User talk:Bill Palmer

Mr. Palmer, While I respect your decision not to expose the trick on his own website, I would ask that he respect the right of Wikipedia not to have their content dictated by external sites. Specifically, the editorial decision to link to external sites is only governed by Wikipedia's external links policies. There is no law against linking to other sites on the internet, nor is there a reasonable expectation among the proprietors of websites to be able to control who links to their sites. In no way, does the link imply that your site endorses that article.

If you don't like that the article exposes magic, then don't link to it from your site.

Similarly, if a Wikipedia article links to a Department of Defense website, they are not given the opportunity to censor that article. The article in question does contain a spoiler warning, allowing those who don't want the trick exposed to avoid reading the exposing content. As the external links are beyond the spoiler warning, your site would likely be read by those who do not want the trick exposed. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, but please cease removing the link from the article. Thanks, savidan(talk) (e@) 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill, I removed the link to your site after you changed your front page to be a tirade against exposure on Wikipedia. I only reverted your removal the two times that I did because you replaced the link with a rant which didn't belong on Wikipedia ("The owner of the Cups and Balls Museum..."). Your site is somewhat interesting but not so much so that I am willing to go out of my way (and area of expertise) to maintain a link to it. As long as you don't attempt to remove "spoilers" from the article or insist on explaining your reasons for not wanting a link from Wikipedia on Wikipedia itself, you'll encounter no further resistance from me. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)