User talk:Kleg
I just wanted to say thank you for this example here, "Odd object oriented example", as it really helped me with my homework! -- 83.252.167.175 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Magic
[edit]Thanks for posting on the discussion page. I agree that exposure of magic methods has been a barrier that has deterred some knowledgeable people from contributing. My hope is that we can control exposure to an extent that will be acceptable to at least some of those people. The problem is that many magicians and magic organisations are trying to operate a system of intellectual property control that goes beyond anything the law allows and is much more restrictive than anything in any other type of business. It has to be acknowledged that there ARE reasons why publication of methods is permissible in some circumstances. Part of my proposal is that the law should be our guide on what and how to publish. And connected to that is the idea that we should stick closely to Wikipedia guideline that say all information published in Wikipedia should be clearly traced to reliable independent sources. This would mean we stop people just coming along and adding something along the lines of "This is how it's done...because I say so." If you have any suggestions for a guideline on methods I'd welcome you posting them at the project talk page. Circusandmagicfan 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I have been doing magic, sleight of hand and have a great deal of experience with gambling oriented moves and gimmicks for over 40 years. You obviously understand the secretive nature of magic and gambling moves and gimmciks. In addition, you must also know that many well kept secrets are not even in print. Hence, no written references can be sourced. Are you saying that experience in a certain profession means nothing ? ... Especially in areas which are secretive by nature. I will be happy to prove that EVERYTHING I post is 100% accurate and I choose my words VERY carefully to be factual, while not giving away too many secrets. You must also know that when you join the professional societies, that you promise NEVER to divulge the secrets of the trade. Those who do are shunned by their peers and will loose access to critical "underground/unpublished" magical secrets. Signed EXPERTMAGICIAN July 25, 2007
Spin doctoring
[edit]It is you doing spin doctoring in this case. You provably erased relevant informations about the existence two POVs - the first one being yours and the other one differing from it.
To prove the onesidedness of your POV let's have a look at any other programming language, which had only a proprietary compiler/interpreter available initially. Did this fact alone make the language "proprietary"?
Moreover, it is not the language, what the private REBOL Technologies company licenses to the users. You must have noticed, the their licenses do not cover the language, but their software products.
Peta, 10:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.104.243.33 (talk)
The article The Three Aces has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No claim of notability; the inline reference is to an entirely different trick of a similar name.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The article Reading The Cards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Can't find any sources that use this name to refer to the described effect. Can't find any reference in the one source provided. Doesn't meet WP:GNG
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PriceDL (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)