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), your giving you're 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, Tasco 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

Tasco, 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 Tasco?? 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 tasco, 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 Tasco, 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)