User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Proposed deletion of Dr Sushil Kumar

I see you have just {{prod}}ed this article. Just FYI I originally proposed it on 1st April (in this version) and Directorichr (talk · contribs) removed the tag 9 hours later, so I imagine this one will have to go through AfD. The Proposed deletion policy says an article can't be renominated anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked. In place of the PROD, I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Sushil Kumar. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NonResidentFellow

Hello EdJohnston. I noticed your comment and I'd like to ask you to just go ahead and block the two socks indef. This is pretty standard, and since they were already blocked as socks, a check is not likely to be ran on the two accounts. Synergy 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. Closed and archived. Synergy 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and effective action in dealing with this situation. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Invite

You might be interested in WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Johnadonovan_and_Royal_Dutch_Shell, as it appears you brought up an issue on COIN a few months ago regarding the same editor. Best regards —Eustress ^talk 23:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal and "Wiki-haunt" threats

Please note that User:130.86.14.40 has placed what appears to be some sort of legal or vandalism threat on my talk page. Dan D. Ric (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I have replied on your Talk. Since our exchange, the same IP left a message here on my Talk. I have reverted that comment since he appears to be the sock of an indef-blocked user. If this person wants to get the attention of admins, and he used to have an account, he can use {{unblock|Your reason here}} on the talk page of his last account to pass on his message. He can also send email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The illustration of the Zachman Framework

Hi, Ed.

After a period of rest, user:Phogg2 is back claiming the removal, and removing the free 2002 illustration of the Zachman Framework, now at the John Zachman article.

Phogg2 and I have argued about it for a very long time, and in the mean time I dug up the real history of this illustration: That it was created in 2002 by the Enterprise Architecture projectteam of the US department of Veteran Affairs, in a time when John Zachman was working as an advisor. But as Phogg2 confirmed, he had nothing to do with the production of this image.

The situation seems to be that seven years later, the Zachman cooperation has developed several new versions of the framework, and he wants that 2002 framework eliminated, claiming it doesn't represent the current view/it is outdated/incorrect labelled/we should respect Zachman International's wishes.

I think it is unacceptable, that Zachman cooperation continues to try to turn the John Zachman and Zachman Framework article into their promotion material, censoring developements by others.

Now you know the situation, and I wonder if you would think of any solution here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are quite sure that you have a VA diagram that is not a derivative work of a John Zachman diagram, then I think JZ doesn't have legal control over what happens to that new diagram. However I continue to be doubtful of the copyright status of the VA diagrams, and would welcome something more authoritative. Though you've argued that you know the real history of those diagrams, can that actually be documented from published sources or from signed letters of which you have copies? Do you know the names of the authors of the VA diagrams? EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have traced back the illustration to the Feb 15 2002 presentation of Al Zuech, Director, Enterprise Architecture Service at the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This source is added at Wikicommons with the image template, with a link that is still active.

Now I am pretty sure it is not derivative work because the simplified design is in many details different from the original in that time. The use of the blue colour for example, John Zachman didn't use untill a new 2005 Framework. A second argument is that this VA framework is around for more then 7 years and published by other authors. John Zachman worked with the US VA department 7 years ago. If it was derived work, that would have been the time to take action. But the fanny thing is, in that time John Zachman was extremly positive about the work of the US VA department. The only thing if haven't discovered yet, is what happened between the two parties, that the framework is considered so wrong nowadays.

Phogg2 has made it quite clear, that he is in contact with John Zachman, and he is not happy with that.... Now I am not happy about the situation either. But there attempts to censor both articles is agains everything I stand for.... But, maybe I have a solution here. I will propose it on the talk:John Zachman page, soon. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I read the derivative work article some more, and realized it is also important wheter or not the VA framework is original and contain sufficient new expression. Now I think it does. The authors not only simplified the framework, they created a base for a series of illustration of the basics of the Zachman Framework, such as the File:A Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework.jpg shows. instead of the illustration of one framework, they created a series of illustrations. Now I admitt it is not rock solid. But I think these are some hard evidence.

The problem with a derivative work is that you can't publish it without permission of the original copyright owner. So if any of JZ's original artwork still survives in the new diagram, he is still one of the copyright owners. This problem can be circumvented if you completely re-draw the diagram, though. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand. I seems to me the US VA dept. has created a new original work, which is not to be considered derivative work. The words you are used "any of JZ's original artwork still survives in the new diagram", "completely re-draw the diagram" are not the things I have read in the derivative work article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The arguments you use, about "sufficient new expression" are appropriate for defining something as being a derivative work, but it doesn't get us off the hook. To create something to which JZ's copyright doesn't apply it has to be a new work that has no cutting and pasting from JZ's original. Note the first line of Derivative work: In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. (Emphasis added). If you look at File:Simplification Zachman Enterprise Framework.jpg, are you quite sure it doesn't contain any lettering or decorative elements copied from a work of Zachman? Was the VA work republished by others in reliable sources? If so do those publications include a copyright acknowledgment? Who do they acknowledge? EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I am not an expert, but the whole idea of the idea of the VA Zachman Framework image being a derived work seems to makes less and less sense if we go into the details.

That first line of Derivative work speaks about a "previously created first work". In order to judge if the VA Zachman Framework includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, we have to know what is "previously created first work", we have to compare it with? And even which elements we are talking about?

When the VA Zachman Framework was created in 2002, there where already dozens of different illustrations of the Zachman Framework, developed by dozens of people and published in dozens of articles and books. The most original framework is considered the 1987 version, see here, republished in A Framework for Information Systems Architecture". In: IBM Systems Journal, vol. 38, no. 2&3, 1999. IBM.

Now if we compare the 2002 VA Zachman Framework and the 1987 Framework for Information Systems Architecture by John Zachman, I notice a lot of differences:

1. The title is different : "Framework for Information Systems Architecture" versus "VA Zachman Framework"
2. The shape of the matrix is different : "5 by 3" versus "6 by 6"
3. The description of the rows are all different
4. The description of the columns are all different
5. The content of the fields are significantly different: there is "text and a detailed image" versus a simple "icon"
6. The color scheme and colors used are all different: "dusty colors" versus "primary colors"

The similarity, in my perception, is only in the idea of a matrix representing different a mix of views. That idea is not copyrighted. I just established that the expression of the idea in the VA Zachman Framework is different from it's 1987 original in all it's visual building blocks.

The 2002 VA Framework does have more similarities with the 1997 Framework for Enterprise Architecture, which the Zachman framework article allready explained was based on the 1992 Framework by John Sowa and Zachman, and others. These 1992 and 1997 frameworks are also derivatived from the 1987, and it doesn't seem to me they could classify as the original.

The funny thing is that the 2005/2007 Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture has more similarities with the 2002 VA Zachman Framework. It seems to me that 2005/07 Zachman Framework is much more a derived work of the 2002, then the other way around.

An one other thing. John Zachman didn't coined the term "Zachman Framework". It seems the idea was named after him somewhere in the 1990s. All Zachman Frameworks ever created in theory or applied in other frameworks have some similarity with Zachman's 1987 original. I can't image that because of that "some similarity" John Zachman owns the copyright of all these images ever created, ever to be created until 70 years after his death. I read some where that in case of applied art, there is only a period of 15 years after publication.

So you see, if you look into the details there is almost no indication there is a matter of derived work here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC) -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it would be nice to ask an Wikipedia expert to look into this for once.

P.S.S. The other publication of the VA Zachman Framework was in Bill Inmon (2005) John Zachman - One of the Best Architects I Know.

You don't find my arguments convincing, and this discussion is already quite long. I'm leaving this topic for now, except I'm going to wait and see if Phogg2 will respond to the question that I posted on his talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think your arguments are convincing. You speak of a new work that has no cutting and pasting from ... the ... original. The Zachman Framework is not just one original image, but a type of diagram which has evolved into many originals by JZ and others, which has been simplified by many others and which has been applied in many specific situation. Now every specific diagram will have cutting edges and pasting from its first original, take for example the UML diagrams. I can't image they should all be considered derived work. Or if so, they should all be deleted from Wiki commons. I do thank you for bouncing the ball back to Phogg2, challenging Zachman International to claim copyright. Thanks for all your respons. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi Ed, could you rename the Zachman framework to the Zachman Framework. Three months have passed and nobody objected. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Response by User:Stevonmfl

GANGS:

Please stay out of this as I am attempting to deal with your structural issues with cobaltblue. To wit:

And how do I file a complaint about nasty language and personal attacks by an editor? Specifically Nightshift36. Or is that a one way street as well? I am disgusted not by your content rules but by your double standards and the way in which you administer the rules. Is there a ladder of administration where I can point out the structural problems that I have encountered. Again, I am not referring to the rules but in your enforcement techniques and how each editor turns a blind eye to it while throwing a well-meaning and informed contributor of much needed and valuable information under the wikipedia bus. I am on the verge of being blocked while "editors" get away with bad language, sarcasm and general disrespect under a color of authority. You allow and support loose cannons who in effect put an end to contributions by their manner and style and it is resented. I will be spreading this information to my collegues as I go about my work. Stevonmfl (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When contributors want to insert mention of their own work into articles, they need to use great care, and listen to feedback from others. You didn't seem to be listening, so people raised their voices. Believe it or not, a lot of people navigate this problem successfully. We are not hostile to experts, but they have to wait for other editors to check out their proposed material to be sure it belongs. New contributors who seeem to be forcing their own material into articles can encounter resistance. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you call it? "raised their voices"? there is that double standard again. i am new to this and made some beginner mistakes. I will follow the advise of cobaltblueTony and pursue the admin channels. I raised my voice to a person with a major superiority complex and who likes to verbally beat up on people (Nightshift36, a police officer). And you ignored it and jumped on me. Maybe I should have used a surname like "Smith" like I thought of doing in the first place. You see, we are used to this crap. Maybe the both of you need to do something else rather than blocking those of us who have much needed knowledge we wish to share with those who are looking for same in order to work better with minority young people. Stevonmfl (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Stevonmfl (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• While my profession is not relevant to this matter, the insulting behavior (including today) by Steve is relevant. While he is here (and on other admins pages) playing the victim, he is engaging in the same conduct he is protesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to use the RFC option and am officially notifying you. Please hold off on your BLOCK button until I figure out how to do this.Stevonmfl (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of Nangaparbat

Special:Contributions/86.158.180.15 Kashmir Jammu and Kashmir Religious violence in India Special:Contributions/86.156.210.46 British Pakistanis Special:Contributions/86.158.234.178 Special:Contributions/86.162.68.48

This jerk never disappears forever... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, Nishkid64 has semiprotected the above four articles already. EdJohnston (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy alert

Thank you for alerting Npovshark to the WP:ANI report. I don't know if you noticed but I had already informed him 1 day beforehand at the time the report was posted, as is usual. I didn't give the link and it's possible he doesn't know his way around that well. :-) Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I overlooked that he had already been notified. EdJohnston (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

George Weisgerber

A new IP (Special:Contributions/131.94.25.123) just showed up using the same edit pattern as the last several you blocked (WP:Suspected sock puppets/131.94.22.74 (2nd)) for vandalizing George Weisgerber. Given the threats issued by this particular user, it would be great to get a speedy block. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. It is lucky that his pattern is so obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please?

Can you please revert them for me? I'm quite worried if I'd violate the 3RR. Thanks. --Mark Chung (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have rollbacked them all for you. Also, you probably want to read WP:3RR and see what it really says: it's three content reverts to a single given page, not three or more reverts in succession. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 05:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Can some administrator look at this case on the noticeboard? It has been going on for days with no help and is still going on. All other cases have been addressed, even all of the more recent ones. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you! Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

COI report

you'd be interested to know after you warned User:Zip1010 for potential conflict of interest, another user (that Zip1010 has admitted knowing) is now suddenly editing the same articles in very similar style. see Ansonrosew (talk · contribs). thanks LibStar (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Zip and Anson are single-purpose accounts and they seem to know each other. We can't object too much if they only add new, useful, material. If they start reverting changes by regular editors then we should take notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ansonrosew has already started to change edits of other editors. and simply dumping a whole lot of links with incidential mentions of BBY and Glenn Rosewall is not helpful. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

YTB or YourTravelBiz.com

Hello Copstead. I see that you have resumed editing YourTravelBiz.com and related articles without joining in any discussions. It is likely that you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia if you are unwilling to engage. You have not replied to the complaint at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I suppose to discuss this with anyone? The information that has been created about the company has been created by competitors to attack YTB. I'm trying to put up actual information, and correct the page from YourTravelBiz.com to YTB. So what is the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copstead (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

From Stevonmfl

For the record and maybe more as it is important to keep insults credited correctly here as this seems to be a favored method of operating, the above discussion by Smatse is NOT CREDITED CORRECTLY. To wit: "...It was clear that Stevonmfl was in the wrong pretty quickly. Comments like "Maybe you're just not used to people who aren't bowled over by your "expertise", but I'm not some grad student or TA who is required to scrape and bow to you"[1] don't really help us to have civilised discussions." In fact, the above comment on being "bowled over" was actually uttered by Nightshift36 as an insult to me. Smartse assumed it was me and I was blocked like a child. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you made such an assumption. At any rate, I am too used to these kinds of "mistakes" and suffering the repercussions from same and wish you all well. Have a white day.Stevonmfl (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Stevonmfl (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this need my response? I'm not sure if this is addressed to me, since you sent the same message to several people. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pararubbas

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Longtime no "see" and, unfortunately, i am addressing with more bad news: Mr.Pararubbas has returned, now as Qaz08 - never mind the customary 08 in account name, if it wasn't i would recognize the patterns in a nanosecond.

I have reported the situation here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), could you "drop a line" there? Guess he won't stop...Guess what? I won't either, until the cows come home!!!

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been handled. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandal 98.201.142.128

Can we block this poster who makes such ugly comments and or remove my talk page entirely which now serves only as a posting board for his hate filled comments not worth repeating. This vandal clearly enjoys the game, adds nothing constructive, and only motive is to post insulting comments. Appreciate any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grockl (talk • contribs) 08:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This vandal has been blocked for a week by SoWhy. Let me know if you want to semi-protect your Talk, which will prevent all IPs from leaving comments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: American Rhapsody merger into John Serry Sr.

Dear Mr. Johnston: Thank you for your message concerning the merger of this article into the parent article John Serry Sr. I am currently attempting to complete the redirect of this page to the parent article and shall also attempt to merge the Concerto For Free Bass Accordion article into the parent article as well. Thank you for your patience in this regard--I have been attempting to reference the Wikipedia Help instructions in order to execute the merge as expeditiously as possible. Thnaks again for your help and advise--it is greatly appreciated. --Pjs012915 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Since you are already watching the article, could you look into the talk page antics? Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. These seems to be a flood of WP:SPAs engaging in circular discussions. This is quite overwhelming and disruptive to the good faith editors who are trying to improve the article. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Is there a reason I was the only one warned? I've asked for additional comments on the Massachusetts WikiProject talk page. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. --Polaron | Talk 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for being fair then. --Polaron | Talk 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Special:Contributions/86.158.235.93

Balawaristan National Front

Controversial issues surrounding Slumdog Millionaire

Poverty in India

Srinagar

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[British Bangladeshi]]Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to give long semiprotections to the involved articles. But I see you asked Nishkid64 as well. I'll wait to see if he does something. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you at least block his current ip Special:Contributions/81.151.100.127 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Block wikireader the vandal and ill stop 86.162.70.70 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

new ip Special:Contributions/86.162.70.70 please block Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to his mystic powers, Nishkid64 has anticipated us and issued the blocks already. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: John Serry, Sr. editing by Damiens.rf

Dear Administrator Johnston - Just a quick inquiry regarding the editing practices of User:Damiens.rf on the parent article John Serry, Sr. and the recently merged article American Rhapsody. Please note the User:Damiens.rf established a redirect tag to the article American Rhapsody without making an effort to preserve any portion of the article despite the clear outcome of a deletion review which called for the articles to be merged. In addition, he complained on my talk page that I improperly removed his redirect before I could make an effort to salvage part of the article and correctly establish the redirect link (I needed time to review the instructions). Futhermore, he is consistently tagging the archive section of the article John Serry, Sr. as requiring cleanup and failing to provided proper verification despite the fact that I have provided direct links to the listed archives with clarification as to how the links can be properly referenced to acquire verification. In addition, User:Damiens.rf advised me against seeking a deletion review concerning the photograph of the musician in the parent article--arguing that it would be virtually impossible to continue using the photograph. In actuality, an expedited review of the photograph resulted in its restoration. With these observations in mind, I wonder if I might request that you instruct User:Damiens.rf to exercise more judicious use of his editorial skills while engaged in Cleanup Activities on this article so as to avoid such unnecessary confusions and controversies in the future. He has been assured that every effort is being made to address any objections he might have to the article's content and that all interests will be served through cooperative editing. Kindly note that I have completed my editing of the article and do not anticipate initiating any further contributions to the encyclopedia. I look forward to any modifications which you deem necessary in the months ahead. Thanks again for your kind assistance. It has been a pleasure communication with you and best wishes for the future. --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your observations: Thanks again for your insights. I hae attempted to merge the two articles by retrieving the histroical archive. I hope this is satisfactory. My concern at this juncture rests with the final corrections to the archive section of the parent article John Serry Sr. Evidently User:Damiens.rf is operating under the assumption that it is improper to list this two archives within the article since they do not provide an on-line lisitng of the musician's compositions. I have explained to User:Damiens.rf that the on-line lisitngs do not contain entries for the musical comspositions simply due to the fact that 1) The Sibley Music Library has restricted access to the musical scores to students of the Eastman School of Music in accordance with my wishes and does not provide a complete on-line directory for this reason and 2) the Paley Center for Media only provides an on-line directory of its archive holdings for soloists, but will verify that the archive contains these compositions if contacted directly at the New York City branch. I have provided instructions for verification purposes within the archive section and removed the clarification tag placed on this section by User:Damiens.rf after he replaced it on several occassions. I hope that this confusion on his part can be rectified so as to avoid any additional difficultiy in thsi regard. Thanks again for your insights. I'm certain that the article will undergo additional editing and I shall look forward to your contributions in the months ahead. In the meantime I shall attempt to ask the archivist at the Sibley Music Library to consider ammending his on-line lisitings to include a reference to the his holdings of John Serry Sr.'s music. Perhaps this might be helpful. Thanks again for your thoughts..Regards --Pjs012915 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)pjs012915

Material which is held in archives and was never released by a publisher is not a publication. So in general such material can't be used in an article to support any point of fact. Your removal of tags from this article may expose you to sanctions under WP:COI so I recommend that you stop. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Serious issue

I have a very serious issue to deal with that requires a secure medium. Please advice, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact for how to contact Wikipedia officially. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Tennis expert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well done for piercing Tennis expert's smokescreen, EdJohnston! The responses by Tennis expert are indeed risible. Over the last 6 months, I have learned all about his modus operandi - his conspiracy theories, legendary edit warring, and attempts to pervert the truth by calling black white, and cooperation 'tag-team warring'. Of course, Tennis may sincerely believe what he's saying, in which case he appears to inhabit a rather different reality than the rest of us. Optimistically, he may be brought back into the same universe as everyone else, but then, pigs might fly. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)