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 The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I turn off email notifications?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more).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 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 that Serial Number placed a warning on another user who warned him about 3RR, even after removing it, I felt threatened again even after bringing my concerns to the Teahouse. I felt the need to place an rfc, though I admit that my initial one was not neutral enough, which has been changed now. I would also like 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 I do feel the need to mention that Serial Number has persistently made it a negative editing experience for me through threatening comments and edit warring while claiming he is following Wikipedia policy, despite not following the very policies he is quoting. Thank you again for bringing your concern to my attention. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]