Talk:Ambitious Card

message: edited this article last month (this edit) making questionable changes that have, at least in part, later been undone.  Today Mr Leaf showed himself to be another incarnation of the long running Magician Randy magicvandal, doing his usual out-and-out vandalism.  Can someone review the above change and ensure that the damage he did last month has been undone?  Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help review "Mr Leaf"'s edit - vandalism or not

message: I agree with the comments above - the Ambitious Card is a magicians' secret and there is no reason whatsoever to tip the method to any curious people who might want to learn how it is done. Please could you take down this section, and in fact the other ones in other articles which also tip classic tricks of magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.54.171 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help review "Mr Leaf"'s edit - vandalism or not

message: Articles on magic should adhere to the guidelines laid down by the WikiProject Magic regarding exposure. The Method section of this article was not properly cited and is therefor an unecessary breach of secrecy regarding the method of the illusion. As a magician, I can honestly say that it was of poor quality as well.
I have removed the section, but anyone should feel free to bring it back if they properly cite sources for the explanations given in it. See Magic Methods and Exposure
Moquel 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to improve the explanation section.  As a magician, you well know that this trick is widely exposed, and that a few seconds with Google will lead the inquiring reader to a variety of instructions for the (simple) version presented here.  I've added a couple of those links to the article; please stop removing the explanation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't touch a properly cited article. I'm just following the guidelines, and would like for people not to see that as some sort of vandalism. Simply reverting my edits when proper cause has been given for my action, as well as an ignoring the invitation to talk it over really doesn't seem like the right thing to do.Moquel 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I currently propose removing the first paragraph under the method's section, and leave it as pointing people to other sources to read about it themselves. The DL method explained says to have a signed card as the second card... But leaves out any method to control the signed card to that position in the deck. What kind of a method is that? It's a lie in and of itself, and I think we're better off saying in essence "there's a multitude of places where you can learn the ACR, and master it with dedicated practice over a period of time" -- it's not an easy routine. Anyone agree? --Protocoldroid (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines regarding exposure of magic 

message: Guys, I think these sources are pretty good. So I'm going to remove the 'citations needed' header at the top of the page. While I think the youtube link to an ACR isn't exactly "perfect"... I own the "Card College" series, and if that doesn't give a valid reference, I don't know what does. Plus 6-7 other sources that are legitimate, I'd say, we did a good job sourcing a trick which, from my own editorial view -- is widely known how to describe the effect. "I bury the card, it's now on top!" * 1,000,000. And as another editorial note: do a youtube search for Michael Ammar's ACR, it's beautiful and inspiring!!
--Protocoldroid (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing citations header... 

message: There's a book out now about magic in which it is stated that this trick "fooled Houdini".  Does anyone have any further information about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.188.200 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fooling Houdini?