Talk:Teslascope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teslascope article.
Article policies
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Teslascope was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 22, 2007

Contents

[edit] No Delete

  • I rewrote this article and added very good citation! You gotta love Nikola Tesla! Hopefully more people can add on more to this. Also the old version of this article was not written by me nor was it up to par with wikipedia standards and it lacked citation, but I have gone ahead and fixed all that up and re-written the artlce (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, if a previous version of an article has been speedily deleted, a new version is not automatically a speedy deletion candidate unless it meets the criteria on its own. (See WP:CSD#G4.) - Mike Rosoft 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past vs Present

This is now understood to be the natural frequencies of planets and stars. Look ups some radio astronomy things to add to this article. J. D. Redding

? Reddi, please explain the above. Michaelbusch 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and tesla said he would harness or use this frequency to communicate with others (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
While investigating atmospheric electricity in 1900, Nikola Tesla noted repetitive signals that he deduced must be coming from a non-terrestrial source. Although Tesla mistook this to be radio communication from intelligent beings living on Venus or Mars it may have been the earliest observation of an astronomical radio source (A 1996 analysis indicated Tesla may have been observing Jovian plasma torus signals).
J. D. Redding
He said that, but he didn't do it. Bubba73 (talk), 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No one in legitimate SETI believes that he did. Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
From Nikola Tesla "Tesla spent the latter part of his life trying to signal Mars. In 1996 Corum and Corum published an analysis of Jovian plasma torus signals which indicate that there was a correspondence between the setting of Mars at Colorado Springs, and the cessation of signals from Jupiter in the summer of 1899 when Tesla was there.". Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted "See also"

"See also" is for directly realted articles which should be hyperlinked in the article prose, but you cannot find a natural enough loation for now. For navigation to other Tesla articles the Category:Nikola Tesla is sufficent. --Pjacobi 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Further Reading

As non-notable and disconnected from the rest of the article. Similarly, I don't see why this article deserves a Paranormal tag. Michaelbusch 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is no demonstration of notability, and consider also Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Re. the paranormal tag: SETI isn't paranormal, and it is entirely dedicated to communicating with ET. Michaelbusch 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • these books talk about the subject at hand, I have added them myself and so has Bubba, one of the books is referenced in the article using Harvard citation, double check, this is why it is called further reading so users can look upon this other material to read about this subject (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everything about aliens and alien life, except pure fiction, comes under the jurisdiction of project paranormal. - perfectblue 06:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How is life on another planet paranormal? Bubba73 (talk), 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Responding to a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion, here is what I think:

  • A Further reading section should contain references relevant to the article. Notability isn't as much of an issue with Further reading as it is for cited sources in the article. If a book has been published, even if obscure, it's fair game for the section if it's relevant to the topic (and inclusion in the section isn't a promotional gimmick).
  • A paranormal tag on this article wouldn't be appropriate. There's a fine distinction between describing a device to transmit large amounts of energy across space for the purpose of exploring the possibility of communicating with extraterrestrial life (as SETI has done), versus outright claiming that all available evidence proves that extraterrestrial life, UFOs, etc. exists. -Amatulic 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No, there are legitimate studies looking for alien life and what it mught be like. Bubba73 (talk), 13:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Any of the SETI projects are legitimate studies. J. D. Redding 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wireless transmitter picture

  • so i am guessing that the picture is the "wireless transmitter" of tesla's? I don not see any indication that it is, so how come it was included in this article? i dont think there is anything wrong with the picture being here, we just need to know what it is and how it relates to the article thats all (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a Tesla Antenna! J. D. Redding 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and moved the image to the Transmitter section of this article, how does that sound? i thought because it was on the image, might as well place them together so as to not cause confusion as to why it was in the martian communcation (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any possibility someone can explain (unless it has already been done) how the Tesla coil actually was used to communicate with Extraterrestrials? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Tesla coil did not actually communicate with extraterestrials. Bubba73 (talk), 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • someone should clarify this under the transmitter section then possibly with reference(s)? I would do it but I am not very familiar with his coil design. (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version

Isn't the quote-to-article-text-ration a bit on high side? And some over-referencing too? --Pjacobi 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a quote-to-article-text-ratio be more balanced, but keep the points of his quotes. I don't think there is any "over-referencing" though. J. D. Redding
Perhaps I better explain, what I consider over-referencing for a specific example (and pls believe me that this point has only a minor connection to our usual battles, I'd hold the similiar opinion for some analogue case in plain vanilla mainstream mathematics):
A Tesla Coil used as an electrical power receiver is referred to as a Tesla Antenna. -- Five references given
As the subject is explained in detail in another well referenced article, in my personal opinion zero references should be given for this sentence, they are only distracting. Accepting what seems to be the consensus view, one reference will do. If it is a plain, undisputed fact, one reference will allow the hypothetical article watcher without domain knowledge to give this sentence a basic check.
Pjacobi 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Cut a few off ... J. D. Redding
  • leave the quotes in, they add significance to the article because they explain to the general public what was going through his mind at the time and how it influenced his development of the Teslascope (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference problem

  • can we get a more specific reference to the "Nikola Tesla and Planetary radio signals" in the references section, not much information was given (:OP (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {context} tag

why was this tag added? i thought the introduction was clear, not sure though. If it is not, any suggestions or ideas on how to make the subject more clear for the audience? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag because this article lacks context. Encyclopedias are about things. We have a "thing" here. In any "reporting"... an article should answer the questions Who, What, When, Where.
  • We know who (Nikola Tesla).
  • What is not answered... is this an actual device? An idea? A design?
  • When is not answered... When did he get the idea? When did he design it? When did he build it? When did he use it?
  • Where is not answered... If this was built... where was it? (is it?).
There is a quote from Tesla in the lead but it is basically a tease as to what the device is. Lead information should not "tease"" (WP:LEAD). The lead section should summarize all the points I listed above (that should be a summery of a following article that covers those topics in more detail). We have neither of those right now.
Also this article is 50% quotes. There is a guideline on quotes at WP:QUOTE. "while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them." "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." This article way over uses them and they are obtrusive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ... in this case that means someone knolegable about the topic needs to re-write this article in a form that clearly explains this “thing” is to the average reader who wants to find out what this "thing" is about. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. Halfblue 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • understood, i feel the quotes are fine though, we just are lacking information on the device itself so it would be good to get more on the device and any pictures or patents he had on it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Did a little cleanup to the article. Moved "Circuits" up to "Description" where it needs to be but it now points out even stronger that the description is vague. Needs alot more work. Halfblue 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have decided to fail the article at this time. Although this was addressed above, I do not think that the large number of quotes by Tesla are needed for the use in the article. Without the quotes, this article would be a start class at best. It is important of course to have information from the inventor, but perhaps a few lines from each block of text would be sufficient. The information within the quotes should be cut down and more outside sources reflect on the same information so the quotes don't overpower the rest of the article. It is not very beneficial for the quotes to be included in the intro, as they seem to overshadow the rest of the information. The "Martian" communication" section also seems to follow a timeline format instead of flowing prose (ex. "In 1896", "In 1902", "In 1909", "In 1921") The image of Time magazine also needs a detailed fair use rationale for its inclusion within the article. These issues should be addressed before renominating again, and maybe consider a peer review to get more outside comments on how to improve the quality of the article. If you do now agree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article rewrite

I have re-written the article because it was, for the most part, un-focused and way off topic (there was almost nothing in it that described the "thing" in question---> a Teslascope). It was also written way inside the universe of the myths surrounding Tesla (its a fiction term but we seem to stray into creative fiction when writing about Tesla). I can see the article started its life as a descent stub but a pretty massive POV-push added tons of irrelevant text to give it the gloss of science and research. The "Teslascope" may be a fictional device. You can't add factual information about real things Tesla invented to flesh out a device he may never have invented. I have also removed the Time magazine cover since it seems to contradicts its fair use tag: namely "Note: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover". The Time article is about real accomplishments in Tesla's life, so again, it may be totally un-related to this possibly fictional thing. I think with a little research and editing the whole section on Mars in this version [1] may be a good addition to the Mars article re:Mars Fever. Halfblue 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

*I completely disagree with this rewrite, can you please create a sandbox or subpage here to show what you want to do? those quotes are very important and worth the read, and so was the data ... its bothersome (trying not to get mad about it) that someone can just go and change the entire article like that without creating a test page first (:OP (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In his piece on why the GA failed Nehrams2020 said "I do not think that the large number of quotes by Tesla are needed for the use in the article." The rewrite directly addressed that problem so I don't think reverting it is justified. There's no evidence that this machine every existed in reality and most of the material in the original (and now current) version isn't really about the apparatus at all. Nick mallory 03:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • well i brought it back to the rewrite, it still would be nice if we got some more opinions and if others would look too see if anything important was removed (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The edits I made are pretty clear and straight forward based on Wikipedia policy. That is something that the article I re-wrote did not have in any way, shape, or form. Nothing "important" was removed as far as I know, but the sources were pretty sketchy so If more solid citations exist, please feel free to cite them to firm up the "facts" in this article. Remember the article has the word "Teslascope" the top of the page... so anyhting that follows better describe a Teslascope. The article had many citations to support the purported existence of a Teslascope. The citations I could read did not say that. They simply cited statements Tesla made on long range communication, implying that that is proof of a Teslascope. That is counter to Wikipedia's policy on POV and "original research". There could probably be a good case for removing the rest of Tesla's statements in the current version since this may not be a Tesla devise at all. That section could be a candidate for merger into the Nikola Tesla article with a link back to Teslascope. Halfblue 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll refer to the versions as the "Halfblue" version and the "other" version. I liked the first part of the "Mars fever" section in the other version, because that set the stage for why Tesla belived that he had contacted Mars. However, the quotes were too long, and they certainly do not represent the scientific consensus. Otherwise I prefer the Halfblue version. I don't see why the material on the Tesla coil is in there. I'm not sure that the Teslascope was ever built - it could have been another receiver that got the signals. There is the copyright issue with the Time magazine cover. I put the reference to Spencer in the other version, but someone had changed it to refer to a sentence that isn't in Spencer. The Halfblue version fixes that. Overall, I prefer the Halfblue version. Remember there is a big cult surrounding Tesla, and things get quite overblown. Bubba73 (talk), 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
About the quotes supporting Tesla's claim of communcating with Martians, his claim garnered "considerable ridicule". Ref: Extraordinary science and the strange legacy of Nikola Tesla, by Jeff Johnson, Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 18, #4. The mention is on page 373 of the article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circuits section

I don't see why this section is in here. Why the Tesla Coil instead of the Teslascope? And why link to radio telescope as the main article for the receiver, since the receiver isn't a radio telescope? Bubba73 (talk), 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ppl should not hastily remove info that they do not understand (eg., if one doesn't understand, don't be quick to remove the info ... IIRC, there is something in the policy / guidelines about that) ... I don't understand why ppl remove information they do not understand.
Various forms of the Tesla Coils are (and, more precisely, his magnifying transmitter is a) Teslascope. Note that he compared his Magnifying Transmitter to a telescope (... a paper by the Corums explicitly state this). The various circuit configurations can be set up as receivers. Please read as much information on the time of Tesla in Colorado Springs, as well as his other activities. Tesla, among other experiments that he conducted in Colorado, used the station to receive non-terrestrial signals. He did receive them. He did misinterpret them ... though, it should be said, other researchers did the same (IIRC, Marconi even got signals; regardless, others also got signals and misinterpreted their signals too) ... the receiver is a radio telescope ... Tesla was well aware of directional antenna reception. He is one of the first to outline radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) among other radio based devices.
Radio telescope are receivers for non-terrestrial signals, eg. directional radio antennas. Some "telescopes" are even looking for intelligent life. Many are looking at planets and other celestial bodies.
Sincerely, J. D. Redding 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't known that what he received was non-terrestrial. As far as a receiver being a radio telescope, I could turn on my AM radio to between stations and claim that it is a radio telescope. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It is known, through analysis, that what he received was non-terrestrial. See the relevant Corum papers.
Please don't reduce this absurdly, not every receiver is set up, as Tesla set his apparatus up, to be a radio telescope. Please don't appeal to ridicule ...
Sincerely, J. D. Redding 03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Spencer (cited in the article) says that he just didn't know what he was doing. Bubba73 (talk), 03:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the UFO Encyclopedist Spencer knows much about Tesla's circuitry. A source with a PhD in electronics would be more reliable. J. D. Redding 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Do note ... I am not making an appeal to authority ... presenting a position on a subject with a mention of some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in the area under concern. The UFO Encyclopedist may be knowledgeable in UFO incidents ... but to understand electronics, someone needs training in electrical engineering. J. D. Redding 04:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The Corums woundn't happen to be members of the Tesla Memorial Society, would they? Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to imply that there is dishonesty?
You are edging toward appeal to motive. 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm seriouslt questioning whether or not they are a WP:RS. There is a cult following of Tesla, and it appears that they are part of it. Was their paper published in a reputable scientific journal? Bubba73 (talk), 12:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That just proves you do not know what you are talking about ... They have been published in several journals ... they are also part of the IEEE (and have been published in IEEE journals) ...
The 'attack on chatacter' does not help your point ...
Your OPINION is there a "cult" ... get a grip and stop pushing your POV ...
Here's quick searches for you ...
* K Corum
* J Corum
The Corums are "RS", especially on the topic related to Tesla ...
J. D. Redding 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Was the paper you referred to published by the IEEE? Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It was papers (plural) .... and, I do believe that they have many of their publications in the IEEE. Also, thier work is cited by fellow members of the IEEE. A search of Tesla and Corum at the IEEE shows several papers, this though is not an exhaustive list. They have also been in the Proceedings of the International Tesla Symposium Journal, something that is carried to some measure by most engineering libraries and is completely acceptable here ... as the subject is about Tesla and his technology. J. D. Redding 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Only one of their papers is cited in the article - the one about signals from planets. Was it published by the IEEE? Icarus (journal)? Astrophysical Journal? Bubba73 (talk), 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This was presented at an International Conference sponsored by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. There are other papers that can be and should be cited by these individual. The one that is cited as of now in the article is a condensed form of the 1996 technical report "Nikola Tesla And The Electrical Signals Of Planetary Origin".
I believe that the IEEE has it on their site, but since I am not at a computer that has access to their database ... I cannot say. I may try to goto the University and see at a later time.
Reguardless, this is a reputable and reliable source.
As a side note, I personally find it offensive that you are trying to cast their work in a bad light and are trying to imply that there is dishonesty in the papers.
The one currently cited and other other papers, by the Corums and not, should be included. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 00:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Stating that:

"(Tesla) used the station to receive non-terrestrial signals. He did receive them. He did misinterpret them"

is (as has been noted by me and other editors on many occasions) POV since the citations DO NOT support this. The cited articles are merely theories, not facts... so there is no "did". This also puts Tesla's work outside Radio astronomy since he had no knowledge of natural astronomical radio emissions. Putting forward extensive information on "Tesla coils" and "resonant receivers" is POV since there are no references to support that the "teslascope" was either of these. Throwing in one more revert. Halfblue 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Tesla Coils or Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter? J. D. Redding 04:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the Corum papers? J. D. Redding 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do you know anything about Tesla Coils or Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter?". Do I need to? You keep missing the point that it is not a question of what these devices could do, or what Tesla could have observed. There happens to be a word at the top of this article--->TESLASCOPE. The article following that word needs to cite sources that meet Wikipedias policy to prove that such a device even existed (and therefore has relevance to Tesla and his work), let alone what it is. Adding information on what YOU think it could have been brings us right back to POV and Original Research. Halfblue 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you need to? YES!!!

Read the Colorado Spring Notes ... read the several biographies out on Tesla ... the few by Cheney would be a good start for you ... read the new "Wizard" one' ... there are several out there ...

"TESLASCOPE" ... here's your citation ... "Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla" ... Marc J. Seifer ... 1998 ... 560 pages ... Page 421 ... (geez, I got that from a simple look ... are you even trying to improve the article? are you looking for sources?)

If you know what a Teslascope is then you would know that it is composed of his Magnifying Transmitter circuit (with lil' alterations ... such as you don't connect the dynamo up to it ... but use condensers, etc ...) acting as a reciever (... and the non-terresterial source reception is not the only time Tesla used the device as a receiver, he used the circuit to detect stationary waves in his lab .. along with lightning strikes).

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides the Seifer ref ... there are more ...

... such as "Inventor of Dreams" from http://sciam.com ... "To mark Tesla’s 75th birthday, in 1931, Time magazine ran a cover story in which the inventor held forth on signaling the stars with his “Teslascope” — a giant radio transmitter." What is his "giant radio transmitter" ... the magnifying transmitter!

IF you have read a few Corum articles ... the magnifying transmitter is stated, by Tesla, to be analogous to a telescope. It is a radio telescope Tesla was using. He used the circuit as a receiver and received non-terrestrial signals ...they were not from little green men ... but they were impulses not from Earth! J. D. Redding 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ignorance?

Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teslascope&diff=134241876&oldid=134227981

J. D. Redding 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see ... quick search found: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point...

If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling them unimportant...
 * do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.
 * don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant.
[...]
If you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions on an article with the edit summary unsourced...
 * do find a source for your additions
 * don't remove all unsourced content on the page or re-add your information claiming that the entire page is unsourced

The information is sourced that I added. Even if it wasn't ... there are sources for it, which could be added ... IF you don't remove the content ... don't delete all the information .... J. D. Redding 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Editing policy (and the Wikipedia talk:Editing policy), the pertinent points should be pointed out to you ...

Improve any page without hesitation, regardless of the state you leave it in. Avoid removing information wherever possible ... attempt to correct any "misinformation" or discuss the problems first before deletion ... J. D. Redding 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets see:
Your argument is irrelevant since no "persons" were deleted from Teslascope and edits were discussed extensively in talk before they were made.
Don't be so quick to re-add information that has been pointed out by many other editors to be un-supported by references and ignore the wikipedia requirement to supply said references. Did you happen to see "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" right under the edit window?
Also read and comprehend Wikipedia:Reliable sources intro paragraph re:"material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source" and "Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source."
Also read WP:REDFLAG. Halfblue 05:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
None of the "redflags" are here ... as this is known in biographies and scholarly information over Tesla. J. D. Redding 05:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop editing to prove you point. I think you are copying the text without reading ... but read 'If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked.

I have asked you repeatedly if you have read the Corum articles. Wikipedia requires to supply said references. The Corum articles do this, eg., supply references.

The argument is relevant since "persons" is a stand in for "information, facts, and data" ... all this was deleted from Teslascope and the edits were NOT discussed 'extensively' in talk before they were made.

Your continual attempts to remove a balanced view in science via a campaign of disruptive edits is apparent. J. D. Redding 05:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)