Fullmetal2887

Welcome!

Style notes

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that any math notation should be italic, so instead of a plain

K

one should use instead either

<math>K</math>

or otherwise the html equivalent

''K''

Also, it is good to use an edit summary when you contribute, as suggested above. It does help understand what you changed. Thanks, and enjoy the wiki. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Prison Break episodes

You recently added two future episode titles and summaries to the list. Please note that this information can only be added when it is supported by a verifiable and reliable source. TV.com is not considered as a reliable source as it is user-submitted. The only source that is considered valid is the press release by FOX, which will also be published by the media like TV Guide. Thus, your entries have been removed. Regards, Ladida 22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry deleting your edits indicating "nonsense info". The reason is written by Ladida above. -- Magioladitis 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fin Del Camino

Hey. I've reverted your move from Fin Del Camino to Fin del Camino as the title that is shown on the press release is actually "Fin Del Camino". Regards, Ladida 09:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain Murphy (TV series)

You have tagged Captain Murphy (TV series) with {{rfd}}, but you have not completed the nomination by listing it at WP:RFD. RFD nominations are a two step process. Please complete the second step on the nomination instructions. If you do not list it within a reasonable amount of time, I will assume you no longer wish it deleted and remove the tag. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FMA Episodes

How exactly do those meet the guideline? Episodes must contain out of universe material (reception and development, not directors) backed by secondary sources (these have none). Plot summaries cannot be the only content on the page; an episode has to have pretty much all the things outlined on the guideline. TTN 10:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, you cannot just take a couple of those. They need plot summaries along with reception and development. You cannot pick and choose. You also need verifiable info from secondary sources before the articles are even created. TTN 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just picked an episode at random (Death (Fullmetal Alchemist)), one that you reverted TTN's redirect. Your edit summary said "there is no violation of WP:EP". Well, not only do they not come close to the guidelines set forth by WP:EPISODE, but they are clear violation of copyrights. The screenshot, and the plot, are both non-free, and thus must provide a fair-use rationale for their existence. When it comes to images, FU rationales are on the image page (which the image has, but does not fulfill). For plot summaries, you need realworld context on the page to justify their use. That means production information, or reception information, or something that isn't "in-universe". This page has nothing but a plot (one that is overly long at that), thus it not only doesn't meet the criteria for an episode article, but it meets the criteria to considered a copyright violation. Remember, all shows are copyrighted by their networks, as the only reason we are allowed to give any kind of detail is because we are supposed to be provided critical commentary on the subject. This isn't IMDb, or TV.com, this is an encyclopedia. The only way we can justify encyclopedic fair use is to provide critical commentary, which goes for the image as well. Just putting a generic fair use rationale on the image isn't enough. There needs to be critical commentary in the article to justify needing an image to illustrate something. This is why all those images were pulled from the "list of episodes" articles. Because do not justify image use, and detailed plots (like what is in the article that I linked) can cause legal problems. And studios have successfully sued over this type of infringement. Being a "non-profit" business doesn't exclude us from lawsuits and copyright infringements, especially when we don't provide a justifiable reason for their use. Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching an episode, a film, or reading a book. I saw your comment to TTN, and yes, plot summaries should be included..but to add context to the real world information. Plot summaries should never be their own articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know those discussions were closed. Determing if a page needs to be merge is not a place for the incident board. TTN's behavior is, but not his actions themselves. The discussion is on the talk page of the list of episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist Episodes

You've recently posted this on my talk page: "There is nothing at Wikipedia:Television episodes to justify your redirecting all of them to List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. In fact, according to the Content section of that article, a plot summary and information on an episode's significance to the overall plot SHOULD be included in the article. If you feel that the articles contained too much plot summary as to be a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policies then you should have simply cut down those parts of the articles. Furthermore, next time kindly discuss such radical changes before taking them. As a result, I am restoring all the articles. If you wish to discuss this further, reply at my talk page. However, until then please do not redirect the articles again. Thanks for your understanding. Fullmetal2887 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)"

What are you talking about!? The only change I've EVER made to ANY Full Metal Alchemist page was a grammar correction in the trivia section in To Challenge The Sun! You say I've redirected all the Fullmetal Alchemist pages and done major edits to plot summaries? If you look on my contribution page, or the history page for Fullmetal Alchemist, you'll see IT WASN'T ME. Either that, or someone else has used my name for their edits, and whatever you're babbling about wasn't me. Check my contributions page for proof! Never point the finger blaming people for things that they haven't done. I've stated and proved my innocence, so I accept your apology. User:King Wagga 15:54 2007 GMT

See, told ya it wasn't me. Apology accepted dude. User:King Wagga 18:09 2007 GMT

You should please add your side of things to the following discussion at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN --164.107.222.23 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Fullmetal Alchemist s01e26.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fullmetal Alchemist s01e26.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Greetings White Cat! I'm currently revamping my user page and I like yours so much that I'd like to use it as a model for mine (format, etc.). I thought I should ask your permission before doing so. Please let me know if this is all right with you. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to! It's licensed under a free license after all! :) -- Cat ^chi? 06:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters in Metalocalypse

Just to get to the brass tacks of the issue: 1) what "naming standards" say that the article must start with "List of", and 2) why have you not discussed this on the talk page prior to either move? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

You have made many edits at List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes which is under discussion at WP:FLRC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism is against Wikipedia's policies. If you continue to vandalize articles as you did with Duke Blue Devils men's basketball, you will be reported to administrators and subsequently blocked from the site.

Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Psycho T wasn't vandalism, that's his nickname. If you don't even follow the sport then stop whining. DP08 (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I undid that edit when I realized my mistake. That doesn't change the fact that you vandalized Duke Blue Devils men's basketball. And far from whining, I am being a good Wikipedian by reverting vandalism when I see it and giving due warning to the offender. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 04:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Donald Trump is the president get over. And stop changing it on wiki. Like black panther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.223.207 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fullmetal2887: Nearly 12 years ago, you opened this thread by admonishing another editor that vandalism is against Wikipedia's policies. "If you continue to vandalize articles," you wrote, "you will be reported to administrators and subsequently blocked from the site." Of course, much can change in 12 years. In view of your edit today and this tweet from Bruce Halperin, please update your views on vandalizing Wikipedia. In particular, should a good Wikipedian give due warning to the offender? NedFausa (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wilson Valdez

Any idea why it is being targeted for vandalism? Keegan (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Knicks task force

Please accept this invitation to join the Knicks Task Force of the WikiProject National Basketball Association. It is dedicated to improving all articles associated with the New York Knicks. Simply click here to accept!

NYCRuss ☎ 19:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

In the spirit of symmetric disclosure... —dgies^t_c 22:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of defunct San Francisco Municipal Railway lines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Excelsior, Balboa Park, Forest Hill and Forest Hill Station

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited @midnight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Improv. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		To the editor who like attention I hereby bestow this attention grabbing Barnstar of Good Humor. I must confess that this is the first time in a long time I've had such a good chuckle over userpage content, so do enjoy the Barnstar - you've earned it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Way, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsy Kings. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fullmetal2887. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fullmetal2887. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

London Breed

Your edit has been undone. She is still a member of the Board of Supervisors. Her political future beyond adding "acting mayor" to her portfolio is TBD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sfmta logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sfmta logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fullmetal2887. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 8

This edit suggests you are using an auto-replacement script. Could you turn it off please to avoid problems like this?©Geni (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. Your recent edit(s) to the page United States Senate appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop adding opinionated and inaccurate information Fuzheado | Talk 08:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NedFausa (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fullmetal2887 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In his block request, NedFausa incorrectly stated that I "show a pattern spanning nearly three years of violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy by clearly expressing editorial bias." Among the examples he cites:

• United States Senate, which I admit was one example of bias. I understand that this edit was disruptive and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, this was a single, isolated incident born of extreme frustration, which I would not repeat if unblocked. It is my desire and intention to contribute positively to Wikipedia for years to come, including on topics related to U.S. politics and the presidency of Donald Trump.
• Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, in which I correctly noted that part of the reason for impeachment is Trump's alleged obstruction of Congress, which in fact is the second article of impeachment. This is not an expression of editorial bias.
• Donald J. Trump Foundation and Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia, which were mistakenly caused by a Chrome browser extension. Those were good-faith edits in which "Trump" got changed to "Drumpf" accidentally.
• Fox News, in which I categorized Fox News as "state media". This characterization has wide support in many reputable sources, including [1], [2], [3], and [4], along with numerous others.

I have a 13-year-long history of making valuable contributions to Wikipedia (including reversions of vandalism) and have been thanked by other editors and administrators for my edits many times. I have never engaged in edit-warring or other disruptive behavior prior to this incident. This long history is strong evidence that I do not meet the criteria of WP:NOTHERE, which El C erroneously cited as justification for blocking me. One incident of vandalism is hardly grounds for an indefinite block, and I will not make any such disruptive edits again if unblocked. A continuing block on me would contradict the policy that blocks should be preventative and not punitive. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 04:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The edit you made about the US Senate was visible for over an hour and was seen by readers and made viral on social media, which damaged Wikipedia's reputation. Combined with your other edits, it seems to me that you are too passionate about US politics or at a minimum issues related to the Trump administration to be able to edit about it objectively(your browser extension, while certainly your choice to have, doesn't help) I'm not convinced here that you won't make another similar edit due to frustration, so I must decline your request. It will be up to the next reviewer, but I suspect you will need to agree to some sort of topic ban from edits related to the Trump administration or even US politics in general. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Support decline decision. The user appealing this failed to mention that they had a chance to rescind the edit and apologize for a temporary lack of judgment but did the opposite. Instead, the user said "I stand by my edit, which was 100% factually correct." [5] The user performed the edit and within minutes, a Twitter post appears that highlights the exact edit that performed the vandalism. Because of our WP:OUTING policy, we are limited in how much we can link on-wiki users with social media profiles or actual human identities. However, this much is clear: a Twitter user bragged about this vandalism edit publicly on social media, which gained more than 9,000 likes and 2,500 retweets. The Twitter user took pleasure in the resulting compliments and inspired other forms of on-wiki vandalism. The resulting vandalism was picked up by media outlets. The wiki user did not express regret until blocked.

Therefore, this block is indeed preventative and not punitive, as the user has not been transparent nor complete in describing the series of events. It has been up to the admins here to reconcile and clean up behind the activities of the user. The user is potentially in violation of multiple aspects of the WP:NOTHERE policy - self-interest, amusing outside parties, editorial dishonesty, lack of interest in working constructively. If the user wants any chance of being reinstated, I suggest they volunteer all the relevant info openly and completely. Full disclosure: I was originally involved as an admin for the request for page protection for U.S. Senate article, but did not have interaction with Fullmetal2887. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fullmetal2887 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is unreasonable to punish me for my edit going viral on social media, as the tweets that first went viral about it were not even my own. Nor is it reasonable to punish me for other Wikipedia users carrying out similar forms of vandalism - I never once encouraged anyone to do that on social media or anywhere else. I was passionate in the heat of the moment, and I apologize for letting my anger get the better of me. I realize now that Wikipedia is not the place for such outbursts and that my recklessness damaged Wikipedia's reputation as a repository of unbiased information. I am willing to agree to a topic ban or a more limited form of sanction but an indefinite block after one isolated mistake following 13 years of productive contributions is unreasonable and would only serve to punish, when less extreme measures could be used to prevent. WP:NOTHERE applies to people who have a pattern of unhelpful edits, which I have demonstrated is not the case. To quote Deacon Vorbis ([6]):

Bad block. @El C: A quick look at Fullmetal's contribs shows that your reason of WP:NOTHERE is false on its face. One bad edit does not render an editor NOTHERE. If an otherwise productive editor has a problem with political articles, a TBAN from the community is a lot clearer than forcing an editor to agree to one as an unblock condition from an indef. And your citing concern over Wikipedia's reputation is, frankly, bullshit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I tweeted an apology here: [7], and I unpinned my original tweet hours ago. I don't think it should be deleted as that would be an alteration of history, but I disavowed my actions and encouraged people not to repeat them.

Decline reason:

The issue of vandalism to the U.S. Senate article itself justifies blocking. The other edits also justify blocking since blocks are meant to be protective, not punitive. For instance, an improperly configured browser extension may have resulted in unintended vandalism, but vandalism nonetheless did result. An indefinite block is not permanent and WP:STANDARDOFFER always applies. Continuation of the block for a period of time would allow the editor in question to check things like their browser extensions to ensure they are interacting on WP using reliable software. Chetsford (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can't review this again. But if you hadn't have put the edit there in the first place, it wouldn't have needed to be reverted an hour later or even ten seconds later. The block is not a punishment; I was unconvinced that you would not act out of frustration again in the future. A topic ban would help with that- and I will leave it to whomever reviews this to decide what the topic ban should cover. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It is fair to say that if I hadn't put the edit there in the first place, it wouldn't have needed to be reverted. I sincerely apologize and I won't make this mistake again. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 17:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Since administrator Fuzheado introduced on this thread a Twitter user who "bragged about this vandalism edit publicly on social media, which gained more than 9,000 likes and 2,500 retweets," I feel free to expand upon that point.

"It is unreasonable to punish me for my edit going viral on social media," Fullmetal2887 contends, "as the tweets that first went viral about it were not even my own."

That is false. I checked all 1,633 tweets since:2020-01-30 until:2020-02-01 that included the words Senate AND (dead OR died OR formerly), and found just two that even broke into triple digits of RTs and/or Likes. Obviously neither went viral. The top such tweet had but 141 RTs and 349 Likes. And, significantly, none of those 1,633 tweets mentioned Wikipedia. The only tweet that subsequently went viral and mentioned Wikipedia was posted an hour after the viral tweet boasting "I made some edits to Wikipedia this morning #RIPGOP #RIPSenate #RIPDemocracy #RIPAmerica" and including a screenshot of our vandalized United States Senate page.

Of course, Fullmetal2887 has not acknowledged that he is the Twitter user who bragged about this vandalism a mere two minutes after Fullmetal2887 edited Wikipedia. And to be sure, there is room for doubt. For example, as Fuzheado notes, "The wiki user did not express regret until blocked." By contrast, the Twitter user has neither apologized nor expressed regret. Au contraire! He has repeatedly confirmed he made the edit; has not deleted his tweet that went viral, instead making it his account's pinned tweet lest anyone mistake him for some other vandal; and has unashamedly basked in the attention (both pro and con) this escapade has brought him.

So maybe, just maybe, Fullmetal2887 is being wrongfully blamed for trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia. Ya think? NedFausa (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I was referring to this tweet by @JoyceWhiteVance, which was the first to go viral. You didn't find it because it doesn't contain any of the keywords you searched for. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 01:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fullmetal2887: @JoyceWhiteVance tweeted 4 hours, 18 minutes after @BruceHalperin. How does that make hers the first to go viral? NedFausa (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: my tweet had received very little attention (as you would expect since I previously only had ~100 followers) until @JoyceWhiteVance tweeted about it. I never expected or wanted all the attention it subsequently received, although I admit I did enjoy it at the time. I realize it was a mistake both to commit and perhaps especially to brag about the vandalism, and I have since tweeted to discourage people from repeating my error. I don’t know what more I can do to convince you that I won’t do anything like this again. I just want to move on from this incident. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 05:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fullmetal2887: I too want to move on. Perhaps you missed my edit over two hours ago at ANI. NedFausa (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, this new comment seems to be more about personal interpretation of Twitter messages than Wikipedia. An ANI thread exists; let's perhaps keep the discussion in one place, and let's focus on Wikipedia itself when discussing the topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the ANI, having filed that report myself. But I was under the impression that we are here (user Talk page) specifically discussing the block. So I commented here, not there. As to personal interpretation of Twitter messages, that is germane to the user's unblock request, where he asserts he's being punished for his edit going viral on social media, particularly on Twitter. Fullmetal2887 opened the door, and I responded on point and at the same thread. NedFausa (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to the relevance of tweets in considering Fullmetal2887's unblock request: Administrator El C, who blocked Fullmetal2887 on 1 Feb 2020, welcomed him to draft an unblock request but added: "I, for one, am unwilling to take the risk of it happening again without some especially strong assurances." For his part, Fullmetal2887 assures us: "I sincerely apologize and I won't make this mistake again." The keyword is sincerely. In gauging this editor's sincerity, Twitter could be uniquely helpful. Certainly Fullmetal2887 is under no obligation to reveal his Twitter username. But as I mentioned above, the Twitter user in question has not apologized, and is taking exactly the same stance as Fullmetal2887 himself did on 1 Feb 2020 at my request for page protection of United States Senate: "I stand by my edit," he declared defiantly, "which was 100% factually correct." Under the circumstances, it would greatly clarify our understanding if Fullmetal2887 would voluntarily for the record deny and disavow the Twitter user whom both The Independent and Huff Post have identified as Bruce Halperin @BruceHalperin, and who is obviously not the least contrite. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I tweeted an apology here: [8], and I unpinned my original tweet hours ago. I don't think it should be deleted as that would be an alteration of history, but I disavowed my actions and encouraged people not to repeat them. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 01:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fullmetal2887: For the record, you tweeted your apology literally one minute before announcing it here. NedFausa (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I don’t see how that makes it any less valid or sincere. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 05:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fullmetal2887: Why did you alter another user's contribution to make it appear as your own? I hope this is not a rehearsal for block evasion. NedFausa (talk) 05:41 06:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I accidentally edited my talk page from a different device on which I was logged out. I subsequently logged in and changed the signature. Why are you always assuming the worst in people? Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 05:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fullmetal2887: You've been editing Wikipedia since November 2006. You ought to know by now why it's important to explain in the edit summary why you are changing another user's contribution. NedFausa (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa afaics, you're misunderstanding the change. Fullmetal changed his own comment (signed it), not anybody else's. Bishonen | talk 15:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC).

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

In case you're unblocked...

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-1932 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.

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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Offer: conditional unblock

I believe Fullmetal has apologized adequately. Looking at his contributions in other areas, it is surely not the case that he's not here to contribute. The Trump —> Drumpf thing is stupid, but I (and no doubt other admins) have several times excused users who used that stupid extension without realizing what harm it could do on Wikipedia. (I remember especially one guy who changed every occurrence of "Trump" on the entire ANI page to "Drumpf", and had no idea he had done so.) On the other hand, I have taken on board the worries expressed above, e. g. by 331dot, that Fullmetal might act out of frustration again in the future. Therefore, I won't lift the block unconditionally, but am willing to exchange it for a topic ban from post-1932 American politics. That topic ban can be appealed no sooner than six months from now. I also need a personal assurance from Fullmetal that he has removed the "Drumpf" extension, or in some other way has made sure it will never affect Wikipedia again. Fullmetal, please look up WP:TBAN to see what a "topic ban" is, and reply below to say if my conditions are acceptable to you. Bishonen | talk 15:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC).

Just wanted to say that I concur with Bishonen's statement. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I uninstalled the browser extension in question several days ago, and I accept your offer. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 00:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. In the meantime, I've done some thinking about the topic ban, and decided that it really isn't necessary in this case to make it indefinite with an appeal in six months. Instead I'm topic banning you from post-1932 American politics for six months, to expire automatically on August 12. The block has been lifted and the t-ban is logged here. Bishonen | talk 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC).

Your edits to Binders full of women [9] and Thanks Obama [10] seem to be near the line of a TBAN by Bishonen to which you agreed. Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Fullmetal2887, topic bans are very strict; you're supposed to not edit, however minorly, articles that are related to American politic, as obviously those two articles are. Please keep that in mind till August. That said, I can't say I'm worried about those two edits as such. They really are very minor, and aren't in themselves to do with American politics. Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for the warning Chetsford and Bishonen. I've tried to be diligent in complying with my topic ban, sorry if these two edits skirted the line. I'll be more careful going forward. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Fullmetal2887 - sorry I didn't mean that to sound like a castigation. It was merely a friendly caution about driving close to the median as I know we want to ensure prolific content contributors such as yourself are able to contribute without encumbrance. (Thanks to Bishonen for more adroitly communicating my imperfect comment!) Chetsford (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:San Francisco Bay Ferry logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:San Francisco Bay Ferry logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Characters of Blood+ (other characters)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Characters of Blood+ (other characters). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Characters of Blood+ (other characters) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:40, 2 June 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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clipper card, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Threat.

You can't go around threatening other users either. You should learn more. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a threat. It was a warning. You are engaging in edit warring and being disruptive. If you continue to do so I will be forced to take action. That's all. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 01:55, 7 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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)