysis, and unfortunately to some extent is based on conjecture. This type of speculative analysis, by you rather than the author of a reliable source, does not entirely conform to Wikipedia's policy of publishing verifiable information from reliable sources. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:Third-party sources.

You have cited some primary sources which some include in the policy against original research. I do not see a problem with these sources when used carefully to report what the records say. The problem arises when facts from the sources are used to support an analysis not made by the source or by authors of later reliable sources. You have cited some reliable sources as well but you draw many conclusions that appear not to be expressed or supported by the authors. This might be fine if you were publishing a new article with new conclusions but that is not the type of article that Wikipedia includes.

I think it is good that you place little, if any, reliance on Find-a-grave and Ancestry.com. These may not be reliable, third-party sources because they are self-published, do not have editorial control for the most part and only have reliable sources if the writers find and include them, which they often do not. You refer to documents which may be available at the Ancestry web site, but since they require a subscription to see them, and since you analyze rather than just report them, it does not appear they can provide support to change conclusions in the article. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If the documents directly support your content rather than providing a stepping stone, more about them needs to be added.

Before commenting on the details for the article and for each claimed veteran, I think it is best to add some more information about original research. Although you can find the information about original research on the cited Wikipedia guideline pages, I believe it may be helpful for me to quote some key points so they are included here for reference.

On the page Wikipedia:No original research, the following explanation of original research is given: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." In Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not, synthesis is further explained as "SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources." Furthermore, the page says: "SYNTH provides a guideline for helping to determine the difference between summarizing the information from sources and extrapolating new information from sources." As I tried to explain above, I think that is a good description of much of your content.

Another explanation of a problem with synthesis from the no original research page is: "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." The combining of sources in a way not found in reliable sources is a key problem in with many of the additions and changes to the article. As the guideline page points out: "...that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia."

I could extend this somewhat but I think the above quotes are more than enough to explain the point. So I will turn to look at the additions to the article itself with respect to each of the supposed last surviving veterans.

In my opinion, the article was deficient before your changes and needed to be improved if it could be. Despite my conclusion that much of your content is original research or conjecture, I think that some of your research and writing can be retained. I think some of it actually explains or supports the previous conclusions, although it appears you did not see it that way. Some material might be retained to support some minor changes to the conclusions or, more likely, to provide an explanation that some of the conclusions may be subject to some doubt. Changes of the status of the veteran claimants to very positive conclusions, including verified, do not appear to be supportable. I do not see them as supported by anything you have cited as you have explained the sources.

I find the article before your revisions to be unsatisfactory because it is not entirely clear where each of the conclusions originates. The overall conclusion that Pleasant Crump is the last verified surviving Confederate veteran appears to remain required from the few reliable, verifiable sources that exist on the matter. The focus then becomes whether any of the other claims have any possible validity. This analysis must be done against the background that one of the few reliable sources on the matter, Marvel, reaches a blanket conclusion that all of the claims of persons who died after Pleasant Crump have been debunked. So it appears that any status that does not debunk or at least exclude the other claimants did not come from Marvel unless he was more specific in the article than in his later writing.

William Marvel, a reliable and verifiable source, says that Pleasant Crump was the last surviving Confederate veteran. On page 198 of Marvel, William. Lee's Last Retreat: The Flight to Appomattox. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0-8078-5703-8, Marvel states: "As Freeman spoke there remained but one man who had witnessed the surrender there eighty-five years before: Private Pleasant Riggs Crump, of Talladega County, Alabama, then in his one-hundred-and-third year. When Crump died on the closing day of 1951, he was the last of all those many thousands who had served in Lee's army: though no one noticed at the time, he was the last Confederate veteran in the world." On pages 263-264 of his previous book, Marvel, William. [ http://www.questia.com/read/101574734/a-place-called-appomattox A Place Called Appomattox]. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0-8078-2568-6, Marvel makes the same point about Crump.

Marvel cites his own 1991 magazine article and Professor Hoar's work in support of his conclusions. Yet, he appears to leave the the door open for the addition of some further information as to at least one of the claimants. In his footnote to his previously quoted statement he writes on page 280: "After Crump's death a dozen other men claimed to have been Confederate soldiers (see Hoar, The South's Last Boys in Gray, 463–516), but military, pension, and especially census records prove them all to have been fakes (Marvel, “The Great Impostors,” 32–33). Hoar (60) lists two other alleged Appomattox survivors who were alive in April of 1950, but neither is named on the parole lists and at least one of them—if not both—also appears to have fabricated his Confederate service altogether."

Is Marvel backing off from his conclusion as to one of the claimants? If so, who? What does he say about him in the magazine article, if anything? What does Hoar say about this claimant? Does he support the identity of the man and his Confederate service or does he simply provide some facts or possible arguments and leave the question open? In fact are neither of the men who Hoar mentions as alive in April 1950 on the list of those who survived past the date of Crump's death?

Although this seems to leave room for analysis of only one other claimant, where did the conclusions such as Unknown or No Evidence or even Possible for more than one of the claimants in the previous version of the article originate and on what basis were they shown as other than debunked? Note that only one of these seems to be a possible older surviving veteran than Crump and maybe this justifies Marvel lumping them altogether. Again, Hoar's work, which I do not have, might answer these questions if Marvel himself does not explain these details in his magazine article. Unfortunately, I do not have Hoar's book or Marvel's “The Great Impostors.” Blue and Gray Magazine 8, no. 3 (February 1991) and I can find only a small quote from the article on line. I assume you can confirm or find some information from these publications that might answer the questions and in turn add useful information to the article, without drawing a conclusion not stated in the sources.

A blog is usually not considered a reliable reference but A Different Perspective. A Commentary on UFOs, Paranormal events, and related topics. FAKERS!, Saturday, September 08, 2007, Retrieved August 31, 2014, has direct quotes from Marvel's magazine article. With regard to Walter Williams, the blog's author, Kevin Randle, states that: "Marvel found Williams on a census record from Hawamba (sic) County in 1860 on which he was listed as a five year old boy. That meant he was born, not in 1842 or 1847, but in 1855. Marvel found that in every census he gave a birth date that was consistent with being born in either late 1854 or early 1855. The census of 1910, which carried a column to designate those who had served in the Civil War, contained no such designation for Williams. He would have been, at best, eleven when the war ended."

Randle also writes: "In fact, in the Blue & Gray article, Marvel wrote, 'Every one of the last dozen recognized Confederates was bogus. Thomas Riddle was only five when the Confederacy collapsed, and Arnold Murray only nine. William Loudermilk, who insisted he fought through the Atlanta Campaign at 16, did not turn 14 until after Appomattox. William Bush and a reputed Confederate nurse named Sarah Rockwell were not 20 years old in the summer of 1865, but 15.' Marvel pointed out that most of these imposters were in it for the money and that it was 'a common scam.' They tacked a few extra years on their ages, claimed service in some 'obscure militia unit' and then could claim a state pension."

In the absence of contrary definitive information from a reliable source, this disposes of these claimants. Did Marvel specifically mention the other five on the list, not including Crump and those just identified above? Even if he did not, he included them in his later blanket statements. Contrary information and conclusions need clear citation to a reliable, verifiable, neutral source in order to discuss the possibility of a different conclusion as to a claim.

Did Hoar actually conclude that any of the claimants were verified? It seems that he did not except perhaps for Kinney, which is important and I mention below. He may have given some evidence in their favor which would leave the possibility of a conclusion other than debunked for one or more of them. If so, the most that could be done, however, is to note that he offers the evidence that might keep the possibility alive, but does not give a favorable conclusion for their claim. You actually seem to have done just this with one or more footnotes but in a broader, more conjectural way than I just expressed. That appears to me to mean that you used Hoar as a source for coming up with a different conclusion than Marvel's. If Hoar does not make such conclusions, however, the description in the article of what he has written about one or more of the claimants, especially Kinney, must be modified.

Few other historians, or even journalists or other writers, seem to have addressed this issue of identifying the last surviving Confederate veteran so the works of Hoar, Marvel and perhaps Serrano if he differs from Marvel, and Lowry with respect to Riddle, are most, if not all, of the reliable sources. I have found little if anything more written about this topic that I can see has any assurance of being reliable and verifiable and that gives specific information on any of the claims.

For example, Keyes, Ralph The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life. New York: Macmillan, 2004, ISBN 978-1-4299-7622-0, page 72, accepts Marvel's conclusions and provides no new information. Beard, Belle Boone. Centenarians, the New Generation. New York: Greenwood Press. 1991, contemporaneous with Marvel's magazine article, mentions several of the Confederate veterans as centenarians but gives no real proof or analysis of their claims. Marvel's article also was published in 1991 and his summary statements concerning claims of anyone who survived after Crump came in later works. The Beard book provides no basis for alternate conclusions.

'Genealogy Trails: The Last Veterans', Retrieved September 2, 2014 references Wikipedia, Marvel, a few obituaries of questionable complete accuracy and the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to Salling's claim. The only conclusion in the list of 12 claimants to be the last Confederate veteran on that web site is that Walter Williams's claim has been debunked. The site accepts William J. Bush's approximate age but does not verify his service. It accepts Marvel's evidence against Salling but notes that the Department of Veterans Affairs accepts him as the last Confederate veteran. Congress's acceptance of his claim before he died may have much to do with leaving this stand. The conclusion is not in line with Marvel's or apparently to Hoar's later scrutiny. If the Department continues to accept his possible claim, this could be put in the footnote with a disclaimer concerning Marvel's and Hoar's non-acceptance of its accuracy. The web page has a question mark after every claimant's birth date except Crump's.

While the foregoing points establish the general background and conclusions, I need to discuss the information you provided for each individual to see whether it is from reliable or verifiable sources and is not original research, synthesis or speculation. We need to see what can remain and what must be removed. Some of the material may be useful to support the conclusions previously given in the article, or the conclusions of the writers such as Marvel.

I start my comments on each person with the change made by you to the conclusion about the status of their claims. You changed the status for all but one of the claimants, which you kept the same. A question that must be asked about each claimant is: What do Marvel, Hoar or other writers say about the claim? I will not repeat this except when necessary to discuss the content of the article but it applies to all. You also will recognize that most of the facts I mention below are from your additions to the article.

Felix Witkowski. Debunked changed to Dubious. Only speculation supports the change in status. The Alabama soldier found on the rolls does not have an identical name (different initial) and served in a different unit than the one the claimant says he served in. Persons with the same last name who served in South Carolina and Louisiana regiments have no bearing on this. Presumably a veteran would know the state from which his regiment was recruited.

Thomas Edwin Ross. Unknown to Possible. There is no definitive proof that one of the people of this name who was either born at a date which made him old enough to serve in the Confederate army and that he actually did serve, was one and the same person. There are too many people with this name to verify that the Thomas Ross who lived until March 1952 was a Confederate veteran. His birth in 1850 reduces the chances as well. You correctly write: "As others named Thomas Ross were also Kentucky Confederate cavalrymen, these details are not enough to verify him..." Listing him as possible rather than leaving the status as unknown or no evidence is at best a stretch. Some brief mention of the various people with this name making it hard to verify his status from the available evidence could be added but I would hesitate to do so because no conclusion other than unknown or no evidence is really supported.

Richard William Cumpston. The no evidence conclusion remains the same. There is no need to add anything. The first new sentence adds nothing to the identification; that a Union soldier had the same name is not relevant to a Confederate claim.

William Loudermilk. No evidence to probable. The evidence does not support Loudermilk being a probable oldest Confederate veteran because there is no proof that he served in the army at all. Also, there is an indication in the birth date column that he may have been too young to have served. His claim is largely stated in the 'Couch genealogy web site' by a Mike Polston, who is otherwise unidentified. He supports Loudermilk's story despite the problems he himself raised. Also, Polston's narrative does not appear to be very credible. Loudermilk supposedly joined up, from his home in North Carolina, "after he had witnessed the burning of Southern property by the invading army under the command of General William Sherman." He could not have witnessed such burning if he fought at Chattanooga as stated by Polston because this was before the Atlanta campaign and the March to the Sea. Moreover, Sherman did not reach North Carolina until the last weeks of the war. The 6th North Carolina Cavalry Regiment did not fight at any of the battles mentioned in the article. The muster rolls do not support his claim. One cannot presume the claim is correct just because some names could have been or were missing from those rolls. The missing names could have been anybody. That is a perfect cover for an unverifiable claim, that is, what might have been missing. A descendant who states that "he served the CSA" without any documentation is not a reliable source because she has an obvious interest and because the phrase could even mean he served the Confederate States in some capacity, not necessarily in the army. The article states that he could not prove his age or military service. Excuses for this are not verifiable proof. They provide no basis for saying his service status was anything other than "no evidence." It appears to me that his story does not add up to any service at all. His believed birth date in the earlier version of the article is 1851, likely too late to have served.

William Jordan Bush. Probable to Verified. This is interesting because the earlier status in the article does not line up with Marvel's general conclusion. You reference William Joshua Bush as the name under which the record comes up. Do these two names refer to the same person? If not, William Jordan Bush may be unverified. If so, do Marvel or any other source such as Hoar give any information about or analysis of his status? I think some reconciliation of the names is necessary. Also, some explanation of what the main writers on the subject say, if anything, about his status is important. If neither Marvel nor Hoar support Bush's status as probable, much less verified, is there any basis for it available?

Arnold Murray. Debunked to Possible. You list him as possible but you acknowledge that there were others of the same name who served. You suggest that the 1854 birth date was not too young to have served. You state that Confederates had soldiers as young as 11. This is no proof for the service any specific individual. Any soldiers that young were probably drummers and due to the size and weight of weapons of that era, the number of young soldiers under the age of about 16 can either be exaggerated due to legend or wrongly implied to be combat soldiers when they simply performed behind the lines tasks. Historian E. B. Long states that the Union Army only had 1,290 soldiers between the ages of 13 and 15. While the Confederates had a more pressing need for manpower, Breckenridge's reluctance to use the VMI cadets in 1864 is a good indication of Confederate feeling against using underage soldiers. Young children could not have been of much use in combat. Regardless, the argument is too conjectural to support a probable status for this claimant. Certainly Marvel's conclusion would not be in line with it. I think that attendance at a reunion 48 years after the end of the war is not necessarily inconsistent with a person being a fraud because the chance of being recognized as such would be much less with the passage of time and the care about what he said while attending.

William Townsend. Possible to Verified. I cannot tell whether the information you cite refers to the same person who later claimed to be a Confederate veteran. I think it could be used in a footnote to support the claim as possible, but not as verified. Again, I think that Marvel's and perhaps Hoar's conclusions have to be distinguished if they do not come to the same conclusion as to Townsend. We also have here the question of where did the previous "possible" conclusion originate and what was it based on? I think the change in the conclusion may not be supported but even if not, some justification for the possible status could be given if it is based on facts, not inferences and synthesis.

William Albert Kinney. Debunked to Verified. If, as you write ,"Professor Jay S. Hoar presents evidence arguing that Kiney was a genuine veteran in his The South's last Boys in Gray: Last Living Chapter of the American Civil War pages 1700-1703" and that is his conclusion, your change has support. But if Hoar presents both sides and either actually accepts the other conclusion that his claim is debunked or draws no definite conclusion, there seems to be no other reliable source to support the change of Kinney's to verified. Does Marvel say anything specific about him in his magazine article? If so, this will need to be included and distinguished from Hoar's conclusion if it can be done from the two articles. Marvel include him in his blanket debunked conclusion. If the "other side" of the argument that you mention is not Marvel, who is it? Is a spelling difference to the last name crucial to the conclusion, and if so, do the one or more sources mention it in a way that aids the conclusion? Or does it leave the possibility that more than one person is being identified. If the distinction is that there was a real Confederate veteran and an imposter of the same name, does Hoar make that clear? By the time you have gone through your explanation with various expressed doubts or other possibilites, I no longer see the conclusion as verified. If Hoar verifies it, much of the following text should be eliminated. Your final statement that he did not seek a pension so he had no motive to fake his status is simply speculation. Pride alone could have been a motive. Without more, I think that any status other than debunked must be based on Hoar's conclusion, which you do not yet express in detail.

Thomas Riddle. Possible to Verified. Your explanation actually contradicts your conclusion. If Lowry, who researched and wrote about the regiment, doubts Riddle's claim and there are several persons who had that name and might have been the veteran, there is no support for the conclusion that a Thomas Riddle has been verified as a veteran who outlived Crump. In fact, Lowry seems to support a downgrading of the Riddle status to dubious.

William Lundy. Debunked to Unlikely. Your explanation gives no evidence at all to change Lundy's status. It appears to me that your discussion actually supports the original conclusion but that most or all of it is not includible.

John B. Salling. Debunked to Dubious. This is a hard one because the Department of Veterans Affairs apparently continues to support Salling's claim. One problem with Salling's story is that even if he actually did mine for saltpetre and was on standby to be a Home Guard, there appears to be no evidence that he was actually enrolled in a Confederate army unit. He had no uniform and apparently never came close to combat. Perhaps with an explanation and a citation to the Department of Veteran Affairs page, a change in the conclusion could be justified or at least it would be reasonable to note it even if there is no reason to view it as conclusive. Again, Hoar and Marvel must be mentioned and distinguished if possible because presumably they reject the conclusion that Salling was a legitimate veteran.

Walter W. Williams. Debunked to Dubious. It is difficult to see how Washington's status can be changed when many sources, including Hoar and Marvel and Serrano apparently, consider his claim to have been debunked. Hoar may state the other side's argument with some open mindedness but does he actually conclude that Williams may have been a veteran or is he just explaining why others might still think so?

With respect to Townsend and Kinney, in particular, you may have some material that can support the possibility of their claim being something more than debunked. Factual material may be usefully included for any of the claimants if stated in terms of facts established by reliable sources without the original analysis and synthesis. Readers must draw their own conclusions if sources simply state some facts or possibilites unless the sources draw conclusions. None of them do make such conclusions as near as I can tell, but you do attribute a possible conclusion to Hoar that might be important if it can be supported with direct language from Hoar.

Some writers would put the type of information under review into the text but I think your approach here is better under the circumstances. It allows the text, which is the general discussion, to remain mostly the same and without controversial statements. You can provide appropriate additional information without analysis or speculation in the footnotes for the readers' consideration.

So I think some room for explanation and reference to the few other available secondary sources is available. The information that remains after the synthesis and speculation are removed should be written more like a report on existing information rather than an analysis and conclusions based on a sythesis of the researched sources.

I am sorry that this explanation and analysis has reached this length. I am also sorry to have to trouble you with this. I would not do so if I did not appreciate your work and think that at least a part of it can be included in the article. Also, I think that if you can come up with answers to some of the questions I have asked with reference to the sources, that may prove to be added as well. I must say that I have to reach the conclusion that as admirable as your work might be, much of it simply does not fit within the guidelines I set out above.

I don't expect you to respond or to change everything in a day or two. But I think it is only fair to say I do not believe that the article can remain as it is indefinitely. I think that you can either respond to me or set to work on making changes. If we can not work this out, along with any other interested editors, I may edit the article. I don't want to have an edit war whether I edit it once or not. The next step would be to put something like this message on the talk page and to solicit other views. If that did not resolve the issue, some neutral administrator might need to resolve it after notification, possibly on the appropriate notice board. If nothing happens, I will ask you later in the month about the status of this.

Again, I appreciate your effort and your industry in coming up with some interesting arguments. Donner60 (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have done very well with this draft. As previously stated, I have only a passing interest in this subject and have never gone into researching the various claims. My only concern was there appeared to be a mass of well-meaning "original research", which is against Wikipedia policy. I'm in favour (favor!) of you sending it to the latest IP address, although based on previous experience - I doubt if there will be a reply. I really do believe an administrator should be involved, either now or in a few weeks time. Many thanks and best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will place it on the IP's talk page. Thanks for your comments. As you can see, the article was not perfect and there were some open questions. So I think there is room for some work by the IP user, but not close to the amount of material he put in the text and not in the way he phrased it. This approach gives him the benefit of some praise for useful work and a detailed explanation of the policy and of the problems with his work. Although I spent too much time on this, I think it will put the matter on a clearer basis for further participants. Donner60 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the message on the user talk page on September 10. No edits have been made from that IP address or to the article since that date. I thought I might place the message on the user's mobile IP address from which he made many of his edits. I saw that it must be a dynamic address or he was editing from various places because there were several changes in it. So I did not place the message again. I noticed that at first the user was referring to the work of a certain person. I tracked that down and saw the person was a contributor to find a grave and popped up in one or two more places online. It seems he is an amateur researcher doing his own work. I doubt it is the same person but I think he is not a reliable source. That explains some of the changes. Another IP had posted an objection on the talk page in July. I did not see it but today left a message that we had cautioned the user and I had recently left a long message for him. I plan to revert the original research and perhaps make a few changes to the article within about a week since the message has been posted 12 days already and a few more days should be enough allowance of time for a reply. Although I am interested in American Civil War history, I too have only a passing interest in this obscure subject. Nonetheless, the original research and speculation should be removed even though it has taken some time to do it carefully and with some consideration. Donner60 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new version of the article without reference to the existing version or older versions. I will make a comparison with the current content before I post a new version for the purpose of not inadvertently deleting anything significant. I assume it will be about the same length as the current article because there are only a few reliable sources. I intend to include as many citations as possible to head off disputes. I have a large collection of books on the American Civil War, including one of Marvel's books. I may stop at the library within the next few days to see if I can read a copy of Marvel's magazine article, and perhaps look at the Hoar and Serrano books if the library has copies of those books. It is an obscure topic of limited interest but keeping such original research as now corrupts the article out of Wikipedia is the point despite the expenditure of time which could be spent on more important content. Donner60 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your efforts, look forward to seeing revised article. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At last I have posted a completely revised version of the article based on reliable, verifiable secondary sources and removed the unsourced statements, original research, speculation and statements based on questionably accurate sources such as blogs, find-a-grave and online genealogies. If you think anything needs to be clarified or changed further, please make the change or let me know. Donner60 (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the long delay in replying, but I have been away for a week. Thank you for all your efforts, I see nothing wrong with your revised version, although I do think we will have to keep a watch on the article in case of further unsourced or OR edits. Many thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have been away for a few days as well. I appreciate your review.

I might add that the Blue & Gray magazine is not available at any local library so I could not read Marvel's original article. Hoar's book and Serrano's book are available at two different libraries, each about 15 miles in different directions from my home. I wish I had the extra details but I think I have enough from Marvel's books and other sources. A few of those sources provide some quotes or material from these sources, and I have duly attributed the quotes to them. Reviews appear to indicate that Serrano's conclusions are in line with Marvel's. Hoar may have a few differences but I note that "Volume 3" of Hoar's work seems to be a revised version of his original work. Only our original researcher quotes his work in support of one or two claimants, although I read Marvel's reference to Hoar to imply that Hoar might support one of the claims.

I put the footnote in about the web site which states that Marvel did not express an opinion on each claimant. He certainly discredits them all in his later works and the web site only implies that one of the claimants in particular might be legitimate and does not definitely support any of them. The web site has the table of names, but that may have come from an earlier version of the article. I thought I should include this to prevent someone from bringing up the source and distorting it. I removed the status column because I can not determine where any conclusions other than debunked (or maybe no evidence) may have originated and leaving it in the article is only likely to produce the type of changes we are trying to avoid.

I would not be surprised if all the sources of any note at all which touch on this topic have been included in the revision.

The user who worked on it also included a few others but if I did not include them I considered them of little help or questionable reliability. That indicates to me this is a topic of minor interest and few, if any, other sources exist or are likely to be produced.

You are right that this will need to be monitored because the person or few people interested in changing the conclusions well may be back. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke too soon, they have already been back - see my edit on the article yesterday (Sunday) Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Country Dialects

I posted this on my talk page already, but here you go:

If you want West Country dialects to be unnecessarily wordy, difficult to read and difficult to understand for the average person, that's fine with me. The average person would not understand that article, or at least not the phonology section, as it stands now. The same is true of many Wikipedia articles about varieties of English. But do what you want. It doesn't bother me. There's more to my life than this.

P.S. Looking at the history of West Country dialects, I see that one "Wolfdog" has made many edits to that article in the past few months without citing any sources; yet neither you nor anyone else undid any of those edits or left a "threatening" comment on his talk page. Why is that? I'm just curious. 174.56.160.47 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you have already stated "There's more to my life than this", so I cannot see why you have again raised this subject. You mention "Wolfdog" contributions, as I see it their latest contributions contain the appropriate references. Your editing history in Wikipedia hardly appears to be constructive and you need to explain any constructive(?) edits you make. The comment I made was not threatening, but just a response to your edit and poor editing history. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can raise this subject again if I choose to. There's still more to my life than this. I don't think Wolfdog cited sources for all of his edits, but in any case, my point still stands about West Country dialects (and most articles about varieties of English on this website) being impossible to understand for the vast majority of people. I can understand them just fine, but I'm talking about most people. The International Phonetic Alphabet is just not something the vast majority of people, educated or not, know.

My (and the people who share this computer with me's) editing history should be irrelevant. The only thing that should be relevant when I edit an article is whether or not I cite my sources. The same standard should apply to everyone, whether they're "logged in" or not. But from what I've seen here, it doesn't seem like it does. That's what bothers me. If you say that making unsourced edits is wrong, then it should be wrong no matter who does it. As long as that's the case, I'm happy. Even if I had made a silly edit or two in the past, that would in no way prove that I was incapable of making serious, constructive ones. I didn't feel threatened by your comment at all. I never feel threatened by comments from Wikipedians or anyone else on the internet for that matter. Good day to you. 174.56.160.47 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did go back and insert the citations that I had previously forgotten to include. Hope that helps. I agree that that's something we should all be doing. Wolfdog (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy

What do you mean by your edit summary, "not an improvement"? I think it's quite a bit clearer. [3] Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, your edits are not an improvement to a featured article, only your own POV. There are far too many references to "Bundy" in your "revisions". Take your comments to the article Talk page for discussion and not here. If you must use my Talk page, please contribute in the correct place. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I posted in the wrong place here; I was just about to move my comments when you replied. My comments are about your reversions, not about the article or its content so they belong here. The copy-edit was requested here. Since I don't intend to edit war with you, or with anyone else on that article, I'm now abandoning my c/e. I'll revert all of my changes to the version before I started yesterday. I want no further involvement with it. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is sad that improvements can not be made simply because a few users wants to keep the articles in the shape that "they find to be the best". I mean come on.... You do not own the article, it is a public article. If you dont like the edits of a GOCE member you could bring it up at the talk page before reverting them. But that does perhaps not work in your mind?--BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No-one owns the article, but the edits were not a "improvement" to a featured article with numerous duplications of "Bundy". As I have previously said, it is a pity that this was not discussed on the article Talk page. Also, please do not attempt to read my mind - let us be civil here. Case closed, David J Johnson (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Several of us -- including user:Diannaa, a GOCE coordinator, and myself (a GOCE member) worked very hard on this article in the process of getting it to GA status. Granted that no article is "perfect"; but there are thousands of articles in dire need of a good c/e; the Bundy article, with all respect, is not one of them -- and it certainly is not in need of wholesale substitution of "Bundy" for pronouns, as David pointed out. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SIS/M16

David,

With respect, both terms terms are not equally correct. M16 is a populism that the service has acknowledged but clearly as an unofficial term. MI6 only had brief official currency during WW2. On their website they clearly say: "Although the title fell into official disuse it remains in common use outside SIS". Note emphasis on 'outside SIS', with SIS being the service's own term for itself in those very words.

The organisation clearly does not view it as anything other than a popular term. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic and should be using the correct terminology. It also makes no sense to use M16 as if the official name in this section when the rest of the article uses the correct SIS.

Lewvalton (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please place your contribution in the correct place and NOT under footnotes. Also please do not lecture me on Wikipedia being "encyclopedic", I have been here long enough to know what we stand for. Both MI5 and MI6 have incorporated these names into their official logos and the above names are used by all sections of the media, including the BBC. HM Government's various websites also include MI5, MI6 in the logos. The result of your logic is that all references to MI5 should changed to "Security Service", clearly unnecessary - as is your edit. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David,

My apologies for the misplacing, I'm not sure how I did that! As for the matter under discussion, I wrote my note to you in a perfectly civil manner, so there is no need for an intemperate reply. I was not lecturing you at all, simply stressing that the encyclopedic aspect must surely place most emphasis on using the correct terms over popularisms, however well known. SIS's logo has MI6 in a clearly subordinate position. Their website throughout makes it very clear that their official and prefered name is SIS/Secret Intelligence Service. And, yes, there is a very good case for changing primary (my emphasis) use of MI5 within articles to Security Service within an encyclopedia such as this, as the same relationship between the two terms applies, although the use of MI5 has much longer currency So my edit was not certainly clearly unnecessary. You haven't argued why this one section should use MI6 when the article overall stresses the offical name. It seems incongruous when reading.

Lewvalton (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest your read the article text again as MI6 is mentioned. MI6 is part of the logo and is not in "subordinate position", as others have also told you. My reply was not "intemperate"; just a reply to your rather pompous manner. That is not the way we operate at Wikipedia. Could I also respectfully suggest you check your contributions before posting - apart from placing them in the wrong position - there are spelling mistakes (or should I say "mastikes"?) Case closed. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with David here. As I have pointed out on my talk page on the exact same topic, the service states twice on their own homepage that they are "often known as MI6". This text is supported by the use of MI6 as one of the elements of their logo. I am all for encyclopaedic exactitude, but where hairs are needlessly split for the sake of it it goes beyond being reasonably constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I was simply making my case, and I would stand by it not be a case of splitting hairs, but I do see your point about the service's usage of it within the logo and elsewhere, and will leave it be at that. No lecturing or any other such intended at all, apologies if it came across that way. Regards, Lewvalton (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now...

A brand new day, a brand new year . . .

...and the sun keeps rising on Wikipedia.....

Best wishes David for a happy and healthy 2015
PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PCW (Cissie) and to you too. Best regards, David (Ada), David J Johnson (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For helping out at WP:MED :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy anniversary!

...and many more, David. 48 years -- wow -- I'm at 37, although it does feel like 48 sometimes...:-) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank so much DoctorJoeE, very much appreciated. Look forward to working with you as always. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's most of my life you've been a married man. Congrats!--MONGO 14:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MONGO. Look forward to working with you again. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stone circle

The links were deleted because I'd just added a navbox with the links in them. Of course we can duplicate the navbox, but it's rather a lot of links. Up to you. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bermicourt, I think it would be best to leave as my recent reversion. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arecibo message

Hi David, I noticed your revert on Arecibo message. Actually, the reflector on the Arecibo telescope is spherical, not parabolic, so the edit was probably good. I think to state that the message portrays a parabolic reflector would need a source. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MidnightBlue, I tend to agree with what you have said, although I thought it was parabolic. My concern was that the edit was made without any explanation or references/sources. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wonder whether "curved reflector" would be adequate. I haven't found anywhere that specifies the nature of the reflector in the binary pattern. And maybe reflector rather than mirror? Feel free to move this conversation to the article talk page if you think it would help. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Pardon me for butting in, but I wrote a piece about the Arecibo telescope some years ago when my son was at Cornell (which ran the facility until recently). It is indeed spherical, because it has to be. Most radio-telescopes are parabolic; they are steered by moving the entire dish until its axis and its fixed-position receiver are aligned with the target. But Arecibo's dish is immovable -- it's simply too big to move -- so if it were a parabola, it would only be accurate when the target was directly overhead. To aim at targets off the vertical, only the receiver can be moved, and a spherical reflector allows uniform reception over the entire range of the receiver's movement. Further, in my completely unsolicited opinion, "reflector" is preferable to "mirror" when describing any radio-telescope, and "sphere" is preferable to "curved" in this article because the specific (spherical) shape is an important distinction in describing this particular receiver. For whatever any of this is worth. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorJoeE, Your contribution is, as always, welcome. Must confess, I'm getting confused - must be my age. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we all (getting old, confused)? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re revert of my edit to Ted Bundy

Hi David J Johnson.

Re your revert of my edit to Ted Bundy, the 2 links are not central to the article obviously but certainly don't seem to me to detract from the article. I tend to revert your revert but will await your response.DadaNeem (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply and as already mentioned, they do not add anything to the Ted Bundy article, and are just overlinking. There have been plenty of additions to this article which have been reversed because they have not been central or relevant to the subject. Several editors have worked extremely hard to get the article to its present condition and I have no wish, and will take action, to "edits" that are not in any way useful additions to the subject. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buckinghamshire

Looking at the minor edit scuffle at Buckinghamshire from the outside, I have to say I agree with the reversions. The material you added certainly has merit and should appear somewhere, but it is far too detailed for the lede. Might I suggest you find somewhere more appropriate in the body? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC),[reply]

Hello John, I tend to agree with you. It was not material I added, it was already there. What I did object to was the arrogance of the "editor", who has a very poor history, deleting it. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it may seem, when I wrote that I hesitated, thinking 'why am I doing this? Surely the editor who chopped it is the one who should be doing it?' But I continued in appreciation of your recognition that there is more to Buckinghamshire than Bucks Co Council. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on Wow! signal and Wow (recording)

Why did you revert my edits to Wow! signal and Wow (recording)]? They are two pages titled "Wow", so why not put an {{about}} template to disambiguate them? --Hexware (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, because there is a world of difference between the Wow! signal page and Wow (recording) and in any case the Wow! signal was not recorded - only shown on the printout that Jerry found some days later. Disambiguation just isn't needed. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Surviving Confederate Veterans

I just logged on. Thanks for catching this so promptly. I look at this article occasionally. I am sorry we have to deal with this again. I hope a few reverts will discourage this guy for awhile. Donner60 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Ia Drang

Why did you revert [4]?

Simply because there was no reason, or explanation for the revert, which is against Wikipedia policy. also the "edits" appeared to be propaganda on behalf on the Vietnamese government - against Wikipedia policy of neutrality. If you are going to post on my Talk page, please head your contribution properly and sign your post. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Human race

In regards to this revert, I believe MightySaiyan's change was appropriate. The term "human race" has definitely fallen out of favor and is seen as archaic due to the connotations of "race" and it's misuse over the last several centuries. In fact, the term "race" has fallen entirely out of favor as there is simply no such thing. This is explained in our article on Race (human classification). Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel "race" describes the situation better. The article you mention is entirely a few editors point of view and I see no evidence that the term has fallen out of favour here. However, I am not standing on ceremony on this point - revert back if you wish. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David J Johnson. This is a message to tell you why I'm removing content which is objectionable from the film, The Searchers (film).

Rape is non-consensual sex and sex is generally associated with love and emotions, not with violence. Sexual violence is impossible. For films and television programs, it's not likely to be acceptable, it's questionable, it's morally violent. Besides, there is no rape scene and the DVD cover of the film is rated U.81.155.98.249 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are POV and not backed-up by references/sources, which is against Wikipedia policy. In the case of The Searchers (film) rape is implied by Brad's question and Ethan's answer. You appear to have a unhealthy obsession with rape in films and your edits from various IP addresses will continue to be reverted by registered editors wherever they may occur. My advice to you is to stop your "edits" or you may find all the IP's you use blocked. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Searchers (film). Implied Rape.

I think Lucy wasn't raped. I think the Indians just murdered Lucy and took her dress just after they killed her, before Ethan found her dead, wrapped her in his blanket and buried her. When Brad saw a buck wearing Lucy's dress and thought it was Lucy and Ethan told her what really happened to her, I think Brad's two questions were going to be 'Did they kill her?' and 'Was she killed?'.81.155.98.249 (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is purely conjecture on your part and, once again, it is POV on your part. Your POV is not backed-up by all the reviews and books on the subject. As other editors have told you Wikipedia is not censored and your many edits are trying to do just that. I repeat that your alterations will continue to be reverted and if you continue the various IPs you edit from will be blocked. That is the end of my conversation with you. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.

I would like to apologize, on our behalf, for the recent mass edits from our IP. Someone within was trying to put out mis-information in order to cheat on a trivia contest for Taylor Swift tickets. Sad, I know. Thank you for reverting them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.185.14 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and this may help

Thanks for the ping thanks D. You have already seen my edit and you may already be aware of this so apologies if I am repeating stuff. When reporting IPs (or named users for that matter) if you use this template {{user|XXXXX}} this allows other editors to access their talk page and contributions right away. That way they don't have to use the search function to track them down. If you have any questions feel free to post here as I have your talk page on my watchlist.Let me also add a big THANKS for all you are doing to track this person from Northern Ireland. They are deeply disturbed or they are trolling WikiP. In either case your vigilance is much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just contributed to your Talk page. Must confess I was so cross that I completely forgot to add this template. Wife, Susie, is now attempting to calm me down with a glass of wine!! Seriously, I am very concerned by this person's views, but apart from reverting these strange edits there is little we can do? Thank you for all your help and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are so correct about how disturbing that person is. Congrats to Susie. She has chosen an excellent cure! I am going with a nice Pinot Grigio this evening. Enjoy the week ahead!! MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Murders

Hi,
Thanks for your input. Just thought that the category was incomplete, as these murders are known for taking place in California.
You will note that very specific categories exist for the page Zodiac Killer, such as History of Napa County, California / News stories in Riverside County, California / Vallejo, California / History of Riverside, California / Criminals of the San Francisco Bay Area / Crimes in the San Francisco Bay Area.
I leave it to you to estimate if my proposition of a broader category should also be included.
Best,
ACiD88 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your contribution. My personal view is that there are far too many categories in this article and therefore this should be deleted. However, you may wish to take this matter up on the article Talk page to obtain other editors views. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester

Thank you for your clarification of the two Thomas Hardy's. However , the factual information content is still a valid contribution and has been reinstated. I refer you to study WP:OWN. Billy from Bath (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lecture me on WP:OWN, I have been here long enough to know Wikipedia terms. No-one owns any Wikipedia article. Can I respectfully suggest that you check both the validity, grammar and spelling of your entries before you post them. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]