User talk:TStone

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello TStone, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, --Alf ^melmac 10:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Stone (magician)

Are you Tom Stone (magician)? I noticed you are the sole contributor to that article which curiously is similar to your username. I am inferring based on the resources I have available and I'm not accusing you of anything.

I just wanted to advise that it's considered bad form to edit articles about yourself (see WP:VAIN). Wikipedia has lately seen a number of vanity articles written about magicians and I don't want anything you're trying to do be viewed as bad faith. -- Krash 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Krash. Yes, I'm afraid that you are correct. The similarities between the name of the article and my username is by design, to signal that I'm not working in secrecy. Before I started writing anything at all, I made a rather thorough search among the users to find anyone more knowledgeable than me, but found none. As it was obvious that I would need to make some rather brutal edits on several pages on magic topics (check my edits), I thought that it would be best to declare my own merits first - though, I have made sure to avoid any exaggerations. I know that it in most cases is considered bad form. But, this field is small, the number interested in history and with knowledge about artistic evolution is even smaller. The first authority within the field who came here would probably have to write their own page.

I would be happy and very grateful if you would find the time to check, and edit, my page - and even delete it if you find that my inclusion is irrelevant. There are three places I usually check with, when I'm uncertain about someone's merits: Magic Times and at the forums at Magic Cafe and Genii. Also, a search on Google on "Tom Stone" +magician might also be useful. And feel free to ask me anything, and I'll do my best to answer. --TStone 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative, pick anyone (living) from List_of_magicians, that apperar to you to be an authority in the field (any nationality), and I can probably ask that person to verify the facts. Would that work? --TStone 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the verifiability or notability as I checked out the sources the same day the article was created. I'm just saying that someone who didn't agree with you could use the vanity point to construct a strawman/red herring in an attempt to discredit your editing and/or motives. I've been keeping close track of your edits so far but there's nothing you've done that I disagree with and I sincerely hope that you continue editing here.

I don't necessarily agree with the proposed policy. I've pretty much said my piece on it and you've read it. I don't really like magicians who harp on about ethics. I'm certain that I understand where you're coming from. But I'm also a little suspect of anyone new who comes flying in out of nowhere with both guns blazing, attempting to change policy. I'm sure you can appreciate that. But I'm also willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I don't play hierarchy games – that I've possibly been around here longer than you or that you possibly know more about magic than I do doesn't really faze me.

I've seen a number of bad faith magic editors come in and try and delete anything that might expose an illusion or those who create vanity articles about their career as a nightclub magician who also does birthday parties. In so many situations, you just delete their edits and they disappear. -- Krash 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thoughts! I think I'll put some kind of alert on that page then, inviting critizism, as it seems likely that will happen anyway. Someone with motivation to descredit me would find it trickier if such discussions already has been initiated and ended. I will probably keep on editing here for a while, but hopefully less in a while. I'm recovering from a rather horrible relationship with a girl with borderline personality disorder, and are currently spending too much time infront of the computer.

Yes, I understand your point, because the idea that a creator would want to be asociated with his work is a rather foreign concept among those who don't create. In my field, it has been especially tricky, as a common ground on these questions didn't start to form until around 1930, and it was first then it started to become possible to do proper research and to try to track the historic lineage. But even now, that is really, really difficult. Had you tried to create a new piece AND do the necessary research to make sure that your new creation in fact was new, and not a re-invention of something from 100 years ago... Well, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't stop with just two guns blazing after seeing the mess that is here. I'm not joking, I was really horrified after the first visit here. Well, I'm not naive enough to believe that it is possible to stop the thefts, so I will not even try. And I'm not going to delete anything already here, because I'm not interested in flame wars about irrelevant things like "secrets" or "information...". And I'm not really trying to change policy either, but rather making sure that existing policy cover this form of artistic expression, in the same manner as it cover other forms of expressions. The difference is that in the other cases, there are copyright laws that can be refered to - but anything equal has been lacking for my field until 1978 (Choreograhy Copyright), therefore, it is necessary with some kind of document explaining that. Not to be treated differently than other art forms, but to be treated equally.

So, agreed. Nothing can be done about the thefts. But that shouldn't mean that the Wikipedia should be active in making it harder to do proper research. Yes, I know that I'm "harping" again - but it shouldn't be this difficult to explain that a creator has a right to be asociated with his creation.

Oh, by the way, regarding "flying in with guns blazing".. I might unintentionally sound more dogmatic than necessary. I'm not an english speaking person, so I'm writing in a language that is foreign to me, and sometimes I might have problems with the finer nuances of the language. I should really use my dictionary more often, but then it takes forever to write anything at all. Therefore, I'm writing blindly, hoping for the best :-) (And finally, I have not encountered the word "faze" before, and www.answers.com doesn't help. May I ask you to define it for me? ) --TStone 04:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"faze" in the context of "doesn't really faze me" is roughly synonymous to "doesn't really bother me" or "doesn't upset me". You can find a definition here: [1].

I've gone ahead and updated your page. You have a very impressive career. I also enjoyed reading your "Self publishing" E-book -- very nice quality! I'm pleased to see you here on Wikipedia now. If you have any questions about policy or guidelines, please do not hesitate to ask! Elonka 10:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Elonka, and I'm flattered that you went through the trouble of doing all that research. Unfortunately, there's a few errors like: I'm not booked at FISM, the world championships, because the swedish magic circle (the arrangers) are still hoping that I will compete (you are not allowed to compete if you are paid to lecture or perform, to avoid any suggestions that someone got a prize instead of a fee). The link you provided doesn't go to booked artists, but to a listing of known swedish magicians who are members in the swedish magic circle.

The "Venetian deck" isn't a product, but a technical article in Genii magazine describing a small creation of mine. If interested, there are some other comments and reviews on my writings here (I'm extremely proud over the writing in the "Tracking Mr. Fogg" manuscript, by the way. It's a bit tricky to write that kind of esoteric stuff in a second language).

The reason for the small number of copies is this: For a long time, there were no legal rights for magic creators defined by the copyright laws. Meaning that I could watch another magician performing an original piece, and then steal his piece without any concern at all. I could even claim it as my own. If the piece is innovative enough, I can offer it to other magicians, and become famous for the innovations within the piece... and there's nothing the real innovator can do about it. There's only one way avoid such things; get the creation on record before it gets stolen.

So, if I want to make sure that my name will be attached to a piece I'm proud of, or want to protect it from getting ripped off, I publish it. Then I give away copies for free to known historians within the field, to authories who are known for their ethics, then I sell the remaining copies just to cover the production cost (or if it is material that I've stopped performing, or are very well known for, I might make a bigger run, to make a small profit). That way, if someone tries to pass off one of my creations as their own, I can easily refer to a date, and a specific publication, proving that there's been a theft. There's no punishment for the thefts though, other than being outcast and frowned upon by ones peers, but that can be just as effective.. when someone you admire avoid you, stops talking when you get near. You can see an example of this in action here.

This system also assures that it becomes possible to do research, to track the historic evolution and lineage of the effects. Which made the Wikipedia so horrible in my eyes, as the main opinions here seemed to support intellectual thefts, and seemed to actively support the action of removing the names of the creator's from their creations.. Oh well, here I go "harping" again ;-)--TStone 19:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Aladin

Hello, and thank you for participating in the deletion vote at Aladin (magician). I wanted to drop you a note and emphasize that I did not mean anything personal by posting the "new user" comment after your vote -- I've been routinely checking the history of all voters. The reason is that this has been a controversial issue over the last few weeks, and many people have been casting false votes with extra accounts which are called sockpuppets. So anyone that votes with a new account, or one that has very few edits, is flagged. Thank you also for posting the mentions about reputable sources in the magic community. I've been doing quite a bit of research on this particular individual. There are some additional references which are not in the current article (because it got frozen in a half-finished state due to a revert war). To see a more current version, please check here, and to see another list of possible press sources, check this press clipping page. If you have time to review both of those, I am very interested in your opinion on whether or not you think that Aladin is a real magician who may have received that type of press coverage. Thanks! Elonka 05:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. No, growing up I had the dream of becoming a sockpuppet, but I could never figure out what color to wear, so I decided it was easier to become me instead :-) This kind of topics are tricky, because there is an internal and an external perspective. For example, if you compare two of my fellow swedes within this field Joe Labero and Lennart Green. Labero is very famous in the eyes of the swedish public, and most believe that he is world famous thanks to clever marketing. But the swedish public would go "huh" if you mentioned Lennart Green. But mention both names to any good magician in any other country in the world, the reaction would be opposite. They would ask "Who?" when Labero was mentioned, but upon hearing Lennart's name, they would jump up and down of excitement. This might seem odd, but since Lennart won the worldchampionchip, he has been too busy flinging around the world, and has almost not been at home at all. Performed on "World's Greatest Magicians" in american TV, on "Tomo Maeda & the 5 greatest close-up magicians in the world" in Japan (where I was featured as well)..but only one single small TV appearance in Sweden in early 90's. While Labero has done one big show after another here, too busy to even look towards other countries.

In the case of aladin, it might be the same as with Joe Labero. Among good magicians around the world, aladin is completely unknown. That can easily be established as a fact. However, he might still be a huge star on a national level. But I doubt it. There's an english magic fan page at Magic Bunny. The members are beginners and amateurs, basically just informed laypeople, and I would not go there for any serious research. However, had this aladin been noted in the eyes of the english public, there would be a discussion about him there. I just checked, and there is just one single post about him... posted by a Wikipedian who asks if aladin is known in England. The moderator assumed the question was a joke, and locked the topic :-) How do you think that should be interpreted? :-)--TStone 06:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing me at that forum. Based on what I saw though, they didn't look particularly helpful. ;) I do see Aladin's name showing up in other Magic periodicals though, such as here. That, plus his coverage in a National Geographic documentary, and mention of his name in various press releases from the Mayor of London, make me believe that (1) he's real, (2) that most of his magazine press was from a few years ago, and (3) that he tends to push some of his more minor awards as being larger than they are. For example, he trumpeted that he had only one of two "Golden Turban" awards from the "fabled" Magic Academy of Bangalore (which I've never heard of). And he posted that he had won "International Magician of the Year", which implies that he got it at a major convention or venue such as the Magic Castle, when in actuality, it came, it it did, from a smaller "Alternative Arts" festival in the UK.

Then again, as I'm sure you understand, self-promotion is not a crime. Any struggling artist has to get the word out, if they want to become better known. As for my own vote, I'm all for a Wikipedia article on him, as long as it only posts the clear truth of what he's done, and doesn't include any of the false puffery.

I guess what I'm asking is, based on the info at his press clipping page, do you feel that it looks plausible? Or can you look at any particular source in there and say, "Aha, that's definitely false"?

Thanks, Elonka 10:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the All Magic Guide isn't a periodical, but more a web directory. I guess they put up anything that sounds plausible. The award sounded as a claim to have won the inofficial European championships that are arranged by Internationan Magic (I got 2'nd prize there in 2003), which struck me as a bit dishonest. No, the guy probably exist. But had he contributed anything of value to the art of magic, I would know about it. Had he been nationally known within England, there would be discussions about him at Magic Bunny. Getting press clippings isn't difficult, as the papers often need "oddity"-stories when nothing important has happened, and then they don't bother to check the facts. Those stories can be about a man who collects soup cans, a woman with a singing dog, someone who designs sex toys or an interview with the first magician that turns up. I've got some news coverage on real and important things, like a new innovative show that ran for three months. But I don't fool myself, because I also know that the coverage had nothing to do with the importance, but because it was news shortage that week, and they didn't find the singing dog.

There are others more worthy of attention. But those seldom boast their accomplishments. Paul Harris is viewed as almost a demi-god among magicians around the world, and he doesn't even have a homepage. Take a look at that talkpage.. Tommy Wonders homepage is here. He is among the three most important living magicians of today (the other two are Max Maven and Juan Tamariz), but that would be hard to know just by looking at the homepage. There are many other british magicians, who are both known to the public AND admired by collegues, like Pat Page, Bob Read, Wayne Dobson.... Well, I will take a look at the paper clippings, though it would be better that an english person did it, who knew which newspapers that are respected and which papers that are cheap tabloids. --TStone 16:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you are interested in puzzles and chiphers. Have you ever been to one of the Gatherings for Gardner (in honor of Martin Gardner)? If so, you might have met a bunch of people I know --TStone 19:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So far, I have found no confirmation at all about the claims. The newspaper coverage might be accurate, but the details within the articles seem doubtful. I've never heard about a "Gold Turban Award" before, and had it existed, someone else would have got it, or mentioned it - but a Google search on that phrase is inconclusive (or revealing, depending on your mindset). Found a mention about him at Inside Magic (odd site. Accurate, but very fragmented, information), comments are at the end of that page, and a link to the original piece at Oxford Student - but that story is missing, while other stories from the same period is still accessible. Has it been removed?

Ha! He's using a quote from Inside Magic on the first page of www.aladinmagician.com :-) That's funny!!!

It says that he is running Alkhemiproject.com in a quote from 1999. (Ohh..the design on that site is BEAUTIFUL!!!). On the webdesigners site (who also designed aladinmagic.com ), it says: "Alkhemi is a strategic consultancy practice with clients from the City of Reykjavik to Luis Vuitton to the Arts Council of England."... But if that is true, and it has been in business for 6-7 years, why is the pages on a free site with ads, and why isn't there any solid info on the page? The client on the Arts Council, does that refer to aladin himself?

This is a card house, Elonka. The guy must be a mythomaniac, good at weaving. Each quote refers back to a previous quote. Then the new quote is added to a new press release and sent out. Then, assisted by the manufactured quotes, he's moving into new realms. The vice chair at the city council? Well, it seems like none of the ones on the board has political power, which means that it is some kind of construct - either as a publicity stunt from the city council or that the city council has been tricked into hosting the group.

And this: week-long magic event he produced and compered…in which 800 international magicians took part. It was broadcast to more than a billion viewers…the biggest event in the history of magic That I would have heard about, and it would have been widely reported. 800 magicians? Then a whole bunch of them would have been close friends to me, and I would most likely have been a part of it myself. And a billion viewers? The japanese show I was a part of was aired primetime on new years eve 2004, and had 4.2 million viewers. I find it hard to believe that someone unknown manages to find 800 unknown magicians, while avoiding everyone I would have picked, and then get it broadcasted to a billion viewers, and still remain unknown after that.

No, the more I look, the more bad feeling I get. No matter which thread I follow, and no matter how promising it is, I still end up with nothing of substance. It's all circulary interlinked self-references. Doesn't it seem as if each quote on his press file share the same syntax and style? This guy probably want to use a mention on the Wiki as the basis for tricking more people.

It was good finding the Inside Magic site though, as I found a good article on Tommy Wonder and Jon Armstrong there. --TStone 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a british site that takes pride in tracking all public magic performances in England: Magic Week - updates each week. Quite respected site, and very thourough. The only mention about aladin there is a single comment about the Oxford Student article, and a directory listing to his homepage. Together with the total lack of comments on the magic fan page at Magic Bunny, I think it's safe to say that he is unknown. I also saw a short clip of him at the site where they sell the Book of Cool-DVD's, and it was nothing special. Average skill, standard flourishes and a David Blaine-inspired style..

If you want to see how it looks when card-nuts loose control, see "flourishes" and "Trailers" at the Buck twins or the even nuttier Superhandz. Nuts! :-) --TStone 02:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing the research! It's good to have another datapoint.

I understand what you're saying about him being an "unknown". I think I disagree with you though on whether or not he is deserving of an article at Wikipedia. Granted, if this were a paper encyclopedia where decisions had to be made about who was and wasn't deserving of inclusion, his name would be towards the bottom of the list, at least from the information that we have found so far. However, let me try and explain where I'm coming from. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no effective limit to the number of articles that can be created here. I see it as appropriate when someone has extensive media coverage over a period of years, to create a page about them. Not necessarily as a "reward", but simply as a place to collate and present the verified facts about them. Wikipedia is a frequently-used research tool.

Or to put it another way... If someone were doing research on him, and typed his name into Google, which would you rather see at the top of the search results? His own self-promotion page, or a Wikipedia article that's been fact-checked and presents the information that is actually true and verifiable about him? Wikipedia can be a great place to debunk urban legends and pull in information from multiple sources. For example, if Aladin is claiming "International Magician of the Year", the article could state something like, "Aladin's personal websites frequently make false or misleading claims about his notability. For example, his websites often trumpet the awards "International Magician of the Year", which implies the prestigious award at (fill in name of appropriate convention or venue), but upon closer inspection the award was from the lesser-known 'Alternative Arts Festival', which has little prestige among professional magicians." Same could be done with the claim of "largest gathering of magicians", "fabled academy at Bangalore," etc. etc. If someone really wants a page at Wikipedia, and they're high-profile in the press, they have to be prepared that the page is going to present criticism as well as praise!  :) Elonka 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point! Clever thinking. I'll go and change my vote.

Picture

Which image would you like on your page? If you have one that you like that you *know* you have the rights to, go ahead and upload it by clicking on "Upload file" at the left. If you're not sure of licensing, let me know and I'll help. Also, if you're feeling brave, you could upload the pic to the Wikimedia Commons, and then it would be available for all the language wikis instead of just English-language. But for now we can start small, and grow things later. Wikis are easy to change! Elonka 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. well, I'm quite fond of this one: Vanity DeLuxe. It's mine to give away. Feel free to do whatever you think is best. :-) --TStone 01:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it.  :) Can you please tell me when it was taken, and should the photographer be credited? Also, may I put this image into the public domain, or do you want to retain copyright? Public Domain is better, but it's your decision. Elonka 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Taken in April 2004. No need to mention the photographer, and PD is fine with me --TStone 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Pic's up! I added it to the Swedish version as well. If you have another picture of yourself actually performing, I could add that one too. Just let me know.  :) Elonka 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Wow, you're really putting work into this! No, unfortunately, there's no good performance pics that are mine to give away. I have quite a lot of bad ones though, but I refuse to acknowledge their existence. :-) --TStone 02:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome -- it was my pleasure. I'm not sure if you read my own webpage, but I've got some writing credits under my belt, too, and though I'm not making any money from this project, I've found this volunteer effort at Wikipedia to be a fun hobby. I've written many bios since I started, and I find it very satisfying. The only frustrating part, is that I'm not allowed to edit my own Elonka Dunin page! If it stays abandoned for much longer, I'll probably brave the disapproval of the wikipedia community, and go in and fix it myself.  ;) By the way, do you ever tour through the U.S.? If so, let me know, and maybe my speaking schedule will synch up with yours, and we can say hi in person. I've done so much research on you now, I would love to see you perform!  :) Elonka 02:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not even allowed to correct errors? Seems odd. Well, I might have to do some research then. I'm quite proud of being able to read three different languages; "swedish", "english" and "orgjrra-gur-yvarf". I might do a tour in the US in the autumn, actually, as I'm going to release a huge book through Hermetic Press this year. Nothing is decided yet though. Unfortunately, there's no clips on my performances on the net, except one at www.magicbar.tk taken at a kind of magic-improv place that I experimented with last year. I'm at the end at the clip, improvising, and it's not very good. Btw, I asked above if you ever been to a Gathering for Gardner? --TStone 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I do have one of Gardner's books, but I was unaware that there was a convention in his name. Maybe I should learn more about it, as a place to promote my puzzle book that's coming out in April!

As for "high profile" names, I know a lot of people, though I don't know who might have gone to that conference. Let's see, big crypto names that I know pretty well are "Jim Gillogly", "Ed Scheidt", "Whitfield Diffie", and a bunch of other modern cryptographers/authors who I correspond with more casually, but can't really say that I know them particularly well, such as Bruce Schneier, Simon Singh, and Dan Brown. My closest link to the magic scene is that I know some behind-the-scenes people for the entourages of Siegfried & Roy, and Lance Burton, but I definitely don't know the magicians themselves. I'm also good friends with a puzzle-designer who did the work in Blaine's "treasure challenge" book. Are there any names in particular that you can think of, that might have overlap? I run across hundreds of writers / movie stars / lecturers when I travel, especially when I'm speaking at a big conference like Dragon*Con (which has thousands of attendees, and hundreds of guests), and so we get to hob-nob in the green room. Who knows, it may very well be that we have friends in common!  :) Elonka 08:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual property

Hi, I looked at your edits. They're extensive, but I didn't see anything that looked like it was in bad faith. Edits are only controversial if people disagree with you. If some of your edits do get reverted, the most common reason might be because someone would claim a violation of the Wikipedia principle of no original research (read that link to learn more). Basically it means that anything that it's in an article, can't be "new" thinking. It has to be something that's already been written about elsewhere. So if someone removes one of your edits, the proper way to handle it is to post a reference backing up what you're posting. Like an inline citation [link to wherever, or the name of the book/magazine it came from]. This policy becomes annoying sometimes to experienced editors who know their field, but aren't allowed to post a clear correction. But, overall, I think the policy is a good one.

Well, that the copyright laws are rewritten now and then should probably be seen as a sign that it's inconclusive in several areas, as noted on the Bitlaw page. And the idea of talking about the copyright laws as if they had relevance within a field where that law is non-existing must surely be more original research than pointing out that the lack of copyright neither prohibit nor allow thefts. There I'm in safe ground, I hope. However, I think I went nuts on the talk page...

If the issues are as widespread as you imply, there is probably an article in one of the magic magazines somewhere from a professional magician complaining about the issue. Just find one of those articles (the more reputable the magazine, the better), and you can use it as a source.

I also saw a few lines from the previous editor that you might want to re-add, about "trade secrets" stuff, somewhere around the patent discussion. Or did you have a reason for specifically removing it? Elonka 08:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Might it have been where they went on about "secrets" and "exposures" again? There were a mention about books in libraries. But it said nothing about stripping originators' names or theft of material not yet released - so I removed it as it seemed like an invitation to another pointless secrets/exposure-discussion to leave it in. People not familiar with my art tend to get blinded easily. Saying things like (translated into theatre scripts): "Oh, it can't be considered wrong to steal your new avant-garde script, remove your name and publish it under my own name as a "here's another cool thing I've seen", because I know for a fact that there are theatre plays at the library! So there! And I'm going to strip the authors names from those scripts next and republish as my own, because they are mine to claim, and you are a jerk for trying to stop me!".. something like that... Getting sleepy now... :-)--TStone 09:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine that it must be frustrating, both on an emotional level and professionally, since you may lose revenue when someone copies your stuff. How many times has it happened to you? Is it a "few times in a career" thing, or something that happens routinely, like every month? Elonka 09:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately just once or twice, probably because my items are rather difficult. But it happens to people I respect and friends of mine quite often. --TStone 17:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Video clip

Heh, I love it. Good hands!  :) Shall I go ahead and add it to your page, or would you rather wait until there's something higher quality? Personally I think it should definitely be included. I'd probably link it like this under "References":

• "Stockholm Magic Bar" video clip, May 19, 2005. (Swedish language) Second half of brief clip shows sleight of hand performance by Tom Stone

Elonka 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind. Though the .tk address will vanish soon. Open page in new frame to get the real URL :-)

Not "performance" please. Better: "sleight of hand improvisations" - God, I don't want anyone to belive that this is a representative sample of my good stuff... --TStone 09:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's added to the page... I'm not sure what you meant about the "real URL"? But if you tell me what it is, I'll go ahead and incorporate it. Elonka 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The .tk domain is a free and fast way of getting a domain name for a page on the net. Like if you make a certain temporary page for a friend, and it's a long url to remember, you can go to http://www.tk and get the domain name www.fromElonka.tk in 2-3 minutes. You lose that domain name as soon as the number of visitors drop under 90 a month, so it's mostly useful for temorary things. In my case, the page that gets loaded into the www.magicbar.tk frame is here.

New Magic-related article

Hiya, as part of the debunking campaign (and also just because it's a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia), I've started an article called Magic conventions. Could you please pop in and add information about particular famous conventions around the world? Once it's fleshed out a bit more, I'll announce it at the Aladin page, to see if anyone there wants to contribute as well. Thanks! Elonka 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look :-) --TStone 22:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Elevator levitation

I reverted it because it didn't strike me as a insignificant clone, and because the other article (balducci) did not contain the specific different information from the first article. Youre the magic expert, not me, so im yeilding to you on what is insignificantly differnt, but there was definitely information in the Elevator article that was not in the other article, such as the mirrors and the gadget itself. If you want to merge i'm all for it, but what you did was basically just a flat-out deletion, which requires community consensus through the AfD process. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The original publication of the Balducci in "Pallbearer's Review" in 1974 attracted attention from quite a few "heavy" names in the field, and several of them added ideas to the original piece - among those the idea of increasing the lift by putting something under the foot. This also spilled over into Karl Fulves "The Cronicles", where the mirror idea and others was published. None of these contributors claimed that their contributions were so big and significant that it had become a new creation, which is correct. Paul Harris contribution was significant enough to deserve a new title, with him named as its creator.

But first seing the Crass commercialism of this Loughran(?) on the net, claiming credit and making money on work he has no right putting his name on - and now finding it in an encyclopedia claiming that he has anything to do with the historic lineage of this creation.. surely you must understand that it is an insult to a whole bunch of people. Out of respect and curtsey for other wikipedians, lacking knowledge of magic history, I put a redirect to Balducci - should anyone believe that the term "Elevator levitation" had any relevance. I mean, it says in the flag at the top of the clone's page that it is desireable to have correct info - and the correct info is that Elevator is a clone that should not have a title, even less a separate heading in an encyclopedia - and least of all, Laughrans name has no business beening asociated with that work.

If you belive that the info contained in the Elevator page is important, then merge those details into the relevant places in Balducci page - but then, name the proper names in connection to those details, and not Laughreans. Do that sound fair to you? --TStone 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okey, I think I understand you now, I've checked some of your edits. Sorry if I sounded rough - you've met quite a few of those "must-keep-magic-secret" guys? Those are just as annoying as those at the other end of the spectra.. Strange that so many people have so odd opinions about work they've had no part in concieving. I care nothing for secrets, as I'm a creator and want immortality the same way a playwright would. I want to get my work out there. And the "magic-secrets"-crowd has no business saying what I should do, or not to, with my creations. Let them keep their own creations secret... Then again, thanks to the other end, I need to keep my work under tight contol, as that bunch has nothing against stealing everything, and stripping both my name, and the meat from the creations - and passing it off as their own work. It's odd seeing all these flame wars and fights between people, and both groups basically fight for the opposite of what any creator within any field would want. Very strange! --TStone 05:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats an opinion that its amazingly refreshing to hear, let me tell you. And yes, i've been dealing with the magic-should-be-secret gang a bit lately, especially the ones who think it should only be secret until you pay them 100 bucks. My basic point in reverting it wasn't to say what you did was wrong, I just hate to see any valid information leave the WP project, so if you think that the two articles are best merged, then im sure youre right, but lets just make sure they are merged properly, taking the good from each to the merged article. (I would to this myself but I dont know the subject at all, I only ended up monitoring that article because it was on requests for copyright removal, which was a totally bogus claim) -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 07:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh all talk about copyright is irrelevant in these cases. Doesn't apply, just as real estate laws doesn't apply on aviation. Is it possible to move the info into a talk page, or something like that, and work from there? Feels extremely weird to have works which are both stolen and misrepresented out in the wiki as if it was facts. I can check the details from The Pallbearers. Do you take care of getting the facts (names and dates) from The Chronicles? I unfortunately had to get rid of my file 8 years ago --TStone 08:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As a thought, perhaps we could add a section to Balducci Levitation about the Elevator Levitation as a variation? I think the information that the "elevator levitation" is substantially the same as the more-common trick is certainly something that should be documented here, especially if as you say the difference is so minor. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 08:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be a list which would become quite long, as there are at least 15 small variations out in circulation right now, as well as a whole bunch that has appeared and faded away since the 70's. And the ones in Europe and Asia?... Documenting all non-original derivative work and "get rich quick"-schemes would take forever, and would just give them higher noteability for no good reason at all, viewed from a historical perspective. Better to list the small additions that are original, together with names and dates. Would make a shorter and more efficient list that actually would help people doing research. But I'm not opposed to your suggestion if you think it's better --TStone 08:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then just a quick mention that so many small variations exist, many of which are sold commercially, etc. Again, I yield to you since you know this stuff, I only got involved in this whole thing from the copyvio aspect. Lets just make sure whatever little was relevant from the deleted article finds its way over in the merge. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I should appologize for originally reverting your redirect without consulting you. I hadn't dealt with you before, and your blanking came just after I finished a long fight with the "owner" of the elevator levitation trick, who kept blanking the page claiming a copyright violation, using many different IPs and user names. I originally just assumed you were the same person since you also blanked the page, this was a gross mistake on my part clearly, and I appologize. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 16:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Aladin

Hello, I responded to your comment on the aladin talk page. If you have published evidence to back up your claims, please point us in the right direction. If not, though, I would ask that you cease posting speculation that contravenes wikipedia policy- see wikipedia:verification- and qualifies as character assasination. Personal attacks are neither helpful nor constructive to the business of developing a better article. -- JJay 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello JJay. Sure, as far as I know, I've never dealt in personal attacks or speculation. And how can it be "character assasination" to point out a case of mythomania? The assassination surely must be self-committed, right? I know basically all the known magicians from England, since I'm in that line of work myself. So I knew it was all fake as soon as I first read the presentation, since it consisted of made-up and false statements (like Gold Turban (?).. the claim to know Green, Sheridan, Ricky Jay.. the claim to be excellent technician while the video clip show agerage skill, 800 magician+billion viewers(?)... I mean, come on..there's not even a strand of reality in the claims). Just to be certain, I made a rather thourough research and posted on the aladin-page a few days ago. I've copied it over here, if you missed it:

I've done some research...

• English magic fan site - Nothing
• International Magic - inofficial European championships (highly respected). Nothing.
• "Gold Turban Award" - a search on Google: just 1 single person mention this unknown award, just 1 single person seem to have got it.
• Inside Magic mention a fantastic press story in Oxford Student about someone they've never heard about.
• Magic Week an english news site that takes pride in tracking all public magic appearances. 1 single mention - about a fantastic story in Oxford Student.
• Magic Times which tracks magic events over the world, mentions only the same story. (and they would not miss an event with 800 magicians and a billion viewers).
• Oxford Student - But there's nothing there, though other pieces from the same period is there. Removed?
• Alkhemiproject.com - is claimed to have been running for 6-7 years, with big clients. Why on a free server with ads then?
• event he produced and compered…in which 800 international magicians took part. It was broadcast to more than a billion viewers 800 international magicians? Billion viewers? Something like that would have made big waves in the magic community.. The forum at the international magazine Genii says - Nothing.
• The biggest site for skilled amateur magicians Magic Cafe - Nothing
• I called Lennart Green (I'm author and illustrator of one of Lennart's booklets) and he can't recall that anyone introduced him to Ricky Jay back in the 80's.
• Viewed the clip where they sell the DVD "Book of Cool" - Nothing noteworthy: average skill, basic technique, David Blaine-persona.
• Nothing of substance turn up, no matter which thread I follow. It's all circulary interlinked self-references.

So.. Not noteworthy as a magician: Unknown among other magicians and the public, both within and outside England.

Is there any flaws in that research? --TStone 14:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding mythomania, I believe the concern is that it is a pejorative (negative) term that states "as a fact" that you know that he has been diagnosed with this medical condition. However, since you (to my knowledge) are not a physician or psychiatrist, you really can't make the claim, so it comes off as a rather strong insult. Perhaps it is a semantics issue... For some, it might be better to say, "exhibiting behavior which implies mythomania" or "mythomanic behavior", but even those phrases can potentially be construed as personal attacks (see: WP:NPA). The best Wikipedia guideline to follow, is to comment on the content, and not the person. In other words, if you see a false statement, discuss the statement and why it is untrue, instead of calling the person who said it a liar. Granted, not everyone on Wikipedia follows this policy! But it can help to maintain a civil discussion.  :) Elonka 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single person with experiece of afflictions like that who would agree to having it called an insult. Just people who has never came across it, and are uneducated in what the term actually means. It is a whole world of difference between a liar and someone suffering from mythomania, and there is no moral judgements in the latter statement. That I refered to DSM-IV must surely be seen as a sign that no insults were intended, but a reference to an actual condition. (there's nothing "magical" in diagnostics, just a series of checks. If an arm seems to have gotten an extra joint, it is probably broken.. etc. anyone can do that. It is first in treating the condition the expertise comes in). I absolutely refuse the notion that it is considered bad or a crime to have an illness, and if anything, it is more insulting to hundreds of afflicted by putting moral values on their suffering. If this is considered to be an encyclopedia, the meaning of the terms used should be checked before claiming that they are "insulting". There's no bad faith in alerting people that this is an area where one should tread lightly, as there's a big risk that all facts , even the basic ones, might be heavily distorted. Bringing in others more capable of recognizing the patterns, must surely be better than to ignore it altogether due to lack of own personal experience?

And what is this idea of J.Jay's to discount any input David Berglas, a president of the british Magic Circle, might have? Just because I have met him and other people who keeps track of performers in the field. - I mean discounting all the ones with solid knowledge in this area, because they happens to have met me...that seems more like a personal grudge. The kindest thing would be to just let this one fade away, but that seldom happens in cases like this (see pages related to DSM-IV). The one's who have put prestige into this will not stop until everything has to be exposed - until it is necessary to painfully shown that he has not worked with banking, that he hasn't worked with street-gangs...and who should be considered to be unkind then?

What is prefered? If I know that it is impossible to find verification, because there exist none - Am I expected to keep silent about that, while people are wasting effort searching for it? How is anyone supposed to manage what JJay demands: "Post verification on the fact that there exist no verification, else keep silent".. impossible to prove a negative. It should be the other way around. Since he is totally unknown among magic-fans, amateur magicians and professional magicians, both on a local level and internationally... then it is necessary with a lot of solid verification to show how it is possible to be well known, and still invisible and unheard of among the people who are experts in the field--TStone 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me propose a possibility from your own experience. I think that you are making the assumption that because many of the claims on Aladin's site are provably false, that means that he suffers from mythomania. However, what if he is not the one making the sites? What if he has a girlfriend who suffers from the disease, and who is making the claims for him, without his consent? Just because the website is incorrect, does not mean that he himself is the one who is lying. Or, another theory (granted, it is a stretch) -- suppose that his main performances are on the street, in inner cities, as part of outreach to troubled teenagers. And then as part of that outreach, he encourages them to take classes to improve themselves, and one of the classes is web design, and that one or more of his proteges decides to make "fan sites" about Aladin, posting what they think of him or what they have mistakenly heard about him, without doing any fact-checking.

What I am saying, is that we do not know for certain who is making the false claims, so it is a disservice to accuse Aladin of being mentally ill. For all we know he has nothing to do with the websites.

Regarding your research into the back issues of magic industry magazines, I am delighted to hear that! Have you also been able to verify any of the other mainstream press? It would be particularly helpful if you could manage to copy/scan any articles that you find, and send me a copy? I would love to read them for myself. Elonka 11:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. You know a theory called "Occham's razor"? As the claims turn up at more than one place, of which he is the only constant factor, it seems a stretch to assume a third party involved. People who plan to say untrue things usually makes sure that there are things to be found for anyone looking for verification, and usually does it to gain something specific. Debunking is uncomplicated, as it usually is possible to show a clear line between the claim, the manufactured evidence and the profit made. And a such debunking is easy to accept on instinct because it makes sense. But it's much harder understand someone who has a compulsion. Because you'll find no manufactured evidence, as there is no planning involved. And there's usually no profit or gain in the claims either. And since those things doesn't make sense, you tend to disregard the possibility that it might be untrue. In the claims I've seen, there are untrue things with no attempts to manufacture verification, claims of which he gain or profit nothing from. I have a hard time believing that to be because of lack of moral, but rather according to a behaviour known in DSM-IV.

But I think I will leave this topic, as it seems to make people upset.

It is a common practice in the trade journals to report noted sightings of magicians (both known and unknown) in the media and mainstream press. So far I've seen nothing. The general tone in how this is reported is in a kind and supportive way. If they seen a press story on aladin, they would probably found it kinder to avoid mentioning it, then to be forced to debunk extraordinary claims. For example, they would need to point out that the award "International Magician" is completely unrelated to the international competition at McMillan's "International Magic" etc.--TStone 12:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. :) And speaking personally, I agree with you that Aladin is most likely the one behind the false claims. Going strictly from gut feeling, I'm getting the impression that he's a "management consultant" who is hired to perform magic at corporate events as part of the entertainment, and that if he's flown to another country to perform, he claims that as "international fame".  ;) However, I still stand by my assertion that it's improper to accuse him of being mentally ill based on the website claims -- an equally plausible explanation is that it's typical advertising puffery. Minor fraud perhaps, but not illness.

In any case, I have rewritten the "controversy" paragraph at Aladin (magician). Could you take a look and give me your thoughts? Elonka 12:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fraud is considered less morally wrong than an alternative that clears him 100% from blame? :-)

I'm grateful for your edits, and I don't have to see them to know they are proper. I have left the topic as is is unrelated to my work, and will not spend more thought on it. Besides, I've lived with that kind of chaos for two years, and I'm not in a particular hurry to return to it :-)--TStone 13:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there's a new straw poll up at Talk:Aladin (magician) if you're interested in casting a vote.  :) Elonka 05:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 25-Jan, you blanked Wild levitation. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. In cases of duplicate articles, you should redirect vs delete. I have redirected this one to Balducci levitation. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 14:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I spent some time pondering on this, if it was necessary to put a redirect on a non-valid title, most likely to be made up by the one who posted it, and decided that since no one would have any reason to search for "Wild levitation", a redirect would serve no purpose (before deciding, I checked if any pages linked to it, so that there would be no broken links) --TStone 15:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirects have little overhead. If one person came up with that name, it's always possible that someone else would. However, even more likely, the original creater may come back and a redirect will probably cause them not to re-create that entry. -- JLaTondre 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Just wondering...

Response on my talk page. -- JLaTondre 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy things

Thanks for the perk-me-up during that mess. It's not quite over yet, but at least there's a light at the end of the tunnel!

I'm getting caught up on backlog now. I took a look at some the pages you mentioned, but I didn't see any problems... Was there a particular spot that you wanted me to take a closer look? - Elonka 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't remember really. It has been a few messy days. Oh well - I'm happy you are back! :-) Unfortunately, I'll have infrequent internet access the a week forward. -Tom --TStone 12:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

British doublecheck

Have you ever heard of British Paul Andrews (magician) or Dynamic FX? Someone keeps coming in and trying to promote both of them as "leading British" magician and magic supply company, but I haven't been able to verify. Should I give them the benefit of the doubt? Elonka 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tricky. Yes, I've heard the name Paul Andrew, but only in artcles naming people who have been at some place. Dynamic FX have I also heard being mentioned (but also in a kind of list form), and possibly in a less favourable way (I have to check, so I don't make a mistake).

Mark Paul is a slightly more familiar name, and Anthony Owen is definitely both known and notable. So, give them some leeway for now :-) I'll have more info at the end of next week when I'm back home.--TStone 15:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Carl Skenes

Do you know anything about magician Carl Skenes? I know a thing or two about bullet catches, guns, and self promotion and I'm simply not convinced that he performed his bullet catch ungimmicked despite what the available information might have one believe. The article on Skenes is a muddled exposé written mainly by his son (see evidence: Talk:Bullet catch#Missing piece of the puzzle). The article on him is poorly written and I don't feel that the information about him added to bullet catch is accurate. Please advise. -- Krash (Talk) 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my knowledge about the bullet catch is basically nil and nothing. The plot has no attraction for me. I looked at the text, and sure, it might be possible - lowpowered bullet, special rifle etc. But still... does it seem likely that an american TV-show in the 80´s would air something where someone actually was in any risk of getting hurt?

I´m on the road right now, so I´m a bit limited in my capabilities of researching. My advice is to put a question about Carl Skenes on the forum at www.geniimagazine.com. Many known historians in the field hangs out there. --TStone 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project magic

Hi!

I've seen a few of your posts about (like in Talk:Out of This World (card trick)), and knowing who you are, I thought you might be interested in helping out at Project Magic. Feel like drop by if you get a chance! StephenBuxton (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Antwerp

Hi, nice to hear from you! I was just on a Caribbean cruise last week, and was thinking about the whole magic scene as I was watching the table magicians plying their trade in the dining halls. The best of the bunch was an Indian magician named Tejas. Ever hear of him?

As for Antwerp, I wouldn't worry about him too much. He hasn't been on Wikipedia in over a year anyway.

How are things with you? Having a good New Year?  :) --Elonka 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having a great new year :) Unfortunately, I have little knowledge about the Indian magic scene, so I'm afraid that I haven't seen Tejas' name before. I take it that you had a good new year as well? As you might remember, I have pretty strong opinions regarding Intellectual Property. And that might get results this year. If so, I'll keep you posted :) TStone (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	You're brilliant....have wanted to tell you that for a long time!! Bddmagic (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TStone. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)