Talk:Taxi (TV series)/Archive 1

message: Images removed due to violations of fair-use/copyright provisions. --Cheeser1 20:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode list per DVD covers

message: i know this really isn't the perfect place to ask, but any word on any of the other seasons being released on dvd?  on that same note, maybe someone should add a section (or sentence, whatever) about the existing DVD releases (maybe include describing their lack of bonus and special features...).  just a thought 209.120.230.238 00:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD

message: As a rule, we don't put directions to editors in the mainspace.  There are lots of spaces in lots of articles where someone may be especially inclined to add incorrect information.  We don't put information instructing them not to do that into the article.  The audience for our articles is the general public, and people who are not interested in editing Wikipedia have no use for that kind of message. Croctotheface 02:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with that, except that you just edited a mainspace directive in an article to go to the point you wanted it to go, so I assume you just learned and started promulgating this initiative within the last 5 minutes??--Bamadude 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, please don't leave the same comment here and on my talk page.  Second, despite what you have said, I have no interest at all in pointing a link anywhere or in the order of episodes on that list.  As I said in my edit summary, "I had mistakenly thought that this [the directions] was already commented out."  I saw that there was some sort of punctuation and assumed that it was comment text.  Second, you left a 3RR template on my page--I actually only reverted once, in part.  My other edit was a novel approach to the message that had not existed before. It was not a reversion in whole or in part.  Croctotheface 03:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact is that you and Clarityfiend (which is an ironic moniker for that user, BTW) tag-teamed up on me to keep your mutual edits in place, so if you revert me twice and they revert me twice, I have to revert more than 3 times to overcome it, which obviously isn't fair play, but apparently that's no problem for you two to play that game as you apparently feel that bending the rules is OK and keeping the spirit of fair play alive isn't.  I had only reverted to the version you created.  Since the edits you two were making were only edits regarding WP:MOS, I relented as the content was essentially 100% mine anyway.  The fact is that the edits by you two were only made to "tweak my nose" so to speak and very childish because I had apparently called a friend of yours (Wack'd) onto the carpet for his repeated incorrect edits and lies.  Then incorrectly reporting me to administrators (to no avail) because you aren't happy that your improper tactics aren't working instead of discussing the issues is utterly ridiculous.  I have no problem with admitting that I had unknowingly fractured WP:MOS at least once and I relented in the edit war as a result, but I'll bet you two won't accept any complicity in your own egregious actions.--Bamadude 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure why you think everyone is out to get you, but we're not.  You wanted a comment to editors in the article.  That's not how we do things.  You don't even want it anymore.  I don't see what the problem is.  Also, PLEASE stop leaving the same message on my talk page and the article talk page.  It's either a personal message for me or a message for everyone who might want to edit this article, not both.  Croctotheface 04:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fruitless responding to somebody who's convinced there's a conspiracy against him. I'm done wasting my time. (See you at the next WP:CABAL meeting, Croctotheface.) Clarityfiend 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I also have no interest in arguing.  If you think something unfair is going on, there are plenty of methods for dispute resolution or mediation.  I don't even see a change you want to make to the article.  If the article is the way you want it, I don't understand why you would choose to spend time making these kinds of charges. Croctotheface 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainspace directions to editors 

message: There is an issue at hand behind-the-scenes regarding this article directly and I want to bring it out in the open so that everyone has the opportunity to comment and knows the entire truth as it affects the future direction of the article and many other articles and users in general.  In my opinion, it's basically a personal revenge attack against me by another longtime user who is mad that I have challenged their edits in this article in the past, but I'll let you be the judge of that.
It is my contention that User:Clarityfiend has been relentlessly controlling this article, finding any way possible to revert my contributions regardless of consensus or whether they are proper or not with little or no debate, but when I speak up against it, Clarityfiend manipulates the WP rules by twisting and using them against me in a prosecutorial manner like a WikiLawyer, at times fraudulently and recklessly in order to gain an upper hand on an edit war by putting me down through improper manipulation of the WP policy instead of discussing and debating in a proper public forum, i.e., this page. I have plenty of documented instances of this which you will find below.
*For instance, on one of the initial occasions that I edited this article, I was submitted by CF as candidate for blocking because I disagreed (see here), and then it was retracted when CF realized and admitted that it was incorrect to do that to me.  
*I believe in the public's right to know and that all users should have a word in discussions related to an article, as articles are not owned by CF nor myself --- the debate should be held here for all to see.  However, realizing that there was nothing left to do when the last debate over this article was lost by CF (see 2 sections above), CF waited for my next edit and attacked it, not by reverting and discussing the issue here in public, but by submitting me to Mediation.  When I said I wouldn't play along with this new tactic, CF then reached into its bag of legal tricks and submitted me to Wikiquette for remarks I made in an old closed discussion because CF had apparently run out of viable "legal" solutions.  I then "filed a countersuit" with plenty of examples of CF's egregious behavior, some of which have been admitted by CF.  For more on the story, go to this link to read all the details and judge for yourself.
In order to resolve the latest dispute, I once again agreed to relent and remove the DVD cover images from the article, but left the links to them in as they are necessary per WP:V, which means essentially that I once again let CF win to settle the issue.  But if this can happen to someone who is an experienced editor and knows a decent amount of the WP policy like myself, it can happen to those who have little experience and fortitude to fight back when they are victimized by biting, and Wikipedia then becomes a fiefdom owned by dictatorial editors using Wikilawyering tactics with nothing but their POV getting through.--Bamadude 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to know where the article is going and what impact a user's actions have upon it for the good of the public's right to know, as censorship of comments about an article or the contributors thereof is unjust.--Bamadude 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Clarityfiend