User talk:Tasc0/Archive 2

Re: User talk:76.170.233.182

As I stated in the history edit page of the ATL article, the information does not need to be sourced since it is a matter of dates. Dates can be seen at CDuniverse but there is no need to source two different pages over dates. If you want put citation needed but do not just delete info. Please do not contact me again it will be disregarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.233.182 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Get a reliable source. CDUniverse it is not one.

In Above the Law (group), you're giving your personal opinion. That's is not an encyclopedic content. Please stop. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is since CDuniverse has to document release dates. This is not personal opinion, it is a legitimate point of concern on Above The Law's career and was acknowledged many times by the Hip-Hop community but by members of the group itself. Your reasoning and procedure is flawed. If you have a dispute over information not sourced then place a Citation Needed tag instead of deleting first as wikipedia procedure dictates. You are not helping an article you are hijacking one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.233.182 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, excuse me. According to the official guidelines, unsourced information has to be removed.

I think what you're posting as "information" it's WP:OR. I'm going to review later, I'm don't have the time right now. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled by User:Cosprings

You need to look up vandalism in a dictionary. You need to stop thinking you have more power than I do on wikipedia. You need to realize you do not have the authority, nor any reason, to block me. Stop being such an egotistical jerk.Cosprings 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First: I considered you vandalized the page because you keep removing content. You added an album that's not official. Probably a bootleg. If you have any doubt about vandalism in Wikipedia, please read WP:VANDALISM.

Second: I, as a user of Wikipedia have the ability to warn you enough and if those warnings didn't work, you'll be blocked. I am not an "egotistical jerk", I'm acting like the official guidelines say. And by the way, that comment is a personal attack, please read WP:ATTACK. I'm going to ignore it, just because you seem to no understand the guidelines by now. Next comment like that one, I will report you.

Any other questions, please consider asking here. Thank you.--Tasc0 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bow Down

Yo, Tasc0 i thought we put this beef behind us ? you keep removing my edits on Bow Down, why exaclty ? 1st you removed the "Background" section because you said it had a personal opinion, wot was the opinion ? because i don't know what it was. 2nd, you keep removing a ref from RIAA for sum reason but then add the "citation needed" template, why ? I don't really care about this, but in the talk page you removed the "to do" template, but your edit summary didn't make any sense so i had 2 ask someone wot you meant by it, which i understand now but could you try and make sure your edit summary makes sense before you save, thanks. By the way, i'm trying to get the article up to a better quality, thats why i'm adding the background section but i don't really see the point in editing it if you just revert everything i add. - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with no Wikipedians here. The reason I removed that sections is because it was original research. That's not alloud.

I removed the {{todo}} template because you didn't add anything to do, that's pointless. I made it clear in the edit summary, I am sorry if you couldn't understand it. If you have any others question about my edits, ask here. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I do have a problem. To be more specific, I have it with you. You claim that the "beef is over", wich by the way I never have one, you personal attacked me in User_talk:Cosprings#Tasco. This time, I will not ignore it and I will report it. I'm tired of doing the correct job in Wikipedia and getting cursed by two or three users that thinks they can do anything they want just because they feel it. There are certain guidelines, you know?. Ok, have a nice day.--Tasc0 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

LMAO!!! I can't believe you reported me for that comment, it wasn't that bad, i was just giving my point of view to another editor who seems to be doing a good job unlike some other editors *cough*. Maybe you could try to chill out a lil bit more. Later - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, your opinion was harmful, and I'm tired of it. Ok? Nex time, try to mind your opinion with out attacking other users. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not threaten me

I do not appreciate it. No where have i seen it indicated you are an admin, and tattle-telling on me to the admins will not do you any good since i can and will if i have to do the same. You are hijacking thread and misusing wiki rule citing with your loose and gross misinterpretations. Your ignorance of Above The law's career highlights and issues is irrelevant. What was included was wiki standard content and will continue to be re-included no matter what dry threats you make. This is also the last time i will acknowledge your messages. I will not reply to anything you say after this. Feel free to "report" me as you see fit since that works both ways. UDStyle 04:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I made you feel that way, it was not my intention. I was just warning you what your behavior may cause. I don't need to be an admin to report anyone in here. According to the guidelines, I can do that, just like you.

If you think you can come here with that attitude, acting like you really don't care about the guidelines, wich I posted on the edit summary about that content being WP:OR and you think that reporting me will solve this problem? I think you're wrong, buddy. You're welcome to report me, we both know that content is not alloud in Wikipedia. And the only reason I'm going to stop reverting is because I will broke the WP:3RR.

Meanwhile, I will report you. Thank you.--Tasc0 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems that I don't need to do it. An administrator is already taking care of the issue.--Tasc0 05:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Tasc0, we've had a complaint to the Foundation about edit warring and threats on the article "Above the Law". I'm still trying to work out what is going on here, but I see that you withdrew from the dispute before your breached 3RR and you apologised to the other party for the perceived threat. Because of this, I am not going to block you, but I want to remind you that WP:3RR does not give you a right to make three reverts per day and that under the 3RR policy, you may be blocked for edit warring if you revert less than 3RR if your editing is considered disruptive. Please be careful about this in future because I won't hesitate to block you if I see this kind of disruptive warring in future. Sarah 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the user keeps adding WP:OR. I asked to stop it, as I removed it; but he quickly reverted acusing me of "hijacking" the article. I think that's not WP:AGF. Second, I warned the user posting the WP:OR policy in the edit summary but he ignored it. I stopped reverting to avoid the WP:3RR policy, wich according to it, a user can't make more than three reverts in one article in 24 hours. I can prove you I just made two reverts.

One, two, not quite the third. You can clearly see I added the internal links wiki-mark up.--Tasc0 05:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Noting that the number two it's also different from the first one.--Tasc0 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand, but please note that under the 3RR policy, the reverts don't have to be exactly the same: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." So it doesn't really matter if the reverts were slightly different. Anyway, I'm not going to block because you did stop yourself and you apologised for the perceived "threats" but please just be careful about edit warring because you can be blocked for making less that 3RR if an admins feels that the reverting is disruptive. I recommend that you post on the article's talk page explaining clearly what the problem is with that edit: OR, inadequate sourcing etc. Then if the user continues revert warring you can report it to the noticeboard (either WP:AN/3 for 3RR violations or WP:ANI for disruption). Sarah 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think is necessary to explain the issue? It has gone to both users talk pages. If you do, would you mind giving an advice how to address the problem? Thank you.--Tasc0 05:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, pardon for butting in (was asked to review this), but was the emails sent to the WP:OTRS system? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell?. Sarah edit summary: "fixing tempate. 24 hour 3RR block".--Tasc0 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand Tasc0?? Sarah 06:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to explain the problem in the article's talk page. Which I responded I don't consider it really necessary, but if you do consider it necessary, I asked an advice from you on how to address the problem in the talk page.

As for the diff link I posted, the users "is blocked for 24 hours". I'm not that familiarized with the blocking policies, but the blocking does not applies to the user's talk page?

Another thing, the users keeps claiming that I have threatened him, and even other users? For Pete's sake. I already apologized for that, which it wasn't my intention. And I was just warning him what I, as a Wikipedia user can do. In no way I was doing that to "delete" the content of the article, or trying to own it.

He claims that I put a warning and that me, not being an admin, I have no right to do so. Would you please explain him? Somehow, I think I'm not welcomed by him.--Tasc0 06:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested raising the concerns about that text and the sourcing on the article's talk page so that any other editors may see it and respond. If it is just buried on your personal talk pages then people who read that article or have it watchlisted won't be aware and won't be able to help. My suggestion is that you write on the article's talk page that you reverted this edit because you feel it is inadequately sourced and therefore amounts to original research or you feel the website is not a reliable source or whatever it is that is the exact problem. No, no, blocked users can still edit their talk page but they cannot edit anywhere else. I have not seen any threats that you have made but I think maybe they think that they warning template you put on their talk page was a threat, but I'm still trying to sort that out. They don't seem to be very experienced on Wikipedia and ony have less than 500 edits and so it is possible that they are misunderstanding things. Yes, I will try to help them understand that you were not threatening them but just using templates that any editor may use when appropriate. Sarah 06:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to do that tomorrow. I have to go right now. Yes, I also checked the user's contributions and it seems is a new comer. Maybe a welcome template would be a good idea. Thank you.--Tasc0 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-sense edits

Hey Tasc0, I just want to say I never ever thought these idiotic comments were by you, so I'm gonna tell the one who wrote in my talkpage to NOT report you.--West Coast - Ryda 11:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's ok. He's making false accussations, I already asked him not to make any more.--Tasc0 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

nom

I'm happy to nom you too for adminship. Unlike the others on my talk page, I didn't see an editor review for you, but if you wanted to give me a sum of your edits, I'd be happy to look into it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully understand, you nominated me for adminship?

By the way, seems you know User:Zscout370, me too. It's a shame what Wales decided to do with his account. He's a good administrator. He has responsed to all my problems.--Tasc0 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

it was an offer.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about that. What's your advice? I mean, if there's a big demand for administrators, I think I may help with that. But, again, what you think I should do? Considering how long I've been in Wikipedia, etcetera.--Tasc0 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do. Deletions, protections, moves, blocks, unblocks, deletion review, etc. There's plenty of stuff to do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a try. You want to make the nomination? Or should I?--Tasc0 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll nominate you, but I need a paragraph or so from you about what your strengths, weaknesses etc, why you think you'd be a good admin, etc. View a couple of ongoing RFA's and take note of what questions they're asked and what is mentioned in their nom statements, and see what I mean. I need that information to do an actual nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail.--Tasc0 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't finished reviewing it yet. I unfortunately will not be able to seriously look at it until Tuesday. I hope that's ok, and by all means, remind me on Tuesday. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Wednesday.--Tasc0 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Pleezbaleevit!

Every time I see that title, I feel like it's an extra polite Naruto. (And if you aren't familiar with Naruto, that will make no sense to you at all. :)) I responded at my talk page, but have actually done a lot of work on the article since then so figured I might as well open a new dialog here. The album turned out to have a surprising amount of information available about it. It charted well on Billboard, including its #1 single, and launched two lawsuits. And I'm sure that other editor's comment must have been confusing, since it looked like a response to yours. :D He (or she) was actually replying to a message I'd left on his page earlier. I'll watch your page for a bit in case you want to discuss this further. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're talking about that thing Naruto. Anyways, it wasn't necessary to create a new thread here, but it's already done.

You must understand that when I saw the article, I didn't see any information or charts positions, that's why I nominated it.

I'll try to improve a little more the article and the artist's article. I think what you have done is great.--Tasc0 18:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Naruto's catch phrase is "Believe it!" (and a very annoying catch phrase it is.) :) I do understand that the information wasn't there in the article when you nominated it, but as I mentioned on my talk page, CSD is pretty specific about what constitutes "no content" or "no context". I didn't know all that information was out there when I declined the speedy either, which is why I recommended in the edit summary that you consider WP:PROD. It's just as well you brought it up, since it seems that the band and the article satisfy WP:MUSIC, and they're both better off for the scrutiny. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't for you, I was going to nominate it in WP:AfD.--Tasc0 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Above the Law

Not only did I add sources, but several external links and substantiated info on the new album. I am not the vandal, you are. You are not an administrator, or an editor. I do not need to get any sort of approval from you to change this article. If you make ONE MORE edit to this page subtracting material perfectly fine for wikipedia, I will report you. I do believe that you truly think the death penalty should be used more often, and that is just another reason why you are a tyrannical, egotistical person. This is not a threat, you should find a english dictionary and look that word up first.Cosprings 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Noting this user was blocked for a 24 hours period.--Tasc0 06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing/Sourcing

Can you work on sourcing the chart positions and album release dates. I'll be back on in 6-8 hours time and will also work on it but as you know more about the group than I you'll probably be able to find sources quicker. Gnangarra —Preceding comment was added at 03:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can do that, but it would have to be tomorrow, probably. But don't worry, I'll do it.--Tasc0 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's done.--Tasc0 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your comments. I hope to exceed expectations; If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-?oss ¤

We Have the Right to Remain Violent

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of We Have the Right to Remain Violent, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://thugradio.net/scc-violent.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 03:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the correct thing to do. CSBot is, after all, a little dumb and just notices you got mostly the same words in the same order.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I had the same problem with this bot in 187 Ride By. Why don't you try shutting it down and re-write the source code. An example wold be that the word featuring it's not the exact thing than ft. Thank you.--Tasc0 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the whole point. Changing a word here and there doesn't make something not a copy. The problem is that CSBot is very good at finding copies, but is completely unable (and no program every could) guess at whether the copy was allowable or not; this is why it tags the articles for human review, so that someone with a brain (like you) can see if it should be deleted/corrected/left alone.

Copyright violations are very damaging to the encyclopedia, and I'm afraid a small proportion of false alarms is the price that must be paid to prevent them. It doesn't take much effort to remove the tag when it's wrong, and for editors that often insert a large number of permissible copies then we can whitelist them if they understand copyright law. — Coren ^(talk) 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I understand.--Tasc0 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Tasc0, thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate your compliment on being a great editor ;) I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your time here, you have more user talk pages to spam!--Tasc0 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Experimenting" on Template:User en-3

I wasn't experimenting, I was trying to make it so that the userboxes followed the visible spectrum, feel free to follow the link to know what I am talking about. It goes in the pattern of: blue-indigo-green-yellow-red. The pattern exists in the current userboxes exempting 1 and 3. -The Big X 05:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you see the warning message "Please do not start a new thread to response the one I created"?

And in no place says the template follows the visible spectrum. That's just something you came out with.--Tasc0 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Please do not start a new thread to response the one I created" ... I see that nowhere.

Where do you think the colors came from on these templates? They originally came from the visible spectrum. How else do you explain blue(1)-indigo(2)-green(3?)-yellow(4)-red(5)? And why do you insist on not changing it? -The Big X 19:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to the top, you'll see a big orange table with three points.

The creator did not specified the colors were base on the visible spectrum. That's why I think it should not be changed. --Tasc0 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about, big orange table, three points?

The creators talk a lot about the visible spectrum, just not on the template, more on here: Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive1.

P.S. specified => specify ; base => based

-The Big X 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Here it is. I'm not going to search the entire archive, just link the thread. And I don't understand what you mean in the PS.--Tasc0 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh now I see it, you need to make it more noticeable, it blends in too well with the header, like:

READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!!!

So what I should have responded on my talk page to you? Now how would I know you got my message then? You didn't even give me a real message you gave me a template.

Fine I'll find the threads in the archive.

Your grammar is wrong, that is what the PS is for, like in "Please do not start a new thread to response the one I created." should be "Please do not start a new thread to respond to the one I created." "The creator did not specified the colors were base on the visible spectrum." should be "The creator did not specify the colors were based on the visible spectrum."

-The Big X 22:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually just scroll through the archives section, every single example of Babel userboxes goes from less intensity to more intensity. -The Big X 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for poiting that out, English is not my native lenguage.

And I always have users talk pages on my watch list for a while when I post any message.

Just link the thread. Thanks.--Tasc0 05:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's just really annoying to link on Archive pages without the edit section, or whatever.

The other problem about these discussions is that they are talking about the templates without displaying them, as such sometimes you don't know what they are talking about.

1. Wikipedia_talk:Babel/Archive1#Bizarre_color_changes
2. Wikipedia_talk:Babel/Archive1#Modifying_Current_Colors
3. Wikipedia_talk:Babel/Archive2#Level_5_colors

As you can see the colors always follow an intensity, and the end combination is blue indigo green yellow red just as the visible spectrum looks, just no one updated green.

P.S. poiting => pointing ; lenguage => language. users => user's

-The Big X 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The author is Bonzo. Talk to him, but I'm afraid you won't be able since his last edit was on 2006.

Discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Babel. Tell them about this thread, etc.--Tasc0 23:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was going to say the same thing about Bonzo, but he was almost only a bot, creating the templates to create the templates. You are the one that has a problem with the edit, so I shouldn't have to be the one to post at Babel, and can you seriously say that after this discussion that you still think it should be blue? The color founded by a bot? -The Big X 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are the one who, the way I see it, needs to ask in Babel. You decided to change the colors claiming it follows the visible spectrum when the author never made this statement. As we both see we won't be able to comunicate with the author, I suggested you to ask there if you are still interested in changing the colors.

That's all. In situations like this, it is better to leave the things how they were until the issue is solved. Please stop reverting edits in the template, as I asked you in the edit summary. Thank you.--Tasc0 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Annoying editors

That bots lately annoys me, who talks about copy-vio and that BS. I created Mr. Kane, Pt. 2 and added only a tracklisting then he comes and says it's copy-vio. By the way that user Cosprings is really getting annoying, makes edits without explain, removes stub templates and redirects pages without discuss. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 12:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It may get annoying but is not that bad. Just revert the edit (if it is a mistake), like the message in your talk page says.

If you have problems, I suggest you to contact with the user who runs the bot.--Tasc0 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Lil Wayne blood

LOL, was it really an album cover cited as source? It was not me however, someone put it a long time ago and I thought it would be biography section telling he really is a blood. LMAO, can't stop laugh. --Flesh-n-Bone 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That was pretty funny. I lol'd at the moment I clicked on the source, yet I also thought it was a biography because of the tricky title. It was the front album cover of the colaboration he's making with The Game.

I know it wasn't you. I don't watchlist that article, but I check it sometimes and remove the uncited material.--Tasc0 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell do you mean by "third party" source? --Flesh-n-Bone 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. You'll find what it means there.--Tasc0 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:FatChris1

Hey Tasc0, sorry that it took me a bit to get back to you; I was reviewing the user's contribs a little more closely. They are indeed adding unsourced information; however, unless it violates WP:BLP, it's not an immediately blockable offense. However, if they continue to add unsourced info, I'd support a short block to get the message across. If you'd like further opinion, I'd encourage you to bring this up on the administrators' noticeboard. GlassCobra 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just thought you don't reply in your own talk page. The old account was blocked for a week, and after this block a new account with a very similar username is adding the same unsourced material to biographies. That's why I'm asking if this can be addressed as a sockpuppetry case. That's all.--Tasc0 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

B.G. Knocc Out

Sorry, but why is that source non-third party? It's from his official website and that. So what makes it to be NOT a third party. Why is myspace spam? Flesh-n-Bone 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not third party because it's self-published. That means it's published on his own website. For example, another artist can put in his website he sold more than one million copies of his new album in the first week. But, you can't use it because it's self-published. Another example are the blogs.

MySpace is spam per WP:SPAM. Any other questions don't doubt in asking.--Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So official websites are not a reliable source? What's reliable in that case because you don't believe in anything. Flesh-n-Bone 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, look. Own published material, such as personal websites, blogs, etcetera, can't be used to cite information. And you already know where to get information about reliable source: WP:CS and WP:V.Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurupt

Hey, I made some big clean up and wording for Kurupt's article. --Flesh-n-Bone 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look up for Sex, Money, Music by Above the Law and you'll find it, just search it in google and it gives you several results with info on the album, plus downloads. Even though it's weird why there's nothing about this on amazon. --Flesh-n-Bone 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just read this and your question in talk:Above the Law (group). Which I replied to it.

It's good to see the article Kurupt cleaner, but I still don't have really the time to do some things I want to. I see you linked to the discography article; that's something I was going to do. And by the way, commets like this are disruptive. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just made sure that anyone would not revert it, and I think if you think it's not true check out amazon. That's all. --Flesh-n-Bone 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly necessary to cite sources for release dates. Try to avoid commets like those, that's uncivil.

Just a tip, if you're looking for release dates, All Music Guide is your friend.

The thing is I did NOT insult anyone, so it's OK. --Flesh-n-Bone 12:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatredirectshere translation in Spanish

Hi Tasc0, thank you very much for your translation! I've now uploaded it to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/whatredirectshere.php?lang=es, and it is available via that link and via the language selector that appears at the top of the tool. Please take a look and see if anything is amiss.

Also, as you might notice, some portions of the interface are not yet translated. This is because they are in a separate language file called "general", which is shared across all my tools. If possible, could you please translate this file too? The code for this file is:

$lang['gen_error'] = 'Error';
$lang['gen_db-connect-error'] = 'Could not connect to database server (it may be down); Error was: ';
$lang['gen_db-select-error'] = 'Could not select database (The database you selected may be non-existent); Error was: ';
$lang['gen_welcome'] = 'Welcome';
$lang['gen_invalid_dbname'] = 'Patently invalid database name';

$lang['gen_nonexistent_wiki'] = 'The project you selected is either non-existent or is not replicated to the toolserver.';
$lang['gen_query_failed'] = 'The SQL query failed with the following error: ';
$lang['gen_query_failed_badrowcount'] = 'The SQL query did not return the correct number of rows.';

Once again, thank you very, very much! - Tangotango (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a couple of hours. And I'm glad to help.

What a shame, they don't use the tool on the Spanish Wikipedia. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm been a bit bussy. I'll let you know when it's done. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Raw Footage

Hey, what you think if I start the article again? It's now got release date and the first single has been out. Plus there's more info available now than it used to. --Flesh-n-Bone 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What are your sources? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There's one I responded with in my own talk page. --Flesh-n-Bone 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Spellcast re-stored the page anyways, so it's fine I think now. Look at it now and it seems much better. --Flesh-n-Bone 11:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Tasc0 - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It's nice to have an editor I've actually worked with drop in with a kind word (although I'm sorry it took us so long to resolve the FatChris1 situation - hopefully now that I have the buttons, I'll be able to help you out more promptly). The RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, congratulations for the adminship. If I have further problems with this user I'll let you know.

Just logged in and I found an anon acting funny. Probably the user who got blocked. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you contibute on external sites?

Hi,

We would like to know if you contribute on other sites, by posting or submitting general hip hop news and articles?

A Reponse will be appreciated.

Regards.

--Wikiceo (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Who are you. And why should I answer to this questions considering that the 80% of your contributions are the same questions on other users' talk pages. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of prod tags

Please don't reinsert a contested prod tag as you did here, here, and here; per Wikipedia:Prod#Conflicts. If you wish to follow through with the nomination, list the articles at WP:AFD. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The tag was removed using a not-valid reason. The mixtapes are clearly not notable per WP:MUSIC. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, any removal of a prod tag makes it a contested prod. Please read through WP:PROD thoroughly. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I gotta ask something, is Krazy Dee non-notable and unknown? LOL. --Flesh-n-Bone 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hard Way (213 album)

Why remove the chronology? 71.233.232.196 (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's extremely not necessary. And I have the feeling you're a sock Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it not necessary? Someone's gonna read the article and see no chronology, and say "So none of them have released any albums after this one?". 71.233.232.196 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The article it's about the group, not each individual. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But still, HOW are they gonna know what their next albums are? 71.233.232.196 (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the article 213 (group) there's enough information about the group not being active any more and the only album released was The Hard Way (213 album) Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. I mean their next albums as SOLO artists. 71.233.232.196 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That information can be found in the three members' articles. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Untitled by 84.178.232.244

Goldie Loc was born in February or March. If you don't believe me, his zodiac sign is pisces, and that's from February - March. http://www.myspace.com/goldielocc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.232.244 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MySpace it's not a reliable source. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. I have removed your rollback privileges as you have been using the tool to revert edits in content disputes. Rollback or other similar tools should only be used for obvious vandalism. You should leave a meaningful edit summary for anything else. --B (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't awared of that. I will use the edit summary when I revert something that it is not a clear vandalism. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you are going to find anyone willing to restore the rollback setting right now. After a couple of months of demonstrated proper use of edit summaries for anything other than reverting simple vandalism, you may wish to make another request at WP:RFR. --B (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I told you I'll use it only for vandalism. If I don't do that, then just take it back. I've been in Wikipedia for over a year, you think I would lie about something like that? You see any block logs in my account? No. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to ask another admin or ask at WP:RFR, but based on your recent contributions, I am not inclined to restore it. --B (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because I wasn't awared that I only could use it to revert clear vandalism. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with B; Wikipedia:Requests for rollback is quite clear that it is for use only on vandalism. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And you are? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday (album)

Why did you remove the release date? If you looked up Mail on Sunday on CDUniverse.com, it would say March 18, too. Tom Danson (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because that information was cited with a MySpace link. MySpace it's not a reliabe source. And CDUniverse.com isn't reliable as well. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can see why Myspace woud be unreliable, but who are you to judge CDUniverse's reliability? Are you an admin? Tom Danson (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to be one. That web site it's extremly commercial and such sites generally are not reliable as sources. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, where in WP:RS does it say they're not a reliable source? That's a matter of personal opinion when not listed. Tom Danson (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily it has to be listed as no reliable source. Imagine how many links and web site that page would have. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Ronnotel (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|How you say "This should be discussed in 3RR" and after that, you block my account for an edit warring. I stated that I stopped reverting when the problem was reported and I haven't made any revert in that article. I've been in Wikipedia for over a year and have more that 3000 edits, I have never vandalised an article and when I'm in a content dispute I get blocked. I request the block to be lifted, since I have stopped with it and I won't continue until it's resolved. Thanks for understanding. Tasc0 It's a zero! 05:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Ronnotel (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I should know better? What's that shit supposed to mean? I haven't broke any rule at all and I stopped reverting when it was reported and I still get blocked. You say that issue should be taken to 3RR, yet you block me for a content dispute. Content disputes are not vandalism.

I request you give me the true reason of the blocking, if you're not bussy blocking another users, of course. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I blocked you for edit warring, which was causing damage to the encyclopedia. You have agreed to stop edit warring and given your record of contribution I believe you and have unblocked. If you took offense at my unblocking statement, I apologize. It was not meant with malice. Ronnotel (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course. You block someone and you expect them to give you a cookie. What's wrong with you? "You should know better"... like I'm a 10 year old kid...

And if you see what type of contributions are mine after blocking me, why didn't you do so before the block? Now thanks to your ignorance I have a block log in my account. I hope you're happy. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Most folks get blocked at one time or another - my block certainly didn't prevent me from becoming an admin. You were clearly edit warring as was called out on the AN/I page. Your contribution history merely persuaded me that your promise to refrain from doing so was credible. Should I regret doing so? Ronnotel (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me, you're a grown man who, I believe, can make their own decisions. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 07:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SMH at your self nomination, I probably should be an admin too. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 07:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Up to you. But I can tell you it's a long, sleepless week. I wouldn't recommend it for those who get easily rattled. Ronnotel (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Block discussion

I have removed the protection from this page. Any further inappropriate comments will result in the protection being restored. Obviously, there is no way that you are going to be unblocked now or in the near future. The threat on Ronnotel's family just makes that an untenable situation. As for a potential unblock in the distant (something over a month) future, my suggestion is to completely defer any request or consideration of a request until some time in the future after emotions have had a chance to die down. --B (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.

Regarding the situation, I honestly don't know what Ronnotel is thinking at the momment, he continues to ignore.

I did not threat his family, I said "I hope...". I'm not justifying it was a correct move. I think every one's temper are cool now. I got trolled by a sock puppet and the blocking admin blocked my account for personal attacks and the user who started this didn't get blocked then. I found that unfair.

I'd like to see what Ronnotel has to say about this whole situation. And about the threats: I live probably at 8000 miles away, how you expect me to do what I said? That message was not made in a serious way. You can ask Ronnotel about my e-mail. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Ronnotel is using the blocking to "punish" my recent behave. That's not what the blocking policy is for: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.

I certainly haven't made any disruptions to any articles on Wikipedia. The edit warring block was lifted. I think that an indef block for personal attacks it's not properly done. Maybe one week. I don't have a harassment history here. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another point that Ronnotel ignored: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disputes.

He just blocked my account, salted my talk page and disabled my e-mail feature. He did not report the situation on the AN/I or somewhere else. He was making sure I don't get any chance to plead the block. He also made a rude statement when he agreed to unblock me for edit warring "You should know better...".

He ignores my apologizes. I think that he being an admin, should at least mind his opinion about the issue. I'd like to ask if Ronnotel really should have sysop rights. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, making the claim of wrongdoing on Ronnotel's part is pretty much going to assure that you are never allowed back. This isn't a court where there's a "get off on a technicality" or anything like that. I'm sure everyone involved would accept and stipulate as fact that you weren't seriously intending to follow up on the content of the message. But unfortunately, that isn't everything. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Imagine if you were in Ronnotel's place and received a message like that pertaining to your family. Sure, on an intellectual level, you know that there's no way that anyone can follow up on it, but it's still not something that's going to facilitate a good working relationship. As for the situation with the other user, I realize it's disconcerting that he wasn't immediately blocked, but remember that admins aren't omniscient or infallible. If an admin had noticed that he had twice been blocked indefinitely for harassment and was continuing to behave in that way, he would have been reblocked immediately. --B (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but not the part "making the claim of wrongdoing on Ronnotel's part is pretty much going to assure that you are never allowed back". Are you saying that because I question an admin's actions, that assures me to never be unblocked? How civil is that?

I still think Ronnotel is using the block as a punishment, this is extremly clear. There's no need to be smart to see it. An indef block is way over the top for my personal attacks, which I made in ONE single day, not since the day I created this account.

I have to ask: did you ever contact with Ronnotel, at all? He's not acting very properly, childlish I'd have to say. I understand my comments may have been harmful, but he's not 10 years old to act this way. He's supposed to be an admin, for Pete's sake.

I also would like to ask you to review the indef block and discuss with the proper people if it's really necessary. I don't have a harrasment, vandal, troll, history. As far as I'm concerned, indef blocks are to stop continue disruptives edits or users.

There's no need to stop me. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to avoid the guidelines, then I can claim I was just ignoring all rules and I'm sorry for the disruption. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 05:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. There's nothing wrong with questioning an admin's decision - that isn't the issue. The point is that if you make this a question of whether or not you were blocked appropriately, I guarantee you every single admin is going to affirm the block. Regardless of whether you were serious or not, capable of following up on it or not, whatever, a statement like that is going to earn an indefinite block. The first step in apologizing is accepting responsibility. The reason for the indefinite block was your statement - no admin error or excess or any such thing is a mitigating factor. If you want to make this an issue of whether or not the block was appropriate, I'm just telling you what the answer is going to be. If an unblock is ever going to be considered, you need to realize that you alone are responsible for the consequences of your actions and that going after Ronnotel isn't going to convince anyone. You were blocked for the statement you made, not because of anything else. As for your question about whether Ronnotel is aware of this, yes, I emailed him. I'm sure he also has this page on his watchlist, so I'm sure if he wants to reply, he will, but he is obviously under no obligation to. --B (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The first step in apologizing is accepting responsibility. I can't apologize to you when I haven't made any comments to yourself. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean. I think I've done all I can here. As long as this talk page isn't used for personal attacks or harassment, I'll leave it unlocked. If you would like to appeal to the arbitration committee or ask an impartial administrator to consider a request using the {{unblock}} template, both of those avenues are open to you. My suggestion is that (1) you wait a good amount of time - something over a month and (2) you realize that if you make the issue about Ronnotel, the answer is going to be no. --B (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you didn't get my point. When I said I can't apologize to you (B), it's because I haven't done anything to YOU.

I've tried several times contacting with Ronnotel but he just ignores it, thus I can't apologize. That's what I meant.

I don't see the point of waiting 1 week, 1 mont or 10 years. That doesn't make any difference at all, at least for me.

You said I shouldn't make the issue about Ronnotel, yet he ignores, don't reply... what else? Makes sure I don't have any way to communicate in Wikipedia, don't report the situation before blocking. Those are things that admins should not do. And again: I'm not making him responsible for it, I'm just pointing out the way he's acting.

And I still support my idea: he's using it as a punishment. This is extremly obvious. And to be honest, I don't think I'll ever come back to Wikipedia again, I won't even create a new account or edit with my IP. This ignoring behaviour that Ronnotel decided to take it's stupid. I offered him my apologize several times and he does not accept them because he knows if he do, I'll get unblocked sooner or later. And that's something he doesn't want, of course.

I appreciate how you addressed the situation, B. I'm going to ask a review on the comittee and that will be my last request. You can unblock the account one month later if you want or what ever, I'm not coming back if at least the indef block is lifted and time-ending (i.e. 1 week) block is added to my account in the next days. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A few comments

Hi Tasc0. You asked what this meant (actually, you linked to a different diff, but I assumed that's the one you wanted). What I meant is that I was sorry for having backed you - overridden another admin's actions, in fact - only to have you pull the garbage that you did. I know you didn't abuse the rollback itself (thanks for that, by the way - I continue to believe you when you say that your initial misuse of the tool was owing to a lack of awareness of its restrictions), but when I, as an admin, overrule another admin's actions on a user's behalf, and then the user engages in behaviour of the sort that you did, it calls into question my judgment as an admin. Because of that, I had to acknowledge fault, which I did.

As for you, I think User:B gets it about right above. You were a good contributor, and I'd hope that we can at some point find a way to get you back on the project. But before that can happen, time has to pass, and you have to realize that your comments:

• weren't just the sort of thing that gets said in the heat of the moment and forgotten right after;
• mattered no matter whether or not you actually intended to follow through on them; and
• were richly deserving of an indefinite block.

If that happens, then hopefully I'll be able to support an unblock in the future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually meant the diff I posted ([1]). It was a rhetorical question (Ronnotel reverted my edits when they weren't vandalism, he being an admin should not do that).

I appreciate it your concerns, but I'm not going to ask to the comittee to review the block. To be perfectly honest, I no longer care about it. Consider myself not stepping my foot Wikipedia again to edit any article, whether with this account, a new one or with my IP address.

If you wish to unblock or request an unblock in the AN/I or somewhere else in the future, you're welcome but I won't come here again.

Ronnotel is doing it as a punishment and too bad for him, because I stopped caring.

I might check my talk page once in a while, but I'm done. Wish you the best to you and B (who both have acted in a civilized way) as for other people, who keep acting childlish, they can do what ever the feel like.

I have a favor to ask you, would you remove my username from User:SuggestBot/Requests?

If you wish to contact with me (which I doubt) you can e-mail me. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. A final thought on whether this block is punitive or preventative: you engaged in totally unacceptable conduct, and have shown very little understanding as to why that conduct was totally unacceptable. Therefore, the only way to prevent that conduct from repeating itself in the future is a block. In that sense, I believe that it is preventative.

In any event, best of luck in your future non-Wikipedia endeavors. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you didn't see how many times I offered my apologize, read the thread above. And this block it's not preventative because the personal attacks I made to Ronnotel were only made in that day. So there's no need to prevent my behaviour, because I am not a troll.

Anyways, like I said, I'll check my user talk page once in a while. I think I have made my point of Ronnotel using the block as a punishment and he ignored several times my apologizes. I said I was sorry for it and I understand the comments may have been harmful, what else do you want? A cookie? Certainly I do not need to be stopped. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

And happy editing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good looking. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

K-Dee/Cru in Action

Glad to see you back, I'm a huge fan of your work, anyway since you are working on the K-Dee article, I thought you might want to include that fact that he was a part of the group C.I.A. with Ice Cube and Sir Jinx. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

B&C again

Hi, you're back and seem to be whittling away at the Bloods & Crips article again. I remain mystified by your motivation, and I am fully prepared to come up with enough independent sources to show that this article should remain as a stand-alone; it does already, but I have no doubt that it would survive a challenge. If you see fit to continue with the edit-warring, I think it best that we go ahead and look to that third opinion I suggested last month when we butted heads before. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to see what your sources are first. I also would like to ask you if you're aware of my point of view. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is already sourced, and you've made your case repeatedly. On a side note, your last edit to Bangin' on Wax included the addition of copyrighted material (from the Allmusic entry). Chubbles (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by "sources" are not just for the chart positions. I'm talking about a source that cleary states there's a group like this one.

As for the copyvio, I did not add it, I just reverted your last edit.

If you don't provide any sources, we probably should take this to WP:3O like you said. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I detect obstinacy; this has never been about "whether this is a group" for me, but rather "is this a subject worthy of inclusion" and "is this subject worthy of its own stand-alone article". And in both cases, the answer is, unquestionably, "yes". To be frank, I started this thread less to initiate more conversation (which yielded precious little in the past) and more to inspire action in you outside of end-run attempts to get rid of the page. If you have a serious case to make for the article's not existing, then you should press your case at AfD. If you have a serious case to make for a redirect, then you should suggest a merge and begin a community discussion. In any case, you should find someone else who agrees that you are seeing this aright, because I haven't found any indication that anyone else thinks this is a good idea. Chubbles (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Raw Footage-Ice Cube

Tasc0, Why did you revert my edit for this album. It was sourced but a reliable source. I am reverting it back because the information is correct and it was sourced. (Ba11innnn (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I reverted your edits because the source you provided ([2]) did not have any information what so ever about the album or artist. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Crips

Why are you calling crip-knowledge.com spam and deleting the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonbezel (talk • contribs) 17 April 2008

Please read Wikipedia:Spam. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you calling crip-knowledge.com spam and deleting the link every day? That website provides extensive and very detailed facts of the crips. Do I have to contact the Wikipedia authorities about your little game of edit warring or are going to stop the ignorance? That link is not spam, it is not my site nor does it violate Wikipedia's external link guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonbezel (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to contact any Wikipedia authority you want. This is not an edit war, I'm removing content that violates Wikipedia's policies.

The website does not follow the external link guideline: it is extremely commercial (has several ads). If you don't stop, I'll report you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. --B (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This request for arbitration was not archived, was it? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was removed, but is in the WP:RFARB history if you want to read it. I don't think that declined requests are archived (though I could be wrong). --B (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I read it by browsing the history, thank you. I was just looking for an archived version, but it's ok. Thanks for dealing with the situation.

I thought you should know that I reported the spammer here, but it looks like nobody pays attention to that page or has a black log. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involed in an arbitration loated here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonbezel (talk • contribs) 21 April 2008

Providing diff just for the record, here. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Album importance change

Just an FYI, but User:Indopug explained why he wanted the importance parameter removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Mcanmoocanu

Hello, can you report this user. He's been insulting people several times without no warning. Here are two examples: Diff and Diff -81.216.183.206 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You can report him as well.

You are User:Flesh-n-Bone. Lol. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know lol, but I'm now an annonym and plus I don't really know how to report. --81.216.183.206 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You can ask for help or support with {{helpme}}. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dresta

Please do not remove requests for references from WP:BLP articles unless you have ensured those references are in tact. In this case, they are not. Thank you, (jarbarf) (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no actual references cited in that article, so the {{fact}} template is pretty much pointless. You add it when you can't use the {{unref}} template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasc0 (talk • contribs) 13 May 2008

The Twinz

Why do you keep removing the fact that in 1997 the duo appeared on Warren G's second album "Take a Look Over Your Shoulder" on the track "We Brings Heat"? This fact is easily verifiable and very helpful for a page that has so little information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlazarus (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I provided several times an edit summary explaining why I removed that content. I'll say it again: is redundant information, it doesn't matter if the article is small or large. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. This is the first explanation I have received for deleting my contribution. This is Wikipedia, it's meant to be a place where everyone can contribute relevant information on a subject. The information I have added is important to anyone that views this Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlazarus (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has certain guidelines also. Just like you edit it, so do I and I'll remove or add the content I think is appropriate. I already gave you an explanation why I think that information shouldn't be there and I think you understand it very well. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand why you don't think the information should be on the Twinz page. Also, how could I understand why my contribution shouldn't be there? Your edit summary only says the word "redundant". This makes no sense as the information is not elsewhere on the same page. How is it redundant? How is it inappropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlazarus (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll repeat why I remove that content: it is redundant information. If you still can't understand why I'm doing it, then I suggest you to find a dictionary and search for the word redudancy. Please stop asking why I keep removing that information. If you have other questions, don't doubt asking. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As I asked you before, where else does the information appear on the same page? I don't think you know the definition of redundant. Again, how is it redundant? How is it inappropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlazarus (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant: "Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary". There's no need to add that type of content. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you`re starting an edit war. This information does not exceed what is necessary on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlazarus (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A modest ultimatum

Hello sir, I appreciate your recent suggestions for me to get a life. Rest assured that I will attempt to do so. In the meantime, I invite you to take a look at this essay. I believe that it might, if coupled with a healthy dose of introspection, allow you to become a more productive contributor. Until then I will take your kind advice to heart and disengage from any further direct communication with you. Please allow me the same courtesy and cease from any further attempts to contact me on my talk page. Best of luck to us both. Sincerely, your fellow Wikipedian, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

LMAO Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please enjoy your break from the project. I'm sorry that you didn't appreciate the suggested reading; perhaps WP:NPA and WP:CIV are clearer statements. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify where did I attack you? Because I think you're just mad and trying to get even with me because I called you an authoritarian admin, wich is true, by the way. We all can see that now. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In no particular order: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Coupled with your history of incivility, especially this bannable and threatening outburst, this means that you clearly do not have a grasp of the civility policy. I gave you several warnings, as did others previously, but it appears that something isn't getting through. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In that order: I don't see "get a life" as insult, it was a gentle advice. That's just a web site. A policy nazi it's not an insult neither. The last one; was just my opinion seeing your actions of protecting the image page.

I never insulted you. However, I'm willing to apologize to you if some of my comments made you feel attacked/insulted. And like I stated before, it was not my intention to insult you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Being attacked and insulted is par for the course for an admin, your comments were disappointing but not personally hurtful. However, if you seriously do not see them as abusive and insulting, then we have a major problem. After examining your history of making similar statements, I see that you are quick to offer an apology but slow to recognize and admit responsibility. Without passing any value judgment about you as a person, I can only state that such behavior is unacceptable and goes directly against Wikipedia's core expectation of civility. This block is not meant to leverage any sort of apology out of you, it is meant to remind you of the consequences of such behavior, which you experienced first hand with a previous one month block. I don't want to lose a productive contributor, but I care much less about contributors who appear to frequently engage in edit wars and consistently respond to situations with an antagonistic and insulting attitude. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the last block is relevant to this one, but whatever. I did apologize for that message and understood they were hurtfull. And I'd appreciate if you stop talking about it since you was not involved.

As for the current issue, if I'm offering an apologize to you it means I understand that some of my comments may have caused harm to you. Saying that, it doesn't mean I find those comment harmful. For example, if someone says that to me, I won't feel bad about it. But that's just me.

You can choose to accept my apologizes, carry on, and let me edit on Wikipedia again. Or you just can make the excuse that "I offer apologizes too soon", which I find nothing wrong about it, and have a valuable contributor to Wikipedia blocked for two months. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Sigh. I do not require an apology for your statements, from your response it seems that if one was even forthcoming that it would take the form of a non-apology which denied any cognizence of impropriety. Instead, if you wish to be unblocked, offer me a promise that you will stop commenting on other contributors. You're free to disagree vigorously when you feel that they are in the wrong, but you are simply not allowed to use insults or attempt to belittle anyone you disagree with - no matter how you may personally feel about them. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you consider such comments to mean, whether they are made in good humor or how you would feel if they were directed at you. If a comment has the potential to offend or attack the character of another contributor, then hold your tongue. And realize that you are most definitely on thin ice, you have been since the initial (and frankly well-deserved) indefinite block. An arbitrator was nice enough to give you another chance, not a free pass. If you continue to violate WP:NPA you will be blocked, and you're not a long way from being banned outright if this pattern of attacks and animosity does not cease. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to try not to comment on contributors, but I will comment on the contributions. That's all I have to say. It's up to you now. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do away with the passive-aggressive phrasing. Simply state: "Unblock my account. I promise not to make derogatory comments about other contributors." I'll accept such a promise, and I will hold you responsible to it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Unblock my account. I promise not to make derogatory comments about other contributors." I must be like 7 years old. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I should have used the {{cquote}} template. Duh. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ice Cube template

At first I was going to leave you a comment saying that I was sorry for reverting your edits on the Template:Ice Cube, but then I saw your comment in the edit explanation that said: "I don't care. Use guidelines to guide yourself, not articles", first of all what the hell does that mean, and second why be a creep in this situation saying you dont care. Also its T.I. not Snoop Dogg, my mistake--Yankees10 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't care if another article has it that way. Articles can be edit by anyone. Now, if you get a guideline saying that's the way it should go, then I would care and maybe read it.

And what I meant, is that you should consider using official guidelines to guide yourself on how to edit Wikipedia. Maybe you shoud read WP:PG to find more about policies and guidelines. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there isnt a guideline about saying that it shouldnt be like that. I mean you just assume that since you dont like it that it shouldnt be there, you dont need to be a jerkoff about the whole situation saying I dont care.--Yankees10 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tweedy

Great, we succeeded in keeping the article. I was like "wtf?" when I saw it up for deletion. --Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate every single crappy ass rock and roll artist with no charts or whatever. SMH. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, go ahead and do it, I'll look around and vote whenever I find one. --Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 10:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Boldfaced in music-related articles

Also see my reply on Talk:Mack 10 discography. The full quote from Wikipedia:Record charts: "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles." Discography pages such as Mack 10 discography and group articles such as Westside Connection are music-related articles that display record charts. Therefore these articles follow the Manual of Style guidelines in the articles. Aspects (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)