User talk:Sotar

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Criss Angel has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Epbr123 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

methods

Why are you deleting the method's to various illusions?--Theoneintraining (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sawing a woman in half, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Sawing a woman in half constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Sawing a woman in half. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to David Copperfield's flying illusion. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 01:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to King levitation has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. – iride scent 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to David Copperfield's laser illusion constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you. – iride scent 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Copperfield's flying illusion. 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) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zig Zag Girl: Method

Heya! I see that you keep trying to delete the Method section in Zig Zag Girl. If you have a disagreement with the method section why don't you join the discussion page and tell them about it. There's already commentary going on. $\sim$ Hadaly (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Enough.

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by repeatedly removing sections from articles without discussion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. "Indefinite" in this case does not mean "infinite"; should you agree to discuss changes you wish to make, rather than continually blanking any section with which you disagree, I (or any other admin) will be happy to unblock you. – iride scent 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that the methods you're removing are all, at least partially, sourced, so you're not even enforcing the "recent" consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic. You're just removing methods on your own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]