User talk:Tazetheog

July 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Danielle Rose Russell. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Hey there @IJBall,
 * Respectfully the way in which I made edits for the page of Danielle Rose Russell is in line with how other actors, actresses, and entertainment figures are structured (that being with the most notable role they played first, followed by any supporting roles or additional information. For example, if you look at the pages of Joseph Morgan (actor) and Matthew Davis, co-stars of projects Danielle Rose Russell was on - their most notable roles are first, followed by other supporting roles. This change was made also done to establish what her most prominent role has been as an actress in her career.
 * As someone myself who deals in the entertainment industry and also well versed in proper structure of writing, the reversal actually disrupts progress toward improving an article and thus the page the edits were made to.
 * Thank you. Tazetheog (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:BRD – you made an edit, it was reverted, you are then supposed discuss. Note that I object to several parts of your edit – you should never use "best known" phrasing (if it's used at other articles, it's wrong and pure WP:OR/WP:POV), and I object to changing the lede from more of a chronological ordering. Also note, there is no "house style" for Wiki articles, so just because something is done at one article does not mean other articles need to do it the same way. But, bottom line, once reverted, you should discuss your proposed changes and try to gain consensus for them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response.
 * WP:BRD itself states that it as a process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, as it also states some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, and that BRD does not encourage reverting.
 * As for your statement regarding WP:OR - I do not see how this specific process has any correlation to the argument you are trying to make. In regards to WP:POV, through every edit I have made I have kept a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly without editorial bias in my changes. I am simply again following a structure I have seen with other well-known actors, actresses, celebrities, etc (for more proof this structure is widely used - please look at the following individual's pages Clark Gregg, Aubrey Joseph, Katherine McNamara: all of which have their most well known acting credit listed first, before any supporting roles.)
 * Lastly as to your statement again regarding WP:BRD, it states I must discuss an edit with the person who reverted me, this case you, nowhere in BRD does it state I must gather a consensus from others when reverted, only when in the editing phase. And as WP states itself - BRD is not mandatory, and also BRD is never a reason for reverting. I would simply encourage you to revisit BRD and determine from an independent mindset if your revision was needed.
 * Thank you. Tazetheog (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * and also @IJBall, to be clear - your objections also go against a part of WP:BRD as BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing, which you clearly have demonstrated in your response. Tazetheog (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. You appear to be a new editor, so I would advise taking it slow. Regardless, there is no "required style" for BLP actor ledes, so what is best at one article is not necessarily what is best at another. And I can tell you "best known" phrasing is just wrong – if you don't believe me, ask about it at WT:FILMBIO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response.
 * At this point, while I respect your discussion and your response with me - I am feeling intimidated by you based on the previous message as you've rejected all the counters I have made (some using the WP pages you sent me, and disregarding examples I have sent to back why I made my initial edit) and have decided to treat me as just a new editor and so forth, without thinking whether I do or do not know anything of proper formatting, structure or that I did not read the pages you sent me. All I have tried to do was simply edit a page, the best way I possibly could based on other pages, as you say there is no required style.
 * In the future, please be more considerate and open-minded when giving your opinion and thoughts and how they may be received. Tazetheog (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to The CW has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source.  General Ization Talk  00:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey there,
 * Regarding your reversal of the removal of content on the CW, Nexstar has publicly stated already via investor calls and presentations that they own the CW and as of August 15, have operational control of The CW. The confusion I think you have on the matter is that while the transaction itself is expected to close in the third quarter of 2022, Nexstar has control now of The CW and operations around it.
 * I'd suggest reading the official press release here, https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-to-acquire-the-cw-network/, and listening to the investor presentation https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar_cw_acquisition_webcast_2022/ Tazetheog (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It remains that The CW is not yet 75% owned by Nexstar Media Group; hence your edit is premature. Regardless of what Nexstar says in its media releases, wait until the transaction closes.  General Ization  Talk  01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response,
 * Respectfully your stance on this transaction of The CW and Nexstar differs from what has been stated in their press releases, investor calls (which are legally required in the case of an acquisition), plus numerous entertainment trades such as THR, Deadline, Variety and more are reporting that The CW is now officially owned by Nexstar, given they immediately took operational control of the network when the acquisition was announced on August 15. I can happily provide the sources necessary to back this claim.
 * Given this, the edit was not made prematurely, and I will be reinstating my edits. Tazetheog (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not owned. Operational control with the planned acquisition yet to is not the same. The sources are very explicit that ownership has not yet transferred. oknazevad (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello there @Oknazevad,
 * First off I would recommend looking at this article from the LA Times which states they now have the controlling stake (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-08-15/tv-station-owner-nexstar-acquires-a-controlling-stake-in-cw-network), and from Nextsar's own press release (https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-to-acquire-the-cw-network/) plus its investors call (https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar_cw_acquisition_webcast_2022/)
 * Thank you for your response, but if you wish to have a separate discussion so that @General Ization and I can continue the discussion we had, feel free to create a new section on my talk page about this matter. Tazetheog (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * is perfectly welcome to contribute to this discussion, in this section; since they, I and you are all discussing the same edits, there is no need for them to start a new discussion here on your Talk page. As they have stated, unless and until Nexstar owns 75% of The CW, it is factually incorrect to state that they do, whether or not they have operational control.  General Ization Talk  01:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally @Oknazevad and @General Ization
 * At this point, while I respect your discussion and your responses with me - I am feeling intimidated by you based on the previous message as you've rejected all the counters I have made (disregarding examples I have sent to back why I made my initial edit, ) and have decided to be harassing to me via the undo editing tool on Wikipedia. Aside from industry trades which have to factually state details upon publication, Nexstar itself has stated themselves through public documents they have acquired The CW, and have as you acknowledged operational control and have a definite agreement now in place.
 * In the future, please be more considerate and open-minded when giving your opinion, taking certain actions and thoughts and how they may be received moving forward. Tazetheog (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Candidly, your feelings of being intimidated are not our concern. We are building an encyclopedia here. That being the case, we take seriously attempts to insert potentially incorrect or speculative information in the encyclopedia. All of the communications with you so far concerning your edits have been civil and based on Wikipedia policies. One of those policies is that we do not rely on primary sources -- including statements by the principal parties to a transaction.  If you do not fully understand those policies, please click on the blue links in the various messages left for you here on your Talk page.  General Ization  Talk  01:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Candidly, you have made a stance via your talk page to do the following,1) Be welcoming to newcomers, 2) Civility, and 3) Assume good faith. So it should be a moral concern of yours to hold yourself to the same principles as you wish others to.
 * Now to address your other parts of the response, I share the same stance that potentially incorrect or speculative information in the encyclopedia can be hurtful. As for the stance on primary sources, that wikipedia policy itself states "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." I've provided to you and @Oknazevad multiple sources that I based my edits on the official information coming from Nexstar in public documents, alongside secondary sources such as The LA Times, Variety, etc. These publications and news outlets count as secondary sources given they rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them and/or contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, as stated by the policy. Tazetheog (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed this sentence at WP:EW:

An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.
 * The policy is that once you learn that other editors object to your edits, you wait until you have achieved consensus for them, rather than repeatedly asserting your edits. The existing consensus version remains in place while that discussion is occurring, and until a new consensus is established. Both Oknazevad and I have restored the version of the article that reflects the current consensus, hence we are not edit warring. The burden is on you to achieve consensus for the changes you propose. If that requires the input of other editors, then we wait. There is no deadline. You have now performed your third revert, so I suggest you think carefully before doing so again.  General Ization  Talk  02:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response.
 * Moving forward, I ask you cease communication with myself, as I will do the same as this conversation has no longer become civil. Additionally, I ask again for you in the future to please be more considerate and open-minded when giving your opinion, taking certain actions and thoughts and how they may be received moving forward (especially as you have now levied an implied threat towards me)
 * Additionally, I will take what you have shared into consideration in the future when coming to edits. Thank you and have a great day. Tazetheog (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The CW shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Scotiabank Arena. Note that Sportsfan 1234 reverted your edits, not me. I am just the messenger. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
Hello Arbitration Committee,

I was made aware recently that my wikipedia account (user: tazetheog) was banned for "sockpuppeting", and I am writing this email to ask for an unban of my account. I will write this request with bulleted and based on guidelines from the WP policy on unban requests.

State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration: The only thing I can think of that would get me blocked is possibly someone I share an internet connection with someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia through the shared connection, but I never asked that person on my behalf, nor used their account to do edit pages. As stated in this wikipedia policy "Often, two or more accounts will edit similarly, doing things in the same exact manner, thereby giving the appearance of being operated by the same person. They write in the same grammatical style, source material the same way, or use the same wiki formatting.", and also "It is very likely this is occurring because one editor is simply copying the ways of another." This is what I believe to be the root of the issue.

Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct: The administrator did not directly reach out to me and asked if I was behind the other account. The concern the administrator shared was that my page had edited on the same page in the days or weeks prior to this purported "sock account". They did run a checkuser, which as I previously stated someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia without my knowledge did so on their account through a shared internet connection.

As for the concerns, I can understand the blocking administrator's good faith concerns and actions as anyone or a group using or abusing multiple accounts can be detrimental to articles on Wikipedia and fair editing. If I am to be unblocked, I will do anything I can to prevent the perceived belief that my account may be used for abusive behavior, including giving you my word directly that I myself under the user "tazetheog" will follow Wikipedia community customs.

Lastly, I thank you for your diligent work as administrators and members of the Wikipedia community, because without administration, the Wikipedia we know today would be worse than it is.

Thank you, Tazetheog (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello i was made aware recently that my wikipedia account (user: tazetheog) was banned for "sockpuppeting", and I am writing this to ask for an unban of my account. I have included in this request my reasons based on guidelines from the WP policy on unban requests.

State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration: The only thing I can think of that would get me blocked is possibly someone I share an internet connection with someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia through the shared connection, but I never asked that person on my behalf, nor used their account to do edit pages. As stated in this wikipedia policy "Often, two or more accounts will edit similarly, doing things in the same exact manner, thereby giving the appearance of being operated by the same person. They write in the same grammatical style, source material the same way, or use the same wiki formatting.", and also "It is very likely this is occurring because one editor is simply copying the ways of another." This is what I believe to be the root of the issue.

Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct: The administrator "Mz7" did not directly reach out to me and asked if I was behind the other account. The concern the administrator shared was that my page had edited on the same page in the days or weeks prior to this purported "sock account". They did run a checkuser, which as I previously stated someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia without my knowledge did so on their account through a shared internet connection.

As for the concerns, I can understand the blocking administrator's good faith concerns and actions as anyone or a group using or abusing multiple accounts can be detrimental to articles on Wikipedia and fair editing. If I am to be unblocked, I will do anything I can to prevent the perceived belief that my account may be used for abusive behavior, including giving you my word directly that I myself under the user "tazetheog" will follow Wikipedia community customs.

Lastly, I thank you for your diligent work as administrators and members of the Wikipedia community, because without administration, the Wikipedia we know today would be worse than it is.

Thank you,


 * ✅ sockpuppetry. Technical evidence is as unambiguous as I have ever seen in my time as a checkuser. --Yamla (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey there @Yamla, I appreciate the response. Please understand I don't have any other accounts, and have never attempted to do so. As I stated, as to who using my IP address, I can only assume it is someone else in my household complex or so forth who shares my internet connection (which I do not monitor who uses it).
 * On my only account that I, Tristin Chambers own, I have done hundreds of edits that were in line with Wikipedia standards or did after a consensus talk, and ask you to consider why I would jeopardize my good work to do something like Sockpuppetry. ? Tazetheog (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello there @Jpgordon,
 * If you're able to look into it, I would like to know what the determining factors or criteria was considered or used to determine outside of the checkuser seeing the same IP address (which multiple people within one household, building, etc could use) that led to create my ban. I've tried to make my case that even with the same IP address, I don't own the account that I'm being accused of sockpuppeting on. Tazetheog (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. We are prohibited from doing that. At this point, your final avenue of appeal is WP:ARBCOM. Note, though, that two checkusers (including myself) have noted that the technical evidence is unambiguous here. ARBCOM will almost certainly deny any appeal of the sort you are making above. As far as non-ARBCOM requests, this is the end of the line. --Yamla (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yamla understandable, I am disappointed that you and the other checkuser are only looking at technical evidence, and not trying to take the information I've given you about someone else having the same IP Address due to being in my household, yet I live with other people. There's not much I can do to prevent it, because even if I was to change my IP address, the other unknown user would get the updated IP address as well.
 * while sad about the initial decisions being made and so forth, I'll go ahead and reach out to ARBCOM. Thank you. Tazetheog (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That excuse doesn't work here. See WP:LITTLEBROTHER. --Yamla (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yamla
 * That wikipedia page clearly states: "This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline." Additionally, I thought it was a policy of Wikipedia for administrators to assume good faith to users, which I've been respectful of the Wikipedia platform and so forth in any edits that I (keyword: I) have done on my account, which this is my only account Tazetheog (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)