Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:55, 12 April 2008

Main

Talk

To-do

Hosted userboxes

Tool box

Sub-pages

*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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Get off my ass

Hey why wont you get off my ass already and go bother someone else will you. Mcanmoocanu 18:23 11 April 2007 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages for over a year, you think I would lie about something like that? You see any block logs in my account? No. Tasc0 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 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with B; Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

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 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 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 07:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SMH at your self nomination, I probably should be an admin too. Tasc0 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 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 Misplaced Pages, not to punish users.

I certainly haven't made any disruptions to any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 (). 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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-Misplaced Pages 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 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

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

Good looking. Tasc0 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 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 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)