User talk:67.177.137.7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've gone over the article you flagged as a copyvio, Elevator levitation, but I can't find any valid grounds for a copyright violation claim. Unless the exact text of the article was stolen from you (that is, the wording, not the concept), there is no violation. Magic trick methods are not copyrightable, and although they can be patented, a patent only prevents an unlicensed party from performing the trick, not describing its methods. For more information, please see Intellectual rights to magic methods. If you are alleging a copyright violation (that is, a direct copying of your wording), please provide a source and we will take care of it. Currently there is no wording taken from the site you mentioned and used in our article. If you would like to state further claims, please use the correct forums, such as the article's talk pages. If you continue to remove content from wikipedia repeatedly, you will be blocked from editing for vandalism. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Elevator levitation, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! 67.177.137.7 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Although i appreciate your grasp of our warning templates, the article I re-added was not a copyvio, and your deletion of it was vandalism. Please don't mis-use our warning templates. I consider your comment above as vandalism to my talk page, but since I firmly believe in paper trails I will not delete it. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The content posted on Wikipedia is based off a trade secret - one specifically designed by Peter Loughran. The work within the manuals which talk about the secret are copyrighted work. Maybe people here at Wikipedia have the two reversed - copyrights and trade secrets? Maybe a quick review of Trade Secrets as defined by Wikipedia should be review -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods#Trade_secret and also trade secret information -> http://www.howstuffworks.com/question625.htm
There is obviously a big differance between information that can be easily found by the public as for one that cant...which in this case purchasing the product gives you the rights to use the trade secret to use in your act and not to divulge this to your audience. In this case it is easy to see that it is being used harmfully towards to the originator.
You can argue that this is just a method...but what you buy is what you have on Wikipedia...thus harming the originator of his profits...the method is barely even mentioned...which would be patter and how to rigg yourself...etc....instead what is here is mainly the trade trade secret he worked hard at and what you purchase.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.137.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Unfortunately, whether the information here is the same as is for sale elsewhere is irrelevant. Wordings are copyrightable, methods are patentable. We have not taken your wording (therefore no copyvio), and the method is not patented, so there is no patent concern. While I am very sorry that you feel we are taking money from the trick's inventor, we are violating no laws-- Perhaps you should write to your congressman. Besides, anyone who actually wants to perform the trick would still have to buy the rig from the commercial site, so I find it hard to believe we are harming much. As an aside, I personally feel magic tricks have no place here on wikipedia- But the point is, your grounds for deletion are totally false, and you are not followign our procedures. Feel free to list the article for a vote for deletion at Articles for Deletion- I personally would vote to delete, and im sure others would. But your current approach is in violation of our procedures and will be enforced as such. Please stop vandalising our site. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry that you feel that way. As far as vandalizing...I have not done such thing. There is a differance of someone vandalizing a site and someone that is protecting ones interest. In concern to this issue I am only attempting to make one aware of content that should not be part of the site. Now I can and will make one last attempt. Keep elevator 1 and just delete elevator 2 information. That will make both I and the inventor happy as well as many others that i represent.
As for deletion I have to say this site is very complex and complicated on how things are setup...doesnt make things easy for deleting. I will ago ahead and attempt to submit the articles for deletion.
This illusions/trick is also simlar to the Cris Angel Self Levitation also found to have copy righted issues. Has nothing from the manual but does expose information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.137.7 (talk • contribs)
  • I think you are mixing up the law with my "feelings". I'm just telling you what the law says, and why what you are saying is not correct. Thats fact. Blanking is Vandalism. You are also now in violation of the Three Revert Rule which states that you cannot make essentially the same edit more than three times in 24 hours. If you want to discuss this, please do so at the articles talk page or at articles for deletion. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] AfD

Hi, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you wish to correctly list an article for deletion. Remember to give a valid reason for deletion. — TheKMantalk 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be aware of the 3 Revert Rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeL (talk • contribs)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and violating the three-revert rule on Elevator levitation. ~~ N (t/c) 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elevator levitation

Hello, since you are not aware of how Wikipedia works, I have followed this process to list the article for a deletion vote for you. However, unless you have proof that the poster of this information was bound to a secrecy clause to protect a trade secret, I seriously doubt the article will be deleted. Johntex\talk 02:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Johntext - Thanks. And yes I dont know how wikipedia works and it is quite confusing. Thanks again.