Hello, Unnamed anon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from David Wallace (The Office) into List of The Office (American TV series) characters. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unnamed anon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I turn off email notifications?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider undoing your post at WP:AE. You have not mentioned any Arbcom decision that applies to these edits. Please read the instructions in the pink box at the top of the AE page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the pink box, bolding added for emphasis: Please use this page only to:

• request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator,
• request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions,
• request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or
• appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions) to uninvolved administrators. --Calton | Talk 03:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought an Arbcom decision meant any Wikipedia policy, not just those marked for Arbcom. It has been removed. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GeraldWL ✉ 07:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is fair considering it is coming from someone other than the other party in the edit war. Thanks on giving Serial Number a warning too. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Came from the Teahouse and did some checking with its history log before adding this message. I can't think of who's right and who's not, that is why I gave the same warning for both parties (that is, you and Serial). In this particular case, I think a talk page is really valuable rather than an editing war. Hope you use it more next time, it's chill there 🙃 GeraldWL ✉ 07:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed anon, I am trying this personal communication here because you are new. Your quest to preserve your preferred interpretations of My Hero Academia characters is now running headlong into the Law of Diminishing Returns. The more you insist on your preferred version, the less your insistence is going to be taken seriously.

You've been a registered user for less than three weeks and you've started multiple RfC's (without understanding the RfC process or how to create one correctly), reported another user on the Edit War Noticeboard (despite it not being an edit war), started a Dispute Resolution process (despite the dispute not being eligible for DR and then violating the instructions given for proceeding with a DR filing), complained about being threatened at the Teahouse (despite not receiving any threats), and requested Arbitration Enforcement (despite there being no Arbitration Committee decision to enforce). After both an administrator and I pointed you to a different website (My Hero Academia wiki) that is much more compatible with accepting this type of edit, you went and opened a third malformed RfC on the article talk. Doesn't that seem just a mite excessive to you?

You will, of course, dispute every characterization of your edits I've made above and defend yourself from these "accusations". Your statements at the Teahouse and DRN and AE all demonstrate that, no matter how many editors have told you this approach is mal-adapted for this website, you are going to insist on your righteousness. Please: you really, really need to slow down and read instructions and the feedback you've already received before you keep going. You are treating the entire project as your personal WP:BATTLEGROUND in order to preserve your interpretation of characters in a fictional universe. This is not a healthy way to approach this website. Neither is this an issue worth this level of disruption. This will eventually and inevitably lead to your being blocked either for WP:DISRUPT or WP:NOTHERE grounds if it continues.

This is a collaborative project. Articles do not belong to anyone and reflect the WP:CONSENSUS of many different editors. When your edits are questioned, it is much more productive to try to address the concerns addressed by other editors and not to try to enforce your version. An experienced user would have been reported for disruption at AN/I already. I hope you can take this advice on board before your editing here becomes a truly negative experience. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I want to start off first by saying the only claims I intend to dispute are the claim that I have not been threatened and the claim that there is no edit warring. Every other characterization about my edits that you made, including my mistakes on DR, Arbcom, and RFC, as well as my battleground approach, are all absolutely correct. I understand now the processes behind Arbcom and DR, and admit my mistakes for using those, as well as my mistake when initially starting the rfc, but I do feel like I have been threatened by Serial Number 54129. After my mistake at Arbcom, what I felt like was a threat was Can somebody just block this guy and save all our ears? given by none other than Serial Number himself. I have also been told by editors other than Serial Number that the mass removal of content was considered inappropriate and edit warring, that Serial Number should discuss on the article talk page instead of repeatedly making the same edits, and multiple other editors besides me have also reverted Serial Number’s version. With the fact that Serial has been coming back to restore the same reversion once or twice a month for some time now, I admittedly felt like I had to put my foot down and put a stop to it. Once I saw an aspersion that I’m bulshitting admins, and that Serial Number placed a warning on another user who warned him about 3RR, and even though that warning has been removed, I felt threatened that the warning was meant for me and given to the other user out of mistake, even after bringing my concerns to the Teahouse. I felt the need to place an rfc, though I admit that my initial rfc was not neutral enough, which is why it has been rewritten.

I do not intend to revert Serial and Drmies’ changes myself outside of reverting unexplained messing up of formatting (ie, removing a header and a main character and replacing the ; with 2 ====‘s) until the rfc is resolved, unless I screwed up on the rfc again, which in that case I would gladly rewrite again. If you look in the page history, after Exukvera restored he content, I made sure to remove content that was actually considered cruft. I would also like to mention that I have not and do not ever intend to make the claim that I own the article. I apologize if I have made this a negative editing experience for you, but Serial Number has persistently made it a negative editing experience for me through threatening comments that I should be blocked, what I see as uncivil aspersions that I am editing in bad faith, what administrators GorillaWarfare and DESiegel, as well as user Tutelary have called edit warring by reverting to the same version each month, Serial Number almost completely ignoring the article talk page until recently and refusal to explain certain formatting changes, Serial Number claiming he is following Wikipedia policy despite not following the very policies he is quoting and breaking other policies, resorting to name-calling when questioned about how the material was considered original research (as well as proceeding not to answer that question). and him ignoring attempts to fix parts of the page that actually were breaking said policies. Thank you again for bringing your concern to my attention. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<hypocrisy removed>

@Serial Number 54129:, you are also guilty of breaking WP:IDHT, and you seem to believe you are above that policy, as well as BRD. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. You keep citing Wp:V and WP:OR, despite multiple users saying that the content does not break either of those policies. Unnamed anon (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed anon, I will not tell you not to feel threatened. Your feelings are your own and I won't presume on them. I will tell you, however, that you should not expect any action about your feeling threatened based on what has been said. Wikipedia admins take threats very seriously and therefore there is a very definite restriction on the types of speech they will consider to be threats. Threats are almost universally understood to be of the form "I will do [X] to you." Sometimes there is qualification: "If you do/don't do [Y] I will do [X]." Sometimes the threat is by proxy: "I will get [ABC] to do [X] to you. Nothing SN54129 has said fits any of those patterns. My suggestion to you is to read it more as a warning. That is, a block is a likely outcome of the editing pattern you've so far demonstrated here. As a warning, it is not unreasonable and as a prediction, it is even more germane.

I will offer one more suggestion: leave My Hero Academia articles alone for a time, at least a month, and edit other topics of interest. I see you have other areas of interest: The Simpsons, Stranger Things, The Office. Edit those and become more familiar with both the written and unwritten rules of this site. Your editing experience will undoubtedly become more pleasant. What's the absolute worst case imaginable if you left My Hero Academia alone, after all? Some characters in one anime property are misrepresented slightly. It's not a permanent problem and it's not one that a viewer of the series won't make their own decisions about anyway. The only audience that will be negatively effected are those who won't watch it and they aren't going to be swayed by these corrections. You can afford to wait on fixing the problem. There's WP:NO DEADLINE. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does help, thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to echo Eggishorn's advice above, Unnamed anon. And I think you have been reading more into my comments on the issue than I ever put there. I said that character descriptions could be sourced to the work of fiction in which those characters appear. I did not say that your specific additions were proper or that removing them was improper. I did say that the matter should be discussed on the talk page, and you have attempted to do so, but such discussion should primarily be about the content of the article, not about the actions of other editors. You have been, IMO, both too defensive and too ready to accuse others of improper actions. If Serial Number 54129 has been edit warring, so have you. Please do not continue in this way, it will not lead to a good result. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement that I have both been too defensive about my side of the argument, been too ready to assume bad faith, and focused more on Serial himself rather than the content. I also apologize for misinterpreting your statements. While my view on the content has not changed, I will make sure that I change my methods to be less accusatory and more strictly about whether the content belongs, and I hope that Serial changes to that method as well (as I personally feel as if he is also assuming bad faith from me, despite Tutelary and Exukvera taking my same position), as well as for him to properly contribute to the discussion. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unnamed anon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is there a deadline for actions that can be reported to ANI?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unnamed anon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Delete misspelled AFD, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unnamed anon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Does Yapperbot notify users of an RFC long after it started?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tags go at the very end of the article - see WP:ORDER. The Nix already has a stub tag, at the end, so please don't add {{stub}} anywhere in that article. PamD 08:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unnamed anon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, When would it become obvious that a consensus has been reached?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unnamed anon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is there a way to permanently remove notifications?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry I missed your AN/I filing. I guess you learned that AN/I filing should be short and to the point. Sorry I didn't warn you about that. I do have a section about advice to new editors at the top of my user page User:David_Tornheim. Some of what is in there might be helpful--I often show it to editors who get very frustrated at the difficulties of following the myriad of rules and dealing with senior editors who seem to be breaking them and may seem to be using double-standards and may even be calling the new editors names. Unfortunately, it's a fairly common occurrence.

In that section I tend to advise against filing, but in your case, I thought you might have a chance of having more clarity on the situation, especially given all your efforts to address the problem. If the other editor starts up again, you might possibly file again. Before filing again, it's important to read up on other AN/I filings to figure out who wins and loses and the arguments they use that are successful and the ones that fail. Using diffs is crucial. Asking other editors to just go to the page and look won't fly. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Thanks. I’ll be sure to keep this in mind if the other editor starts disrupting again. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So here is the problem with these kinds of edits in these kinds of articles: you reintroduce material cause you think that a better reader of the primary material would know better--and you say "they're notable as a group". That is precisely the kind of thing that we shouldn't have to decide on: secondary sources should decide on that. Without those sources there is really no basis to conclude what should go in and what should be cut. David Tornheim, I don't think Serial# was ever breaking any rules in this article. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I can understand your opinion of Serial# not breaking any rules content-wise (which is why I went back and added secondary sources for several characters' fates and motives), but his attitude about it, including going against BRD while claiming his edits to be above it, refusing to discuss despite an ongoing discussion, repeated arguments, accusing me of bad faith calling me derogatory names, stalking my IP location and demanding that I thank him for edits that I clearly disagree with that really sealed the deal, and even if they don’t break rules about editing, they certainly break rules about general behavior. As for the characters I removed and then added back in, I can remove them again if you'd like, as those minor characters likely do not have any secondary sources talking about them yet. If I do remove them, I'll assume that once that part of the comic is adapted into the tv show, these characters will have a secondary source talking about them. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you completely misunderstand what I am trying to say: I am talking about the impossibility of deciding on article content in the absence of secondary sources. It's not about what I want in or out of the article, or about Serial#. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Alright, that's a completely valid point. Thanks for letting me know. That's why I did add in about 15 secondary sources to the article, and removed other minor characters who are not even notable as part of a group. I agree that there were not enough secondary sources previously. I'll make sure that if another character or their fate/motive is added to the list, they're notable enough that a secondary source talks about said character, fate, or motive. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]