User talk:Clarityfiend/Taxi dispute

Taxi edits
Let's make a deal --- the generic link is fine with me as the first topic is the current discussion anyway --- OK?--Bamadude 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with invisible direction, i.e., putting comments for editors into the code so only those editing can see it, but your buddy Crockface left the direction visible in the article and I agreed to revert it to that version. I don't mind leaving the comment invisible if that will make you happy.--Bamadude 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Bamadude 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lawyer: Your honor, I ask for mercy for my client.
 * Judge: On what grounds?
 * Lawyer: He's an orphan.
 * Judge: He was convicted of murdering his parents!
 * Edits by me on September 26, 2007: 3
 * Edits by Bamadude: 8 Clarityfiend 03:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact is that you and Croctotheface 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 Crockface created and was willing to leave that version in place.  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.  BTW, Clarityfiend is a highly-ironic moniker for you, in my opinion, as you tend to obfuscate clarity in order to meet your goals.--Bamadude 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Longtime Taxi editor??
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)


 * This matter is essentially over, but as long as you continue leaving me messages and veiled threats, I will continue responding. I'm guessing you have to be a very young adult, if that, as you continually exaggerate and lie and use sarcasm to make your points seem truthful and cool, so let me teach you some things your momma should have taught you long ago and point out the holes in your argument.


 * Here's some facts --- 2 editors are not "several" --- the 3rd admitted the issues was resolved. Here's another clue --- teaming up with others to revert edits and trying to take administrative action against a user who simply disagreed with you means you have serious self-esteem issues.  And reverting over minor MOS issues (which I agreed I was inadvertently in error with) and failing to provide a link to back up your claims at WP:MOS or discuss them is not paranoid; it's a fact that you have enlisted others in your acts and you only reverted to make yourself feel better.  If you had been editing the article properly over a long period of time and are so fond of "clarity", surely you would have realized that the episode list was obviously out-of-whack by the airdates being out-of-order from the episode numbers (which I saw quickly and proved was incorrect), so maybe you're upset not only that I caught it instead of you, you are upset because I dared to call the person who kept insisting I was wrong a liar for covering up his previous errors and omissions with more lies in reverting my good, cited work.  And teaming up with another user to circumvent the 3-revert edit rule is OK for you in order to bend the rules your way by trickery, I'm guessing?  You even lied on your own page stating I have made 8 reverts over that issue, which was not true and either you know it or failed to check the edit history to report the truth as I assume 8 reverts sound better in your twisted mind.  I believe you are a mainly a childish smart-ass kid who doesn't believe the rules of decency and fair play apply to you because how could you possibly be wrong?


 * I don't have a problem with the Taxi article after my last minor edit or really any edits you've made to it as you were pretty well right about the MOS errors I made; it's just your childish attitude and the way you handled it that I have a problem with.--Bamadude 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize
I would like to apologize to you if I said or did anything that offended you as I only meant to improve the Taxi article. I don't agree with your style or your version of the circumstances surrounding the edit war, but you will be who you want to be and I'm sorry regardless that your feelings were hurt over it. Since all the major edits and discussions have been agreed upon as of today, I have archived the Talk page so the possibly-offensive remarks are removed from plain view. I propose that any major changes or any future conflicts are discussed first before an edit war gets started so we can reach a consensus to avoid these messes in the future.--Bamadude 01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your latest TAXI edits
Please go to the Taxi discussion page to discuss your latest edits. I have reverted to the version prior to your latest edits to put the sources back into the article pending your reply. I can't see any valid reason why you would think removing a link to an image which shows the source of the info is a positive enhancement to any article, as sources are important to verify the info per WP:V, plus I went to a lot of trouble to provide that info and the images meet fair use. I do not monitor your page, so please reply at the Taxi discussion page.--Bamadude 23:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you get it through your thick head that I was not part of your edit war with Wack'd? For the last time, I am not conspiring with Wack'd and Croctotheface to get you. (However, I can't say the same about the Pope, Simon Cowell and your mailman.) I objected to airing your dirty laundry in public, period. Also, are you serious about a DVD cover being a more desirable source than a commercially published book? Next, how is the reader going to know that the source is to verify the order of the episodes? Finally, are you planning to fix your latest change? Clarityfiend 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Please...just don't bother with him. The more you rebut yourself, the more he's going to come down on you, and I can tell from what your saying that you don't want that. If you to are discussing, and he brings that up, just change back the subject. I can't stand him any more than you can, but if you want this to go away you have to pretend to stop noticing that he's bringing it up. He can't get the truth through his head, and that his problem. By responding negitivly, you're making it your problem too. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh...always nice to hear from a fellow Monty Python fan! Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Taxi changes
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 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war
I have a great deal for you and you get everything you wanted:


 * You go to WP:WQA and withdraw your complaint and apologize to the group for the disruption and I'll do the same.


 * I have also agreed with Cheeser1 to not contest the removal of the image links I posted at the Taxi article.


 * You agree to go to the Taxi talk page and state that the matter has been resolved and apologize for the disruption and I'll do the same.


 * You agree to stop using WP policy to enforce your viewpoint on others anywhere, from here on out, unless a true violation occurs, and also refrain from manipulation of the rules and keep the true spirit of WP policy in your work along with the words of the policy.

Deal?--Bamadude 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)