User talk:Tasc0

edit count | edit summary usage

User:Tasc0

User talk:Tasc0

User:Tasc0/To-do list

User:Tasc0/Userboxes

User:Tasc0/Tool box

Special:Prefixindex/User:Tasc0

Main

Talk

To-do

Hosted userboxes

Tool box

Sub-pages

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}}

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)

What the hell are you doing on Wikipedia? You have sons to feed. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Untitled by some emo cunt

I see a block log in your account. Just seeing it make me laugh, Mr. Perfect, perfect no more. Eric Miller (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Get off my dick, cunt. In case you didn't notice, the block was after this. You really must be retared. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I got blocked for 30 minutes, you got blocked for more than days. You is lost. And I don't even know who the fuck are you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You been cryin Tasc0? Bout time they BLOCKED you, you been (BLOCK) vadalizing wiki 4 2 damn (BLOCK) long. And I'm not (BLOCK) retared, I don't think that (BLOCK) is a word. You really must (BLOCK) be retarded. Oh yeah I was blocked for a long time, months even. I've been blocked 3 times for dealing with pricks like you, but Enjoy the rest of your BLOCK...I mean day. Now let me continue to laugh. Eric Miller (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh absolutly, I'm still crying because I take the Internet thing very seriously I have e-feelings. Just like you have e-friends. What I shame, I still can't edit in Wikipedia, right? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)