User talk:David O. Johnson

Hi

David, im currently editing Kurdish-Turkish conflict and Syrian civil war sections. But my edits are generally targetted by vandalism. İf you protect my edits and bring protection it would be great mate. Thanks. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nation Alliance (Egypt)

The article Nation Alliance (Egypt) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability guidelines with no news coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 10:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The image for the Gay Valimont had clearance.

It should be allowed to be returned to the infobox:

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. File:Gay Valimont ballotpedia image.jpg - Wikimedia Commons Starlighsky (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

What to do about this image? It's been uploaded several times. One upload says that it has the campaign manager's blessing. Another uploader says it's their own work. These things can't simultaneously be true. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that it will be deleted again from the Wikimedia commons, so we'll just be in the same boat when someone else uploads it later.

It's becoming a bit of a timesuck, at the very least. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. What the user who keeps adding the image doesn't know is that I'm actually a Valimont donor, volunteer, and voter... It's just that I've been a Wikipedia editor for much longer than I've been a Valimont supporter... so I understand that non-licensed images can't be used on Wikipedia. I'm trying to remain neutral... I don't have a preference between no image vs. the one that I uploaded... —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

It's just an unwillingness, it seems, to understand Wikipedia rules. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's unfortunate for that user. :(. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

As a volunteer, could you please explain to the campaign how to file the image properly at WikiCommons? I have helped other try to do this in the past, but a volunteer is really the only person to be able to contact a campaign, in my opinion. Starlighsky (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Plus there's an edit summary clpcarissa on the Gay Valimont article about going to the press... I don't like the sound of that.

"correct image, please stop changing or it is time to go to the local press with this to have the public weigh in on what you are doing" David O. Johnson (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just email the campaign and ask them if they have a picture that they can license as CC-BY. I don't want to get involved at that level, though. The picture that I uploaded is a candid shot from a campaign event from last week... I wish I had a better picture to upload myself. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You did what you could. I'm glad we at least have an image that's freely licensed. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I see everyone's points of views.

I have texted the campaign about the issue.

If someone can write here what can be done to save any official image,

I can text the campaign as soon as possible.

I am not with the campaign nor a voter there.

The best thing seems to be for them to provide any needed documentation.

I want to add that at WikiCommons, there seems to be some confusion over images on Ballotpedia versus the campaign. The information on how this can logically be put together, the better. Starlighsky (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I should add that I texted the number on the campaign website. Starlighsky (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Eyer: I just want to add that the file name with "bad image" is confusing people. If you can possibly change the file name, that might help the situation. I don't know. Starlighsky (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, that makes sense. It can have the manager's blessing and can be the work of the photographer. Starlighsky (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with diereses?

Or was it the shy hyphen in re­ëlection you objected to? 1101 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk page on 2028 election

Could you please look at my Vance Publicly Expressed Interest talk page I added on the 2028 election page since he expressed interest in an interview which I have the refrence for? Bluppyt789 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Dijon Carruthers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dijon Carruthers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dijon Carruthers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Dissolution of 8th Brigade

Apparently, Ahmad al-Awda's 8th Brigade faction got dissolved a few hours ago I think. (though idk if that affects the Southern Operations Room (or if the SOR de-facto still exists)).

Do you think that there should be a separate article about the dissolution of 8th Brigade (i.e. Assassination of Bilal al-Droubi, 2025 Bosra Clashes, etc.), should that just be part of a separate 8th Brigade article, or should it just be part of the existing SOR/al-Awda article(s)? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there's enough info to create a separate article. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll call it "Assassination of Bilal al-Droubi" and include the 8th Brigade's dissolution in the Aftermath section Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I created an article yesterday called Bilal al-Droubi. It might be best to just move the relevant info into that article. I'm not sure whether his killing is significant enough for a separate article. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds alright, I'll move some info right now

(also do you wanna reply to these two AFD discussions or nah? [1] [2])

Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I commented on the Daraa discussion. I'll pass on the Diban discussion. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Nomination of March 2025 Daraa clashes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article March 2025 Daraa clashes, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2025 Daraa clashes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about a draft

If you want to review this draft, do you think it looks good or does it need more information? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll work on it a bit; there are some missing words and missing periods in a few spots. I'll give you a heads up once I'm doing looking it over. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Asclepias tuberosa, I'm done making tweaks to it (for now, lol). David O. Johnson (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright thx! Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Request

Hi David. I saw this and wonder if you could run such a check on the Steele dossier article? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it's been done. Wow, that is a long article. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it's long because it is so well documented, controversial, confusing, the subject of multiple investigations and lawsuits, and Trump and the right-wing media will never just leave it alone. They have to keep inventing lies and pushing conspiracy theories and falsehoods about it. Here's more, which I will hat:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Glenn Simpson believes the dossier interrupted a planned renewal of relationships between the United States and Russia that was "not in the interest of the United States"; that it supported the existing FBI investigation into Russian interference; and that it furthered understanding of the hidden relationship between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Jane Mayer believes the dossier is "perhaps the most controversial opposition research ever to emerge from a Presidential campaign", and Julian Borger described it as "one of the most explosive documents in modern political history". When one gets away from the careless reporting in many otherwise RS, and let subject matter experts seriously examine it, one gets this (bolding added): In a December 2018 Lawfare report titled "The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective", the authors described how, after two years, they "wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele's original reporting." To make their judgments, they analyzed a number of "trustworthy and official government sources" and found that "These materials buttress some of Steele's reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." They concluded with: The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials. However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. Claims that the dossier is debunked or a hoax are simply false. People forget that "unproven" does not equal "false" or "disproven". Even the two most controversial and unproven claims (Cohen in Prague and the pee tape rumor) were lied about, with both Cohen and Trump providing provably false alibis. Why lie if the allegations are false? In fact, the pee tape rumor did not originate with Steele, but started right after Trump left Moscow in November 2013. Hookers talk! This was long before the dossier was a twinkle in Steele's eye, and the rumor was a public secret in Moscow then. The FBI believes that the Russians possess multiple compromising tapes of Trump in multiple cities. Cohen learned of the rumor "in late 2013 or early 2014", immediately told Trump, and the hunt for the tapes began in earnest. We even know the names of some of those who offered to help. The tapes were tracked down and stopped in October 2016, but they were not destroyed. They still exist as a threat. All this can be sourced to public RS, court documents, and Congressional investigations. Steele was just writing what his sources reported about that public secret. If you want more, with sources, write me an email. I've got enough for a book.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Question about some blogs

Weird question but do you have subscriptions to any of these four Subscript blogs?

• https://www.aymennaltamimi.com/
• https://www.jihadologyplus.com/
• https://www.syriaweekly.com/
• https://www.syriarevisited.com/

They might have some info that could be added to some Wikipedia articles, but they're paywalled Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That's alright Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yikes

Yo, thanks for the heads-up on the mis-info on the Fragile Art article. I just summarize what the published sources say. Do you know how/where I could maybe access more reliable sources that are salvaged from the era (fanzines, magazine archives, ect.)? I'm interested in maybe fleshing out history sections of death metal bands with touring history. Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as Death, emptywords.org is a great source for primary references. It has a ton of interviews with Chuck and different members of the band.

I was kind of surprised how many errors were in that article; Malcolm Dome was a pretty well-respected music journalist. Rick left after the Infernal Death demo was recorded, so Rigor Mortis was just recorded by Chuck and Kam, etc. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Future article name inquiries

How should future Wikipedia articles on these 3 topics be spelt?

• 1: Should an article be named Abu Hatem Shaqra (his nom de guerre), or by his actual name Ahmed Ihsan Fayyad al-Hayes?
• 2: Should an article be named Liwa Dhu al-Fiqar, Liwa Dhulfiqar, Liwa Zulfiqar, or Zulfiqar Brigade?
• 3: Should an article be named Liwa al-Imam al-Hussein or Imam Hussein Brigade?

Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

As far as the first point, I believe I've seen Shaqra's nom de guerre used more often than his real name. (We could always just move it later).

For the second and third point, which names do most sources use? I'm not as familiar with those two groups myself.

Hope it helps, David O. Johnson (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

For #2, some sources for names include:

• Liwa Dhu al-Fiqar: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
  • 98 results on Google total, though at least 15 of these urls were written by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
• Liwa Dhulfiqar: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
  • 40 results on Google total
• Liwa Zulfiqar: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]
  • 96 results on Google total
• Zulfiqar Brigade: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
  • 114 results on Google total

For #3, some sources for names include:

• Liwa al-Imam al-Hussein: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
  • 81 results on Google
• Imam Hussein Brigade: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
  • 162 results on Google total

Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to go with the name that has the most Google results. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright yea Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson, do you want to review this draft on Abu Hatem Shaqra or nah? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check it out. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I worked on the draft a bit, but I'll probably keep working at it.

Have a good one. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Alr Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Stop switching the side of MoD

you have no sources, and the one source that isnt twitter doesnt mention them fighting for syria!!! stop adding it to syrian side!!! find a source that ACTUALLY mentions it THEN add it!

my source for MoD being opposed to syria is this https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2025/05/clashes-return-to-as-suwayda-agreement-with-damascus-continues/ JaxsonR (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

"The Men of Dignity Movement, the largest military faction in As-Suwayda, released a video showing armed clashes and stated that it was their cadres’ activity to respond to the sources of fire near the village of al-Tha’la." JaxsonR (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/11/nx-s1-5343505/druze-population-resists-syrian-governments-push-to-disband-militias aswell JaxsonR (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Well the Enab Baladi article doesn't say that they're hostile to the Syrian government, and an article ([34]) from Syria TV says that Bassem Abu Fakhr (Men of Dignity spokesperson), in an interview with local network Suwayda24, said that the NPR article misinterpreted and distorted what he was saying (he said that his movement's position was neither loyalist nor oppositionist, and NPR interpreted that as them being unfavorable to the Syrian authorities), so idk. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Reversed editing

Hello. I noticed you removed the ref link attached on bfmv on megadeth's legacy section. Can I know the reason? Thank you. Metal Knight 2004 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference on itself. The BFMV article probably has a more specific source for Megadeth's influence on the band, which should be used instead.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for warning me. I will keep in mind. Metal Knight 2004 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)