User talk:50.54.233.151

August 2015

Hello, I'm Glacialfrost. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Out of This World (card trick) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GlacialFrost (Talk) 07:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Card warp. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GlacialFrost (Talk) 07:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi, please understand that because you think someone is spoiling a magic trick by describing it in an article, that is no reason to remove important sourced content just because of your opinion. Please discuss it on the article talk page before conducting such an action in the future. GlacialFrost (Talk) 07:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. I'm sorry, I feel VERY strongly about this. No, that was not vandalism. It was about Wikipedia not only allowing but encouraging the exposing of trade secrets (I explained this, I think, in the added message at the bottom of the edit page). That's what this is about. Your secrets policy fails to account for the fact that magicians, and people who legitimately teach and sell these secrets, have to make a living off of them. Sure, list where a trick can be found (as in any technical topic, books--academic sources--are best) but please don't share key information and concepts casually. I think you already do massive cultural damage by listing the plots of films and books. Hence, Wikipedia has become know as the greatest spoiler site in the history of the internet. Please think again about this weird, unprofessional policy. Thanks for listening. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest spoiler site is YouTube, where there are explanations of how virtually every magic trick is done. The real problem for Wikipedia would be publishing copyrighted material. The talk page consensus is not to remove the method.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to throw me off the scent. ; ) You Tube is a whole different ball of magician's wax. Many performers and enthusiasts who post tricks there post two versions: one demonstrating the trick as performed. A second detailing the method. In any case, the viewer has the _option_ to choose whether or not to have a trick spoiled. In these Wikipedia articles, no such choice is offered. -- As far as "consensus" conclusions go, you well know that often they are too restrictive to be applied blanket. I mean, you must know that, right? There will always be special cases to consider. Yet, Wikipedia editors with the sweeping hand of consensus deem that not so. Well, all I can say is that you're on the wrong side of ethics in this case. But anyway, I'm sure that I'm not the first person to make these observations and I very likely won't be the last. You beg controversy needlessly with a policy like the one applied to magic secrets. So, you're bound to get harsh criticism that should never have to occur. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

More information about magic trick solutions