Can you please explain in more detail, why the patent link did not support what was being said on the David Copperfield's flying illusion page?
I did not start the page or even add any text, I agree with not revealing any magic tricks on wikipedia.
- No problem. First off, it isn't about revealing magic secrets, it is about accuracy. The Patent is not registered to Copperfield, or anyone else officially representing him. Until DC or someone representing him says that the apparatus patented is the same one that they use, and that it is utilized in the same way that they described, it is just speculation, and does not belong on Wiki.--Iclavdivs (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to King levitation, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Gwernol 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on King levitation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)