User talk:Unnamed anon/Archive 1

Welcome!

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

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)

Your thread has been archived

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 The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I turn off email notifications?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more).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 . 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)

Your WP:AE doesn't mention any Arbcom case

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)

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)

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)

My Hero Academia

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)

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)

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)

Your editing style

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)

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)

<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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Your thread has been archived

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 . 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)

Your thread has been archived

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 . 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)

Your thread has been archived

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 . 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)

Stub tags

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)

Your thread has been archived

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 . 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)

Your thread has been archived

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 . 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)

AN/I filing

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• Plots do not require secondary sourcing per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. It is arguable that characters are part of the plot. The decision on what to be added can be decided by consensus.

Within the section List of exemplary articles under the MOS:FICT guideline is exemplary article List of Naruto characters which has existed since 2003. It appears to me that most of it is sourced from the comic itself, not from secondary sources. @Unnamed anon: This is the kind of example I was suggesting you look for when I wrote this and this. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at List of South Park episodes 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. SanAnMan (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Unnamed anon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, In a request for closure, are edits pre-request for comment and private thanks post-request for comment allowed to be mentioned?, 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 . 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) 19:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please undo your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy (Fire Emblem) (2nd nomination)

Hello, Unnamed anon. Please undo your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy (Fire Emblem) (2nd nomination) as it is a WP:BADNAC. While non-admin closures are acceptable, in this case it was not—especially because you were a participant in the discussion and therefore not impartial. I wanted to give you the opportunity to undo this before it goes to WP:DRV for formal deletion review. Regards, 2pou (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've undone your edits, and came here the same thing. You may not act as a participant with a stance, and a closer, in the same AFD. An uninvolved editor must close it. Please do not do that again. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on effective communication on Wikipedia

Hi, Anon. Reaching out as I said I would at Talk:Utada Hikaru § Suggestion to close, now partly in response to your revised comment as well (also please see my comment there on the guidelines for revising comments). I want to be clear, I don't think you're trying to cause any trouble, but I think there are some social norms that you may not be aware of, departures from which may cause people to view your comments in a light you don't intend. To wit:

• Making a generalized complaint about any community, be that a gender-based community, an ethnic group, a religious group, etc., will generally be seen as stereotyping.
• And framing someone in opposition to that stereotype can evoke a trope sometimes called "one of the good ones", which can further stereotype the group you're speaking about, and also cast the person in question in a light they may be uncomfortable with. In this case, it's a shame you've had bad interactions with some nonbinary people in the past, but that's just some nonbinary people, not something you should draw a broad conclusion from; I don't think there's anything speical about me, or that I'm especially reasonable. A lot of the things that I see people online say "all nonbinary people" or "most nonbinary people" think, I don't know a single nonbinary person IRL who says. This comic may also be of interest.
• (And then: Enter Sandmann...) When you're already in a discussion on a sensitive topic (especially a DS topic), it's rarely a good idea to bring up a different sensitive topic / DS topic if you can help it. Sometimes that may be inevitable (say, comparing an aspect of one country's politics to an aspect of another's), but something like bringing up Nick Sandmann tangentially in a discussion of pronouns is likely to be seen as trying to stoke more controversy. It also flirts with BLP territory. It's best to stay on-topic with this sort of thing.

I don't think you've done something exceptionally offensive here. A little offensive, yes, but I believe in good faith. There are users significantly more experienced than you who've said uglier things in that thread, but I'm reaching out to you because I get the sense that you are genuinely looking to discuss things constructively in this area. That's good. We need more people who can discuss all of this constructively, and who are willing to listen to arguments from disparate perspectives.

If you ever have questions about trans or nonbinary issues, either as applies to Wikipedia or just in general, feel free to reach out. :) I really don't get offended by a question asked in good faith. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Yeah, trying to explain why I lashed out was probably just as offensive as the lashing out itself looking back now. That comic is a perfect representation of my feelings: I know only a small percentage of transgender and nonbinary people are like the ones I usually encounter, but my opinion unfortunately molded that way because of those kinds of people. I usually try to forget that kind of stereotyping when trying to have a civil discussion, but occasionally I lose my cool when I'm not in a good mood. I usually only edit Wikipedia for media entertainment pages rather than gender issues, but I am willing to discuss them constructively. Thank you so much for assuming good faith, and sorry for all the offensive stuff I said. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A request, and a piece of friendly-if-uninvited advice

If you intend on seeking consensus to restore this (I'm neutral on the matter -- I've never been a big fan of that list in general, since several of its entries read like they were written by one "side" in the edit war in question in order to avenge themselves on the "side" that had the better case and wound up writing the version of the article that survived, but I know the list has repeatedly survived MFD and I don't see it as a hill worth dying on), I would ask that you change "entirety" to "majority", since I at least (and presumably others) made changes, however small, that had nothing to do with pronouns.[1]

On an unrelated note, I'll say that I try to avoid judging IRL groups based on fights I find myself dragged into on the Internet. I don't have many real-world LGBTQ friends (at least not that I know of; I tend not to talk about sexual orientation one way or the other) but those I do know, and those who are friends of friends, are overwhelmingly friendly, open-minded, and helpful to those who are less malicious than ill-informed. There are, of course, surely many LGBTQ people who go on Twitter (and Wikipedia!) just to start fights, as there are members of a lot of groups who do the same (your account is fairly new, but your username implies you edited as an IP before that, so I don't know if you remember the flood of neo-fascist trolls we had on here circa 2015-2017), and even, no doubt, a fair few hetero/cis folks who pretend to be LGBTQ online for purposes of trolling. No specific examples of the latter come to mind, but there was once a white guy in ... Kentucky, I believe, who posed as a Japanese housewife on Twitter so that he could join in various conversations and pretend to write from a "perspective" that he actually knew nothing about.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hi Unnamed anon! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Reverse racism several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Reverse racism, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. You have made three reverts so far, inserting similar undue content on each occasion (an anti-racist cooperative in Calgary, Alberta, informally attached to the University of Calgary). Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I have discussed this on the talk page, and so far two editors are not opposed to the idea of sourcing it, just where it could be sourced. "I think it could be cited, in the body, with in-text attribution" and "Perhaps a brief direct quote from the source would be clear, but we'd have to see whether it fits." Neither of these editors are opposed to sourcing it, it's just that I'm having trouble incorporating it. The reverts I made were done with the understanding that it was where I put the source and the sentence accompanying it were wrong rather than the source itself (if you notice, each "revert" placed the source in a paragraph that I thought might be more fitting), and I would like you to discuss this on the talk page, because you haven't discussed it at all. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The use of one source for exceptional claims is not advisable, as other users have already mentioned on Talk:Reverse racism. The insertions appear to be cherry-picked and seem to misrepresent the Calgary anti-racist cooperative source. Those other users have quite reasonably requested alternative WP:RSs for verification. Inserting the same material several times — even if at different places — does not seem constructive. Please find other sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim isn't exceptional though. The source's primary objective explains how anti-white discrimination isn't racism, which the other sources already support. I listed several examples of secondary sources giving obvious examples of anti-white discrimination on the talk page, and nobody with a brain is going to contest that those examples on the talk page aren't racially motivated prejudice; they'll contest that it's not racism, which is what the article, and all other sources, say. And as far as I know it isn't out of character for the source to say something like this. I do agree more sources will always be helpful though. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is with edit-warring, hence the notification. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Would an rfc be a good idea for this? Unnamed anon (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your removal of content from Technoblade

Hello. Regarding this edit, while I don't have an issue with your removal in and of itself, because the PinkNews source was quoting a bunch of Twitter nonsense, you said "alleged homophobic tweets, none of which are shown to prove they even existed". The Tweet that Dream SMP fans dug up and that caused the initial "backlash" definitely exists, as it is still up to this day. Techno never removed it. It's just Techno asking "Was Hitler a lesbian?" I'm not saying the joke is necessarily "homophobic" but that tweet was what the main "drama" was about. Ss112 08:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Will is not gay"

Also, about this edit: where did Noah Schnapp explicitly say Will Byers is not gay? Media have widely interpreted Will crying in the car after telling Mike that Eleven loves him and "lying" about what the picture he painted was about as "confirming" Will has romantic feelings for Mike. Sure, the media are not the writers but neither is Schnapp. I believe Schnapp has said the writers never "blatantly say how Will is". I don't think the show will explicitly say it, but I'd struggle to see how else one is supposed to interpret that scene (e.g. why else would Will be crying if he did not have feelings for Mike?) I get the feeling from your contributions that you are deliberately frequently editing in "controversial" areas, attempting to start debates or just enflame things by making declarations in edit summaries, and if this is even slightly what you're doing, it's going to be more widely recognised and you may find yourself blocked before long. Editors who flock to controversial topics to offer hot takes aren't given the benefit of the doubt if it's all they do. You can just say something is WP:OR and not supported by a source if it is and you disagree (but then again, most of the Stranger Things characters article isn't sourced). Ss112 08:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case it was unclear from half the preceding paragraph being the character himself: I'm not interested in a debate on whether Will is actually gay or not. The important things are my seeking clarification on whether Schnapp explicitly said Will is "not gay" somewhere (as you said he did), and to be careful editing in/showing up at/making declarations about controversial topics as it's seemingly all you do. The amount of notices about sanctions applying to all editors editing in certain topics areas posted (and removed) here is more than I've seen for any other editor, as well as editors like Tamzin informing you about how you should respond in disagreements. It's certainly a pattern already. Ss112 09:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source of Schnapp saying Will isn't gay: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/stranger-things-3-noah-schnapp-gay-will-byers-theory-1202156568/. Regardless, much of what I removed is unsourced fancruft. Explaining the entire series multiple times for each character isn't necessary at all, doubly so when it claims that unconfirmed theories are true. Also, I don't flock to controversial topics that often (most of my edits are in tv or movies), and when I do I don't think my "hot takes" are usually controversial at all (usually I just state my agreement with arguments already made) so you can put that theory to rest. Also, I don't know how you got that idea that my talk page has the most sanctions you've seen. My last edit war notice before June 2022 (I know I got two, but I personally don't trust the user whose I removed given their history of closing talk page questions on the reverse racism page without even giving other users the benefit of the doubt. I'm still heeding that edit warring notice though) was 1.5 years ago in October 2020 from an edit war that was resolved quickly, and the only other one (which I did remove) before that was in August 2020 from a user whose behavior was blatantly inappropriate (such as gaming the system by reverting to their preferred version every month or resorting to petty name-calling). The rest are just teahouse questions that have been archived. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)