User talk:Taeisawesome21

Having a login does not make your edits any more valid than using an ip address. Stop adding the The CW non-sense to these Canadian produced shows. Last warning. Xeditboy (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they co fund the show, so that's what I'm putting! You can't do anything about that, I'm afraid! Because I'm not breaking any of your rules! And it's an original co-production between The CW and CBC in Canada, so no, I won't stop putting it down! I'm not doing anything wrong! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And stop re-editing my edits, they're not yours to mess with! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking the guideline for TV shows. The primary buyer is the only one that goes in the info box template a well as the Original airdates. The CW is only a secondary buyer of these Canadian shows. leave it alone for the last time. Xeditboy (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not! These are original shows from The CW, too! Because they fund and they're putting their money into them! You leave them alone! Stop messing with my changes! Please, I'm not breaking any of your rules, friend! The original airdates are different for each broadcaster in both countries! That's not my problem! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CW is a foreign broadcaster of Canadian made and funded shows. Either follow the TV article guidelines here or leave. Xeditboy (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am and The CW is co-producing and funding them, making them original series! Why are you doing this to me? Stop harassing me or I will report you! I'm not doing anything wrong, now stop changing my edits or you leave! Your choice, bub! Don't make the wrong one! Or else they'll be consequences! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the last The CW is a foreign broadcaster, Global and the CBC are the primary broadcasters meaning they are the ones that use Original airdates and are the onlyones mentioned the info box. Read MOS TV guidelines. You are the one who is out of line. Xeditboy (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the CW co-produces them, making them CW originals, bro! You read those guidelines yourself and stop harassing me about this and leave my edits alone or I will block you from ever editing those pages again! Consider this your last warning! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are Canadian shows with Canadian production companies. And the airdates are only Canadian as well as you still haven't read

I've already read that MOS stuff before! So I know what I'm doing! Stop harassing me and go away! Or I will block your edits and keep you from ever editing these pages again! Again, this is your last warning! I won't say it again! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT following

MOS:TVINTL and adding non-Canadian airdates and infobox edits do NOT following the documentation that states the country and network only are for the production country and network which is Canada only. Your edits are nothing more than vandalism and you are the one who will be banned if you keep it up. Xeditboy (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it is not vandalism! You keep harassing me just because you think I'm not following NOS rules and stuff! But I am and you need to stop it! You know you're wrong and it's really starting to piss me off! CW is co-producing them and they are the other participant in the production of these shows! The US is the other country involved in the production, and so Canada is NOT the only country! You are wrong and you need to stop it right now or I'm reporting you! YOU will be banned, not me! I'm not doing anything wrong! You do not belong here if you are going to keep doing this! So just leave if you aren't going to follow the rules! This is your last chance! Choose carefully now! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm jumping in on this discussion now, I've been trying to get a discussion going ON THE TALK PAGE where it belongs since December. Since I created the page and therefore had to read just about EVERY article out there written about the show Xeditboy you are wrong about the status of the CW as a broadcaster and not a co-producer. Here is the ref is you want to read what it says in regards to Wilds Cards and Sight Unseen: "The CW says its creatively involved in all aspects of production and developed both series from scratch in partnership with CBC and CTV. While they will also be airing on CBC and CTV, they are fully CW original series, the network added."^[1] It's very clear that they are producing the show. You keep citing proper template format when you revert the addition of a second network. But the MOS says "the country of production" which is BOTH Canada and the US, and the infobox template states for network: "The original network(s) on which the show first appeared in the country of origin. Use links if articles are available." You'll note it says "network(s)" as in one or more. The sources prove that the CW is not a broadcaster, but a co-producer of the show, if you need the links added then fine we'll add the links to appease template rules. But a second network needs to be added, and both countries get listed as the country of origin. Just like multiple other shows that have been co-produced between 2 or more countries. If you have some kind of reason to dispute this, please list it here. As in find me an good secondary source that proves your point that the CW is only a broadcaster. But do not edit the page again until this is settled here, as is customary for the rules here on Wikipedia for settling a dispute per Wikipedia:Consensus. Otherwise I'm reporting you for edit warring, because there's a difference between vandalism and edit warring. Just because you disagree with someone's edits, or think they are wrong that doesn't make their change vandalism. Otherwise you'd be the vandal because you're currently outvoted 2 to 1. Racheal Emilin (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, The CW is a broadcaster, too, though! This is so stupid! I'm tired of the constant arguing! I'm only trying to edit stuff and put the right information on the page that's supposed to be there! That's all and then people keep changing for their own benefit, when that's not why they're supposed doing, but they keep doing! I hate this, man! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

Okay, thanks! I appreciate the help! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to point out regarding followup on this. After confirming some things with another

To restate that and clarify: We don't list international broadcasters just because they are broadcasters. We list original broadcasters in the country of production. If it's a co-production that involves two countries (as in the case of Wild Cards), then, and only then, do you list those broadcasters. (Use the {{plainlist}} template when it's multiple entries.)

If the dates are different for the episode table, use |OriginalAirDate= for one and |AltDate= for the other. There are {{

Maybe I'm wrong, but Seasons 1 and 2 of Family Law have the CW dates. Am I wrong? And if I'm not, what's differenence with Season 3? IKhitron (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know, really! I mean, it IS a CW show, by the way, but the first two seasons aired in Canada first on Global, but the third season does have the CW airdates listed, since it's debuting in the US first this time before Canada. Taeisawesome21 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss details specific to articles at that article's talk page so that it remains with the article and can be referenced by other editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna fight with anybody! I'm gonna continue doing what I was doing before, 'cause I was doing nothing wrong at all! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you actually read

WP:ANI. All we need to do is look at your edit history. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not trying to edit war with anyone! It was Xeditboy who started it! Not me! But yes, I know I shouldn't do that! But again, I wasn't trying to do that with anyone! I was only trying to put down information that was important to know in that article so that way when people come to read it, they'd know what need to about the subject within that article! I wasn't trying to mess anything up, I'd never do that at all on purpose! I'm just trying to be an editing contributor just like everyone else that visits Wikipedia for information on things that I'm interested in, that's all, you know! Sorry about that! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nisf (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, what unconstructive edits? What do you mean? I'm not even doing that at all! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding unsourced information to Wikipedia and continuing to do so after your edits were reverted with comments. Please see

WP:VERIFY. Nisf (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm not! I've never been doing that at all, ever! Stop saying that I was! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Nisf (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being disruptive with my editing! I was just editing and correcting things and adding the right information like I always do, man! Come on, now! Stop it! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit without providing reliable sources. Again, I strongly encourage you to re-read

WP:VERIFY. Nisf (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm not! I've already read that stuff, so I know what I'm doing, thank you very much! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of programs broadcast by USA Network, you may be blocked from editing.

If you have proof that Walking Tall (1973 film), which was released 50 years ago, is in development by USA, please add a citation supporting that claim.

Therealteal (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I did put "TV series" by it, because there's been a TV series remake in development since 2018! Come on, now! So how is that "disruptive editing"? Stop it! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any citations for this claim? I couldn't find anything Therealteal (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Come on, now! There'plenty of articles on it, just go look it up! Stop harassing me over "citations" already! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, telling someone to "look it up" isn't a valid citation on Wikipedia. If you provide me a link to an article, I can assist you with making your edit and adding the necessary citation to it.

If, however, you feel like this conversation is harassment, we can just keep your edit being reverted and not working on fixing your change.

Let me know which you prefer!

Therealteal (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't see how that doesn't work, though, you know! Come on, now! You can look it up, and that would show you that I'm not lying and then we can move on, okay? Okay! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're lying. As

WP:CITE

says, it's important to make sure that anything that could be challenged has a source, so we can immediately dismiss the challenge.

I really do want to help you out. Can you please provide a source for this claim?

Therealteal (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, just look it up already! Trust me, it's real and it's been in development since 2018! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:CITE - saying there are plenty of sources is not the same as citing the source. If you can't cite it and someone removes it as uncited, don't re-add it until you can also provide a proper citation. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

You are so naive about what citations are, aren't you? Taeisawesome21 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Family Law (Canadian TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being disruptive, I'm just adding new information that was just missing, that's all! Chill out, please! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making disruptive edits! Since when?! Come on, man! Taeisawesome21 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were making disruptive edits. This talk page is full of warnings that you did not heed. If you want to appeal the block, read and follow the instructions in the block notice precisely, and another administrator will evaluate your unblock request. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only were you making disruptive edits, it would appear that you're now attempting to evade your block editing anonymously. I would recommend that if you want to be reinstated, that you review the notices and warnings that were made to you, review the associated guidelines that were spelled out, ask questions about what you don't understand, then read the guide to appealing blocks (linked in your block notice above). Then write an appeal that shows clearly that you understand why you were blocked and how you will avoid doing the same thing in the future. Attempted block evasion will be found out and will just make it more difficult for you to appeal. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Therealteal (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]