User talk:Bamadude/archive-001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Taxi episode list

Wack'd, please see this new entry in the Taxi talk page --- the info you provided earlier was incorrect, I'm sorry to say.--Bamadude 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of my arguement was NOT the difference between airdate and episode # order - it, actually, was much more simple than that. I was simply stating that the episodes were in order of airdate on the DVD box (the episodes were actually listed WITH the airdates), and that the DVDs (being an offical source) would be more reliable when building the episode list than an unoffical source like IMDb (the users actually admit to the frequent flaws in their information). It had nothing whatsoever to do with the difference between airdate order and episode # order (in this case, actually, there is no difference between the two, and whoever added the airdates obviously used an incorrect source.) Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You have now lied at least 4 times and these links below prove it:
  • LIE #1 - Look at this comparison on the page history: [1]. You not only changed the correct order of the episode list that I fixed earlier (my correct edit on the left side), you also changed the airdates, purposely editing the episode list and the airdates incorrectly as shown in your bold red edits (your incorrect edits on the right side).
  • LIE #2 - Your source was quoted as "the back of the DVD cover" in the reason for your reverting back to your incorrect edit on the history page on 15 SEP 2007 at 16:11 --- scan down to that date/time on that page, edit id #158126113. That statement would mean that you either owned the DVD cover or had actually seen it, but if you really had, you would have known you were wrong, which is Lie #1. The page history doesn't lie as it's in your own words --- it clearly shows that you lied then about seeing the DVD cover and are lying now to cover it up, which is your statement above --- Lie #2.
  • LIE #3 - This edit made on 30 AUG 2007 at 16:19 shows that you initially created the episode list, and did so incorrectly at that and the history page from then until now shows you defended it up until today.
  • LIE #4 - Don't need a link here as logic proves you wrong --- the airdates were added by another user and they were correct --- it was your episode list that was incorrect, being out-of-order. The adding of the airdates by that user was what drew attention to this whole thing.
Didn't the Martha Stewart case teach you anything? If you make a mistake, don't cover it up by lying and then don't cover up old lies with new ones --- oh what a tangled web we weave. There's also no middle "e" in argument.--Bamadude 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have one correction to my argument that I just discovered was incorrect, but it's a minor one at this point. I had just intended to add the IMDB episode list as a 2nd source, as I initially used the IMDB list as my source for my 1st edit of the episode list, but I just found out that it's incorrect also. However, I was not aware that it was because I didn't own the DVD at that time and I did defer to Wack'd and his alleged proper sourcing of the DVD cover at that time as being a more-official source per my previous remarks below. But I bought the DVD myself yesterday and I verified the proper order from the DVD and posted it in the article along with scans of the DVD covers as visual proof as the source, so I stand corrected only in that respect and had no knowledge the IMDB list was incorrect until just now, but it doesn't affect my argument as the IMDB list doesn't matter anyway --- the DVD is the official source as we have both agreed upon earlier.--Bamadude 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I just went to IMDB and submitted changes to their episode list to match it with the DVD. It may take until appx 2 OCT 2007 for the changes to appear.--Bamadude 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I didn't post an episode list for Taxi.

Please don't criticize me for things I never did. Croctotheface 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You either edited the episode list, or reverted to an older version of the page that included the old episode list, or you used a template that had the old episode list in it, or there was an edit conflict due your possibly keeping the edit window open too long, and in doing so, you reverted the page back to an older version before the episode list was fixed. The history page doesn't lie.--Bamadude 01:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Must've been an edit conflict. You still need to chill out a little bit. I do not care about the episode list at all and have no intention of editing it. Croctotheface 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your edit came 2-1/2 hours after mine --- how do you figure it's an edit conflict, unless you left your edit window open all afternoon? Obviously, that would create a conflict if that's the case. Please consider other users and take responsibility for your actions and at least apologize when you screw up.--Bamadude 01:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Will you leave me alone about this already? I don't care about the episode order and I never meant to change it. Croctotheface 01:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I will if you'll take some responsibility for your actions and admit you screwed up leaving your edit window open for 3 hours, you last-word freak. I have no intention of sending you anymore messages except that you keep sending me your "whatever" messages with the attitude of who-gives-a-damn if it doesn't concern you. Here's another clue for you --- "whatever" died out in the 1990s with grunge.--Bamadude 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxi episode list taken way to far...

If we both agree on the episode order, and this episode order is accepted as fact, why continue arguing? The changes I made were unintentional, I did not mean to change any information except the list order. I must have made those other changes unintentionally, or reverted correct edits in the process of fixing the list. I honestly don't know. But you will see, if you look back at our discussion on the Taxi page, that I did not lie when responding to your statement. I recommed we let this end here, leave the list as we both agree it should stay, and forget about it. We both agree the other made the correct changes to the episode list, and there is no point in argueing about who's way of getting to that conclusion is right or wrong. Also, don't be so hard on Croctotheface, he obviously had a small part in this, and obviously does not diserve to be picked on for something so trivial. You should always assume good faith, and remember that unless someone is an establish vandal or is making edits that are obviously spam, it's always best to assume that the person knew or thought they knew what they were doing. Please leave it at that. --Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 02:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I never heard much about the Martha Stewart case (thus I couldn't have learned from it), and I happen to be a poor speller. Please do not critize me for this to make your point, as your point is made well enough and picking on me for it will only make you look bad (even if you are right.) Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What's gone too far is how you two (I'm assuming that I'm dealing with 2 separate people and not sockpuppet profiles) refuse to accept responsibility for your actions.--Bamadude 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly did I do?

We agreed on the episode order. We ended the edit war between us. I told the truth 100% of the time...but you keep insisting that I did something wrong, and you were just the victim. This is childish. Not only do you claim I made points that (according to the current Taxi talk page AND the page history) I never made. If we agree on the order, fine! Issue resolved! There is no need to keep arguing. But you insist on not only making this into a bigger deal than it already was, (making a mountain out of an anthill, not even a molehill) or but throwing around acusations at mostly random people. If your edits were reverted, it is either because you are wrong or a simple mistake, NOT a personal issue or insisting apon an edit war (WP:AGF). Please, the episode list is the way we both agreed on, regardless of how we each came to this conclusion. LEAVE IT BE!

--Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranoia

My, but you are rather full of yourself, aren't you? It couldn't be that several editors independently disagreed with you. Nope, it just has to be a conspiracy. FYI, I have made major edits to this article (check the history starting Jan. 21), so your insinuation that I was recruited to persecute you is laughable.

I admit I did overreact in nominating you for a block, but I realized my error and cancelled it. Your behavior wasn't bad enough to warrant it. However, it wouldn't surprise me if it came to that eventually, unless you lose that chip on your shoulder. No doubt by somebody in the WP:CABAL. Clarityfiend 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you ADMIT a mistake? Red-letter day, I'd say. I'm betting you're a young pre-law student, where they teach you "deny, deny, deny" and the "pound the law or pound the table" axiom. I see you are still hurling veiled threats if you don't get your way --- is daddy's little girl still upset??--Bamadude 00:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Bamadude, this is uncivil and a personal attack. Please cease making such comments. Daniel Case 03:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First of all

I never even HEARD of Croctotheface & Clarityfiend before this issue cropped up. Two, as I pointed out before, you can search the entire history of my talk page, your talk page, and the Taxi talk page, and figure out from that that I never made half the points/lies you claim I made (let alone cover up these alleged "lies".) You are simply being paranoid, and you are assuming you are always right as well. You are forgetting to use WP:Assume Good Faith, and to top it off, you are simply being annoying. PLEASE, for my sake and the sake of all my so-called "conspritators", let the issue drop and admit that multiple editors (not sockpuppets, editors) are pissed off by your ignorence. --Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How did you prove your point? By critisizing my spelling and comparing this arguement to court cases I never heard of? It's not my fault I'm only thirteen. But I know when I've done something wrong, and take responsiblity. You, my fellow editor, are a cabal. Screw assuming good faith, man, because you couldn't assume someone was doing the right thing if you saw them buy a toddler an ice-cream cone after the toddler dropped their own. You obviously can't admit that you are simply being paranoid, and that there is more evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theories than for the stuff you're making up. Half the time I can't even understand what your getting at. Let's face it, your the little kid with the big mouth, and it's time for your mother to give you a spanking. --Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 01:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's okay...

I accept your apology. The important thing is we agreed on what was appropreate, and in the end, that's all that really matters - not the little details. --Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 03:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna and Larry

Sorry Bamadude, I pulled out of Anna Nicole Smith stuff ages ago (i.e., months), and don't even remember my quote about the unreliability of tabloids. But it does sound like one of the more sensible things I've said. However, I won't get into the To Larry Seidlin or Not To Larry controversy, as I haven't been following his Notability. Will light a candle for St. Anna the Great tonight. Bellagio99 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxi article changes - Clarityfiend's upset again

After seeing your latest change, I propose taking this to Wikipedia:Third Opinion. Clarityfiend 02:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip on your emotions. My recent changes were only made for the good of the article. This not an attack on you; however, you apparently feel the need to attack me for anything I do that you don't like. Please leave it alone and find something else to do that's constructive as your repeated attacks on my edits are pathetic and totally uncalled for. I would also appreciate it if you would calm down and leave any messages for me about this article on its talk page and not my user page.--Bamadude 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette alert

Hello Bamadude. You've been mentioned in a Wikiquette alert here. I'd encourage you to participate if you have anything to add, but I'd also encourage you to not get too defensive - we're not just going to take what the other user says at face value, and his complaints will be investigated impartially. In many Wikiquette cases, we find that the person bringing the complaint is partially responsible for the problems as well (in a few limited cases, we find that they're entirely possibly). This isn't a witch hunt, and we aim only to resolve problems. Sarcasticidealist 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==Copyright problems==

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:TAXI-SEASON1-INSIDECOVER.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:TAXI-SEASON1-INSIDECOVER.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:TAXI-SEASON1-INSIDECOVER.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:TAXI-SEASON1-INSIDECOVER.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:TAXI-SEASON1-INSIDECOVER.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:TAXI-SEASON1-INSIDECOVER.jpg.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Please note that the problem has been identified for the image Image:TAXI-SEASON1-OUTSIDECOVER.jpg --Cheeser1 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser, this is obviously a personal attack by you based on comments made at the Wikiquette page and I won't respond to it except to say that the image obviously meets fair use and you're wrong. I will be posting a complaint about your tactics, though.--Bamadude 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Asking you to follow copyright policy (and the law about fair use) is not a personal attack. Construing it as such represents a clear assumption of bad faith. Feel free to report me, but there's nothing wrong with reporting copyright violations. --Cheeser1 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be very up on quoting WP policy. Ever heard of a WP essay called WP:LAWYER? I believe you are a fine WikiLawyer; way better than Clarityfiend, except that I don't agree with you at all. The fact is that you have waded way into this argument beyond the Wikiquette complaint and have chosen sides, so your opinions are not NPOV and mean nothing to me at this point.--Bamadude 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between Wikilawyering and following copyright law. Copyright policy is not negotiable. Furthermore, no one is "taking sides" and even if someone is, NPOV policy is about article content, and has nothing to do with outside opinions weighing in on a dispute. Please don't mis-quote policy in this fashion. It is accusatory and reflects your continued hostility towards anyone who disagrees with you. --Cheeser1 22:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This case is closed, so please take your attitude somewhere else for the time-being. I still don't agree with your opinions at all and I will prove you wrong, so expect to hear from me soon about this issue.--Bamadude 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from you. However, you seem to think this is a "case" - it is not. It is simply a courtesy notice to let you know that your images violate our copyright policy, even under fair use guidelines. If you wish to take some action regarding this matter, feel free; however, I see very little to be done. This is simply an image deletion that falls directly in line with policy. --Cheeser1 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be handling this issue very shortly, looking forward to your replies.--Bamadude 01:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)