User talk:Tasc0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    
   
   
   
   
Main
    
Talk
    
To-do
    
Hosted userboxes
    
Tool box
    
Sub-pages
Caution
  • Please do not start a new thread to response to the one I created. If I left you a message, I'll be watching your talk page for a while and reply there.
  • I'll reply here at any thread, unless the opposite is specified.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

OK, you should know better than this but I'm willing to take you at your word.

Request handled by: Ronnotel (talk) 06:08, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User promises to cease personal attacks.

Request handled by: ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I should have used the {{cquote}} template. Duh. Tasc0 It's a zero! 22:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)