User talk:Aylesburyhills

Your edit to trampoline
I'm not sure if copying from this site is a copyright violation, but even if it isn't, pasting all the text as you did in trampoline is not appropriate. Extracting the relevant parts and citing the text is a better idea. Graham 87 08:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just new to this. I can comment on the copyright issue in that I received authorization from both the inventor and the patent assignee's representative to use whatever text from the patent seemed relevant. I might suggest you insert what you think is relevant from the patent. It seems clear that this device (rod based trampoline) is now in the market and represents an alternative engineering approach to the definition of the class as described in Wikipedia


 * OK I'll do that; I'll insert a paragraph in and I'll allow those with more knowledge of the topic to do what they want with it. The thing with copyrights here is you need to be able to release the text under a license like the GNU free documentation license or into the public domain so it can be used for whatever purpose the author wants. So for example someone could legally turn your text into a rap song or something without asking your permission. I'll work on incorporating the text tonight. Graham 87 09:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - I've added a couple of sentences about the invention. Graham 87 10:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Graham87. I saw your changes last week. They seem to have been subsequently changed again. I guess that is the way it works in the "wiki" world.

My issue is that the trampoline page appears to no longer reflect fact. Even the opening paragraph providing the generic description is no longer accurate. The paragraph headed "The Modern Trampoline" seems totally flawed in concept. The most "modern" incarnation of the trampoline is the device described in US patent 6319174. One doesn't expect every inventors brain-child to end up getting formal recognition (because most don't ever make an impact in the real world), but in this case, the "Springfree" trampoline is selling 000's of units every month around the world.

(I know this because I guess I have a bit of a conflict of interest - I know the inventor, and helped him commercialise his device). So whether that disqualifies me or not, I don't know.

Anyway, I would have thought that the rod based/soft edge concept (forget about branding) warranted a mention under the "Trampoline Construction" paragraph.


 * Discuss any changes you want to make at talk:trampoline. Discussing your edits on the talk page is the best thing to do if you have a conflict of interest - as long as you are transparent about it, which you have been already, people won't mind. No substantial changes were made after my edit - the abbreviation "rv" means revert - a person just fixed some vandalism made after my edit. I see that you've made some changes and then User:Dabbler merged a couple of paragraphs. Maybe the modern trampolines section should be renamed to "Traditional trampolines" or something? You'll need to find reliable sources to show the impact of the 2001 invention - they don't have to be online. Anyway talk:trampoline is probably the best place to discuss your edits so more people can see the discussion. You can sign your edits on that page, as well as all other talk pages like this one, by typing four tildes like this: "~". Graham 87 01:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for this advice, I'll follow it up.