David O. Johnson

I think you should remove candidates who have not qualified for any debate at all from the 2020 Democratic presidential primary debates page, as they are not really "major" since even most politically engaged people have never heard of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.191.88 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

About the Polling Sections of 2020 Iowa Caucuses, 2020 New Hampshire Primary, 2020 Nevada Caucuses, and 2020 South Carolina Primary This candidate is irrelevant in polling; did not previously mention Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Bill de Blasio, Tim Ryan, etc. withdrawals! I don't think we should mention this candidate without including the others; I don't think we should clutter the page with every candidate that withdraws.

2020 Democratic Primary-Timeline: Needs to add Jan. 10, 2020 deadline for seventh debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C580:3F40:656B:E0B8:AF70:DD70 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

POV pushing on Israeli parties

Hello – thanks for your reverts on a couple of Israel party articles. There seems to have been a concerted push from a couple of editors to move nearly every party over one place on the political spectrum (which I noted at WT:Israel). Worth keeping an eye on – there is at least one live discussion ongoing (at Talk:Yesh Atid). Cheers, Number 57 23:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like the POV pushing is happening again; it's been happening on the National Religious Party–Religious Zionism and the Orit Strook articles recently: here: [1] and here: [2] It seems like it's going to be an ongoing thing. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting reason for Abdullah Zeydan page

Hi, please explain why you're reverting edits in your edit summary. Your edit summary is insufficient (for me); "Removed unrelated info; spacing".

This was one of the reasons for his arrest and got a lot attention from media. I believe this pretty related and worth to mention in the page. Throat0390 (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at X-Men '97. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. "Acclaim" is attributed to multiple sources. Read the article. ภץאคгöร 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That particular edit on the X-Men '97 article was well within Wikipedia policies,especially MOS:PUFFERY. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism at 2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection

You re-engaged a since deleted article claiming that Ramaswamy was no longer under consideration for VP despite many sources since including this https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-vp-pick-2024-candidates-odds.html indicating he is under consideration. Do not re-engage since deleted articles when newer information exists. BezosFanYo (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That NY Mag article mentions the Bloomberg ref:"However, on March 18 Bloomberg reported that Trump has ruled out Ramaswamy as his running mate: “Trump personally told Ramaswamy he won’t be his vice presidential pick, according to people briefed on the discussion, but is considering him for posts including Homeland Security secretary.”

I've re-added the mention, along with a newer ref. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 United States presidential debates

Hey there! I wanted to clarify that the edit of mine you recently reverted on the article about 2024 debates was not saying that the Republican primary debates were run by the commission. I realize that Trump skipped those but that wasn’t what I was saying. Instead what I was referring to was the fact that Trump and the RNC have criticized the debate commission and argued that they won’t participate in any commission debate. I could be wrong on that info but that is my understanding. Mjmeck25 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The Trump campaign had called for earlier debates with the CPD [3], though I don't believe it's currently mentioned in the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 Democratic Primaries: Dean Phillips Inclusion

Hello there, it has come to my attention that you have been repeatedly reverting my edits to the "2024 Democratic presidential primaries" infobox that have been approved via public opinion. As opposed to this continued edit war, we should try to reach a solution that might be acceptable for both of us. RickStrate2029 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

You have made three reverts within a 24 hour period:

1. 14:58, 9 June 2024
2. 08:21, 9 June 2024
3. 00:38, 9 June 2024
4. 11:38, 10 June 2024

You aren't able to self-revert 14:58, 9 June 2024, but I believe you can still self-revert 08:21, 9 June 2024 and 00:38, 9 June 2024 - please do so. While I understand why you made the edits, and I believe you were correct to do so, 1RR is a bright-line rule that you need to be careful to avoid breaching - and one that if you do breach you need to self-revert in order to correct the breach and avoid sanctions. BilledMammal (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am unable to revert the 08:21, 9 June 2024 edit, as the next edit was a revert of it.

Apologies, I didn't notice the AA source had been re-added at some point - I see that it has now been replaced with a Reuters source, so the issue you identified is resolved.

In that case, please just be more careful in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely will. I appreciate the heads up. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not known how many combatants are included in these counts

Hello I saw that you reverted the insertion of the above sentence from 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation (appended below)

1. This is a well referenced claim cited by RS (ABC, Washington Post and others).
2. In my humble opinion, it is a crucial peace of information, so as not to create a false impression that the number quoted by Gaza Health ministry (274) is of innocent civilians. Some are, some are miltants, and we do not know the numbers.

I would really like to understand the reason for the (unexplained) revert.

original edit

It is not known how many combatants are included in these counts.

GidiD (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

A couple notes about talk pages

Hi there,

I noticed that in this diff, you reverted Lowercase Sigma bot on archving, but did not edit any of the actual archives that it created. This meant Archive 8 and Archive 9 had duplicates that I then reverted to fix. Talk page archive bots usually make 2 edits (talk, and archive) and you should generally fix both or neither.

Speaking of archiving, can I interest you in setting up one for this page? It feels almost too much to load already. I think a leaner talk page would help, especially if someone with a not great device is trying to reach you Soni (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I'll keep that in mind when editing and figure out how to get the archiving started on my talk page.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Soni, I've added an archiver to my talk page; I hadn't realized it had gotten so lengthy. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)