Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:24, 18 June 2007

Television Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Screenshot copyright

I have removed the request to delete the screenshot of the pirate broadcast as, IMO, the screenshot meets fair use guidelines and adds signifigantly to the article. If you wish to revert this please justify it here first. 195.72.170.227 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The request was ridiculous in the first place! The illegal broadcaster is certainly not protected under copyright law. Did someone think the culprit will now come forward to complain about a photo in Misplaced Pages??? More likely they revel in it!!!

Perhaps the request was because of confusion over the actual Max Headroom show rather than a picture of someone in a mask.

I found no such request in the archives. Apparently is was removed when the article was renamed. So this section should be archived or deleted as well.

75.39.152.138 04:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The legality of the broadcast does not impact the copyright. It meets fair use, so I say use it, but it is a valid copyright. -M 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcript?

Should there be a transcript of what was said? (or what might have been said, as many people disagree on what he's saying on many statements) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.10.228 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I went ahead and added one, based on the two videos linked to in the article, and some of the comments to those. Not sure how to attribute those. Also, is there any way to make the text 'click to reveal', since it contains the 'B-word'? --24.252.10.228 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for a "click to reveal" measure. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and in this case removing the profanity would provide a less accurate transcript. Rob T Firefly 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reformatting the transcript section; I made a few corrections to the overal grammer and provided a few wiki-links. Hopefully, all here will be in agreement with the new layout and its readability. If not, please feel free to add your own input. And thanks to person who created it to begin with. It is a much-needed addition to the entry. Labyrinth13 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My question is, should we have a transcript on the issue that it's likely a copyvio? I'd be inclined to remove it on those grounds, since, as absurd and illegal as the pirate broadcast was, it's still technically copyrighted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel pretty safe in saying that the chances are virtually slim to none that anyone will ever challenge the transcript on copyright grounds. Labyrinth13 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the chances are slim to none that anyone will actually challenge it, but the transcript here appears to be original research, and therefore I'm going to take it down. Let's leave it to the viewers of the videos (especially since one is captioned) to figure out what's being said. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having listened closely to the actual recording, I believe that what the transcript stated that you removed was pretty accurate for the most part, but on further thought, agree with you that it probably qualifies as original research. As such, I have no problem with the removal of the transcript, but from my experience here on Misplaced Pages and on this entry in particular, I suspect that the removal may be challenged by others. We shall see, right? Labyrinth13 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

References

I added a section for References and inline citations and also provided the first two inline cites.

Other editors may want to consider reformatting and/or providing inline citations for many of the statements made in the main body of the entry. Labyrinth13 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar incidents

I added a new section to the entry for incidents of a similar nature and provided inline citations for them. Labyrinth13 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Jonrev: I reverted your removal of the video link that I posted. The link you removed was to a different video than the others that are already posted there.

Granted, it does use some of the same footage as the others already listed, as does your own video, but it offers a different perspective than the others (as does your video).

Before removing it again, please state in detail your reasons for removing it here in this thread. Thanks. Labyrinth13 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How does your video provide a "different prospective"? All I see is an intro, short info on the hijack that you probably got from the description fuzzymemories provided, the screenshot thats on this article with an extremely annoying (loud) noise, then fuzzymemories' footage. It's not worth posting to Misplaced Pages since fuzzymemories' video is already up here. It's like those people who upload that "Shoes" video a million times, pointless. Mine is different because it has translations, yours is footage stolen from the original poster.

I'll leave it up for now but it will probably be removed soon.--jonrev 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The description I used on my YouTube page was adapted from this Misplaced Pages entry and I cite this page.

As far as I know, the footage is public domain, so it matters not where it came from, or whether it is in my video or yours or in the person you call "fuzzymemories." (No one owns the copyright, because it was an illegal transmission).

My video is as "different" as your video is and is no more "stolen" than your own is. If those are the rules you are trying to impress here, then it follows that if my video is to be removed, than so should your own.

However, it is not up to either me or you to decide that, but rather, whether or not the rules of Misplaced Pages are being followed as far as this is concerned. I'm aware of no rules or regulation that backs up your original reason for removing it or the reasons you posted in this thread. If you do, then please post links to those rules.

You wrote, "I'll leave it up for now but it will probably be removed soon." By whom? You? If that is the case, then you will need to post a reason as to why it is being removed and not just the arbitrary ones that you have used so far. Prior to you or anyone else removing it again, we should get a WP:RfC on this or ask an administrator for advice. Thanks. Labyrinth13 00:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask, what's the point in having 2 of the same exact damn videos??--jonrev 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the videos are not the same, so I have no idea of what point you think you are making here with that statement.

Also, I will ask you to please not use profanity when addressing posts to me per WP:Civil. Thanks. Labyrinth13 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not continuing this discussion anymore. You read my reasons. Dont be surprised to see your video gone. It makes no sense to post the same video that the article already links to with some garbage at the beginning. --jonrev 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to discuss this with you in a reasonable manner, but you seem to want only confrontation and to engage in personal attacks.

Since you have not cited anything that can show how the link to my video violates Misplaced Pages’s rules, then your removal of the link is simply being done out of spite and violates the tenants of WP:AGF.

If you continue to remove it, I'll ask an administrator to get involved. Thanks. Labyrinth13 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with jonrev here. The subtitled version by jonrev does contribute something extra to the article, but your video is redundant to fuzzymemories's version. There's really no reason to have both. By the way, unless someone is violating WP:3RR or WP:NPA (neither has happened yet) or some other relevant policy, you won't get much assistance by involving an administrator. Jonrev, please do remain civil. I'm going to remove the redundant video. Labyrinth13, if you disagree with my assessment as well, you are welcome to open an RFC or ask for a third opinion. — coelacan — 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your opinion, but I disagree with your assessment and have opened an RfC for this below. Labyrinth13 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC: External links to videos

Issue under discussion:

User User:jonrev deleted a link in the External links section to a video because he believed that it was the same as another video already linked there. Another editor User:Labyrinth13 restored the link because he believed that the two videos are different and that the link should stay.

Comments:

I am aware of no Misplaced Pages rule that prohibits either linking to YouTube videos, nor does anything in Misplaced Pages:External_links mention whether one YouTube video must be substantially “different” from another that is linked.

Also, if there is a Misplaced Pages rule that says that a historical document or in this case, a segment of video, must only be linked to minimally, I also cannot find that rule.

Finally, the amount of links in the External links section is not at all excessive at present, which should not exclude adding an extra link to the video.

Here is what I found in Misplaced Pages:External_links concerning YouTube links:

Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites:

There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Misplaced Pages:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

Your comments are welcome. Labyrinth13 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• All that is different is that you've taken the more concise video, added your logo to the beginning, followed by a rehashing of information already in the Misplaced Pages article, some of your commentary to the effect that the man was a "genius", "may he live long and prosper", and a sound effect of a vacuum cleaner, to make your version. Can you explain how this is not redundant? — coelacan — 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you. One video has the raw footage only (and that doesn't make it "more concise" as you put it); one has the raw footage with a rather amateur attempt at superimposing a "translation" onto the video screen; my video has an intro that offers a nutshell explanation of the event, a clip featuring photos of the "pirate" to the sound of a theremin playing (not a vacuum cleaner) just for the fun of it and then the raw footage. (And as does one of the other video being discussed here, I also provide a detailed explanation of the event and a transcript of the dialog in the comments section of my listing and I refer readers back to this Misplaced Pages entry for more information).

But is "redundancy" really what is the issue here? Where does it say in the Misplaced Pages rules that one must avoid redundancy by not posting more than one link to the same historical document in the External links section? (Remember, we are not talking about inline citations or references in the body of the entry where the issue of redundancy is more clear-cut). Or where does it say in the Misplaced Pages rules that one can only link more than once to historical documents so long as there are variations on the theme or different versions of that document?

Finally, I would point out that my video has only been uploaded for a few days, yet I have already received quite a few hits on it and many positive comments from viewers who really seem to have enjoyed watching it. So far, the only people who are complaining about it "not being original" are you and the other person here who are trying to keep a link to it off of this entry for some reason. Labyrinth13 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Random House Unabridged Dictionary: concise: expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse. It would seem that the raw footage is indeed "brief in form and comprehensive in scope". Yes, redundancy is an issue. Otherwise there is no reason to stop the inclusion of even more links that add nothing further. The list would could grow to fifty and still have no reason to stop. Your video has an intro, which does not add new information beyond what this article already informs the reader. So your video might be helpful for people browsing YouTube, but it doesn't add anything for readers coming from Misplaced Pages. Your video has (a) screenshot(s) taken from the raw video, these do not add further information either. It also has the sound of a theremin; the "fun" of this is subjective so I won't address that one way or the other, but it doesn't add more information for our readers. That's all you've asserted above as the difference, and those differences are redundant and/or extraneous. If you want me to pull out the rulebook, fine. WP:EL#Important points to remember: "Links should be kept to a minimum." That means if there isn't a good reason to add something, don't add it. Besides "the rules", you have opened up an RFC and directly asked several people for input here. That's fine. Having done that, you are likely to see a consensus emerge one way or the other regarding the inclusion or exclusion of your link. Since there aren't hard and fast rules either way about this, the consensus will just emerge from different editors' personal evaluation of the link. I hope you'll be okay with that. From my perspective, we shouldn't have redundant external links, and that really is the issue here. What else did you suppose my motivation or reasoning might be? — coelacan — 06:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I had no idea what your motivations are, hence my reason for asking. I have been around here long enough to encounter editors who are simply seeking a confrontation and that sometimes puts me on guard.

If consensus says remove my video, then you will not hear another word from me on the issue. I believe in playing by the Wiki community rules. Labyrinth13 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So you know, I wasn't looking for confrontation, but before you opened the RFC you posted to two user talk pages on my watchlist, and used the word "pirate". That was enough to get my attention and ensure I'd read the whole discussion, watch the videos, and come to a conclusion. — coelacan — 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coelacan; there are 3 video clips that are essentially the same thing; we only need one. Parsecboy 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you also think that jonrev's version should be removed? I thought it was helpful, but if consensus develops to remove it, well, that's how we do things here. I'm just wondering. — coelacan — 06:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the jonrev version, as opposed to the Labyrinth13 version, for the reason you named below:it's far easier to follow along with the video with the subtitles, instead of with the typed script here at the article.Parsecboy 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave mine, since few people can figure out what he's saying, I made things easier for them. And Labyrinth13, your video is getting positive reviews because you are screening the comments before they are posted. I know because I tried to post one saying your video is the same but you didn't post it.--jonrev 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Positive or negative reviews on YouTube have no bearing on encyclopedic value for Misplaced Pages anyway. Let's try to focus the discussion here rather than there. — coelacan — 06:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonrev: So far, I have deleted only your comments on my YouTube page and I did so because they were petty and vindictive and I don't allow either nasty comments or profanity on my page. Labyrinth13 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove jonrev's video. I cite all of the same reasons why others think that my own video should be removed. I point out that Jonrev's video is merely a redundant version of the original and very amateurly done. A much better and more precise translation is already provided here on this entry and one from an amateur video is not needed. If we are going to play by the rule of "redundancy" then the only two videos that should remain linked are the original footage and the CBS News report about the incident. Labyrinth13 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the text is in this article, I still found it very difficult to follow the monologue while watching the version without subtitles, and much easier with jonrev's subtitles. That's why I think his version does add something helpful that isn't redundant (the opportunity to follow along with the script without pausing the video and alternating windows). But I'm not going to push hard for keeping it if many others disagree. — coelacan — 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what seems to be a real effort on your part to be as neutral as possible about this issue, but I still disagree that jonrev's video adds anything important to this entry.

As far as following along with the script is concerned, all one has to do is open up the original video in a seperate browser window and follow the voice while reading the text on the entry. I've done that a number of times myself and it is quite easy to do. So again, I disagree that is a good basis for keeping it.

In my opinion, the interpretation featured on his video is very much open to debate as far as the accuracy of it is concerned and, as the main article here notes, not everyone is in agreement to what is actually being said. I say that giving the “green light” to linking to his video can be seen as an endorsement of his interpretation of what is being said and I do have a problem with that.

You say that you are not going to push hard for keeping his video if others disagree with keeping it and that is good as far as maintaining a neutral stance is concerned.

So far, I see one vote to keep Jonrev’s video link (by Jonrev himself), one vote to remove it (by me) and what seems to be one neutral (by you). I say that we should wait for a few more days or longer to see if anyone else takes enough of an interest in this discussion to voice an opinion about it here.

Since you seem to have assumed the role of “mediator” in this discussion, I would like to think that you would insist that those who either oppose or favor removal of both jonrev’s and my own video or just one or the other, will be required to state in detail their reasons why in order to truly validate their vote, and not just render a simple “keep” or “delete.” In that way, we can insure that this remains the real spirit of fairness and is not driven by a popularity contest or whomever can get more of their Wiki friends over here, rather than the other. Thanks. Labyrinth13 16:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that any WP:JUSTAVOTEs can be silently ignored. — coelacan — 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Labrynth13, I never put any rude comments on your version of the Max Headroom hijack, I only said you didnt need to make another one. The only reason I'm now totally against your video is because you bitched at me for removing your video from this Wiki article.

And by the way, you're overreacting by blocking me from commenting your other videos. Some of your other ones (the alien voice hijack one for example) were pretty decent.--jonrev 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on any of my work is neither wanted nor appreciated, primarily because of your penchant for being confrontational and for your use of profanity, as is amply in evidence on this thread. And I will remind you that this is not a general message board for back and forth about non-Misplaced Pages related websites, but rather, for discussing the issue at hand. Let's both agree to confine all future comments to the discussion here. Labyrinth13 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make some final comments about this (see my reasons below). You're calling my video amateur, Your video was probably done with the same program I used (WinMovieMaker) and did not seem to be done no better than mine.

I am not trying to be very confrontal (if you mean confrontal as in I'm looking for a fight or something), but what irritates me is that you seem to be heavily aggravated when your work is removed /criticized and then you overreact by throwing a long complaint at me. I will again say that your video is still not necessary and isn't worth having two of the almost exact same video on one article.

I am no longer discussing this issue on Misplaced Pages because I know you or someone else is going to attempt to find a way to have me blocked. You may contact my by Yahoo IM (shockwave_4_life) if you need to discuss this anymore with me, but there's obviously no reasoning with you and I'm not willing to continue this here. Good bye...--jonrev 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For clarification purposes, I originally objected to your removing my video link without bothering to even discuss your reason for doing so on the talk page. When you responded to my request to discuss, it was only to complain about something that I felt applies equally to you, as well. Take that for whatever you want to, I simply don’t care beyond this point.

Since the time that this discussion began, it has been brought to my attention that all of the same reasons why my video link should be removed actually apply equally to your video, too. That is not simply “throwing a complaint at you” in order to be confrontational, but rather is a realization of what the discussion about such videos as mine and yours amounts to here. (In other words, what is good for the goose is good for the gander). I'm actually convinced now that the only two videos that should be posted in the links section are the original and the CBS News report. Anything beyond that truly is redundant.

I can quite easily be reasoned with, but only by reasonable people.

Bottom line for me is this: I am so tired of constantly having to battle over such things as this at this place that it is really beginning to turn me off to the whole idea of Misplaced Pages. Whatever happens to my link as far as keeping it or deleting it is concerned, I’ll leave up to whomever comes along next. Thanks to everyone who commented.

-- Labyrinth13 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• All right, it looks like the result of this discussion was to remove the Labyrinth13 link and keep the jonrev link. I'll go do that now. — coelacan — 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove external links without stating a reason why

Please do not remove external links without stating in detail your reasons for doing so. The same person seems to be engaging in this practice on both the Max Headroom Pirating Incident and Broadcast signal intrusion entries.

Labyrinth13 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not claim that external links were removed without stating a reason why, when infact a clear reason was given

Please do not undo revisions by claming that a reason for doing so was not stated in detail, when it was. The same person, Labyrinth13, seems to be engaging in this practice on both the Max Headroom Pirating Incident and Broadcast signal intrusion entries. rhklein 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to get an admin involved. I am tired of you accusing me of something that I did not do. It is against the rules to do that on here. It is also against the rules to keep making changes and not discuss your reasons why on the talk pages. Simply stating your reason why in the edit summary is not enough. I also request that you stop accusing me of theft. Thanks. Labyrinth13 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop undoing revisions even when a clear reason was given for those revisions

For the last time, the link you posted to the version of the video by Labyrinth13 was one that was downloaded from FuzzyMemories' YouTube site, repackaged, and presented to the world as Labyrinth13's discovery, without any thought toward giving credit or asking permission. It is needless, pointless, and superfluous - the original video by FuzzyMemories is the only link to the video that this page requires. RHKlein 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Explanation

I urge you to prove that Labyrinth13 on YouTube did not appropriate the existing video from FuzzyMemories' channel. If you cannot do so, then you have no right to continually undo my revisions. Look at the date of the upload of FuzzyMemorys' video. It pre-date's Labyrinth13's video by many months. Now look at the edit of the video - it is EXACTLY THE SAME in Labyrinth13's video as in FuzzyMemories' video. You know why, right? Because I created the edit of that video from my original master tape, and Labyrinth13 on YouTube simply download the .flv file from YouTube and repackaged it. There is no reason for it other than a pathetic attempt to garner attention.

You are the one that is lying: You stole the footage from me and are now trying to convince everyone that I stole it from you. You cannot prove that you didn't steal it, either, which makes you a liar, a thief and a coward. Labyrinth13 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Who knows if you are the same person who posted that YouTube video, right? You just happen to have the same username as the YouTube user, right? I am saying that whoever posted that video to YouTube who happens to have the same username as yours here - that person, in my opinion - is a coward, thief, and an incredibly sad person to want attention so badly that he takes a video that someone had already presented on YouTube, repackages it for his own purposes, and makes no reference whatsoever to the person who originally presented the video to the world.

You are the one that is lying: You stole the footage from me and are now trying to convince everyone that I stole it from you. You cannot prove that you didn't steal it, either, which makes you a liar, a thief and a coward. Labyrinth13 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case, thanks for providing me with entertainment this afternoon. It feels good to stick it to someone who so blatently engages in acts that are so incredibly uncool. Thanks! RHKlein 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the one that is lying: You stole the footage from me and are now trying to convince everyone that I stole it from you. You cannot prove that you didn't steal it, either, which makes you a liar, a thief and a coward. Labyrinth13 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument reveals your avoidance of what I am asking and what is the real issue here. Did I claim that I own the rights to the footage? Did I? If you're going to ask me for proof of ownership of the rights to the footage, then I could do the same thing - so please, do so - won't you?

You are the one that is lying: You stole the footage from me and are now trying to convince everyone that I stole it from you. You cannot prove that you didn't steal it, either, which makes you a liar, a thief and a coward. Labyrinth13 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The real argument, which you are avoiding here, is that Labyrinth13 on YouTube downloaded the .flv file to FuzzyMemories' YouTube posting of the Max Headroom Pirating Incident, which was posted MONTHS before Labyrinth13's version - and subsequently repackaged it, and presented it to the world as his own discovery. Gee, you're not denying that claim, huh? I wonder why?

You are the one that is lying: You stole the footage from me and are now trying to convince everyone that I stole it from you. You cannot prove that you didn't steal it, either, which makes you a liar, a thief and a coward. Labyrinth13 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You're also not answering as to why FuzzyMemories' video predates Labyrinth13's by many months, and you're also not answering why Labyrinth13's video is the exact same edit as the one originally created by FuzzyMemories. Hmmm?? No answer, eh? Maybe that's because Labyrinth13 on YouTube is a coward. Maybe your definition of a "southern gentleman" is someone who takes another persons posting and appropriates it for himself, but it certainly isn't mine, sir.

You are the one that is lying: You stole the footage from me and are now trying to convince everyone that I stole it from you. You cannot prove that you didn't steal it, either, which makes you a liar, a thief and a coward. Labyrinth13 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're perplexed, then perhaps we're not really evenly matched in this battle of wits. RHKlein 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we both can't reach an agreement here, I have removed both mine and your link until an admin can stop by and render an opinion. That seems like the only way to end this back and forth for the moment. I ask that you refrain from reverting the page until an admin can have a look. Labyrinth13 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New RfC (AKA the Old RfC, Round 2)

Didn't we already settle this ? Labyrinth13, why can't you accept the majority consensus that the link to your youtube video isn't needed or wanted? It's totally superfluous. This is a classic case of a conflict of interest. Quit pushing your version of the file. It's immature and quite honestly, sad. Accept the consensus and move on. Parsecboy 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, you need to read the current history of this page. This is a completely seperate issue from the one you are talking about above. The link that went directly to my YouTube video was removed long ago and I personally could care less if it is ever restored.

This current squabble has to do with RHKlein removing links to both a webpage that I created with an article and video about the incident (a completely different issue that has never been addressed here) and to the YouTube video of the incident that jonrev posted, a person whose video you personally crowed so loud about keeping on here. (See full discussion above). He also posted his name on the entry image with a link to a Wiki entry that he created about himself claiming that he is the owner/contributer of the image (when in fact, it was jonrev who posted it and as far as I understand it, nobody owns it).

RHKlein did all this while leaving only his own video link. That is also a conflict of interest, yet you don't seem to be attacking him for it. Why not? He also removed the links without first notifying anyone on the talk page, as required. Are you going to call him immature and sad, too? I think you are showing your prejudices here in quite an embarrasing fashion. You need to get your story straight before you start accusing people of something you have proven in public that you have zero clue about. Otherwise, butt out and mind your own business. Labyrinth13 00:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's essentially the same issue. So the link to your youtube video was deleted, and you could care less. But the link to the website you made (which has the video on it) was removed, and you're throwing a hissy fit. What, praytell, is the difference between this and the previous RfC? That there is now a middle-man to your video? It's still superfluous, and provides nothing. As for RHKlein, is he also FuzzyMemories? Has this been proved/admitted by him/her? If not (and AFAIK, there is no connection between the two), then there is no conflict of interest there. And no, you don't have to notify anyone before making an edit. It's called WP:BOLD. You're not fooling anyone by moving your video to a separate webpage and calling it something different from the original RfC. And no, I will not butt out. You don't own this article, I have as much right to participate in this discussion as you do. You need to grow up, or go elsewhere. Parsecboy 13:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, thanks for sticking up for me - it's nice to know that at least one other person recognizes the injustice and pathetic-ness in Labyrinth13's actions. Notice how he's trying to discourage anyone by telling you to "butt out and mind your own business" - sure, he doesn't want to get anyone else involved so they can tell him how wrong he is.

My Final Take - by FuzzyMemories

I am going to wash my hands of this matter once again. There is a point at which it is more damaging to yourself to continue arguing than it is trying to force someone else to see that they're wrong.

Labyrinth13 - Go to town, have fun. I really don't care anymore. You want to pretend that you presented this to the world, go ahead fine. Your repackaging of the video is, in my opinion, annoying and stupid anyway. I think one person commented about your video that the noise at the beginning of it gave them brain cancer. I would have to concur with that statement. I respected my audience enough to give them the original video, so they could see it in the context as originally aired. I guess I was naive to not think that some jerk would take advantage of that. I won't make that mistake again. Maybe in a few weeks I will make a new AVI file from the original video, and start in at an earlier part in the Doctor Who episode, and end it a little bit later. Then people will see that mine has more footage and know that it's the real deal. Oh, the video will be branded though, so have fun with that.

You're in so much denial is not even worth it to argue. Your big argument is that I don't own the copyright to that video since it aired on PBS. Anyone could have taped it, right? But the point is, you didn't tape it. You also didn't have a close friend give you the tape of the show the night after it originally aired, and have held onto that tape for all these years, as I did. The fact remains that if I hadn't posted my video on YouTube - you would have nothing to post on this matter yourself. You can't even be a man and admit that you downloaded the .flv file and repackaged it. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds when you didn't even take the trouble to change the edit of the video? Doesn't it seem ridiculous to think that you just happened to start (and end) your Max footage on the exact same syllable of the dialogue as in my clip?

Don't even bring jonrev's Translation video into this - it is an entirely different manner and it has no bearing on how I feel about you. Two things I will say though about it are this 1) He at least did something DIFFERENT and ORIGINAL with my video instead of just repackaging it for himself to pump himself up. Plus, he credited me. 2) In a previous argument I accused you of lacking originality because you couldn't find your own videos to post, so you ripped off someone elses - but here's where it gets even more pathetic - you didn't even come up with the idea to repost my video YOURSELF. Jonrev posted his Translation video on March 21st - then, a week later, on March 28th, you posted your pointless repackaging. You ripped off a rip off! That's how unoriginal you are.

I look at my YouTube channel as an Old Curiousity Shop, or an Antiques Store, which I own. Did I necessarily create all the objects in my store? No, I have just carefully collected and cataloged them, preserved them, and presented them to the world to enjoy. (Notice I didn't say I took anything from anyone else's store) Does this mean I have no right of ownership over the collection? Maybe not according to a Copyright Attorney, but to anyone with a common sense of hard work and dedication, and possession being 9/10 of the law, they would say it was my collection. (Remember kids, I'm not selling anything either)

So, I don't need to waste any more time with this nonsense. I know what you did, and I know that you have no sense of honor - and you'll have to live with that. Enjoy your karma.

I hope the Max Headroom Pirate is looking down on all this and smiling....  ;-) RHKlein 01:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. It is so easy for major wimps like you to go about making false accusations and acting tough through the safety and anonymity of the Internet. I can assure you that you would not want to call me a theif, a liar and a coward to my face.

Finally, all of your posturing about “honor” and talk of “karma” is about as simplistic and amusing as a flea crawling up an elephant’s hind leg with the intention of rape. Go fuck yourself. Labyrinth13 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My Turn...

I'm gonna try to keep this short.

Labrynth13- First off, knowing you, instead of providing some counter-argument regarding this post, you're going to whine at me because you think I'm attacking you somehow. Don't bother, because if I were I would be saying some very different words than the ones shown here. But anyway, your video is obviously a stolen copy of the one provided by Fuzzy. You wanna know how I know? Because I watched your's and Fuzzy's side-by-side, and the quality was exactly the same, and the footage starts and stops at the same time as Fuzzy's. Your video is Fuzzy's with your book cover slapped on it, the screenshot I took for the Wiki article, and a noise worse than being trapped in a closet with a thousand cicadas during mating season. And as for who owns it, until you go find the Hijacker yourself, nobody can truly own the footage, however, because it seems that Fuzz is the only known person with the footage, he should technically be able to own the rights.

And although I used Fuzzy's footage for my Translation video, I gave him credit for the footage. You did not, and you made it look like you are the original owner when you are definitely not.

With that said, I have re-placed the original video back on the article. We already had the argument whether to keep both on (all three at the time) or not and we decided to keep the Labrynth13 video off, so I did not place it back. As for my video, it seems like Fuzzy did remove it already, and I left it off. If he wants it back up I'll put mine back.

This ridiculous argument has gone on long enough, so with that said, Labrynth, your video is not needed and more people agree than disagree. Live with it.--jonrev 06:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles