MAURICE FRANK wrote:
Ah, but there is one circumstance in which such
accessing of Wikipedia is not an illegal act. That is
when its purpose is to stop Wikipedia committing an
illegal act upon you. Wikipedia is committing an
illegal act upon me by trying to ignore my citation,
made by email to Jimmy Wales as well as on this list,
for it to the remove every word I have ever
contributed to Wikipedia, on grounds of copyright
violation and ides theft, and ensure they stay removed
despite the public editability of pages. Unless you
can demonstrate that the second requirement is
technically possible, then the continued existence of
Wikipedia has been proved entirely illegal.
This sounds like the work of someone who got a law degree from reading
comic books.
No-one has any legal obligation to pay attention to you. Unless you
were infringing someone else's copyrights when you first added the
material, the continued presence of your material that you yourself put
into Wikipedia is not an infringement of copyright.
If you contribute material you agree to the GFDL at the time that you
add the material. There is no provision to withdraw that material.
As to "idea theft", please remember that ideas themselves are not
copyrightable; copyrights apply only to the way they are presented.
Of course, if someone *else* has added material to which you have the
legal copyright.there exist formal legal procedures whereby you can
demand its removal.
Ec